| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
rogerthat 
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
 Posted: July 11 2010 at 05:17 |
 Catcher10 wrote:
I don't expect Mr Wonder to be added to the PA.....it'll never happen, because most have obviously not listened to his works and only know the "pop" stuff with that Beatles guy. |
Yes, reactions of outrage and amusement at his name seem to suggest strongly that these people never got beyond Ebony & Ivory (or, alternatively, that boring duet with Diana Ross). It is a reasonable stance to say Wonder cannot be added to PA but I don't see how people who have actually heard his classic 70s albums would express so much outrage at the mere suggestion of his name because they would surely hear the proggy quality of his work at that time (regardless of whether or not that makes a fit case for Crossover).
|
 |
Rabid
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 20 2008
Location: Bridge of Knows
Status: Offline
Points: 512
|
Posted: July 11 2010 at 05:18 |
rogerthat wrote:
Actually, if the definition of what progressive rock is should derive from the defining albums of 69/70/71 thereabouts, then we get a very clear picture of what it is....and it starts to become a very narrow zone concentrated almost completely in the Avant/RIO territory after the late 70s. There is a sea change in compositional approach from thereon which sounds gradual when heard in bands who did make prog rock to begin with but over time and with new bands, seems to be a different kind of music altogether. But it seems prog rock is defined here as both what is prog rock in the above mentioned vein and 'progressive' bands. This is what makes prog rock hard to define and makes it possible for everyone to have their own idea of what is prog , if there had been any serious attempt made to define it as style of music, it wouldn't be so confusing. I guess Cert1fied was absolutely right when he said somewhere else that Rush may have been at the root of the confusion in that their style bears passing resemblances to the prog bands before them but in substance is an entirely different approach. And because Rush are considered prog, everything that draws from Rush gets called prog too.
All this is my opinion though. As you say, it is for those who run the site to decide what should be included in THEIR prog database. But I have no qualms about saying that I don't get a clear picture from that about what is prog at all.
|
How is Rush's approach any different to......say........70s Genesis ? It's still stories with music, lightshow time-changes, etc.
Edited by Rabid - July 11 2010 at 05:28
|
|
"...the thing IS, to put a motor in yourself..."
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: July 11 2010 at 05:30 |
Rabid wrote:
Catcher10 wrote:
.......But I will always ask you....where did Rock originate from???
|
Brighton  |
|
|
What?
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: July 11 2010 at 05:31 |
Rabid wrote:
How is Rush's approach any different to......say........70s Genesis ? It's still stories with music, lightshow time-changes, etc.
|
So let's settle this question. Is prog just about epics and time signature changes? If that is the case, why is Sabotage not a heavy prog or prog metal album, it also has songs with different sections. As does Sabbath Bloody Sabbath for that matter. Why are Iron Maiden and Metallica then in prog related instead of prog metal? How many people who write off Metallica for Nothing Else Matters and Frantic have actually heard Call of Ktulu or Orion PROPERLY? ABBA's Intermezzo No.1 is a lot more 'dizzy' structurally than Within Temptation/Nightwish/Epica (all of these are on the site). There is a lot of wiffly-waffly going on with regard to some bands and artists who don't seem to have much snob value, for whatever reason, in prog circles which makes some inclusions and exclusions look arbitrary. It is not my site, so I can live with that. But I can never say that it aligns with my understanding of prog at all.
|
|
Snow Dog
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
|
Posted: July 11 2010 at 05:32 |
Rabid wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
Rabid wrote:
I'm not sl*gging off Stevie Wonder at all. I recognize his contribution to modern music. I just don't think his progressive rock output is enough to justify inclusion to a site dedicated to progressive rock.
|
But a lot of prog is not ROCK at all, this is another issue that's swept under the carpet. What's so ROCK about that Harmonium album in the top 100 (sorry I do know what it's called, can't spell it right now )? What's so ROCK about Heresie? What's ROCK about Shakti? What's ROCK about Novella? Swaddling Songs? There are many, many examples of this. I actually think one of the defining features of 70s prog (and in contradistinction with neo prog and prog metal) is that it frequently slots in a grey area that's neither rock, nor jazz, nor classical. Just some completely new monster which, for want of a better word, is called prog. 
|
This is the crux of the biscuit.......everyone's got their own idea of what 'progressive rock' means....that's why I posted a thread, trying to find out what a 'generally-accepted' definition actually WAS. (Don't ask me...I STILL don't know !!). I guess the best people to ask is the site owners and Admins. It's THEIR site. Presumably, they set up the site to suit THEIR idea of what 'progressive rock' means to THEM. SO LET'S ASK THEM : SITE OWNERS AND ADMINS...WHAT DOES THE TERM 'PROGRESSIVE ROCK' MEAN, TO YOU ? |
The Admin are just normal creeps that got promoted.
They don't hold any key to enlightenment.
Edited by Snow Dog - July 11 2010 at 06:10
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: July 11 2010 at 05:58 |
Snow Dog wrote:
The Admin are just normal creeps that got promoted.
They don't hold any key to enlightenment.
|
me? Normal?
Never-the-less, this is undoubtedly true. 
|
|
What?
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: July 11 2010 at 05:59 |
jammun wrote:
Whatever. Stevie, Elton. Realistically these were some of the most successful and influential musicians of the '70s, who, whether we'll admit it or not publically, were making some of the most 'progressive' music of the time. Note that I did not say 'progressive rock'.
|
This is exactly where I am coming from.  And it is sort of confusing that modern bands get to be not so progressive to be considered prog than artists like these.
|
|
Rabid
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 20 2008
Location: Bridge of Knows
Status: Offline
Points: 512
|
Posted: July 11 2010 at 06:00 |
Dean wrote:
Rabid wrote:
Catcher10 wrote:
.......But I will always ask you....where did Rock originate from???
|
Brighton |
|
Nearlye besmirched my britches, laughing so muche !!!!
 Nice one !!!
|
|
"...the thing IS, to put a motor in yourself..."
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: July 11 2010 at 06:04 |
Rabid wrote:
Alitare wrote:
What makes him less prog than Nine Inch Nails, Nightwish, Radiohead, etc?
|
He's not from a 'strictly progressive' background. The others are.
|
What the hell is so progressive about Radiohead's background, they were grunge/alternative when they started out. And Nightwish are a metal band with keys, so progressive indeed, even Rainbow did it only in 1976. But it's hard to explain to progheads who don't come from a metal background that prog metal is a metal genre, not a prog genre, there's a big difference. Prog metal is simply metal that's proggier than typical metal.
|
|
Snow Dog
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
|
Posted: July 11 2010 at 06:07 |
Dean wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
The Admin are just normal creeps that got promoted.
They don't hold any key to enlightenment.
|
me? Normal?
Never-the-less, this is undoubtedly true. |
Funny, I thought I was answering to a post t5hat doesn't seem to be thre now.......I'll have to go and do an edit.
Done it...doesn't seem so random now. 
Edited by Snow Dog - July 11 2010 at 06:11
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: July 11 2010 at 06:11 |
Rabid wrote:
This is the crux of the biscuit.......everyone's got their own idea of what 'progressive rock' means....that's why I posted a thread, trying to find out what a 'generally-accepted' definition actually WAS. (Don't ask me...I STILL don't know !!). I guess the best people to ask is the site owners and Admins. It's THEIR site. Presumably, they set up the site to suit THEIR idea of what 'progressive rock' means to THEM.
SO LET'S ASK THEM : SITE OWNERS AND ADMINS...WHAT DOES THE TERM 'PROGRESSIVE ROCK' MEAN , TO YOU ?
|
The addition of artists and bands into the archive is not under the direct control of the Admin Team, but of the subgenre teams. The teams are autonomous and operate without interference from the Admins using their own knowledge, judgement and understanding of the subgenre descriptions. The two non-Prog categories of Proto Prog and Prog Related fall under the jurisdiction of the Admin Team who work as the subgenre team for those categories. Since PP and PR are not Progressive Rock per sey, the team works differently to other teams in that we do not go actively looking for artist to add, but only evaluate those artists proposed to us (via PM only) by a member of Special Collaborator rank, who will then be expected to handle the addition once approved.
Noting that some controversial additions were causing disquiet and controversy among the membership, the Admin team drew up a set of rules/guidelines regarding controversial artists to help alleviate this, while still leaving the decision to add said artists under the complete control of the subgenre team in question. The gist of these rules is as follows:
|
Our objectives can be summarised as:
- To ensure the integrity of the site and its reputation are not adversely impacted through the addition of bands and artists who are widely considered not to be Prog
- To protect our hard working specialist teams from accusations of misusing their positions or reaching unjustifiable decisions while protecting their autonomy
- To provide a clear process which the owners, the teams, the site administrators, and the collaborators can buy into and work within
The process we have identified can be split into two distinct parts:
- Identification of a controversial proposal
- Reaching a decision
Identification of a controversial proposal
Bands and artists will be considered potentially controversial if they:
- Are not generally listed by other Prog sites* AND/OR
- They have been rejected in the past on the basis of their Prog credentials OR
- Are flagged up by the team concerned as being potentially controversial OR
- Are flagged up by the admin team as controversial
* The requirement is that at least 2 other sites dedicated to Prog have identified the band/artists as being Prog. New bands are excluded from this requirement.
One a team has been identified as controversial, we would recommend contacting the Admin team at this stage
Reaching a decision
If a team of three or more members are unanimous in deciding that a controversial band should be added, this will be sufficient to go ahead with the addition. Note that while the team must have at least three members, all the team members must have voted yes. |
Again, as long as the criteria have been met, the rules have been followed and a unanimous yes vote reached, then the addition can proceed with the tacit approval of the Admin team. Should a unanimous yes vote not be achieved then there is a process to follow that permits further evaluation, but since this has never been invoked there is little point in iterating it here.
Stevie Wonder falls under the Controversial Artist rules. Which means that a unanimous "yes" vote by all five voting members of the Crossover Team will be required. As it stands (at least) one Xover team member is aganst this proposal which means that a unanimous vote would not be achieved should it go to evaluation and the suggestion has stalled in the starting blocks.
Arguing about what Prog is, what Prog Rock is or other such discussions regarding the relative Proggyness of previous additions are not going to change my mind. The suggestion stands or falls on the music of the artist being suggested, not on other artists music and with that I cannot see that Stevie Wonder's music is a fit into Crossover Prog in any way.
Edited by Dean - July 11 2010 at 06:31
|
|
What?
|
|
Rabid
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 20 2008
Location: Bridge of Knows
Status: Offline
Points: 512
|
Posted: July 11 2010 at 06:18 |
rogerthat wrote:
Rabid wrote:
How is Rush's approach any different to......say........70s Genesis ? It's still stories with music, lightshow time-changes, etc.
|
So let's settle this question. Is prog just about epics and time signature changes? If that is the case, why is Sabotage not a heavy prog or prog metal album, it also has songs with different sections. As does Sabbath Bloody Sabbath for that matter. Why are Iron Maiden and Metallica then in prog related instead of prog metal? How many people who write off Metallica for Nothing Else Matters and Frantic have actually heard Call of Ktulu or Orion PROPERLY? ABBA's Intermezzo No.1 is a lot more 'dizzy' structurally than Within Temptation/Nightwish/Epica (all of these are on the site). There is a lot of wiffly-waffly going on with regard to some bands and artists who don't seem to have much snob value, for whatever reason, in prog circles which makes some inclusions and exclusions look arbitrary. It is not my site, so I can live with that. But I can never say that it aligns with my understanding of prog at all.
|
How is Rush's approach any different to......say........70s Genesis ? It's still stories with music, lightshow time-changes, etc.
(Just curious, that's all)
Edited by Rabid - July 11 2010 at 06:21
|
|
"...the thing IS, to put a motor in yourself..."
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: July 11 2010 at 06:21 |
Rabid wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
Rabid wrote:
How is Rush's approach any different to......say........70s Genesis ? It's still stories with music, lightshow time-changes, etc.
|
So let's settle this question. Is prog just about epics and time signature changes? If that is the case, why is Sabotage not a heavy prog or prog metal album, it also has songs with different sections. As does Sabbath Bloody Sabbath for that matter. Why are Iron Maiden and Metallica then in prog related instead of prog metal? How many people who write off Metallica for Nothing Else Matters and Frantic have actually heard Call of Ktulu or Orion PROPERLY? ABBA's Intermezzo No.1 is a lot more 'dizzy' structurally than Within Temptation/Nightwish/Epica (all of these are on the site). There is a lot of wiffly-waffly going on with regard to some bands and artists who don't seem to have much snob value, for whatever reason, in prog circles which makes some inclusions and exclusions look arbitrary. It is not my site, so I can live with that. But I can never say that it aligns with my understanding of prog at all.
|
How is Rush's approach any different to......say........70s Genesis ? It's still stories with music, lightshow time-changes, etc.
|
Er...because Genesis is not just about those things? Because they take a theme and explore it inside out, an approach of which there's no evidence in Rush's music.
|
|
chopper
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 13 2005
Location: Essex, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 20030
|
Posted: July 11 2010 at 06:30 |
rogerthat wrote:
Catcher10 wrote:
I don't expect Mr Wonder to be added to the PA.....it'll never happen, because most have obviously not listened to his works and only know the "pop" stuff with that Beatles guy. |
Yes, reactions of outrage and amusement at his name seem to suggest strongly that these people never got beyond Ebony & Ivory (or, alternatively, that boring duet with Diana Ross). It is a reasonable stance to say Wonder cannot be added to PA but I don't see how people who have actually heard his classic 70s albums would express so much outrage at the mere suggestion of his name because they would surely hear the proggy quality of his work at that time (regardless of whether or not that makes a fit case for Crossover).
|
I voted no. I'm a Stevie Wonder fan, I have his 70s albums and have seen him live. His classic albums may be "progressive" for the time but I don't hear anything prog in them. Give us an example of something proggy on "Innervisions".
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: July 11 2010 at 06:41 |
Living for the City, Visions and Too High. Complex chord progressions in all three, which is in general a feature of his classic output. Even Higher Ground, but I would particularly pick those three. It's not Genesis, but I never claimed it is. It is certainly a lot more proggy than Alan Parsons Project or Nightwish, so on and so forth.
Edited by rogerthat - July 11 2010 at 06:42
|
|
Rabid
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 20 2008
Location: Bridge of Knows
Status: Offline
Points: 512
|
Posted: July 11 2010 at 06:53 |
rogerthat wrote:
Rabid wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
Rabid wrote:
How is Rush's approach any different to......say........70s Genesis ? It's still stories with music, lightshow time-changes, etc.
|
So let's settle this question. Is prog just about epics and time signature changes? If that is the case, why is Sabotage not a heavy prog or prog metal album, it also has songs with different sections. As does Sabbath Bloody Sabbath for that matter. Why are Iron Maiden and Metallica then in prog related instead of prog metal? How many people who write off Metallica for Nothing Else Matters and Frantic have actually heard Call of Ktulu or Orion PROPERLY? ABBA's Intermezzo No.1 is a lot more 'dizzy' structurally than Within Temptation/Nightwish/Epica (all of these are on the site). There is a lot of wiffly-waffly going on with regard to some bands and artists who don't seem to have much snob value, for whatever reason, in prog circles which makes some inclusions and exclusions look arbitrary. It is not my site, so I can live with that. But I can never say that it aligns with my understanding of prog at all.
|
How is Rush's approach any different to......say........70s Genesis ? It's still stories with music, lightshow time-changes, etc.
|
Er...because Genesis is not just about those things? Because they take a theme and explore it inside out, an approach of which there's no evidence in Rush's music.
|
Cygnus X-1 had no theme?
|
|
"...the thing IS, to put a motor in yourself..."
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: July 11 2010 at 06:56 |
Rabid wrote:
Cygnus X-1 had no theme?
|
I meant musical themes, not lyrical themes. That should have been clear from that I mentioned "exploring inside out". If it wasn't, then that's what I implied anyway...Cygnus X-1 is basically hard rock/heavy metal sections joined together with some (for the time) technical guitar. That defines Rush's style in general.
|
|
Rabid
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 20 2008
Location: Bridge of Knows
Status: Offline
Points: 512
|
Posted: July 11 2010 at 07:13 |
rogerthat wrote:
Rabid wrote:
Cygnus X-1 had no theme?
|
I meant musical themes, not lyrical themes. That should have been clear from that I mentioned "exploring inside out". If it wasn't, then that's what I implied anyway...Cygnus X-1 is basically hard rock/heavy metal sections joined together with some (for the time) technical guitar. That defines Rush's style in general.
|
I think Rush's sound comes from the fact that they're a 3 piece. It's hard to play Bass and Keyboards at the same time, live, (maybe on the quiet bits) so what more can u expect from a 3 piece with a rock background than hard-rock, heavy-rock sections.
Which specific musical themes do you mean?
|
|
"...the thing IS, to put a motor in yourself..."
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: July 11 2010 at 07:19 |
Rabid wrote:
I think Rush's sound comes from the fact that they're a 3 piece. It's hard to play Bass and Keyboards at the same time, live, (maybe on the quiet bits) so what more can u expect from a 3 piece with a rock background than hard-rock, heavy-rock sections. |
And yet Red (the track) is unmistakably progressive despite that, save one cello section, it relies on guitar, bass and drums. That is because Fripp uses the heavy guitar in a manner akin to a classical composer rather than to write hard rock/heavy metal riffs. This again is a feature of the songwriting in prog at that time, they broke out of rock cliches.
Rabid wrote:
Which specific musical themes do you mean?
|
It can be seen in Genesis's songs that at their heart is a motif and that the song has evolved from exploring the motif in several different ways. I find it much harder to pin it down with Genesis and don't have the theoretical acumen to articulate it even if I can but a more lucid example of this is Close to the Edge. It is simply an exploration of a pop verse-chorus in several different contexts. Rush's approach to song construction is not particularly different from Sabbath, they are just more 'technical' and 'sophisticated'. The question that I never got a satisfactory answer for in debates here is whether that is actually a sufficient test to call a band prog. If so, why aren't Megadeth here...yes, it's straight up metal in essence, but it's also very technical and sophisticated. P.S: I am not questioning Wonder's exclusion in this discussion by the way. I understand the process of accepting/rejecting bands clearly and respect that it's over. This is just a discussion out of my interest in understanding music better.
|
|
Rabid
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 20 2008
Location: Bridge of Knows
Status: Offline
Points: 512
|
Posted: July 11 2010 at 07:35 |
rogerthat wrote:
Rabid wrote:
I think Rush's sound comes from the fact that they're a 3 piece. It's hard to play Bass and Keyboards at the same time, live, (maybe on the quiet bits) so what more can u expect from a 3 piece with a rock background than hard-rock, heavy-rock sections. |
And yet Red (the track) is unmistakably progressive despite that, save one cello section, it relies on guitar, bass and drums. That is because Fripp uses the heavy guitar in a manner akin to a classical composer rather than to write hard rock/heavy metal riffs. This again is a feature of the songwriting in prog at that time, they broke out of rock cliches.
Rabid wrote:
Which specific musical themes do you mean?
|
It can be seen in Genesis's songs that at their heart is a motif and that the song has evolved from exploring the motif in several different ways. I find it much harder to pin it down with Genesis and don't have the theoretical acumen to articulate it even if I can but a more lucid example of this is Close to the Edge. It is simply an exploration of a pop verse-chorus in several different contexts. Rush's approach to song construction is not particularly different from Sabbath, they are just more 'technical' and 'sophisticated'. The question that I never got a satisfactory answer for in debates here is whether that is actually a sufficient test to call a band prog. If so, why aren't Megadeth here...yes, it's straight up metal in essence, but it's also very technical and sophisticated. P.S: I am not questioning Wonder's exclusion in this discussion by the way. I understand the process of accepting/rejecting bands clearly and respect that it's over. This is just a discussion out of my interest in understanding music better. |
Dunno......I've never really seen a motif running thru any of Genesis's albums (except 'the Lamb Lies Down').......I've always just regarded it as music.
Curious, tho.......what's the motif of Close to the Edge ?
|
|
"...the thing IS, to put a motor in yourself..."
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Stevie Wonder for Progressive Motown
