| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
micky 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46828
|
 Posted: November 12 2007 at 16:53 |
bahh.. ignore me  ...I'm mounted WAY up high on the high horse this evening 
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
 |
JayDee
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: September 07 2005
Location: Elysian Fields
Status: Offline
Points: 10063
|
Posted: November 12 2007 at 16:57 |
Raise those fists and say YEAH!!!!!
|
|
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46828
|
Posted: November 12 2007 at 17:05 |
hahahhaha.. sure.... I'll raise them.. comrade!
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
ghost_of_morphy
Prog Reviewer
Joined: March 08 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2755
|
Posted: November 12 2007 at 17:12 |
 Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
ghost_of_morphy wrote:
Skipping all of the other obtuseness, this is extremely clear. Boston received clear musical influence from this genre, which has been thoroughly documented, and which I cited in my original post.
The "or" in the above thread is a conjunction that signifies that if one of the conditions (such as the one mentioned above) is true, then the statement is true regardless of the other conditions. Boston received clear musical influence, hence Boston is prog-related.
If you support the definition you cite, you support Boston's inclusion.
And yet you still persist in your obtuse insistance that to be prog-related something must sound like prog. That's silly. What sounds like prog IS prog!!!! Not prog-related, prog!!!! If you don't like the sound of Boston, that's fine, but don't pretend that you are following the definition instead of your whims and preferences. |
Seems the only obtuse are you, I don't believe Boston received Prog influence,Boston is AOR = Classic Rock + POP, as simple as that.
I don't say a band must sound like Prog to be prog Related (PLEASE QUOTE ME), that's what you add because of your lack of understanding, A BAND MUST BLEND AT LEAST SOME PROG ELEMENTS....BOSTON DOESN'T BLEND THEM....AS CLEAR AS WATER, NOT ONLY FOR ME BUT FOR THE HUGE MAJORITY OF THIS FORUM MEMBERS.
But who cares, probably they will be added and each time our identity will be more lost.
Iván
BTW: Don't try to teach me to uinderstand the definition of Prog Relater, I WROTE IT!!!!! |
Then obviously you either expressed yourself poorly or you are not remaining true to your original expression, as I have more than adequately shown that Boston fits your definition.
Your problem, as I take it, is that you reject Boston on the basis that they are a founding band of AOR. Many people here like to take the idea of "progressive" as a movement, not as a genre label, and I can assure you that at the time that Boston's first album came out, it was indeed a progression. (You brought up Phil Collins, I believe, where the opposite is the case.) Nothing quite like it had been heard before and it quickly picked up many imitators, including several bands who are labeled as prog-related or prog. And it's not merely a matter of classic rock combined with pop, as you so dismissively affirm. Again, in Boston's case, I've already covered this ground.
As for prog elements, let's consider:
1. Lyrics that convey intricate and sometimes impenetrable narratives, covering such themes as science fiction, fantasy, history, religion, war, love, and madness.
Check.
2. Unusual vocal styles and use of multi-part vocal harmonies.
Check.
3. 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.
Check.
4. Inclusion of classical pieces on albums.
Check given for Foreplay and some other organ solos in classical style.
Next, on to the hairsplitting about "sounds like." When one gets to the point where you feel that you have to draw distinctions between "sounds like," "similar," "related," and "close," in order to prove a point, it is probably time to start opening up your mind instead of closing it.
And finally the ad hominem fallacy that it is clear to you and many others that they are not prog-related. What is clear to me is that you and many others are judging based upon your own personal taste instead of upon the facts presented. If you want to hold up a definition as a standard, you should follow it.
Edited by ghost_of_morphy - November 12 2007 at 17:14
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: November 12 2007 at 17:33 |
ghost_of_morphy wrote:
[
Then obviously you either expressed yourself poorly or you are not remaining true to your original expression, as I have more than adequately shown that Boston fits your definition.
I asked you to quote me, if I said something, it must be there, but no, I haven't said it, if you have understanding problems, it's not my responsability.
You are using the excuse of the poor expression, because you couldn't quote a single time I said Prog Related needs to sound like Prog, so now a new tactic is to say you misunderstood me by my own fault. 
Your problem, as I take it, is that you reject Boston on the basis that they are a founding band of AOR.
Not only founding, but also during all their career, if I had to trust your opinion and Certfied's (with whom I disagree very often), I go with him, he knows about music and proved it hundreds of times.
Many people here like to take the idea of "progressive" as a movement, not as a genre label, and I can assure you that at the time that Boston's first album came out, it was indeed a progression.
Progressive Rock is a genre, it's defined, all the literature is coincident, progression has nothing to do with Progressive Rock.
(You brought up Phil Collins, I believe, where the opposite is the case.) Nothing quite like it had been heard before and it quickly picked up many imitators, including several bands who are labeled as prog-related or prog. And it's not merely a matter of classic rock combined with pop, as you so dismissively affirm. Again, in Boston's case, I've already covered this ground.
You said it, it's classic Rock combined with POP, nothing more, and if some bands are catalogued as Prog when they aere not, it's niot my problem, ask the people who inducted them.,
As for prog elements, let's consider:
1. Lyrics that convey intricate and sometimes impenetrable narratives, covering such themes as science fiction, fantasy, history, religion, war, love, and madness.
Cat Stevens had complex lyrics including, horror, destruction, family, polution, etc, but it's not Prog or Prog Related.
Check.
2. Unusual vocal styles and use of multi-part vocal harmonies.
The Mamas and The Papas made more complex vocal harmonies, but they aren't here either, you have thousands Rhythm and Blues bands with very complex vocal arrangements, but they shouldn't be here,.
Check.
3. 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.
Yanni uses a lot of electronic instrumentation as many New Age artists, but they aren't here because they are not Prog or Prog Related.
Stevie Wonder is one of the pioneers of the Mellotron, but neither is he in Prog Archives or any Prog database.
There's something important, the instruments a musician uses are absolutely irrelevant to determine what genre he/she/they belong....The musician makes the music, not the instrument
Check.
4. Inclusion of classical pieces on albums.
Oh please, a classical fragment in a song doesn't make it Prog, listen the Disco version Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, and I wouldn't include the guy, but if you want to go to a closer period, check Vanesssa Mae, it's just Rock and Pop with Classical COMPLETE PIECES.
Focus in the STRUCTURE, it's only Classic Rock and POP.
Check given for Foreplay and some other organ solos in classical style.
Next, on to the hairsplitting about "sounds like." When one gets to the point where you feel that you have to draw distinctions between "sounds like," "similar," "related," and "close," in order to prove a point, it is probably time to start opening up your mind instead of closing it.
Related is used in the context and the limits of Prog Related, when I mention sinmilar (even when it was a literary figure of speech), I refer clearly to Prog elements that i don't find in Boston.
And finally the ad hominem fallacy that it is clear to you and many others that they are not prog-related. What is clear to me is that you and many others are judging based upon your own personal taste instead of upon the facts presented. If you want to hold up a definition as a standard, you should follow it.
I like Boston, so my taste has no relation with my opinion, the fact is that musically they played Classic Rock blended with POP in AOR format, great music, bit not Prog or even Prog Related.
Being that i won't convince you or you will convince me, itt's futile to continue this debate, unless I'm mentioned directly or iindirectly, I will not post any more in this thread.
Iván
|
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - November 12 2007 at 18:07
|
|
|
|
sircosick
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 29 2007
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 1264
|
Posted: November 12 2007 at 18:22 |
|
PorgArchives seems to be inclusive until adding representative bands of their respective genres like Radiohead (from the alternative scene), Deep Purple -and more recently Black Sabbath- from the Classic Rock scene; the representative of the AOR scene would be, in this case, Styx. But that's just an impression, considerin' that the first couple of Boston releases are quintessential stuff in the general rock scene.....
Now, don't get me wrong; by my very own, I'd never start a thread promoting the addition of Boston, but since they're mentioned, why not discuss them? They're one of the cornerstones of AOR, and that implies something. We all agree that they didn't influenced prog bands; but the issue in question is if they certainly were influenced by some prog..... For me, there's not a clear-as-water answer for that, as Iván has been stating all along this thread, since music is not so easy and "standard" to label in......
I find 'em very similar to Kansas (a band that, in fact, has always flirted with Arena Rock) and tracks such Foreplay/Long Time, Smokin' and The Journey sounds fairly proggish to my perception.......
Iván has certainly a plus for writing the definition of PR, but isn't he a bit extremist by saying that Boston has equally chances to be added as Journey, Toto or even Europe? Excuse me, but Toto is mainly a pop band who emerged several years after Boston and Europe is simply hair metal...... so, let's not deny either some merit by Boston. IMHO.
|
|
The best you can is good enough...
|
|
sircosick
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 29 2007
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 1264
|
Posted: November 12 2007 at 18:26 |
|
Referring to Iván's last post, Ghost of Morphy spotted some characteristic that Boston has in common with prog. Iván proved one by one that they're somehow wrong, but what if Boston has all those things together??
|
|
The best you can is good enough...
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46828
|
Posted: November 12 2007 at 20:04 |
sircosick wrote:
Referring to Iván's last post, Ghost of Morphy spotted
some characteristic that Boston has in common with prog. Iván proved one by one that they're somehow wrong, but what if Boston has all those things together??
|
 and you have shown more insight then any of the crap thrown about in this thread.
here's some more for you...
it is something the some people here don't understand..... it's a
notion called subjective analysis....music is not absolute...
what you see... is simply is what you see... and what
others see is what they see. There is no set guidelines for what
is prog or not.. or ...God forbid ... Prog-Related .
We all see this stuff differently. Thankfully this site is a
COLLABORATIVE site.... and people here understand that others
will interpret music... and prog... and such things as prog
quotient differently.
The problems happen when....
some people here get it ^ ... understand that and work together...
and some don't and think they speak in absolutes and refuse to see that others might see things differently.
a case in point.
I was highly troubled to see that groups that others think are
prog..were going to be moved to non-prog categories.. just because
someone else comes along later and doesn't think so. Thankfully I
see the Admins put a big damn stop sign to that. That smacked of
a big lack of respect for the others that work here... and have
contributed to the site. That smacks of one saying.. I know prog...
and you don't. That is not how a collaborative site works.
So Jorge.... that is where we are left...Ivan makes good
points.. and Morphy makes good points.... now the jury weighs in
as it should.
Edited by micky - November 12 2007 at 20:07
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
sircosick
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 29 2007
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 1264
|
Posted: November 12 2007 at 20:11 |
|
|
|
The best you can is good enough...
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46828
|
Posted: November 12 2007 at 20:16 |
thanks!  I love clappies
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: November 12 2007 at 21:09 |
sircosick wrote:
Referring to Iván's last post, Ghost of Morphy spotted some characteristic that Boston has in common with prog. Iván proved one by one that they're somehow wrong, but what if Boston has all those things together??
|
You forget the main ione, the structure, Boston is a good band, but their music is Classic Rock blended with Pop, yes they mix some classical tunes, they have good lyrics and good vocakl arrangements, but there are thousand of bands non Prog that combine the same elements.
The three characteristics (I won't bother replying to the instruments they use because this is complete irrelevant) mean nothing if the structure of the music is plain Rock with Pop elements, they are a great Rock band, I hjave their albums, but they are not Prog or Prog Related IMO.
Iván
PS: Only replied because I was mentioned.
|
|
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: November 12 2007 at 21:38 |
sircosick wrote:
PorgArchives seems to be inclusive until adding representative bands of their respective genres like Radiohead (from the alternative scene), Deep Purple -and more recently Black Sabbath- from the Classic Rock scene; the representative of the AOR scene would be, in this case, Styx. But that's just an impression, considerin' that the first couple of Boston releases are quintessential stuff in the general rock scene.....
Because it has been discussed ad nauseam, the band has been rejected not once, but several times,.
And more too old to appear in the search or ones that were included in other threads, I believe enough ios enough.
Yes i agree they are quintessential stuff of Classic Rock and AOR but not of Prog neither Prog Related.
Now, don't get me wrong; by my very own, I'd never start a thread promoting the addition of Boston, but since they're mentioned, why not discuss them? They're one of the cornerstones of AOR, and that implies something. We all agree that they didn't influenced prog bands; but the issue in question is if they certainly were influenced by some prog..... For me, there's not a clear-as-water answer for that, as Iván has been stating all along this thread, since music is not so easy and "standard" to label in......
I find 'em very similar to Kansas (a band that, in fact, has always flirted with Arena Rock) and tracks such Foreplay/Long Time, Smokin' and The Journey sounds fairly proggish to my perception.......
Please Sircosick, Boston and Kansas are two different universes, listen Magnum Opus, Mirackles Out of Nowhere, Closet Chronicles, He Knew, Icarus, and 30 more tracks, all Prog and one single siple song called Dust in the Wind, there's a great difference between them.
Iván has certainly a plus for writing the definition of PR, but isn't he a bit extremist by saying that Boston has equally chances to be added as Journey, Toto or even Europe? Excuse me, but Toto is mainly a pop band who emerged several years after Boston and Europe is simply hair metal...... so, let's not deny either some merit by Boston. IMHO.
I'm getting tired of being holding responsible of mentioning Phil Collins, Toto, Journey, etc, this was started by another member Cynthiasmallet who expressed an opinion that peroved to be true, because Ghost of Morphy included Collins and Toto in the list
cynthiasmallet wrote:
I say No. Once Boston are In, that will open the door for the likes of Journey, Toto and Phil Collins, which will lead to the likes of Chris DeBurgh and Barry White. Before you know it we will be crawling around on our hands and knees flinging our own s**t at our PC monitors. |
And I would had said nothing if if Ghost of Morphy wouldn't had included them in the thread equating Toto, Phil Collins to Boston.
ghost_of_morphy wrote:
cynthiasmallet wrote:
I say No. Once Boston are In, that will open the door for the likes of Journey, Toto and Phil Collins, which will lead to the likes of Chris DeBurgh and Barry White. Before you know it we will be crawling around on our hands and knees flinging our own s**t at our PC monitors. |
Phil Collins and Toto both have a strong case for prog-related in my opinion. (Not that I'm a fan of Toto by any means.) |
This has been the work of Ghost of Morphy, he wanted to create confusion, he included Toto and Phil Collins in the thread and then blamed me.
ghost_of_morphy wrote:
(You brought up Phil Collins, I believe, where the opposite is the case.) |
He said I affirmed that a Prog related band has to sond like Prog and I proved him I never said that, he's been saing false statements from the start, he accused me of being not cclear and that he misunderstood me after I dared to quote me.
So don't blame me I didn't compared them, I only expressed why Boston, Phil Collins and Toto (as separate and individual cases, shouldn't be added.
That was Ghost of Morphy style, lie from the start and that's called trolling.
So please, before accusing me of the fire in Rome, verify if I was even in that country.
I know it's unpopular to say no to this propositions, it's much more popular to say OK, they are great, even if some time afo you said "They are an AOR band" twice in the same post, but i do it becauuse I care for this site (Again, not accusingg anybody of noot caring for the site).
So at least, accuse me of things I said, not what other persons say, Ghoist of Moprphy started the Toto and phil Collins issue, he said they have a strong case, but when the flood moved in different way he changed statement:
ghost_of_morphy wrote:
This may be the most interesting comment in the whole thread, as it provides a clear and concise reason why Boston should be included, why Toto should be excluded, and why Phil Collins solo should probably be excluded as well. |
So please, read my posts and ask me about my opinions, to which I'm faithful, not to what other persons say and later change when they see they have no support.
Iván
|
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - November 12 2007 at 21:50
|
|
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: November 12 2007 at 21:50 |
I don't know about this. But if we create a new subgenre called "regional prog" or something like that? Then we could all all those geographic-related bands that aren't so prog but that somehow could end up here. Chicago, Kansas, Boston, Asia, America, and let's add Europe, Alabama, and any other you can think of... and peace will reign supreme.... 
|
|
|
|
sircosick
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 29 2007
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 1264
|
Posted: November 12 2007 at 21:50 |
|
Sorry Iván, but you was the first who mentioned at least Europe, specifically....... We shouldn't care about Toto, Journey or PC; we're talking about Boston.
And did I refer to Dust In The Wind...? I find the average Kansas song (I've listened to PONR & Leftoverture) similar to some outstanding Boston early stuff.... such Foreplay/Long Time. And do not deny that Kansas has always been way more popular than any other sympho band: that's why I said they've always flirted with AOR.
|
|
The best you can is good enough...
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: November 12 2007 at 21:55 |
sircosick wrote:
Sorry Iván, but you was the first who mentioned at least Europe, specifically....... We shouldn't care about Toto, Journey or PC; we're talking about Boston.
Yes, but that was a REPLY Sircosick, I didn't included other bands in this thread until the isuue had been started, look at the order of the posts, and BTW, I was being sarcastic with Europe.
And did I refer to Dust In The Wind...? I find the average Kansas song (I've listened to PONR & Leftoverture) similar to some outstanding Boston early stuff.... such Foreplay/Long Time. And do not deny that Kansas has always been way more popular than any other sympho band: that's why I said they've always flirted with AOR.
Hetre we disagree, I find Kansas 100% Prog from their debut until Leftoverture, but that's a theme for another thread.
Butb please, don't stop there read all my post and you'll see 90% of the things I'm accused were not started by me and how the opinions of some people like Ghost of Morphy change depending on the circumstances.
If I say something, I stick to it, i don't change my opinion because it's not popular.
BTW: Popularity has no relation with AOR.
Iván
|
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - November 12 2007 at 21:57
|
|
|
|
ghost_of_morphy
Prog Reviewer
Joined: March 08 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2755
|
Posted: November 12 2007 at 22:25 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
[
That was Ghost of Morphy style, lie from the start and that's called trolling.
|
I find this to be offensive. I do not understand why you are so belligerant, I understand that having your fallacious resoning pointed out is unpleasant, but why should it provoke personal attacks?
Grow up. Move on.
Edited by ghost_of_morphy - November 13 2007 at 00:42
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: November 12 2007 at 23:02 |
ghost_of_morphy wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
[
That was Ghost of Morphy style, lie from the start and that's called trolling.
|
I find this to be offensive. I do not understand why you are so belligerant, I understand that having your fallacious resoning pointed out is unpleasant, but why should it provoke person attacks?
Grow up. Move on. |
Not fallaciious, I quoted you and proved:
- You invented phrases I never said, dared you to quote me and you couldn't
- You accused me of starting the Toto and Phil Collins issue, and you were the one who did it.
-
ghost_of_morphy wrote:
Phil Collins and Toto both have a strong case for prog-related in my opinion. (Not that I'm a fan of Toto by any means.) |
-
ghost_of_morphy wrote:
It would be clearly idiotic to claim that a guy who PLAYED in one of the seminal progressive rock bands was not the slightest bit influenced MUSICALLY by what he had spent a decade playing., and no doubt Phil Collins fans, should there be any, could point out exactly where those influences manifest themselves. So condition #1 is clearly fulfilled for Collins, and a strong argument could be made on that basis for the Pocaros' as well. |
- You said that Toto and Phil Collins had a strong case and them after Easy Livin posted, you changed your post and said you agree that Toto and Phil Collins should not be added.
-
ghost_of_morphy wrote:
This may be the most interesting comment in the whole thread, as it provides a clear and concise reason why Boston should be included, why Toto should be excluded, and why Phil Collins solo should probably be excluded as well. |
- You called me an idiot in page two and obtuse in page three and you dare to be offended?
Every word I say is supported by quotes, even when you started in the Phil Collins issue, insisted on it and said that any person who don't believe he's influential for Prog (solo career was idioti, just to change your position to say that Collins and Toto were never an issue.
That's saying lies and trolling.
Read your own posts before you start with the fake act of the offended guy.
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - November 12 2007 at 23:04
|
|
|
|
Chris H
Prog Reviewer
Joined: October 08 2006
Location: Charlotte, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 8191
|
Posted: November 12 2007 at 23:05 |
|
peace...harmony...justice...
|
Beauty will save the world. 
|
|
Mikerinos
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Planet Gong
Status: Offline
Points: 8890
|
Posted: November 12 2007 at 23:07 |
|
I like Boston, but prog rock they are most certainly not.
|
|
|
|
ghost_of_morphy
Prog Reviewer
Joined: March 08 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2755
|
Posted: November 13 2007 at 00:38 |
Melgar, I feel no further need to respond to your slanderous posts, your obtuse persistence in your own opinion, your unbalanced rants, your dishonest dismissal of what has been said or any other thing you say in this thread. Anybody who cares to can go through these posts and make up their own minds about them. Not that I suspect many people will care to make that effort.
Now let me once again offer you some very good advice that you would be wise to heed.
Grow up. Move on.
Edited by ghost_of_morphy - November 13 2007 at 01:49
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Boston???
