Bjork go home! (the right one)

But...there were three on the go. Now there is just one.

I think we need to appoint a special Collab to watch over all the Bjork threads as they are taking over recently. Good job Tony, you have my respect!

Snow Dog wrote: Gandalff wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Gandalff wrote: Hercules wrote: Bjork is not prog in any way. But frankly, the inclusion of bands like The Who, The Beatles, Metallica, Iron Maiden, Budgie and many others who don't really qualify as prog, means that progarchives is no longer really a prog site in the real sense. (I love those last 3 bands, but stretching the prog scene to cover them is a step too far for me). Tell you what, John Lydon had a band that were really progressive in the late 70s - lots of wierd time signatures (they couldn't play in time), wierd chords (they couldn't play the real ones) and lots of gobbing. If I could recall their name, I'd recommend them, because on current criteria, they might get in. Now watch this post get deleted!   Don´t you mean Public Image Limited? Sex Pistols Sex Pistols are well-known though! He was being sarcastic.

Thank God someone noticed. There is intelligence in Wales after all. I've been wrong for 60 years.

Like the dust that gathers all around her, Bjork has found a new home.

Man With Hat wrote:   I'd love to see the site become "Progressive Music Archives".

I'm going to have to say this again, the site header says
Prog Archives
Your Ultimate Progressive Rock Resource,
which to me does not exclude other progressive music, but rather defines our focus.

Tony R wrote: Hercules wrote: Bjork is not prog in any way. But frankly, the inclusion of bands like The Who, The Beatles, Metallica, Iron Maiden, Budgie and many others who don't really qualify as prog, means that progarchives is no longer really a prog site in the real sense. (I love those last 3 bands, but stretching the prog scene to cover them is a step too far for me). Tell you what, John Lydon had a band that were really progressive in the late 70s - lots of wierd time signatures (they couldn't play in time), wierd chords (they couldn't play the real ones) and lots of gobbing. If I could recall their name, I'd recommend them, because on current criteria, they might get in. Now watch this post get deleted! Why would we delete your post? If we deleted every silly post here we'd lose 80% of the content. It is likely to get deleted because it's strongly critical (as Snow Dog noted, in a heavily sarcastic way) of the way this site is heading - no other reason. Ask me why your post is silly. I won't, because it obviously isn't. Ok, thanks I'll answer. The bands you mention are included in the Prog-Related banner and are not considered to be Prog Rock, just somehow related to Prog, hence the name. I am perfectly aware of that; please credit me with a little intelligence. Many of them were the very antithesis of progressive rock in their day (The Who, for example) and were vehemently critical of the genre. Just because their music has some elements in common with true prog doesn't mean they should be on this site. Perhaps the difference between us is that I was alive when these schisms were occuring and can remember the vitriol directed at prog - perhaps you were not. If you were, you may not have experienced the bile early proggers were subjected to by mods and the like. Thanks for playing. And if the Beatles are on here, why not the Peter Green incarnation of Fleetwood Mac??? I could argue at least as good a case for them. But I won't because they aren't needed here. But nor are about 10% of the bands on here whose relation to prog is too tenuous to be tenable - and Bjork is the latest screaming example. Have a nice day.

Asphalt wrote: SolarLuna96 wrote: Asphalt wrote: So let me get this straight. People still actually care about which artists are on PA and which are not? Hard to believe, especially since it's so easy to come up with an objective definition of Prog. And, of course, it's vital that we come up with that definition. Also, vital that we don't listen to things that we decided we don't like. What is the world coming to? [... aaand scene] Well, think of it like this. You go to this website about this weird prog thing and you see the artist Bjork on the front page of it. I think that would turn people away from not only this website but also progressive rock as a whole. [... aaand scene] This argument makes no sense whatsoever. If you come to this website because you want to find weird (if by that you mean unconventional, thought-provoking) music than Bjork fits right in. If you're looking for "weird prog" (meaning weird instances of Prog music) than Bjork fits quite well again. If whatever you're looking for, you want to find experimentation, regardless of how you might term that, than Bjork is welcome again. If you're unable to ignore or rationalize the presence of Bjork on this site in any of the previous ways (or in any way at all), I'll have to say your (generic "you") presence on this website will be sorely missed, but we'll get over it quite soon. As far as questions of progressive rock go, we already have progressive electronic, so what gives about this new found rock puritanism?

Ok let me rephrase this. If someone goes to this website expecting to see what WE call prog and they see Bjork.Now they know that they do not like Bjork and since she is on the front page she must be prog! Said person then decided that Bjork is prog and prog must be terrible since Bjork is on classified as Progressive Rock (which she isn't). I suggest a move to Prog Related

Yeah but hearing bjork aint gonna make u a proghead lol , u have more possibilities to become a hipster/indie rock kid than a progrock fan

I'm pleased to see Bjork in PA.  I thought her art pop approach rendered her considerable for Crossover, and had supported her for Prog Related before. I wouldn't describe her music as Prog, but then there's a lot of music at PA that I wouldn't call Prog and categories that I consider more Prog umbrella. I think she has a sufficient relation to music in the Progressive Electronic and Krautrock categories to be readily considerable. Though I wouldn't describe her as rock artist, she certainly has a musical relation to rock. There's a lot of music in PA that isn't really rock (listen to lots of Progressive Electronic artists, and various ones in Avant and some in Prog Folk etc.). I see progressive rock partially as being music that has some rock basis but has moved away from the rock canon, how much relation to rock music must the music have to be considerable? What are the limits of rock? I think it's quite common with various ones to draw the line at ones that are strictly acoustic, though we have some excellent acoustic-based, chamber music type acts in PA such as Aranis. Hey, Aranis plays Rock in Opposition festivals, and should, I believe be in PA, but I haven't heard people complaining about the general lack of rock in Aranis.  I voted yes for Penguin Cafe Orchestra despite it lacking in rock.

It's true that I have wanted to see PA move more in a progressive music, rather than progressive rock direction, but the site has moved that way already a lot.  One day I hope to see Stockhausen and Xenakis included, even though I think a new category will be needed.

I am more concerned about music not getting in than being included.  There's a lot of music I thought PA worthy that never got accepted. Maybe one day we will have Morricone in Prog Related (not that I officially took that to PR but there wasn't much support -- others had also suggested him before me).

That people get so upset about such additions bemuses me and I often wonder if they know the appropriate music by the artists they complain about or if they know music from the PA categories well enough to draw the proper associations (how that music related to other acts' music in PA).

That I think Homogenic Live and Vespertine Live good albums to have in PA is not something I expect others to feel (If they know them). Different people have different parameters and expectations. If the Prog purists had had their way with this site, many bands and categories wouldn't have been included and this site would be very boring for the likes of me. Prog? This site's scope goes well beyond it, and I don't like to use the word Prog for a lot of music in PA and styles represented.  It's an umbrella -- some think it should be opened wider, and others think the opposite.  I'm for wider.

If a member doesn't like an addition, so what?  There are thousands of acts in PA to care about. It's not like the site belongs to us anyway.

Anyway, I'd rather talk about Bjork in a Bjork appreciation thread (or maybe a Lars von Trier appreciation thread since I loved Dancer in the Dark and am bigger on von Trier than Bjork).


Edited by Logan - December 07 2010 at 18:40

Tsk. They'll be adding Muse next.

Slartibartfast wrote: Like the dust that gathers all around her, Bjork has found a new home. Man With Hat wrote:   I'd love to see the site become "Progressive Music Archives". I'm going to have to say this again, the site header says Prog Archives Your Ultimate Progressive Rock Resource, which to me does not exclude other progressive music, but rather defines our focus.