Has a Prog album ever won a Grammy?

Jaketejas wrote: Asia, yes I would, but not using the same definition as 70s Prog. The format and technology had changed. The musicianship and technical ability were there, but the arrangements were shorter, slicker, crisper, and more radio friendly. It’s apples and oranges trying to compare with 70s epics. The beauty of 70s Prog is that it was more raw, organic, and felt less processed. Themes took time to be developed. The beauty of 80s Prog is that it was delivered in rapid, radio-ready, easily digestible bites. It was more synthetic with a greater emphasis on technology and production.

^ Interesting. I wonder if any punk bands have won a Grammy?

rogerthat wrote: Jaketejas wrote: Asia, yes I would, but not using the same definition as 70s Prog. The format and technology had changed. The musicianship and technical ability were there, but the arrangements were shorter, slicker, crisper, and more radio friendly. It’s apples and oranges trying to compare with 70s epics. The beauty of 70s Prog is that it was more raw, organic, and felt less processed. Themes took time to be developed. The beauty of 80s Prog is that it was delivered in rapid, radio-ready, easily digestible bites. It was more synthetic with a greater emphasis on technology and production. While I agree that lot of things changed in prog from the 70s to the 80s, I still struggle to slot at least the first Asia album as prog.  I think without a line up with undeniable prog credentials, a lot of people would think of it as more of an AOR album which is what it is. Had there been a wholesale move from prog to AOR, it would be one thing.  But at the same time as Asia, Rush was still making prog.  So was the KC-Belew lineup.  Then, Marillion from 1983.  I think of THOSE as 80s albums because the tones, the styles as well as the production are all very 80s but the music is still progressive.

Still, I definitely think that there is a difference in sensibilities between the 70s and 80s centric folk here. The KC-Belew lineup was great, but even they went quite New Wave (Elephant Talk), and there is definitely a Talking Heads link there (and that Frippian repetition).

Edited by Jaketejas - June 02 2020 at 10:22

Andy Summers and Alex Lifeson are two of my favorite guitarists, mainly because I really enjoy interesting chords and chord progressions.  Here, I have to agree with you.  "Behind My Camel" is 4 droning notes followed by 4 droning trills in a textural manner.  If I were to choose Andy Summers' best work, it would certainly not be "Behind My Camel".  In my (cough) humble opinion, YYZ is one of Rush's finest jams.  It has so many great changes in it, and even what sounds like a solo incorporating harmonic minor (that interestingly kind of ties into that Middle Eastern "Behind My Camel" sound - must have been a signature of the times).  Everything is super tight on YYZ.  In some parts, it grooves.  Other parts have soaring keyboards, and still others have a proto-technical metal sound (the opening riff, for example).  And, to top it off, we have that amazing percussion solo.  I remember that their use of Morse code to derive a beat was something quite original at the time, and I believe influenced the spin-off of subgenres.  Finally, YYZ is presented in a seamless manner.  What really makes YYZ so cool for me is the way they transition between parts.  Having so many different sections, one would expect it to be a bit clunky.  Not at all.  The transitions are super smooth, a testimony to the technical abilities of the musicians.

rogerthat wrote: Jaketejas wrote: rogerthat wrote: Jaketejas wrote: Asia, yes I would, but not using the same definition as 70s Prog. The format and technology had changed. The musicianship and technical ability were there, but the arrangements were shorter, slicker, crisper, and more radio friendly. It’s apples and oranges trying to compare with 70s epics. The beauty of 70s Prog is that it was more raw, organic, and felt less processed. Themes took time to be developed. The beauty of 80s Prog is that it was delivered in rapid, radio-ready, easily digestible bites. It was more synthetic with a greater emphasis on technology and production. While I agree that lot of things changed in prog from the 70s to the 80s, I still struggle to slot at least the first Asia album as prog.  I think without a line up with undeniable prog credentials, a lot of people would think of it as more of an AOR album which is what it is. Had there been a wholesale move from prog to AOR, it would be one thing.  But at the same time as Asia, Rush was still making prog.  So was the KC-Belew lineup.  Then, Marillion from 1983.  I think of THOSE as 80s albums because the tones, the styles as well as the production are all very 80s but the music is still progressive. Still, I definitely think that there is a difference in sensibilities between the 70s and 80s centric folk here. The KC-Belew lineup was great, but even they went quite New Wave (Elephant Talk), and there is definitely a Talking Heads link there (and that Frippian repetition). I am absolutely not denying that the sensibilities are different.  I am saying what is 80s prog isn't only about 80s sensibilities but about the music having a progressive bent.  That I don't get so much from the first Asia, I would say that I find 90125 more progressive than it in places.

I think we are on the same page. The question becomes one of appropriateness of characterization. I prefer a Prog by degrees approach with various subcategories and cluster charts that link artists together based on layering and timeframe. This, to me, is far more useful and fair than a Draconian approach of “this one Prog”, “this one not Prog” methodology, which carries a higher probability of unfairness, friction, and error. Example: if I like early Rush, I’m going to be likely inclined to explore Led Zep’s music and that of Jimi Hendrix in one vector and that of Yes in another path - as a good jumping off point. If I like 80s King Crimson, I’m probably going to want to have a listen to Talking Heads, and then maybe if I love Talking Heads, I might want to listen to Devo and The Buggles, which the latter might lead me to mid-era Yes. If I enjoy Kate Bush’s music, I might also like Loreena McKennitt in one direction, or Peter Gabriel in another direction, which might then lead me to Genesis, and then on to Yes. In another vector, I might find that I enjoy the music of Tori Amos. For me, Prog is not a team with a sledgehammer or even a surgical scalpel. It’s a multidimensional network (many superimposed networks based on layers) that grows outward from a main trunk from more to less proggy (Prog by degree) and with each outwardly growing ring of the tree representing timeline. If I were into categorizing, that’s how I’d try to approach it. It would probably involve playlists and volunteers with listener feedback ranking various categories, and algorithms to sort it out, with current teams providing oversight. This is just my opinion, but I would prefer that better than the “Trust us - we know what we’re doing because - you know - we’re us” approach. I appreciate very much the people who serve here, and trust that they are doing their level best, but everyone - whether they like it or not - has bias and humans are terrible at connecting dots, especially when multiple layers are involved. And, the approach suggested above would be more useful, providing additional and valuable tools to the would-be Prog listener.

Edited by Jaketejas - June 03 2020 at 09:04

That is why I prefer my above outlined approach. The further away from the trunk you go, the less Prog character is involved. Saying that Asia is or is not Prog lacks descriptive precision. If one could assess the numbers for different Prog characteristics keeping in mind the sensibilities of the timeframe (obviously the 80s were on a different swing of the pendulum than the 70s), then a listener might be able to more accurately assess the different proggy characteristics with better objectivity. And, they could link to relevant bands, whether PA characterizes them as Prog or not. Some suggest this be done on a song by song basis as well, but I’m not going there. I do see the point, though, because even the number one album for 80s-90s has some songs that are highly progressive (YYZ) and some that are much less so (or not, by the PA binary approach). I take your point, and I agree that there is a problem.

A Prog by degrees approach enables me, the listener, to bridge 80s KC with Talking Heads without throwing the baby (progginess) out with the bath water. KC would be closer to the trunk than Talking Heads, but the branch would be there so I have a richer musical experience. Saying Talking Heads is not Prog at all undermines the truth. They have some Prog character, but aren’t in the trunk. Their numbers for progginess would be lower than KC, but they’d be relevant.

Edited by Jaketejas - June 03 2020 at 12:56

^Maybe for those who got into prog a bit later but in the 70's ELP, Yes and PF in particular were about as big as anyone else at the time. Genesis didn't become very big until later when they become more poppy but they were a gateway for some too(even when they were still prog).

Jaketejas wrote: AFlowerKingCrimson wrote: ^Maybe for those who got into prog a bit later but in the 70's ELP, Yes and PF in particular were about as big as anyone else at the time. Genesis didn't become very big until later when they become more poppy but they were a gateway for some too(even when they were still prog). Precisely my point. The early bands established the core Prog sound. Then, generally speaking, Prog became more incorporated into the radio friendly shorter rock and pop format to varying degrees, which defined late 70s, early 80s Prog. Afterwards, there was a shift to a heavier sound throughout the mid to late 80s and beyond. Obviously, there are exceptions. I think each period has its merits, but that bands should be categorized in accordance with their historical timeframe. It is true with other genres as well. Taylor Swift is different from Shania Twain, who is different from Dolly Parton. Does the Country crowd keep Dolly and throw out the others for incorporating too many pop/rock elements. No. One appreciates and compares within the artists’ timeframe. I don’t see the appropriateness of rating Asia with the same criteria as early Yes, claiming that early Yes is one value (obviously on a high pedestal here) while Asia has some dopey low rating. I honestly don’t get it. I appreciate each version of Prog within its respective timeframe, as well as those versions that don’t quite fit the mold. I wear different hats, so to speak, when I am listening to different sub genres within different historical contexts. Not everything has to be compared to Close to the Edge. Good grief!

Well, one doesn't have to be judging e.g. Asia against the context of early 70's prog to find it wanting. I judge the first Asia album in the context of the mainstream rock and pop that was coming out at the same time, because that to my mind is what it basically is. In that light it comes across to me personally as a stale and tired assemblage of musical and lyrical clichés. The fact that some of the clichés are drawn from the prog idiom isn't really the basic problem, which to my mind is a lack of fresh ideas and approaches.

Edited by Mascodagama - June 06 2020 at 02:06

Grammys, Oscars, Golden Bears, Silver Scissors etc etc interest me about as much as tiny chihuahua outfits and chimney soot.
Uninteresting prizes awarded to uninteresting “artists” by equally uninteresting personas...of course judged and heralded by uninteresting crowds of people without any form of flavour to them.

But yeah...always nice to get nominated!

rogerthat wrote: Mascodagama wrote:   Well, one doesn't have to be judging e.g. Asia against the context of early 70's prog to find it wanting. I judge the first Asia album in the context of the mainstream rock and pop that was coming out at the same time, because that to my mind is what it basically is. In that light it comes across to me personally as a stale and tired assemblage of musical and lyrical clichés. The fact that some of the clichés are drawn from the prog idiom isn't really the basic problem, which to my mind is a lack of fresh ideas and approaches. Yeah, and like I said, it's not that there was no 'gateway prog' in the 80s either.  Rush's albums are as accessible as Asia's but they remain progressive in the way they explore different musical ideas where Asia at best comes across as a somewhat sophisticated way of writing AOR. The first Iron Maiden album or Seventh Son later on would probably serve the purpose of introducing someone to 'progressive' ideas equally well or better than Asia, likewise Metallica from RTL to AJFA.  And you could then introduce such a person to Marillion's Script for A Jester's Tears to give them an idea of what Genesis updated for the 80s would sound like.

I love your point about Iron Maiden as possibly being Gateway Prog for Prog Metal. They were a tremendous influence, especially in my current locality, which has a heavy metal fan base tradition.   However, I wouldn’t compare Asia, which is more Prog Pop Rock with Rush, which was more Prog Hard Rock at the time (although they changed their sound somewhat by album grouping, which either was embraced by the fans, or riled them up). I might compare Asia with Saga, for example.