| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
BilboBaggins 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 01 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 108
|
 Topic: Prog Related...my problems with this category!
Posted: June 24 2006 at 16:40 |
|
I have a problem with the fact that Prog Archives have categorised Peter Gabriel and Alan Parsons Project as Prog Related. I see both these artists as definitive solo artists of Progressive Rock and to put them in the same category as Kate Bush (who's music I have great respect for) amongst others, seems to me to be underestimating their contribution to Prog Rock.
What does everyone else think?
Would it not be better to have a generic category called just simply 'Progressive Rock' for those artists who are clearly Progressive Rock but do not fit one of the more specific genres. Failing creating a new category, just pop them into the Art Rock category?
Your views ladies and gentlemen?...smiles
|
|
Thoughtfullness
|
 |
Ricochet
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 27 2005
Location: Nauru
Status: Offline
Points: 46301
|
Posted: June 24 2006 at 16:57 |
|
I concur to the fact that Prog Related is a underestimation of an artist.The definition of Prog Related would be a band or an artist that's not 100% Prog and doesn't have a specific genre....at least that's what I think.
Also I think that between Progressive Rock and Prog Related is an inclusion sign.Prog Related is a sub-genre of Prog Rock.
The Prog Related matter is solid,in my opinion,and justified.
|
|
|
|
bhikkhu
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 06 2006
Location: A˛ Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 5109
|
Posted: June 24 2006 at 23:21 |
|
I was surpised by Gabriel being under this classification as well, but if you think about it, he is probably closer to world. His first two albums were hardly prog at all. He definitely needs to be included, but the music is hard to pin down.
Alan Parsons, on the other hand, is prog. What else would you call "Tales," or "I Robot?" That's just my two cents.
|
|
|
|
BilboBaggins
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 01 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 108
|
Posted: June 25 2006 at 00:32 |
 Ricochet wrote:
I concur to the fact that Prog Related is a underestimation of an artist.The definition of Prog Related would be a band or an artist that's not 100% Prog and doesn't have a specific genre....at least that's what I think.
Also I think that between Progressive Rock and Prog Related is an inclusion sign.Prog Related is a sub-genre of Prog Rock.
The Prog Related matter is solid,in my opinion,and justified.
|
Ok, here's my case:- Prog
Related
definitionRock and Pop Bands and Artists after 1970 who were not truly “prog” (as that term is generally and broadly defined, even by the site), but who were clearly not “mainstream” or simply “rock” bands.'Prog' is broadly defined by a number of differant definitions. The following are a selection that relate, for instance, to Peter Gabriel:- * Lyrics that convey intricate and sometimes impenetrable narratives, covering
such themes as science fiction, fantasy, history, religion, war, love, and
madness. Many early 1970s progressive rock bands (especially German ones)
featured lyrics concerned with left-wing politics and social issues. * Prominent use of electronic instrumentation — particularly keyboard instruments
such as the organ, piano, Mellotron, and Moog synthesizer, in addition to the
usual rock combination of electric guitar, bass and drums. * Unusual vocal styles and use of multi-part vocal harmonies * An aesthetic linking the music with visual art There are a few other definitions that do not describe the music of Peter Gabriel, but, Prog Archives makes it clear that 'some common, though not universal, elements of progressive rock include' these definitions. This means that to have some of these definitions would be indicative of a Progressive Rock artist. It has been defined that Prog Related is a sub genre of Progressive Rock and this is where I have my problem. I have no problem with Kate Bush being 'Prog Related' but it is just wrong to put her in the same category as Peter Gabriel, Alan Parsons, and while we are at it, Saga!! Who on earth thought it a good idea to define Saga as 'Prog Related'? I also disagree that Peter's first two albums where not Prog. You cannot deny that tracks such as 'Here Comes The Flood' or 'Moribund The Burgermeister' are Prog? I rest my case!...sorry for ranting, but if we are going to create genres, lets at least get them right. I have no problem there being a genre called 'Prog Related' but let's have a category that better caters for the likes of Gabriel, Parsons, and Saga!
|
|
Thoughtfullness
|
|
Sean Trane
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk
Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 19626
|
Posted: June 25 2006 at 05:55 |
Bilbo wrote:
I also disagree that Peter's first two albums where not Prog. You cannot deny that tracks such as 'Here Comes The Flood' or 'Moribund The Burgermeister' are Prog?
Two tracks on two albums.
Gabriel's career (as much as we love him from Genesis) never made a prog album and is certainkly not anymore prog than Roxy Music
APP (except the debut) made concept albums with prog touches. But if you listen to I Robot or Pyramid there is a lot of symphonic AOR stuff >> straight songs with not much into them.
Edited by Sean Trane - June 25 2006 at 05:56
|
|
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword
|
|
Raff
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 29 2005
Location: None
Status: Offline
Points: 24391
|
Posted: June 25 2006 at 06:05 |
I don't think that "Prog-Related" should be in any way seen as a slur. Too many people have this idea that being prog means being musically better than the rest - which is, of course, not true in the least. There are non-prog acts which are immensely better than prog ones (the letters D and T come to my mind now, but let's not pursue this track....  ) - as it is the case of Peter Gabriel (though I somehow disagree with your take on his output, Hugues) or even of Roxy Music.
|
|
Sean Trane
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk
Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 19626
|
Posted: June 25 2006 at 06:26 |
Ghost Rider wrote:
I don't think that "Prog-Related" should be in any way seen as a slur. Too many people have this idea that being prog means being musically better than the rest - which is, of course, not true in the least. That is the problem , some people think prog-related is an insult, which absolutely not the case
There are non-prog acts which are immensely better than prog ones (.......... ) - >>>>
as it is the case of Peter Gabriel (though I somehow disagree with your take on his output, Hugues) or even of Roxy Music. >>> when prog related got created at first , the name that we had agreed was progressive pop, which Gabriel would probably fit with Roxy, Queen, 80's Genesis, 10CC etc...
Gabriel is not really rock music since he left the group , but more pop>>> most of his album are collections of songs
|
|
|
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword
|
|
BilboBaggins
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 01 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 108
|
Posted: June 25 2006 at 07:06 |
|
Come on guys!!!
First of all, no one has made the statement or even hinted that Prog Related is better or worse, musically, than any other Progressive Rock genre, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a nut!. (By the way, Dream Theater are Progressive Rock, in the sub genre of Progressive Metal, so I'm not sure what the point of that statement is)
Peter Gabriel, Pop?...are you having a laugh?...that has to be one of the most outrageous comments I have heard this year! He is one of the most inovative and pioneering rock artists there has ever been. (I said 'ONE of the most'!). Yes, he has very occaisionally released something a little more catchy that has made the charts, but so have Pink Floyd, Genesis, Yes, and many others.
His back catelogue is loaded with Progressive Rock and Gabriel 4 (otherwise known as 'Security') was an extremely progressive album. He fuses a lot of world rythms in later albums but he is without doubt a Rock artist and not Pop, my god!
'Shock The Monkey' was the most pop related track on Gabriel 4, but anyone who knows this track well will know that it is once again a progressive track. Do not use a beat or rythm to determine whether a track is progressive or not...that is a very slippery slope to go down!
I look forward to the next piece of comedy...smiles
|
|
Thoughtfullness
|
|
Ricochet
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 27 2005
Location: Nauru
Status: Offline
Points: 46301
|
Posted: June 25 2006 at 09:32 |
|
Sorry,Bilbo...but Gabriel's between pop and rock...or,better said,Prog Related.His first two albums are the more prog,while 3 and 4 go a little more easy on that...to not extend to So,Us and Up...who are perfect for Prog Related...but not to any genuine (in the sense of complete) Prog genre
|
|
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 20527
|
Posted: June 25 2006 at 09:46 |
|
|
|
|
|
Raff
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 29 2005
Location: None
Status: Offline
Points: 24391
|
Posted: June 25 2006 at 09:48 |
|
Indeed.... Prog-Related means just what it says. It doesn't mean better or worse - just not fully prog, influenced by prog, similar to prog, or however you want to put it.
|
|
Ricochet
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 27 2005
Location: Nauru
Status: Offline
Points: 46301
|
Posted: June 25 2006 at 09:57 |
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
I concur to the fact that Prog Related is a underestimation of an artist.The definition of Prog Related would be a band or an artist that's not 100% Prog and doesn't have a specific genre....at least that's what I think.
Also I think that between Progressive Rock and Prog Related is an inclusion sign.Prog Related is a sub-genre of Prog Rock.
The Prog Related matter is solid,in my opinion,and justified.
|
Prog Related should be for bands which don't not record any completely progressive album. With this definition it is obvious that Prog Related is NOT a sub genre of Prog Rock.
|
Okay,maybe not complete for a sub-genre.Although I wouldn't just call it a category,an allusion to Prog.
|
|
|
|
BilboBaggins
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 01 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 108
|
Posted: June 27 2006 at 10:34 |
Ok, I opened up this debate to my radio show last night and not one listener who messaged the show felt that it was ok to call Peter Gabriel 'Prog Related'...not one. Everyone (and I had about 18 responses) felt that over his entire repetoire you cannot categorise him as anything else other than Progressive Rock.
You guys seem to have blinkers on! You seem to be measureing Prog based on musical wizardry, long compositions, comples musical structure, etc.. While these are definitely elements that are prominent in Prog, they are by no means the only parameters. Pushing the boundaries of rock, challenging lyrics and subject matters, experimental and intelligent use of rythms and electronic sounds, and above all, a constant non conformist structure to his songs, are all strong elements, while still retaining a rock basis.
Please stop argueing about these plain facts and just create a general Prog category so that we can put the likes of PG, APP, and Saga amongst several others into this category that do not fit any of the other categories. Then we can stop confusing people who look in the Prog Related category and see Kate Bush (who I have no problem with being in this category) in with the likes of PG, APP, and Saga. We are meant to be educating people not confusing them!
If you are going to go down the route of categorising at all, then you need to get it right!...smiles The friends I speak to about Prog Rock are already confused enough when they realise it isn't Heavy Metal!!...grin This is just common sense!
|
|
Thoughtfullness
|
|
sm sm
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 02 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 155
|
Posted: June 28 2006 at 15:34 |
Everything is open to discussion an matter of opinion. In Heavy Metal catagorization lists, what is included and not included, results in similar discussion.
(there was one media personality claiming Deep Purple was not metal because they were out of date)
I just like to use the alphabetical list and read the individual description of the artist, which gives me an idea what they sound like without any catagorization.
|
|
Cheesecakemouse
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 1751
|
Posted: June 30 2006 at 07:56 |
I think prog related works well for this website, Peter Gabrial or else Syd Barrett for that matter are at large not prog (it could be argued that Barretts unorthodox songs are sort of prog)but both belonged to prog bands, and fans of such bands sometimes like to collect the solo albums of its members. These solo albums might not be prog, but are indispensible to the fan of a specific band thus we have prog related. Also stuff like Alan Parsons are only somewhat prog, again good for prog related. So I see no problem with it, I think it works well and is on a whole good for this website. 
|
|
|
|
Sean Trane
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk
Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 19626
|
Posted: June 30 2006 at 08:17 |
I just do not see where the problem is with this prog-related "genre" since it is a bit of a catch all category where are thrown in
a) bands close to prog stylistically speaking (generally close to the artsy fartsy, glam rock crowds), but not quite there yet >> Roxy Music, Kate Bush
b) pop/rock act that have progressive tendencies including inventive, clever songwriting >> 10 CC is coming up and Queen
c) solo artistes coming from prog bands and do not have prog profile per se >> Collins is not in the running here, but Gabriel well
d) inclusions from members who insist some bands be included and we got sick of their constant aggressive lobbying and finally gave way >> The Church, Muse
e) some rather odd inclusions done by one of the owners on some grounds we have still to understand >> dEUS
f) groups that can be called guest or might just received an honorary mention as worthy of the proghead's interest >> Alan Parsons Project or Band
not included >> chalenging lyrics: then we might want to start any politically engaged group starting with The Clash >> for obvious reasons, this cannot be a criteria
In no way , shape or form are these prog-related artistes any less worthy artistically than the prog groups!!! As a matter of fact, I can think of most of the above-examples being much worthier than most neo-prog groups on the database
Edited by Sean Trane - June 30 2006 at 08:25
|
|
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword
|
|
earlyprog
Collaborator
Neo / PSIKE / Heavy Teams
Joined: March 05 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 2086
|
Posted: July 01 2006 at 07:23 |
BilboBaggins wrote:
Peter Gabriel, Pop?...are you having a laugh?...that has to be one of the most outrageous comments I have heard this year! He is one of the most inovative and pioneering rock artists there has ever been. (I said 'ONE of the most'!).
|
I agree. I always saw Gabriel as the most progressive artist of the (early) 80's. On 3, 4, Plays Live and Birdy he was pushing the limits of progressive rock, To me he was simply the future of progressive rock (like Crimson) but sadly failed on subsequent albums to live up to my expectations.
To categorize him as prog related is a gross underestimation.
|
|
Thyme Traveler
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 12 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 164
|
Posted: July 02 2006 at 10:22 |
Cheesecakemouse wrote:
I think prog related works well for this website, Peter Gabrial or else Syd Barrett for that matter are at large not prog (it could be argued that Barretts unorthodox songs are sort of prog)but both belonged to prog bands, and fans of such bands sometimes like to collect the solo albums of its members. These solo albums might not be prog, but are indispensible to the fan of a specific band thus we have prog related. |
So, using this logic, Phil Collins' solo work should be in the archives under "Prog Related." Perhaps he's even twice as worthy of inclusion as Peter Gabriel since he was also in Brand X ? 
Edited by Thyme Traveler - July 02 2006 at 10:23
|
|
Fire up the flux capacitor ! We're taking this Delorean through all four dimensions.
What is the future of prog ? Genesis reunion ? I'm not telling!That could upset the thyme/space continuum.
|
|
dabaynton
Forum Groupie
Joined: May 07 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 66
|
Posted: July 02 2006 at 17:15 |
|
Who cares? Gabriel and APP = superb music full stop! Why categorize?
|
|
Shines On Brightly, Quite Insane.......
|
|
Sean Trane
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk
Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 19626
|
Posted: July 03 2006 at 07:11 |
yup I was listening to APP's debut Tales and it is indeed superb
There are some real incredibly moments in I Robot and Pyramids also, but unfortunately mared by other AOR tracks close to Top 40
|
|
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Prog Related...my problems with this category!
