Early British Prog vs American. Discuss.

Miles is here, rightfully, because of his immense JR/fusion contributions. "Kind Of Blue" has been moving up, up and up on PA's Top Prog Album chart over the years and will eventually reach top 10 (it's really that good, IMO) and when it does we will have to come up with a weighting factor that suppresses it's appearance on the chart.

In fact, weighting factors control PA's charts! I have seen the charts change over night because of a change in weighting factor. Without it, Emerson Lake and Palmer wouldn't be on top 100, and we all know they should be! No, wait...

Probably because you seem to have a very narrow view of what prog is. 🤷🏻‍♂️

(Which is neither right, nor wrong, I should probably add. Anyone’s opinion of what is or isn’t prog is just that - an opinion.)

Alternatively, there are a LOT of well known examples of early American prog, but they’re simply not thought of as prog by many. Mostly this is simply because for many people, their idea of prog is very Euro-centric. That is definitely the case for PA, where what is or is not prog is largely deduced by how it relates to European prog bands or artists. And, there is nothing wrong with that, so long as such “bias” (for lack of a better word) is transparent.

It came as no surprise at all to see in this (quickly closed) thread that The Velvet Underground are not suitable for PA: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=127014

And, I have no problem with that. The VU are prog to me, but I recognise why they are not considered prog by this site.

What is or is not accepted here, or is or is not accepted as prog in general, often also comes down to people making a distinction between what is prog and what is progressive. Again, there is nothing wrong with that, and it can be a valid distinction, but the problem is there is no black and white, so much as many, many, many shades of grey. I doubt there are many people at all who who would claim that everything progressive is also prog. (Or, conversely, that everything prog is progressive.) But there will always be instances where what is “only” progressive for one person, is not considered Prog by another (or vice versa).

I think it’s probably undeniable that the VU were progressive, but whether or not they are prog is something quite different. But there are definitely some who do consider the VU as being both prog, so whether or not they are in PA is largely irrelevant. I’m a great fan of David Bowie, and have seen numerous documentaries about him, and particularly his early years. One of these documentaries made the point that what made Bowie’s albums from Man to Ziggy so interesting is that despite being rooted in England, and still keeping a very English sound, he chose to absorb the sounds of the American prog bands, rather than from the UK. That’s not verbatim, but the narration definitely referred to American prog and British prog as being two distinct sounds - which they were (just as American and British punk had distinct sounds, etc.).

It’s easy to become entrenched in a view about what is or isn’t prog. I am definitely not suggesting anyone is wrong, or needs to change their view. What is or isn’t prog will always be subjective. But, just as with the recent post about the 500 Greatest Albums of All Time, as posted by Rolling Stone, I think it is important to consider where the definition of prog is coming from, and who the intended audience is. PA is pretty clear about what it will accept as prog, and the VU will never make it here, unless definitions are changed (unlikely at this stage). That means they are not prog, as considered by this site. But that’s all it means. It most certainly does not mean they are not prog.

Honestly, I have just read back through all the pages of this thread, because I don’t want to be bound (or entrenched) by my own views of what is or isn’t prog. It does still seem to me, though, that there could be a case made for American prog, and it would include a lot of the bands and artists that are recognised elsewhere as prog, and put forward (often multiple times) and rejected here. PA inevitably becomes its own echo chamber (in the same way Rolling Stone does), and attracts an audience that largely agree with the definitions of prog as set out by PA. And, I’m not even suggesting those definitions are wrong. It would be near impossible to argue that. Nor am I suggesting they are too narrow, as they need to have boundaries, or PA would simply become too unwieldy. However the necessary narrowness will, and does, preclude many bands recognised elsewhere as prog from being included. A lot of those are either classic “American Prog”, or influenced by those bands and artists, rather than European prog.

Is any of this wrong? No, not at all. But perhaps it is still worth thinking about. There are some for whom prog ceases to exist after around 1976-77. Is that wrong? Again, no, not really. I might disagree with that, but that doesn’t make it wrong. Everyone has their own idea of what prog is, and even where and when. All we have to do is accept the source. With PA, “American Prog” will only occasionally make the grade (Zappa, and quite a lot of jazz fusion, for example), and that’s fine, so long as we can recognise the boundaries of PA. But when a thread like this is created, it is quite cool to see that there are actually quite a lot of more open-minded listeners out there.

Thanks, Steve, for starting it. I’m still making discoveries based on comments made under your OP. I actually don’t care if they are prog or not, so long as they are interesting and enjoyable to listen to - but, for sure, a lot seem pretty proggy to me….

Until now, I’d never heard the song - apart from its appearance in The Simpsons. It seems like the kind of song one might only really appreciate if one were stoned or drunk out of one’s skull. I’m not sure I’d go so far as to say boring as heck, but it’s probably not a song I’ll ever listen to again. Given the length, there’s surprisingly little happening. That alone could be boring, but I can also understand some people loving it. I enjoy Neil Young rambling on for half an hour or whatever on Psychedelic Pill, and I imagine a lot of people find that boring.