Does Laurie Anderson belong in the archives?

I know we discussed her worthiness, Ivan, in the following L.A. thread, CLICK HERE, but I do see a relation to Prog (as this site sees Prog) in Laurie Anderson.  I think she has significant similarities to artists in Krautrock and Electronic Prog (and art rock qualities), which is why I requested that the admin team consider her inclusion during the summer.  Perhaps I should have requested that Crossover take a look at her first, and then if declined there, see if they thought it fit to send for PR's evaluation.  Furthermore, many other sites, as it turns out, do consider her to have a Prog relation.

While I was very enthusiastic about her potential addition before, I expect that though it saddens me, there probably would have been developments by now (I'm not sure what happened with the evaluation)  I'd be lying if I said that I wasn't disappointed. I lay this one to rest even if no formal decision has been reached.  Others have been given greater priority, and I can understand that.  Perhaps one day it will be included, but PR evaluations commonly take a long time as they try to be very careful about additions, and I even I don't think this addition should be priority for the site (even though I feel that she deserves a place here).  It would have helped to send along sufficient samples of her music to help them out, and properly research it (not necessarily to get her in, but to help them to reach a  decision for or against).  I think it likely that they haven't felt they quite enough to go on, both in arguments and in access to music, to make a firm decision yet.  And they have a great many bands/ artists to consider (and PR additions commonly require very deep consideration).

EDIT: She would be a fringe artist here if included, and for me I suppose that's part of what made her a more exciting addition (and I do love Big Science, not that that makes her worthy, but did make me more enthusiastic).  I thought she would fit the umbrella parameters (as the prog universe has expanded beyond "rock"), but I don't quite know how Related operates.  I think she shares similarties to artists in avant prog, as well.


Edited by Logan - November 30 2008 at 18:02

This woman still isn't in the archives how shocking

russellk wrote: Ricochet wrote: russellk wrote: To make it here an act needs to be either progressive or Prog, or, best of all, both. Laurie Anderson is, I think, the former but not the latter Prog-Related bands are Non-Prog bands. Sorry, sir, I'm not sure what point you're saying I'm making. I don't think Laurie Anderson is Prog-Related; I think she is progressive and as such should be in a sub-genre on this site - possibly RIO-Avant. But she's not Prog in the classic sense.

ah, okay! but, terminology-related, if you want the artist to be in a sub-genre, that means she needs to be "Prog". According to your initial post, you said "she's not the latter (Prog)". Now that you've nuanced "she's not Prog in the classic sense", it's much clearer.

Ricochet wrote: russellk wrote: To make it here an act needs to be either progressive or Prog, or, best of all, both. Laurie Anderson is, I think, the former but not the latter Prog-Related bands are Non-Prog bands. Sorry, sir, I'm not sure what point you're saying I'm making. I don't think Laurie Anderson is Prog-Related; I think she is progressive and as such should be in a sub-genre on this site - possibly RIO-Avant. But she's not Prog in the classic sense.  if you want 80s ex-Prog-now-Horrible-Pop, you get Yes Side issue: why does everyone say that? I'm not going to argue with the 'horrible' label - it's your taste. But Pop? Is that what your ears hear when you listen to 90125? Because it sounds like Rock to me, and there is a difference.

I officially proposed Laurie Anderson in late July to the PR team, but they've had their hands-full with other suggestions.  I am willing to care of the addition if she is accepted (provided it's not in the too distant future), and I do think that the musical arguments for her inclusion in both threads have been stronger than the arguments against her inclusion in Prog-Related.  Plus, as was noted by Raffaella, she is listed in key Prog sites, so it more than meets those criteria.


Edited by Logan - October 22 2008 at 13:49

russellk wrote: To make it here an act needs to be either progressive or Prog, or, best of all, both. Laurie Anderson is, I think, the former but not the latter

Prog-Related bands are Non-Prog bands.

For one thing, the point Raffaella made is correct. There's no reason to say "Laurie Anderson's addition would be controversial". If Progressor and other sites do acknowledge her music to be part of the Prog/progressive/whatever grip, we can definitely mention what counts most from her stuff (the 1982-1984 "repertoire, mostly), without thinking we've got a hole to fill.

As me for, my ideas about the addition still stands. I'd add Laurie Anderson in Prog-Related, even if it's a bit hard to think of her expermiental, quirky, rhythmic, artistic music, to which, not to mention, we almost always have to add "drama", "humour", "narrations" and others. She's quite a complete kind of an artist: singer, composer, "one-woman show" comedian, etc. Sure, we're talking "art-rock going more towards art-pop", but we also got some of that by now, if we think of David Bowie, Adrian Belew (whose direct connection with Anderson could make up an argument, if we weren't so focused on the music, right? ) or even a bit of Zappa. In fact, IMO, if you want 80s Prog, get Bacamarte, if you want 80s ex-Prog-now-Horrible-Pop, you get Yes, if you want 80s progressive, you can try Laurie Anderson (among others...)

If I would have enough time, I would propose the addition to the PR-Team already (with all the responsability to add her, if approved).


Edited by Ricochet - October 22 2008 at 09:40

Ok, here are my two cents: HELL NO.

Prog Related ..  bring her in  

I am not an expert on Laurie Anderson by any means, but I'd like to point out one important fact. If, according to the new guidelines for controversial additions, their presence on other prog sites is one of the defining factors to be taken into account, she is included in the databases of three of the foremost prog sites: ProgressiveEars, GEPR and ProgGnosis. I would take it to mean that there are other knowledgeable people around who consider her output to be at least prog-related.

I won't go into much detail now because I'm just preparing for my daughter's birthday party -- 5 years old today.  Lou Reed is considered prog related by some due to his contributions to Art Rock.  I take a different approach to PR than the site definitions -- personally I would change them especially those percent mentions "Without being 100% Prog" since I don't like such quantification, especially when what is prog is debatable.  If a band is only 99% Prog then is it not suitable for a prog category? I see Prog-Related in part as semi-prog rather than non-prog, or music shares shares similar compositional approaches to artists in prog categories.  Or it just doesn't fit the sites current progressive categories.

The Related to Prog Related relates to comments I sometimes make such as "Sure so and so is prog Related, the question is how closely Related?"  Related to Prog Related is meant in a rather humorous train of thought way.  I've actually mentioned this idea a number of times, only partially seriously.  Please see this topic of mine as it should provide added context: Proto [insert Prog genre] and Related bands (click)
I've humorously suggested a Related to Related to Prog Related category before.


And yes, agree with Sean Trane.  Actually, i don't know how closely her minimalism relates to Can or Kluster -- I've likened her to people like Philip Glass, and various electronic minimalist composers.


Edited by Logan - July 26 2008 at 15:30