Dedate: Non PA but Prog bands... Maybe!

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

Interesting debate in other closed thread is this. I wanted to copy this post because I would like to open a discussion. In fact this post contain some poits of discussion (see underlined parts) that I would like be discussed freely since I believe that a lot of the forum members have positions much clashing. Immediately I admit that my position is more a middle course between the two positions.

Lady in Black wrote:

Ivan, I'm Italian and I speak Italian, sure. 

Yes Lady, I felt foolish when I read your profile LOL

Proper for this the sentence isn't clear, because without examples it seems to tell want that also the PR bands are Prog (at least so I can interpret it).

Respectfully I disagree, it’s clear because the first phrase clearly states that this bands are not Prog but have a certain relation in higher or lesser degree with Prog as a genre.

 In fact PR is a family of bands that have inflienced true Prog bands (also in the 70's). But I think that also the case of Rock bands influenced by Prog bands are cases of Prog Related (better: Related to Prog).

It’s in the definition Lady, it’s also clear for all of us, influential or influenced

 And this is the case of Toto. So for some people 10CC (and Godley & Creme) or ELO are 100% Prog. Also for me, in certain moments 10CC or ELO are 100% Prog. Mandrakeroot says to find Prog also in Démis Roussos music. Sure, this is true. Démis speak in Prog terms for to describe its 70's production (see the Italian compilation "Démis Roussos" [sleeve notes write in Italian by Démis...]). 

Well, that’s a strong point, but the genre of artists is independent from what they believe it is, take Ian Anderson, he has sweared 100 times he doesn’t play Prog, and we know it’s false.

For me Boston, Toto, Journey are good case of Related to Prog, nothing all.  

I don’t believe so, they may have been influenced in the performance of an instrument, but the structure of their music is IMHO exclusively AOR ROCK (Yes, but with Prog connections...!)

But I think that different it's the case of Mountain because produced 100% Prog songs or the case of Cream because an album of "Disraeli Gears" contain sure Blues, White blues but is innovative for 1967 and to sort Cream like PP band is simply obvious. 

Again disagree, Mountain could be Prog related IMHO, but they are mainly a Hard Rock band and Cream, well they are pure Blues Rock IMHO.

Well, Judas Priest with "Rocka Rolla" and Saxon with "Saxon" plays Heavy Prog in their debuts. Also the RCA phase of discography of Scorpions contain superb Prog moments ("Fly To The Rainbows" is a 100% Floyd song!) and sure these are great examples. Like sure, in a certain sense, Motorhead plays a sort of (excuse me for the language) Fukin' R'n'R very near to the Prog (but in R'n'R field!) like in the 60's sure an example of Prog in music is the case of many bands (The Shadows, The Zombies... For examples). So Grateful Dead. This band isn't Prog. Or better is Prog. But not Prog in Prog terms. Prog in Rock, Blues and Psychedelic field, like Jimi Hendrix. 
In the case of Hendrix I expressed my disagreement several times, his performance was influential, but his compositions not, at least in the way I see it.

So, if PR is a clear family of bands with the PA policy isn't clear the role of Related to Prog bands, that isn't PR bands because influenced by full Prog bands but remains true Rock (or Heavy Rock or Heavy Metal or...) bands or the role of bands like Cream or Jimi Hendrix that plays in an era of great changes (from Beat, White Blues and Psychedelia and full Prog era) that for me are all PP bands.

The problem is that we would have to add each and every band that performed from 1962 to 1969, including The Mamas & The Papas who made incredibly complex vocal arrangements and every Psychedelic band in the matrket.

This is my personal opinion. 

P.s.: The Related to Prog category/ family isn't a category for PA. But the bands/ artists of this category/ family are sure bands/ artists for PA.

LOL this is a play of words...The category in which the bands play doesn’t fit, but the bands do fit, I know Prog Related is ambiguous (it has to be ambiguous), but not so much.

Now the second.

Lady in Black wrote: 

I agree with you, Ivan.

Because beginning to insult itself we breed only discussions that don't carry to nothing.  

Better my previous post, because seeks to explain (and I believe there to succeed) the reason come done certain proposals of inclusion.

That in definitive... Is a great field for to exchange ideas on thing is the Prog for each forum members.

Thanks for this Lady, I may be strong in my beliefs, but i’m very careful with insulting people, a line must never be crossed and from thye first reply i was attacked and called from idiot to dishonest.

Thank you again.

Tony R wrote:

Whilst I am certainly not convinced Boston should be here, I wonder how being mainstream can disqualify a band from being included here.
Genesis were THE icons of AOR for over a decade, certainly far longer than they were the darlings of the Prog scene.

Tony,. You know this is a fallacy, the requirement is having ONE 100% Prog album, and genesis had 7 if not 9, while only 4 or 5 Pop albums.

Genesis is because the 7 or 9 Prog albums, not for the other 4 or 5, the non Prog albums are here exclusively because we add full discographies.

The case of Boston is different, they don’t have a single Prog album and IMHO not a single Prog Related album, so I see no reason to add them and the cases are not remotely similar.

Lets ´put in another way, if Genesis had only released:

Abacab
Shapes
Invisible Touch
We Can’t Dance
CAS

They wouldn’t be here, so no exclusively mainstream band should be here...Am I wrong?

Iván