Most of the times when it comes to review an album, I set my eyes first on some other prog reviewers’ work to get an idea of what I actually wanna talk about and then I come with my own stuff, you know, to criticize within a critic; but this time that ain’t that kind of situation. More than a review, this is a call for all of those reviewers, prog experts and webmasters of Prog Archives to be more careful about what you upload to the site in order to give a pure, clear info to all prog starters and for all of those prog devoted fans as well. I know I’m gonna be bombed away and gonna get criticized as well for this, but I’m aware of that and I’ll take it as the prog fan I am now! For what I know and heard during all these years within the prog world, PROCOL HARUM ain’t no progressive music; this is neither art nor prog rock, this is a reactive kind of music that came up to the music scene as a response to the other genres. Don’t tell me you PROCOL HARUM fans that you aren’t appealed to JOE COCKER’s music or CREEDENCE CLEAR WATER REVIVAL even BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN? Well, PROCOL HARUM’s gotta go in there with those guys… Let’s put things sparkling clear so we don’t get mixed up or confused at the time we give each group a space or a category. I’m not saying I hate their music, not that I love it in the other hand; but, it’s imperative to be realistic in order to be able to compare and judge, because this is a matter that should be pointed out. The fact of this band appearing during the early 70’s (late 60’s) doesn’t determine that they must be progressive rock musicians or anything related to it, they have a style of their own that goes hand in hand with other contemporary bands; but this is certainly not prog rock, that’s for sure.

Think of KYRIE ELEISON for instance, an Austrian band formed first in 1974 by three school friends Gerald Krampl - Keyboards, Felix Rausch - Guitars and Karl Novotny - Drums, together with Wolfgarng Wessely - Vocals and Gerhard Frank - Bass that by the year 1976 went into an in fact very cheap studio, and began to record nearly under live conditions with only 2-track recording machines. The release of the album in January 1977 was quite a sensation, as if was one of the first independent releases in Austria and therefore highly acclaimed by the press and music magazines. They played in all major cities in Austria, as well as on same big open on festivals together with bands like VAN DER GRAAF GENERATOR, COLLOSSEUM, AMON DÜÜL, EELA CRAIG, OPUS, etc. They played and produced great music, they are indeed huge prog rockers, they are one of the European top most memorable prog rock bands and still, they just didn’t make it to qualify for a spot in this site due the standards of the reviewers yet the experts. Instead we can log on to PROCOL HARUM and THE MARS VOLTA’s page and think of them as Progressive music… 

My understanding of this site is that if prog rock features among the output of a band, then their fair play for inclusion.

"In held Twas in I" alone renders Procol Harum worthy of, indeed essential for inclusion. Quite a few of their other tracks had prog leanings too. I readily acknowledge that a fair bit of what they did was not prog, but that's not the point, is it?

Easy:

I'm definitely a fexible yet understanding man but this time I must stand up for what I think related to this topic. What I'm trying to explain, is that despite a little dash of prog music within Procol Harum's work or whether they are worthy to listen to or not, the point is they just don't belong in here. I know tons of non-prog bands are clearly influenced by prog rockers, and nowadays we can behold that with the "Scissor Sisters" band and their PF's "Comfortably Numb" cover or even "The Mars Volta" if you wish, but that ain't not enough reason to consider their work prog worthy or even so, excellent. What I'm saying is that instead of considering yourselves experts in the topic, and being nothing but narrow-minded when it comes to negative critics that expose your total disregard of the subject, you shoud dig up a lil more and find out there's more to listen to than "prog leanings" bands.

Peace out.

Well I'm sorry Landberkdoten, but I have to disagree with you almost completely on every point.

In 1967-68, "Conquistador", "Whiter Shade Of Pale" and "Repent Walpurgis" were practically revolutionary songs and went a very long way towards opening the door to everything "Prog" that came after.  I can't see how that's even open to debate.

Nor can I see how being able to appreciate CREEDENCE or SPRINGSTEEN has anything whatsoever to do with that.  Other than they all employ drums, bass, guitars and keyboards I don't see the resemblance to PROCOL HARUM at all.

And using the bandwidth to devoting a third of your revue to go off on a diatribe about a pretty obscure Austrian band that never achieved the same amount of success seems not only unworthy but frankly inexplicable.

If you don't like the band PROCOL HARUM, or you don't think they are Prog Rock, that's fine, just tell us why you feel that way in some way that promotes useful discourse. 

I agree that PH are not really prog - I was most surprised to see PH appear on this site - but then again, not. PH are from the same kinda time as prog came to pass - a bit earlier, in my estimation. Bands are kinda voted onto this site via the suggestions forum - was there a poll on this recently? If not, why not start one!

My main problem with PH is that one or two tracks doth not a prog band make - otherwise the Beatles would be in the archives! Setting a pop song to the opening part of Bach's "Air on a G String" is novel, but hardly prog. Progressive is different!

Now we've allowed PH, weren't LOVE extremely proggy - and Shocking Blue, Chocolate Watch Band, Leafhound...

Nothing to get upset about though - just give objective reviews hinting why they might not be considered prog; put across your point of view and others will have theirs.

I've been trying for ages to get DIAMOND HEAD considered for the archives...

HI, THIS IS CÉSAR INCA.

I have to agree with Stormcrow here. I definitely consider them prog, though they played and created a kind of prog that somehow got stuck in some past cliches, and didn't evolve into some spiral of increasing complexity... but yes, I label them as prog, and it doesn't mean that I have to like some band's music because it is prog, or that being prog is the best thing you can do as a musician. I just look at the whole picture, their recurrent concerns for exploring the various possibilities implied in mixing rock, classical, blues, while incorporating some other stuyff ocassionally for the sake of enriching their own musical statement... and the labels 'art rock' and 'prog rock' come to my mind.

Rregards.

Storm:

First of all, I’d like to thank you for taking your time to read this and reply to it.

I definitely want to clear the air once and for all. You are right when you say I don’t like Procol Harum, because I don’t, and since this is a social forum I feel free to speak up my mind to talk about what I hate or embrace, without offending anyone’s intelligence, likes or dislikes, musical preferences or judgment. What I’m trying to explain (again) is that no matter what, I just cannot conceit Procol Harum as prog rock and I dared to make reference to Creedence or even Springsteen to compare their genre that’s way so alike, and I’m talking about “pop” music and even if would’ve pointed out any other bands, at least one of the readers to this topic would’ve disagreed anyway. Also, no matter how many records, songs or productions of Procol Harum you may name out, I’ll still won’t consider it part of anything related to a genre that’s got a reason to be called progressive, you know, transition, continuous change, that genre that’s constantly renewing and remaking all those music little formulas that impact the listener. Progressive rock is challenging, enticing, provocative… Procol Harum and the rest of the “popular” music is not. And I just don’t want this to be taken as something personal to the band, because it’s not and it ain’t some sort of “pop VS prog” debate…

Also, I just set “that obscure Austrian” band as an example of what’s left out in here, and by that I mean what’s a priority to be taken care of instead of what is “almost” considered prog.

  I won't get into the whole "what is prog?" question again, because, as I've said, the word is really undefined, and subjective in any case.

Secondly, reviewers have no final say as to what bands belong here -- we can advise the administrators, but in the end, the call is theirs.

(I wouldn't have put Zappa, jazz fusion or metal here, but that is just my own interpretation of what "progressive rock" is, and isn't.)

It's really not worth getting steamed about. As Cert aptly points out, you can preface a review with "I don't really consider this band to be prog, but...." -- problem solved. (See my review of Pineapple Thief's "Variations on a Dream.")

We just can't make all of modern music fit into certain set categories -- art is not like that! "Borders" and "boundaries" are crossed all the time. An album or band could easily fit into more than one of OUR artificial categories.

Bands don't think in terms of such categories, I'm sure -- it's all music to them!

This issue keeps coming up, and will always do so, because art is NOT MATH OR SCIENCE! Effectively, we are trying to pound an almost infinite number of shapes (pegs) into a finite number of holes.

Hey Certif1ed!

I support your proposition about uploading something from DIAMOND HEAD to the site! But you know, there are still way too many prog bands out there and that at some point it would be impossible to take care of them all. But I totally hear you, I've been trying to get RAGNAROK in here, but no one listens    hahaha

Peace!

There have many other times where I have agreed with Mr. Peter Rideout and this one won't be an exception. You right when you say the word is really undefined, and subjective in any case and that gives us the power somehow to be aware that not always we'll be heard or payed attention to, and that's mostly the thing here.

Thanx for the pointers, I would definitely rely on them next time I write another review!

Peace!

landberkdoten wrote: this is an incendiary speech that claims for respect.

But don't you see that is exactly the problem that I have with your "review".

All flame and no logic.

Now it may be logical to you that PROCOL HARUM isn't an important band in the history of Prog Rock.  But the "incendiary" nature of that review certainly does not in any way explain why you think or feel that way to me.

And because it doesn't explain to me, it then doesn't convince me, and thus I can't respect your assertion on it's merits.

So any demands for respect fall on deaf ears exactly because that respect wasn't earned because of the "incineration" obscuring it and giving it no chance.

although i am not a big fan of the band, PROCOL HARUM is a little bit progressive rock. And they are not the poblem, as you can find another bands in the site that are not "fit" in here, i found the band "ANATHEMA" in the site in the genre of prog metal, and i dont think they have anything to do with progressive, in their early years they were death metal, changed to doom metal with a little bit slower music, and now i think they are kinda gothic doom metal, although i love the band i dunnu why are they in the site  and savatage too they are in the site but i dont think they are progressive either

well that is only what i think, i dont mean to remove them or something

Way too many air quoting, way too much talk-back, way to many meaningless sardonic speech from you Storm but still haven't get the point of what I meant to say in here. Nevermind replying to this post anymore, it'd be like "falling on deaf ears" to me. Stay loose!  

I just read LBD's Procol Harum review to see what all the fuss was about. I'm not throwing stones here, just clarifying the argument. The only comment made regarding the music of Procol Harum is: " this is a reactive kind of music that came up the music scene as a response to the other genres" and even that does not say anything about why the music should not be considered "progressive."

The rest of the review talks about other bands of the era which may or may not be similar to Procol Harum (I think that's the point) and something about an Australian band which is not in the Archive (we do have a "Suggestions for the Archive" section).

LBD, please give some supporting "facts" so we can understand why Procol Harum is not PROG. Song structure, instrumentation, lyrical content ..... anything that we can base an observation on.

No hard feelings, I, for one, want to understand your point of view. What do you think of The Moody Blues, I find them similar to Procol Harum (another thread, perhaps). 

Yeah danbo, I know what you mean and I know why of your concern about posting non-controversial threads. Thanx for the piece of advice, lemme tell ya I will think of it nex time I point fingers at Procol Harum or at any other band I consider as crap .

And to be perfectly honest with you, I haven’t listened to The Moody Blues as quite as much to say anything ‘bout them or their music. Like grandpa used to say: “if you got nothing nice to say about someone, then say nothing at all” (sounds more convincing in Spanish )

landberkdoten wrote: Storm but still haven't get the point of what I meant to say in here. Nevermind replying to this post anymore, it'd be like "falling on deaf ears" to me. Stay loose!

Oh I think I'll continue to reply if I feel like it Landberkdoten.

And MY point is that you didn't make a point.  You posted a screed.

I'd certainly be interested in seeing WHY you don't think that the band should be included in the archives.  As I said before I could understand it if you just didn't like the band, as you've admitted.  There are bands in the archive that I don't particularly care for either.  But not liking a band is hardly reason enough to demand that it be deleted.  I'm just one voice, just as you are and if the personal opinion of one person were to hold ultimate sway here, this wouldn't be a very interesting place at all.

Putting words in my mouth like me daring to say “remove this band's info from the site” or provocative things such as “I DEMAND PH's site to be deleted” sounds to me as absurd as your opinion on to this at all or your constant mockery on what I think. You certainly  took care of bringing this discussion to a whole different level of its original intention and magnified it into a big argument.

To be completely honest with you and with no intention of being rude to you, I DON'T CARE if my point of view makes no point at all to you because as you said, you're only one voice and yet I'm another one completely opposite to yours.

Like I said, you’re just behaving in such an absurd way just for you to try proving me wrong or out of stubbornness or for whatever you think, to which, I couldn't care less. Please show some maturity and respect to the people who's actually reading this thread, instead of trying me look bad, thing that I must say, you ain’t to good at and proves that you only making a fool out of yourself.

LBD, don't get yer panties bunched up. It's the use of CAPS and bold fonts which elicit the view that you are demanding something (geesh, I sound like Peter, meagor). Please understand that Storm is only engaging in sound critical debate. It's how we have fun on this site. As you've read by the man, er, maani, it's all opinions, nothing is set in stone and your point of view is valid, to you, if no one else. Personally, I've struggled with the prog tag on quite a few bands/musicians, my hero foremost (Allan Holdsworth), so you are due your opinion.

But, do you cringe at that word (but), it's an opinion, and like an arse, it's split down the middle.

Peace LBD, enjoy the debate, it seperates us from the beasts.... and Jim Garten!!!!

I put no words in your mouth, landberkdoten.  I dare you to do nothing.  I haven't as yet mocked you.  It was my full intention to raise the level from your original tone, which quite frankly I found mildly offensive.  There has been no argument because you have yet to state anything besides your apparent hatred for a band.  I can not and won't attempt to argue with you about your feelings. 

I simply asked you to defend what was clearly a post meant to be provocative, showing more attitude than knowledge yet stating certain things as supposed fact, that didn't seem defensible to me at the time.  Since you won't make a cogent defense, I have to assume you can not.

Being rude to me, which you have been repeatedly, and calling me a fool, stubborn and absurd isn't defending your point at all.  It's simply an attempt to divert the discussion in hopes that I will be rude to you in turn.  I'll refrain from calling you names though you won't give me the same consideration.  I don't want to divert the topic because I'm still curious how you could come to feel as you do.

I'm trying very hard to respect the intelligence of other people reading these posts.  Which is why I'm refusing to join you in name calling.

I've made no particular effort, landberkdoten, to try to make you look bad.  So far you haven't seemed to need any help.

So, in hopes that you'll relent and actually try to discuss the subject, I remain.

undynamically - 'Crow

You right danbo, reason separates us from beasts. So, in that order and to continue no longer with this, I won't let myself to rely in cheap yet compromising arguing.

If anyone's still interested 'bout what I think and 'bout what I have to say concerning Procol Harum, read my mind again on top of page. Outside that "screed" I have nothing else to say or debate about in spite of being me the one who started this thread in the first place. Feel free to keep on discussing this topic 'cus it still has got much more to talk about, that I'm aware of.

Peace everyone!

Land --

Land:

Stormcrow's basic assertion is that within your initial post on this thread, you state only your opinion - that you do not like PH and do not consider them prog - but give no "specifics" as to why you don't consider them prog.

The "official" definition of "prog" (as posted on this site) is: "A style that combines rock, classical, psychedelic and literary elements...typically featuring [long] songs with shifting time signatures and evolving musical themes."  You can choose to disagree with this definition if you wish: even I consider it "imperfect" at best, but nevertheless a good start.

However, using that as the site's definition (since that is what visitors and new members will see), can you provide some specific reasons why PH does not fit in here?

Personally, I agree with many of the members who have posted here, that there are any number of bands on the site for whom the appelation "prog rock" may be at best a misnomer, and at worst totally incorrect.  As Peter notes (and I agree), there is a great deal of "rock-jazz fusion" (and some "prog-metal") that I would not necessarily have included on the site had I been its developer.  In this regard, if PH is an "irritant," it is a minor one.

As for providing "correct information" to visitors and new members, as Peter points out, since even the definition of "prog" is "up for grabs," the best we can do is provide a broad "overview" of prog in all its various stages.  As others have pointed out, if everyone who ever wrote a "prog" song - even by accident - were included on the site, the list would be unwieldy.

I have posited on other threads that "prog" developed from what I call "progressive sensibilities," which were either "conscious" or not.  If a band "stumbled upon" progressive sensibilities "by accident" (i.e., without conscious intent), then I would personally not include them on the site.  However, if a band applied progressive sensibilities in a conscious manner - even if those sensibilities did not appear in every composition on every album - then I would include them, with that caveat (i.e., that they wrote some prog songs, but were not a "prog band" as such).  If a band applied progressive sensibilities as a primary (or exclusive) approach to composition, then I would label that band a "prog band."

PH seems to fit in the middle category: a band that applied progressive sensibilities - sometimes consciously, perhaps sometimes not - on some of their songs, but not as a primary or exclusive approach.  In this regard, I would agree with you that PH is not a "prog band" in the same way that, say, Pink Floyd, Genesis, Yes, Gentle Giant, King Crimson et al are "prog bands."

Ultimately, I think it was Stormcrow who brought up the concept of "importance" vis-a-vis prog.  This is, to me, a critical point.  Although PH may in fact have influenced other bands (some of whom are in the "prog" category), I would agree with you (if this is your point) that PH is not an important (i.e., seminal or perhaps even influential) band within prog.  Having said that, I do not believe that the site is "misleading" anyone by including PH.  I would agree, however, that these types of distinctions - and they are important ones - are probably not made clear enough as a matter of course, and this leads to (reasonable) concerns such as yours.

I applaud the tenacity with which you hold your opinion.  However, I do ask that you try to refrain from personal attack or sarcastic inferences; they undermine your arguments, and create unnecessary tension.  Thanks.

Peace.

maani wrote: I applaud the tenacity with which you hold your opinion.  However, I do ask that you try to refrain from personal attack or sarcastic inferences; they undermine your arguments, and create unnecessary tension.  Thanks.

Whether I agree or disagree 'bout some points discussed in here, I totally concur with you about this argument you wrote. I know I certainly misguided this debate to other levels and in that tune, I regret I involved music into this sorry "back and forth" arguing. Unnecessary tension brings unnecessary language, that I know.

Thanx for replying to this post,

Peace

Landberkdoten

Hoping all of this performance concerning whether "who's wrong or who's right" is water under the bridge, I'd love to get back on track to what really matters in here and that's "PROCOL HARUM: "prog rock or not". So let's have it then!

Progarchives is the best , but the largest database about prog music, I think, is Proggnosis.com. There, you can find symphonic prog bands (like the excellent Kyrie Eleyson), proto prog bands (I think PH is a proto prog band), prog metal, psychedelic, folk, etc etc. Even Evanescense is there  .

Prog boundaries are extremely open, and I like to see in a prog site as bands as possible, doesn't matter about how much of proggy elements they have. Love it or hate it, this is another topic, and each one is wrong and right at the same time about the personal points of view.

Marcelo wrote: Prog boundaries are extremely open, and I like to see in a prog site as bands as possible, doesn't matter about how much of proggy elements they have. Love it or hate it, this is another topic, and each one is wrong and right at the same time about the personal points of view.

Yeah, I would have to concur with Marcelo. Sometimes it's quite complex to define what's prog or what isn't, and that's determined from the very specific point of view of each and one of us. And in that line, considering how extense prog boundaries could be, there's also gotta be a diversity, huh?

(Por cierto Marcelo, ¿tu sabes cuándo es que ATEMPO visitará nuevamente tierras aztecas?  Mariela González vino acompañada de NEXUS al Baja Prog, más no sé si lo hará con su nueva banda...)

jiggajake wrote: not to sound immature, but http://www.progressiverock.com - www.progressiverock.com seems to think PH were prog, so why not

Yeah man, it's all about logging on to sites and compare what they have to say... you got that one right!

maani wrote: I have posited on other threads that "prog" developed from what I call "progressive sensibilities," which were either "conscious" or not.  If a band "stumbled upon" progressive sensibilities "by accident" (i.e., without conscious intent), then I would personally not include them on the site.  However, if a band applied progressive sensibilities in a conscious manner - even if those sensibilities did not appear in every composition on every album - then I would include them, with that caveat (i.e., that they wrote some prog songs, but were not a "prog band" as such).  If a band applied progressive sensibilities as a primary (or exclusive) approach to composition, then I would label that band a "prog band."

So does this mean we're due to get the Beatles and Deep Purple in the archives?

Certif1ed wrote: So does this mean we're due to get the Beatles and Deep Purple in the archives?

I have it on pretty good authority that we shouldn't expect DEEP PURPLE to be included any time soon.

landberkdoten wrote: Yeah man, it's all about logging on to sites and compare what they have to say... you got that one right!

sarcasm?

landberkdoten wrote: (Por cierto Marcelo, ¿tu sabes cuándo es que ATEMPO visitará nuevamente tierras aztecas?  Mariela González vino acompañada de NEXUS al Baja Prog, más no sé si lo hará con su nueva banda...)

No sabría decirte si irán a México, pero creo que Atempo está lejos de la calidad de Nexus. Claro que Mariela González (hoy por hoy la mejor voz de Argentina) es un espectáculo en sí misma .

Jim Garten wrote: richardh wrote: and have played and recorded a live album with an orchestra So has Barry Manilow........

So I expect Manilow to be included as well then!

jiggajake wrote: landberkdoten wrote: Yeah man, it's all about logging on to sites and compare what they have to say... you got that one right!   sarcasm?

NOT AT ALL! Gosh, why's everybody so uptight these days around here?  Can't you just take a harmless observation in the good way?

Since we were mentioned by name in this thread - let me share with you that at ProGGnosis.com we have defined a category - Prog Related to help us with dealing with artists that have a single prog release (Daryl Hall-Sacred Songs, Cat Stevens- Foreigner, Grateful Dead-Terripen Station for example) or artists that have genetic links to prog (such as the Tommy Shaw solo works).

We get things wrong - of course!  And - our stuff is a work in progress not a completed database.  Who could know so much music and keep it all in mind when researching, categorizing and discussing it all?

How can it possibly offend someone IF Deep Purple or Black Sabbath or Wishbone Ash or Procol Harum were listed?  Serious matters are offensive... Deep Purple in a prog web site is not.  The important thing is to try to ensure that whatever is added to the prog site is categorized and described somehow - so that the listing can be useful to the reader.

I flat out disagree with the specific premise that Procol Harem is not a progressive band.   Web sites such as ProGGnosis (and I assume but do not wish to speak for ProgArchives) intend to enlighten and to include this band does enlighten.  I personnally would not categorize Wishbone Ash as a progressive band - but this band headlined 2003's ProgDays at Storybook Farms with other undesputably progressive bands!

Marcelo wrote "Progarchives is the best , but the largest database about prog music, I think, is Proggnosis.com."  Well the first is subjective and I would not dream of arguing that point here   but as to the second point - Denis's Quebec site - ProgLands.com currently lists about 2500 more CDs than ProGGnosis.com - so on this forum only - i will concede to us 2nd place on both counts.

Finally - since this is in some ways a genre discussion - Let me tell you that at ProGGnosis we have posted the first 2 of our ProGGnosis Guides.  These are genre/sub-genre/style listings for Prog Metal and Prog Related.  I think there is nothing like this on the net.  We hope by August to be able to render and describe additional guides.  Of course we welcome advice, opinions and assistance so check out the two we do have functioning - Prog-Metal and Prog Related.

Regards,
DBSilver / ProGGnosis.com

Marcelo wrote: Progarchives is the best , but the largest database about prog music, I think, is Proggnosis.com. There, you can find symphonic prog bands (like the excellent Kyrie Eleyson), proto prog bands (I think PH is a proto prog band), prog metal, psychedelic, folk, etc etc. Even Evanescense is there  . Prog boundaries are extremely open, and I like to see in a prog site as bands as possible, doesn't matter about how much of proggy elements they have. Love it or hate it, this is another topic, and each one is wrong and right at the same time about the personal points of view.

Evanescense?!

They're not only NOT PROG, they are also a VERY BORING ROCK BAND! I prefer a smaller website, that doesn't include evanescence, please!  I'm glad you agree with me, Marcelo (according to the  emoticon)

grumble

grumble

(grumbles: "evanescence?! how dare they?!")

>>Reply from Joran:  Evanescence!? They're not only NOT PROG, they are also a VERY BORING ROCK BAND! I prefer a smaller website, that doesn't include evanescence, please!<<

Yea, I know what you mean.  It seems difficult to use the ProGGnosis site of some 3600 reviews and 11700 CDs without the band Evanescence somehow appearing on the screen.   I am going to try using the ProGGnosis database search function and see what happens when I don't type Evanescence into the search box.  I'll let you know if that works....

Regards,
DBSilver / ProGGnosis.com