Simple Minds has been labeled many things over the years, but I do think that they have some elements of progressive music; especially on Reel to Real Cacophony, Empires and Dance, Sons and Fascination/Sister Feelings Call, and New Gold Dream.  Listen to the Nijmegen show from 1983.  It's awesome!

Mick MacNeil, Charlie Burchill, and Derek Forbes complement each other quite well.

Any thoughts?

Sorry, but I don't think in Simple Minds as a prog band at all.

Regards

OK, but have you heard any material from the albums that I mentioned?  Or just their popular stuff?

Useful_Idiot wrote: I always thought of them as a fairly basic 80s pop band...

Good band, some prog influences in their approach I think, but never near real progressive rock.

I Like some of their songs

Yes, Derek is awesome!  Just listen to songs like Changeling, I Travel and Hunter and the Hunted!  I also agree that Mel is a great drummer for SM.  I also love Waterfront, but the repetitive bass line does irk me sometimes.  I love Mel's and Charlie's parts in Waterfront though.

Teaflax wrote: Derek Forbes was an amazing bass player, not at all a bland Pop player. Mel Gaynor is a great drummer - sadly the two only got to play together on 1.5 albums (half of New Gold Dream and all of Sparkle in the Rain). Some of Forbes' bass lines (and Gaynors drum patterns) could have taken pride of place in Prog band, I think. The flowing line on Someone Somewhere in Summertime, the octave shifts between trebly melody and darker accompaniment on Glittering Prize and the hammer-on fills from Promised You a Miracle  are all sterling non-derivative stuff.   That said, I don't think Simple Minds are Prog at all, but they made some music that's not nearly as one-dimensional as many seem to think (and there's a certain amount of guts in making a bass line that's just an open E all through the song - that's on Waterfront, in case you're wondering).   But once Forbes left, they fell fast and hard.

Great band but not prog despite the Hillage production.

Early albums were excellent.

The track I Travel is superb.

Think I might play Sons and Fascination and Sister Feeling Call later.

Yup

And his work with the Orb.

OK heres a Geek thing to do.

I just checked back on my ticket stubs.

I saw Simple Minds in Manchester 20 September 1981. Thing I remember about the gig was that Dick Witts, singer/song writer with The Passage (who I really liked) sat in front of me.

for those who are not familar with prog, synthlines does not make you prog...or else devo would be prog too.

felona wrote: boo boo ... off the topic I know but I really like your avatar ... I believe its from The Office? One of the funniest comedy moments ever from my favourite comedy show. Hope you don't dance like David Brent ... oh no ... hey, maybe he likes prog

yea its from the office, i watch it on BBC all the time, i wanted to use another image but it wasnt small enough, and then i realised the site has a strict avatar limit.

Not prog.

They were accused of being bombastic in the eighties which is certainly a prog trait but bands can be as bombastic as they like for me, thats one of the main things I like about the genre.  They also knew how to build tension and use dynamics (Belfast Child being a good example) which again is a prog trait.  I don't think they were quite prog but I can see how they would appeal to some prog lovers. Around 1989 I think they sounded a bit like Marillion of the same era. One of the better eighties pop bands along with Tears for Fears.

Oh yeah and the Bassline on Waterfront sounds a little bit like the one on One of These Days.

MorgothSunshine wrote: Oh my god......NO!

so according to your signature ... there must be some truth here!

Simple Minds prog?

Great band, not prog. Not even art rock, but New wave. IMHO of course. And yes, I know several of their albums quite well.

Other bands from that period that I think would be more deserving of consideration: Talking Heads and the aforementioned Japan (with David Sylvian and Rain Tree Crow already in the archives). Talk Talk is in the archives, be it on the strength of their later albums.

Pretty soon , we will be discussing wheter the Culture Club and Hum an League were prog or not!!!!

Enough of this non-sense. New Wave Groups have no place here!!!!

felixxx wrote: [QUOTE=Sean Trane] Pretty soon , we will be discussing wheter the Culture Club and Hum an League were prog or not!!!! Enough of this non-sense. New Wave Groups have no place here!!!!

/QUOTE]

  ^

I disagree. They were not entirely New Wave although of that era where NW was the predominant music form. Yes they used synthesisers but so what? Does that make them any less progressive?

How many of you have actually heard their early albums up to and including New Gold Dream? If you haven't then it is about time you had a good listen, then maybe you might understand the arguements for prog, especially in their early work.

Cheers

Ehem. . . uh . . . they *were* around in the 70's!  Life In A Day and Reel to Real Cacophony were both released on the 70's!

russellk wrote: Great group, but you won't convince most people here to allow them a 'prog rock' label. Had they been around in the '70's, they'd call it prog.

If you really want to get down to it, Asia isn't/wasn't any more prog than Simple Minds despite the "All Star" prog musician line-up of the early 80's.  In fact, I'd say that SM was, in many ways, more progressive than Asia from 79-82.  As other people have stressed, listen to these albums before criticizing:

1) Reel to Real Cacophony (very experimental and has many prog elements)

2) Empires and Dance (more minimalist, but still has prog elements)

3) Sons and Fascination / Sister Feelings Call (less minimalist with prog elements)

4) New Gold Dream (a streamlined, less cacophonous sound, but still has progressive elements)

In the heat of debate, I think that this question was missed.

fractalman wrote: oh!  Has anyone noticed any similarities between Simple Minds' Changeling and Asia's Cutting It Fine?

fractalman wrote: Ehem. . . uh . . . they *were* around in the 70's!  Life In A Day and Reel to Real Cacophony were both released on the 70's! russellk wrote: Great group, but you won't convince most people here to allow them a 'prog rock' label. Had they been around in the '70's, they'd call it prog.

A big  Fractalman. Adds further weight to my thoughts that many progheads cannot get past the NW thing to the point of not knowing anything about SM earlier releases (including dates of release!) and should take a closer look at them.

Re: comparison with Asia - I will have to dig those tracks up before making any comment.

Cheers

valravennz wrote: felixxx wrote: [QUOTE=Sean Trane] Pretty soon , we will be discussing wheter the Culture Club and Hum an League were prog or not!!!! Enough of this non-sense. New Wave Groups have no place here!!!! /QUOTE]   ^ I disagree. They were not entirely New Wave although of that era where NW was the predominant music form. Yes they used synthesisers but so what? Does that make them any less progressive? How many of you have actually heard their early albums up to and including New Gold Dream? If you haven't then it is about time you had a good listen, then maybe you might understand the arguements for prog, especially in their early work.  OMD  Cheers

First , I never said that Simple Minds were bad or other low quality or even without merits. Just no my tastes. I must reckon that for those years, they were not that bad but plain pop.

There has been calls for inclusion for XTC,  OMD and other N W groups and this is unsettling . I really think that the site's credibility would suffer if they were to be included (and certainly more so if obvious groups like Nucleus are yet to be included, and S M were to be). Most progheads must cringe at seeing Talk Talk and The Church being in already!!!!

As for not listening to Simple Minds , I must tell you I suffered hell throughout the 80's listening to that stuff because of friends imposing their tastes to everyone.

Actually, if you really want to get technical.  The band probably should have been called Johnny and the Self Abusers when they released the Life In A Day album.  It's definitely punk.  The first true Simple Minds album is Reel to Real Cacophony.  Both released in 1979, but the latter is vastly different from the former.  They literally sound like two different bands.

valravennz wrote: fractalman wrote: Ehem. . . uh . . . they *were* around in the 70's!  Life In A Day and Reel to Real Cacophony were both released on the 70's! russellk wrote: Great group, but you won't convince most people here to allow them a 'prog rock' label. Had they been around in the '70's, they'd call it prog. A big  Fractalman. Adds further weight to my thoughts that many progheads cannot get past the NW thing to the point of not knowing anything about SM earlier releases (including dates of release!) and should take a closer look at them. Re: comparison with Asia - I will have to dig those tracks up before making any comment. Cheers

Sean Trane wrote: valravennz wrote: felixxx wrote: [QUOTE=Sean Trane] Pretty soon , we will be discussing wheter the Culture Club and Hum an League were prog or not!!!! Enough of this non-sense. New Wave Groups have no place here!!!! /QUOTE]   ^ I disagree. They were not entirely New Wave although of that era where NW was the predominant music form. Yes they used synthesisers but so what? Does that make them any less progressive? How many of you have actually heard their early albums up to and including New Gold Dream? If you haven't then it is about time you had a good listen, then maybe you might understand the arguements for prog, especially in their early work.  OMD  Cheers First , I never said that Simple Minds were bad or other low quality or even without merits. Just no my tastes. I must reckon that for those years, they were not that bad but plain pop. There has been calls for inclusion for XTC,  OMD and other N W groups and this is unsettling . I really think that the site's credibility would suffer if they were to be included (and certainly more so if obvious groups like Nucleus are yet to be included, and S M were to be). IMO Nucleus is far more likely to be added to the archives than SM. But I cannot see that the site would be degraded if SM was included. It all depends on what is considered prog music or not and the merit of the work of each nominee for the archives. Most progheads must cringe at seeing Talk Talk and The Church being in already!!!! Now that last part I would like seen substantiated. I am sure there are many progheads who listen to and admire both Talk Talk and The Church. With Talk Talk their inclusion into the archives would be through their very prog last 3 albums. As for not listening to Simple Minds , I must tell you I suffered hell throughout the 80's listening to that stuff because of friends imposing their tastes to everyone.

Well I am sorry that you were brow beaten with SM and New Wave, by your friends. But now that you are that much more mature in your music tastes, perhaps you can force yourself to look at SM's early work starting from "Reel to Reel Cacophany", subjectively, before entirely dissing them.

However, each to own music tastes and opinions ok?