Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: General Music Discussions
Forum Description: Discuss and create polls about all types of music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=53665 Printed Date: May 06 2025 at 03:08 Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Is Boston Prog-Related?Posted By: Epignosis
Subject: Is Boston Prog-Related?
Date Posted: November 27 2008 at 06:32
The definition of Prog-Related:
Progressive rock is not a separate universe in music, it’s a genre
among many others, a voice in the chorus and as part of a biggest
scenario has points of contact with other musical genres.
Prog Related is the category that groups bands and artists that:
- Without being 100% Prog, received clear MUSICAL influence of this genre, OR
- Are widely accepted as MUSICALLY influential to the development of Progressive Rock by the community, OR
-
Blend characteristics of Progressive Rock with mainstream elements
creating a final product that despite not being part of the genre is
evident that are close to Prog.
We specify the word MUSICAL
because simple performance of a determined instrument in a Prog or
mainstream band is not justification enough to include an artist, no
matter how virtuoso he/she may be, Prog Archives has to evaluate their
compositional work because the music is what determines the
characteristics of a band or an artist.
Prog Related bands are
not considered part of the genre but they have contributed in some form
in the development of Progressive Rock, the inclusion of a band is
exceptional and only after verifying that it’s a contribution for the
better understanding of Prog among the members and visitors instead of
a source of confusion for the community.
I believe Boston fits this category perfectly.
Exhibit A: Sophisticated organ work. Listen to "Foreplay" from the debut album or "Get Organ-ized" from Walk On
for just two grand examples. The Hammond M-3 on "Foreplay" is doubled
with clavinet, joined by bass, and punctuated with heavy electric
guitars and drumming. In "Get Organ-ized," Tom Scholz uses a Hammond
B-3. The organ solos on "Smokin'" are also noteworthy.
Exhibit B: Sophisticated guitar work. "Hitch a Ride," for example, has
gorgeous acoustic gutiar work followed by guitar solos in the end that
lend the piece a progressive rock arrangement. A few other noteable
songs that fit into this category are "Don't Look Back," "It's Easy,"
and "Walkin' at Night."
Exhibit C: A pop accessibility. Boston is unarguably a highly
comercially popular band that gained success where most progressive
rock bands did not, with a debut album that has been certified 17x
platinum by the RIAA. The songs are generally shorter (every song on
the debut continues to be played on the radio, though some songs enjoy
more play than others), but they are generally more complex in
structure.
Exhibit D: Borderline sci-fi themes. Boston did not only write love
songs, they occasionally wrote pieces relating to space travel (and
using them as metaphors for real life). These include "Don't Look
Back," "The Journey," ""We're Ready," "The Launch," "Cool the Engines,"
"My Destination," and "A New World." The cover art echoes this with
it's iconic UFO art (made of a guitar and a pipe organ).
Exhibit E: More sophisticated arrangements than a typical pop-rock
band. Although many songs do fit into the "verse-chorus" pattern, many
do not. "Hitch a Ride," "Don't Look Back," "A Man I'll Never Be,"
"Hollyann," and the Walk On Medley. Boston gives their listeners
several layers of sound that are absent from most mainstream acts.
Exhibit F: Sophisticated vocal arrangements. The complex harmonies
help give Boston their signature sound. These are evident on most of
their songs.
These are
just the points I could come up with off the top of my head. While I
initially thought Boston might fit the Crossover Prog category, I don't
think the majority of their work would place them there. Still, I think
they would certainly be at home in the Prog-Related category, particularly if both Metallica and Journey have been given the nod.
Replies: Posted By: AlanD
Date Posted: November 27 2008 at 06:38
Still think they sound more FM than prog to my ears - wouldn't turn the radio off if they were on, but certainly won't be rushing out to buy their records!
------------- AlanD
Posted By: npjnpj
Date Posted: November 27 2008 at 07:37
I don't think they qualify, my arguments against this are along the lines of my balking at the inclusion of Ken Hensley. I'm not ashaned to admit that I'm a huge Boston fan, but I just don't detect any Prog.
By the way, it always annoys me that Boston tend to be compared to terrible bands like Journey and Toto. Boston have absolutely NOTHING in common with them. Where on Earth did that originate?
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 27 2008 at 07:44
npjnpj wrote:
By the way, it always annoys me that Boston tend to be compared to terrible bands like Journey and Toto. Boston have absolutely NOTHING in common with them. Where on Earth did that originate?
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: November 27 2008 at 08:06
As much as I agree with you, Boston have been discussed ad nauseum, and the discussions have become very heated and the majority opinion is always that they don't belong here. Also, I know of one special collaborator who might have a stroke if he sees this thread.
-------------
Posted By: E-Dub
Date Posted: November 27 2008 at 08:28
I vote 'no'.
BTW, Boston is referenced in the new Madagascar movie. Pretty funny.
E
-------------
Posted By: Dick Heath
Date Posted: November 27 2008 at 08:37
Prog has become such an abused word here, that any band that moves rock music forward by an iota, gets labelled thus. Scholtz put a theory into practice on the first album, which proved to be largely correct (at least with respect to copies sold). The second album utlilised effects that Scholtz could afford to develop on the royalties made on the first album - or so the story goes. Hence at least the first two progressed something. But as to being in the tradition of "progressive rock", no.
------------- The best eclectic music on the Web,8-11pm BST/GMT THURS.
CLICK ON: http://www.lborosu.org.uk/media/lcr/live.php - http://www.lborosu.org.uk/media/lcr/live.php
Host by PA's Dick Heath.
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 27 2008 at 09:11
Remember, the definition of Prog-Related requires that the band is not progressive rock. Prog-Related is not a sub genre of progressive rock, and this much is made clear.
I just fail to see why Metallica and Journey are included here (no problem with that), but Boston's extended compositions (particularly the instrumentals) deserves notice, I think.
Posted By: kevdog
Date Posted: November 28 2008 at 02:29
If Journey is here, Boston should defiantly be here.
------------- I look at the world and see no understanding...
DT
Posted By: Matti
Date Posted: November 28 2008 at 06:30
Yes from me too. The Third Stage was a great prog-flavoured listening in the late 80's; the album's concept is very well crafted and it includes some fantastic moments. On the whole I don't know Boston's music very well. After hearing Third Stage I bought a 2-LP set of their first two albums and was disappointed at their straighter, rockier approach.
But as already pointed out, Prog-Related is not Prog per se, and that category should be quite open to border cases, IMHO.
Posted By: Queen By-Tor
Date Posted: November 28 2008 at 10:23
I've always found the Walk-On suite to be very prog flavored, as is Fourplay/Long Time, but otherwise I'd say no. And I own all their records
Posted By: MovingPictures07
Date Posted: November 28 2008 at 10:30
King By-Tor wrote:
I've always found the Walk-On suite to be very prog flavored, as is Fourplay/Long Time, but otherwise I'd say no. And I own all their records
I agree.
-------------
Posted By: WinterLight
Date Posted: November 28 2008 at 10:59
Epignosis wrote:
Prog Related is the category that groups bands and artists that:
- Without being 100% Prog, received clear MUSICAL influence of this genre, OR
- Are widely accepted as MUSICALLY influential to the development of Progressive Rock by the community, OR
-
Blend characteristics of Progressive Rock with mainstream elements
creating a final product that despite not being part of the genre is
evident that are close to Prog.
You haven't demonstrated that Boston satisfies the first two conditions. Not sure how from your argument it follows that they're a "perfect fit," as that would imply that they satisfy all three conditions.
Posted By: johnobvious
Date Posted: November 28 2008 at 19:12
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Boston. AC-DC. Def Leppard. Aerosmith. The four bands that drove me away from FM radio forever. I am sick to death of them all. While I would think the other three would never get added, Boston hangs over me like death because one day, one day, they are gonna show up and I am gonna puke.
------------- Biggles was in rehab last Saturday
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: November 28 2008 at 19:48
There are many AOR bands with those qualities (Please, don't five me arguments with the "Exhibit C: A pop accessibility.) like Toto, Europe, Foreigner, etc and not Prog.
But lets give two counter exhibits:
One: They're the most representative band of the AOR tag, as a fact they are an icon of it, other Prog sites consider AOR as Prog Related...We don't.
Two: They have been suggested and rejected at least ten times: like
Poll Question: Boston are they prog related and should they be added ?
Three: As far as I know, they haven't released a new album to justify a new suggestion,
The prosecution rests.
Iván
-------------
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: November 28 2008 at 19:52
Next up, Scorpions
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: November 28 2008 at 20:05
I think Boston has some Prog relation, but I don't know if its enough to warrant inclusion or make the addition worthwhile, nor do I, from a personal standpoint, want to see the band here. In fact, I'd say that there are many more worthwhile cases that have been proposed to PR and never been accepted. I'd rather PR not be the bastion of classic rock staples that have some proggy qualities about them, and instead be used more as a place for truly progressive bands/ artists that don't fit Prog expectations.
------------- Watching while most appreciating a sunset in the moment need not diminish all the glorious sunsets I observed before. It can be much like that with music for me; immersed in experiencing the moment.
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: November 28 2008 at 20:06
Logan wrote:
I think Boston has some Prog relation, but I don't know if its enough to warrant inclusion or make the addition worthwhile, nor do I, from a personal standpoint, want to see the band here. In fact, I'd say that there are many more worthwhile cases that have been proposed to PR and never been accepted. I'd rather PR not be the bastion of classic rock staples that have some proggy qualities about them, and instead be used more as a place for truly progressive bands/ artists that don't fit Prog expectations.
Iván
-------------
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 28 2008 at 20:17
I was wondering when you might pop in, Ivan. And no. Not "'nuff said." Far from it.
"Prog-Related" is a nonsense category, then. So nebulous is its definition, that the likes of Journey, Metallica, and Blue Oyster Cult make the grade but Boston, with so many progressive guitar arrangements and keyboard passages (if Emerson had written "Foreplay" or "Get Organ-ized," I'm certain it would be another hailed credit to his catelogue) is passed by because they're played a lot on the radio?
Ridiculous.
Ivan, your comment that "other Prog sites consider AOR as Prog Related...We don't" is patent and utter foolishness. To quote you, "please." Refer to this:
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 28 2008 at 20:19
Logan wrote:
I'd rather PR not be the bastion of classic rock staples that have some proggy qualities about them, and instead be used more as a place for truly progressive bands/ artists that don't fit Prog expectations.
Journey? "Don't Stop Believin'" and all that? I'm afraid I'll never understand it.
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: November 28 2008 at 20:26
WinterLight wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Prog Related is the category that groups bands and artists that:
- Without being 100% Prog, received clear MUSICAL influence of this genre, OR
- Are widely accepted as MUSICALLY influential to the development of Progressive Rock by the community, OR
- Blend characteristics of Progressive Rock with mainstream elements creating a final product that despite not being part of the genre is evident that are close to Prog.
You haven't demonstrated that Boston satisfies the first two conditions. Not sure how from your argument it follows that they're a "perfect fit," as that would imply that they satisfy all three conditions.
I don't much care one way or another about Boston's addition or omission, but I disagree with your premise here, WinterLight. The above-indicated 'conditions" are linked by the word "OR'" not "and." The use of "or" indicates that fulfilling any one of the three possible conditions for admission is sufficient. Furthermore, fulfilling all three conditions would be logically impossible anyway. Consider the first two conditions: a band cannot have "received clear musical influences" (from) prog, and yet have also been "musically influential to the development of Progressive Pock."
Your argument with Epignosis in this manner thus has no logical merit. It seems you did not read those conditions very carefully. Simply put, OR does not mean AND.
That being said, I believe that it is prog that is "rock related," (as in being an offshoot or offspring) not rock that is "related to prog." All rock, especially all late 60s - mid 70s rock, is "related" to prog, because prog is a subcategory of rock. Rock includes and envelopes prog -- blues is the root, rock is the trunk -- but prog is a mere branch. It's much like evolution: prog came from rock -- rock did not come from prog. In that sense, prog is obviously "related" to 50s rock and roll, and then blues and early country and western (the forerunners of rock).
So if we are looking for prog's "relations," we might as well include all classic rock, especially, it seems, if it includes keyboards or songs over four minutes in length....
I really don't like this make-believe "related" category. I think it's nothing but trouble, and revisionist cherry-picking of favoured rock artists by individuals, largely according to their tastes, much along the lines of "I'm a prog fan, so the other old rock I like must be related to prog..."
But as I said, and really mean, I don't care if Boston are added or not. One band more will make very little difference,and "my" progressive rock will still be here. I know what I think progressive rock includes, and what I think it does not include. There are already hundreds of bands listed here (in supposed "prog" sub-genres) which I will never regard as being what I think of as prog.
Sorry folks, but it all started with the re-labeling of metal as "prog." If there is prog metal (and prog folk) then logically there is "prog" in all major popular genres -- prog country, prog punk, prog hip hop, etc. ("Prog" has been made to equate here to basically "more complicated, notably different than average, less commercial or just better." The term has far outlived its usefulness, or ability to convey a single meaning, or to indicate a single type of music. "Prog" is now a highly subjective value judgment appended to many genres. It is not a genre, though many still act as if it is, and as if the term carried a widely-agreed upon meaning or scope. We have "prog" rock, "prog" death metal and "prog" folk, etc, here now -- and now we look for what is "related" to all of that.
The "related" category simply puts longstanding (mostly classic rock) acts in a sort of new second-class ghetto here, and sets them up for reviews in which their great albums are given artificially low ratings on a skewed, biased scale.
A music site cannot be both exclusive, and yet so widely inclusive -- unless "prog" now just means GOOD. There is no unity of vision or direction, no unifying principle to all of this vast, wildly varied scope of music. There are far too many "cooks in the kitchen," and "prog" remains a hopelessly subjective and contentious way to categorize music. It is the "genre" that does not exist (at least, not any more -- if it ever truly did).
It is just something for "serious" music fans to argue endlessly about, I guess....
------------- "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy.
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: November 28 2008 at 20:32
It should be noted the huge number of non-Prog bands during the bulk of the 1970s that were 'prog related', Prog's influence deeply felt across styles and sales charts, even dominating the popular markets for a very brief time.
Boston? No. The tiny amount of material they produced was not related to Prog, it was impacted by Prog's cultural obsession
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 28 2008 at 20:35
Atavachron wrote:
It should be noted the huge number of non-Prog bands during the bulk of the 1970s that were 'prog related', Prog's influence deeply felt across styles and sales charts, even dominating the popular markets for a very brief time.
Boston? No. The tiny amount of material they produced was not related to Prog, it was impacted by Prog's cultural obsession
And Journey? Two or three scarcely related albums compared to pop-rock releases out the wazoo?
No one seems to want to explain Boston's exclusion in light of Journey's inclusion.
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: November 28 2008 at 20:38
you mean the first Journey album compared to Boston's thimble full of barely progrelated material ?
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: November 28 2008 at 20:40
BTW Journey has an actual genetic relation to progressive rock music, formed by Santana members
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 28 2008 at 20:42
Atavachron wrote:
you mean the first Journey album compared to Boston's thimble full of barely progrelated material ?
So one album justifies the inclusion of thirteen studio albums of pop-rock, two live albums of pop-rock, three box sets and compilations of pop-rock, and two EPs of pop-rock?
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: November 28 2008 at 21:26
Epignosis wrote:
I was wondering when you might pop in, Ivan. And no. Not "'nuff said." Far from it.
They have been rejected ten times...again...Nuff said
"Prog-Related" is a nonsense category, then.
Prog Related is perfectlly designed, Boston doesn't influence anybody, is not important for Prog and the argument that they are influenced by soome prog band is at least up to debate.
Plus the last part is clear...IT'S EXCEPTIIONAL, we have tio evaluate if the band is a contribution to Prog, and Boston is not.
So nebulous is its definition, that the likes of Journey, Metallica, and Blue Oyster Cult make the grade but Boston, with so many progressive guitar arrangements and keyboard passages
Bands are accepted by their own meruits, I don't agree witth some you mention and I believe it's a mistake, but a mistake doesn't justify another mistake.
(if Emerson had written "Foreplay" or "Get Organ-ized," I'm certain it would be another hailed credit to his catelogue) is passed by because they're played a lot on the radio?
But he didn't wrote it, it was Boston a song or two barely related to Prog don't justify an inclusion.
BTW: More popular bands than Boston with as least the same airplay like STYX, ELO, Queen, Supertramp and even Kansas are here, Dark Side of the Moon was the best sold album of history for several years and is respected, so your argument about popularity makes water.
Ridiculous.
Ridiculous is the desperation to add a barely related band to a prog site, a band that will contribute in nothing to the knowledge of Prog, focus in real Prog bands.
Ivan, your comment that "other Prog sites consider AOR as Prog Related...We don't" is patent and utter foolishness. To quote you, "please." Refer to this:
They can accept Boston because they believe AOR is Prog, we don't have that category so we don't believe AOR = BOSTON is Prog, so before saying foolish...READ AND RESEARCH.
Now to the list you quote, that list is crap, I give them the same credibility than I give to yahoo Music.
In first place, Genesis never made AOR, it was simple and pure POP during the three men era
Kansas had one or two AOR songs, but also pure Prog material and in more amount, only ignorants that have heard this two tracks exclusively, qualify them as AOR.
STYX was an AOR band, but is added here because of their first three albums
Journey is AOR but simultaneously has Jazzy leanings
Supertramp is anything but AOR, closer to Classic Rock, Light Prog and even Pop than to AOR?
But read what they say about Boston IN THE SITE YOU QUOTED:
http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=AoOn.ORUvKmPWZMrPzyVIoXLwSUv/SIG=11ekru2h7/**http%3A//music.yahoo.com/ar-284577---Boston - Boston : Unlike Supertramp, Boston defined AOR by design. Tom Scholz was a tech wiz and a perfectionist who set out to record the perfect rock album. The self-titled debut album took years and when it was done it took years for people to tire of it, as it continued to sell and excite long past most albums’ expiration date.
It's the site you quote, and repeats what I said without even having read it.
And do take note of #1, which is a new addition here under what? Not "Prog-Related," but "Crossover Prog."
Yes, and also Kansas is in Symphonic, but Kansas released:
Kansas
Song For America
Masque
Leftoverture
Point of Know Return
Monolith
Two for the Show.
This proves the list is written probably by somebody who onlly heard Dust in the Wind and believes that's all.
The day Boston gets such number of great Prog Releases, call me.
Epignosis wrote:
Gee, if Justin Timberlake had been a member of Yes in the 1990s, I don't doubt that we'd have seen some really weird stuff included here.
Gee, if the martians had sex with earth people there would be green children.
What in hell has Justin Timberlake has to do here? Not more than the horny martians.
I'm out of here, won't get angry for nothing.
Iván has left the building.
Iván
-------------
Posted By: WinterLight
Date Posted: November 28 2008 at 22:08
Peter wrote:
I don't much care one way or another about Boston's addition or omission...
Same here.
...but I disagree with your premise here, WinterLight. The above-indicated 'conditions" are linked by the word "OR'" not "and." The use of "or" indicates that fulfilling any one of the three possible conditions for admission is sufficient.
Observe that my objection was to the use of the phrase "perfect fit." Indeed, you are quite correct that satisfaction of any of the three disjuncts would satisfy the given definition; however, perfect fit really does connote that all three disjuncts are satisfied. Your confusion may stem from the distinction between the object language and metalanguage--but let's face it: we're not exactly aiming for logical rigor on the forum.
Furthermore, fulfilling all three conditions would be logically impossible anyway. Consider the first two conditions: a band cannot have "received clear musical influences" (from) prog, and yet have also been "musically influential to the development of Progressive Pock."
Don't see how the one condition precludes the other. Surely, Dream Theater is a modern counterexample. Moreover, I imagine that most of the seminal prog bands "fed" off each other's creative development.
Your argument with Epignosis in this manner thus has no logical merit. It seems you did not read those conditions very carefully.
I'm afraid that you've jumped the gun here, my friend. See my above remarks for an explanation.
Simply put, OR does not mean AND.
Actually, when viewed as logical constants neither "or" nor "and" have a literal meaning, at least until one defines the semantics for a given theory. What you really mean to say is that the conventional valuations for "or" and "and" are not identical, i.e. they are distinct Boolean-valued functions. Even so, I'm still not sure what "or" or "and", in particular the latter, really denotes.
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 29 2008 at 08:31
Ivan, you missed my point in quoting the list. My point was that "AOR" is about as meaningless a category as "Prog Related."
The more I read Peter's extended post, the more I realize he is
articulating something I've had in my gut for a long time, but never
could put my finger on, and this little poll confirms: Prog Related
is:
Peter wrote:
nothing but trouble, and revisionist cherry-picking of favoured
rock artists by individuals, largely according to their tastes, much
along the lines of "I'm a prog fan, so the other old rock I like must
be related to prog..."
That said, I suppose I too will bow out. Thanks, Peter.
PS- Ivan, once again, I'm sorry if my verbiage comes across as abrasive.
Posted By: Queen By-Tor
Date Posted: November 29 2008 at 12:55
Epignosis wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Ivan, you missed my point in quoting the list. My point was that "AOR" is about as meaningless a categoryas "Prog Related."
Then lets stop making it grow out of control with barely related bands that shouldn't be here.
BTW: Apology accepted
Iván
Sure, I can live with that.
Oh, one more thing- I hope you have a pleasant Thanksgiving (if you celebrated it Thursday in Peru- I know Canadians don't ).
It's kind of an American thing, man
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 29 2008 at 14:46
King By-Tor wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Ivan, you missed my point in quoting the list. My point was that "AOR" is about as meaningless a categoryas "Prog Related."
Then lets stop making it grow out of control with barely related bands that shouldn't be here.
BTW: Apology accepted
Iván
Sure, I can live with that.
Oh, one more thing- I hope you have a pleasant Thanksgiving (if you celebrated it Thursday in Peru- I know Canadians don't ).
It's kind of an American thing, man
Is it because everyone else in the world are a bunch of ingrates, or because we here in America are only grateful for what we have one lousy day a year?
Posted By: Queen By-Tor
Date Posted: November 29 2008 at 19:10
Epignosis wrote:
King By-Tor wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Ivan, you missed my point in quoting the list. My point was that "AOR" is about as meaningless a categoryas "Prog Related."
Then lets stop making it grow out of control with barely related bands that shouldn't be here.
BTW: Apology accepted
Iván
Sure, I can live with that.
Oh, one more thing- I hope you have a pleasant Thanksgiving (if you celebrated it Thursday in Peru- I know Canadians don't ).
It's kind of an American thing, man
Is it because everyone else in the world are a bunch of ingrates, or because we here in America are only grateful for what we have one lousy day a year?
Dude, Thanksgiving is about Settlers and the Pilgrims, not literally "being thankful" - which is why AMERICANS who settled in AMERICA celebrate it
Posted By: MovingPictures07
Date Posted: November 29 2008 at 19:13
Since when was this thread about Thanksgiving?
-------------
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 29 2008 at 19:39
King By-Tor wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
King By-Tor wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Ivan, you missed my point in quoting the list. My point was that "AOR" is about as meaningless a categoryas "Prog Related."
Then lets stop making it grow out of control with barely related bands that shouldn't be here.
BTW: Apology accepted
Iván
Sure, I can live with that.
Oh, one more thing- I hope you have a pleasant Thanksgiving (if you celebrated it Thursday in Peru- I know Canadians don't ).
It's kind of an American thing, man
Is it because everyone else in the world are a bunch of ingrates, or because we here in America are only grateful for what we have one lousy day a year?
Dude, Thanksgiving is about Settlers and the Pilgrims, not literally "being thankful" - which is why AMERICANS who settled in AMERICA celebrate it
Exactly. We Native Americans have nothing to do with it.
Posted By: Intruder
Date Posted: December 01 2008 at 04:42
Boston is to Yes as the Rasberries are to the Beatles....Kansas is to Genesis as Poco is to CSNY.....Foreigner is to Led Zeppelin as Billy Joel is to Bob Dylan.
There are acts that mine Top 40 gold by bending popular sounds and styles into a shiny package suitable for that steady selling 12-24 age bracket....corporate rock! Boston is the Yes of corporate rock just as Kansas is its Genesis and Foreigner its Led Zep. Of course this was 30 years ago....I really couldn't tell you what goes on in the Top 40 these days.
------------- I like to feel the suspense when you're certain you know I am there.....
Posted By: Mandrakeroot
Date Posted: December 01 2008 at 05:37
jammun wrote:
Next up, Scorpions
Uhm... With Judas priest (for 'Rockarolla' and 'Sad Wings Of Destiny') and Saxon (for 'Saxon')...
Boston is a borderline band between Prog Related and AOR... But sure is not a band for this site because no Boston's song have Prog sentiment.
For me...:
Boston: NO!
Scorpions: NO!
Judas Priest: NO... But sure have produced two Prog albums!
Saxon: Their 1st album is Prog... But for the rest of career... NO!
these are 4 bands that someone could also be argued that are PR (and may even be) but that does not go well for a site like PA!
-------------
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: December 01 2008 at 10:21
Mandrakeroot wrote:
jammun wrote:
Next up, Scorpions
Scorpions: NO!
Judas Priest: NO... But sure have produced two Prog albums!
Um, Lonesome Crow and Fly To The Rainbow, especially the former, have quite a lot of prog elements, perhaps more so than Black Sabbath and Blue Oyster Cult, who are on the archives. Not that I want to see either - JP or Scorpions - on the archives because I honestly don't think prog-related is a very good idea. Everyone would be familiar with the bands I mentioned unless he/she was living under a rock or something, so if prog heads exploring new horizons is the idea, it is not served by adding well known bands. And again, if you add obscure bands with a tenuous connection to prog, the obvious question will be what they are doing here. Just my two cents!
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: December 03 2008 at 15:44
In response to the poll: Noooooooooo way.
Posted By: someone_else
Date Posted: December 05 2008 at 08:30
I agree with you about Boston being prog related, but it is '2nd label', as most PR bands are.
Still there are some bands on PA which are less prog related than Boston, so I vote 'Yes'.
Posted By: jimidom
Date Posted: December 05 2008 at 09:11
someone_else wrote:
I agree with you about Boston being prog related, but it is '2nd label', as most PR bands are.
Still there are some bands on PA which are less prog related than Boston, so I vote 'Yes'.
Exactly! That's why I voted yes as well.
------------- "The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." - HST
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: December 05 2008 at 10:16
someone_else wrote:
Still there are some bands on PA which are less prog related than Boston, so I vote 'Yes'.
With respect Someone else, that argument is not valid...."I vote for X even when it's a 2nd label, because there are other bands that have less reasons to be here"
Each band is here for it's Prog characteristics or is not for the lack of them, as simple as that, we don't compare two bands or have a progometer to know which one are here,k this has ceratin degree of subjectivity.
But adding somebody, even we know is not just because another non PR was added...well, I disagree witth that.
My 2 cents.
Iván
-------------
Posted By: jimidom
Date Posted: December 05 2008 at 11:32
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
someone_else wrote:
Still there are some bands on PA which are less prog related than Boston, so I vote 'Yes'.
With respect Someone else, that argument is not valid...."I vote for X even when it's a 2nd label, because there are other bands that have less reasons to be here"
Each band is here for it's Prog characteristics or is not for the lack of them, as simple as that, we don't compare two bands or have a progometer to know which one are here,k this has ceratin degree of subjectivity.
But adding somebody, even we know is not just because another non PR was added...well, I disagree witth that.
My 2 cents.
Iván
That totally makes sense in theory. In practice, however, the reality is that there have been a few bands added who are less "prog-related" than a few of those rejected. Too bad there isn't a "progmeter".
------------- "The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." - HST
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: December 05 2008 at 12:01
jimidom wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
someone_else wrote:
Still there are some bands on PA which are less prog related than Boston, so I vote 'Yes'.
With respect Someone else, that argument is not valid...."I vote for X even when it's a 2nd label, because there are other bands that have less reasons to be here"
Each band is here for it's Prog characteristics or is not for the lack of them, as simple as that, we don't compare two bands or have a progometer to know which one are here,k this has ceratin degree of subjectivity.
But adding somebody, even we know is not just because another non PR was added...well, I disagree witth that.
My 2 cents.
Iván
That totally makes sense in theory. In practice, however, the reality is that there have been a few bands added who are less "prog-related" than a few of those rejected. Too bad there isn't a "progmeter".
Another member suggested that there be a "general exceptions" category. I totally support that idea, and I think it's quite a feasible solution.
So Journey's first two or three albums might go in there, while the rest of their pop-rock discography can be left off the site.
Posted By: The Quiet One
Date Posted: December 05 2008 at 12:11
^yeah, I was thinking similar to that few hours ago. I would apply that to all Prog-Related bands, though it would be a mess/chaos to delete albums that don't have prog leanings, lots of reviews in vain and other important stuff.
Posted By: Queen By-Tor
Date Posted: December 05 2008 at 12:55
Epignosis wrote:
jimidom wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
someone_else wrote:
Still there are some bands on PA which are less prog related than Boston, so I vote 'Yes'.
With respect Someone else, that argument is not valid...."I vote for X even when it's a 2nd label, because there are other bands that have less reasons to be here"
Each band is here for it's Prog characteristics or is not for the lack of them, as simple as that, we don't compare two bands or have a progometer to know which one are here,k this has ceratin degree of subjectivity.
But adding somebody, even we know is not just because another non PR was added...well, I disagree witth that.
My 2 cents.
Iván
That totally makes sense in theory. In practice, however, the reality is that there have been a few bands added who are less "prog-related" than a few of those rejected. Too bad there isn't a "progmeter".
Another member suggested that there be a "general exceptions" category. I totally support that idea, and I think it's quite a feasible solution.
So Journey's first two or three albums might go in there, while the rest of their pop-rock discography can be left off the site.
General exceptions = whatever the hell we feel like?
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: December 05 2008 at 13:20
King By-Tor wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
jimidom wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
someone_else wrote:
Still there are some bands on PA which are less prog related than Boston, so I vote 'Yes'.
With respect Someone else, that argument is not valid...."I vote for X even when it's a 2nd label, because there are other bands that have less reasons to be here"
Each band is here for it's Prog characteristics or is not for the lack of them, as simple as that, we don't compare two bands or have a progometer to know which one are here,k this has ceratin degree of subjectivity.
But adding somebody, even we know is not just because another non PR was added...well, I disagree witth that.
My 2 cents.
Iván
That totally makes sense in theory. In practice, however, the reality is that there have been a few bands added who are less "prog-related" than a few of those rejected. Too bad there isn't a "progmeter".
Another member suggested that there be a "general exceptions" category. I totally support that idea, and I think it's quite a feasible solution.
So Journey's first two or three albums might go in there, while the rest of their pop-rock discography can be left off the site.
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: December 05 2008 at 20:49
jimidom wrote:
That totally makes sense in theory. In practice, however, the reality is that there have been a few bands added who are less "prog-related" than a few of those rejected. Too bad there isn't a "progmeter".
Please, if those bands are a mistake, and I agree some are...Does it means we have to make it worst adding other non related bands?
Iván
-------------
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: December 05 2008 at 21:15
I have developed a progometer and on a scale of 1 to 10, it indicates Boston rates about a 2. So we just need to determine the threshold number (2?, 3?, 4?) for prog-related.
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: December 05 2008 at 21:22
Hell is a never ending Boston thread
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: December 05 2008 at 21:34
There actually is a "progometer," you know.
It's called your BRAIN, and it's strongly supported by your gut and heart.
The only problem with it is, yours only works for YOU, mine only works for me, etc....
------------- "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy.
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: December 05 2008 at 21:42
Peter wrote:
There actually is a "progometer," you know.
It's called your BRAIN, and it's strongly supported by your gut and heart.
The only problem with it is, yours only works for YOU, mine only works for me, etc....
Actually Peter, mine is a highly proprietary technology to analyze a band's output.
Among the things it considers:
The Melody, Chord Structure, and Rhythm of each song.
Lyrics, if any. If lyrics lean towards standard pop (love of a man or woman or lack thereof), then the progometer subtracts points. If the lyrics are either just flat out unintelligible, or dealing with demons, wizards, rearranging of livers, or other arcane subjects, progometer adds points.
Album cover art. Self-explanatory.
Has the band had hit singles? If so, were they edits of the album cut? If they are edited, the band rates higher on the progometer, since the record company was obviously desperate to fit the band's musical output into the standard AM format of the time.
Competency of the musicians in the band.
Historical context. Was the band doing anything progressive for the time, or were they just following along?
These are then weighted by proprietary algorthm.
So let's look at Louie Louie (Kingsmen version):
Melody is simple so 0 points. Chord structure is simple (I, IV, V) but off-notes are added to the standard triad so 2 points. Rhythm is primitive so 0 point.
Lyrics appear to deal with love but are unintelligible, so only 1 point.
Hiistorical context indicates they were just copying what everyone else did, except the lyrics were possibly dirty: 1 point.
Cover art: was there any? 0 points.
Hit single: yes, 0 points since it wasn't an edit of a longer album track.
Competency of the musicians: they appear to be minimally competent: 1 point.
Progometer calculates something below 1.
Shall we do a Boston album???
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: December 05 2008 at 21:47
could be fun now that you've laid it out
*shudders at potential raging debate*
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: December 05 2008 at 22:10
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: December 05 2008 at 22:23
Damn, now I'm going to have to listen to my wife's LP of Don't Look Back and run it through the proprietary progmeter algorithms.
I forgot to mention progometer also looks at album notes, and has evaluated the "No Synthesizers Used" statement on the inner gatefold of the album somewhat negatively. Progometer specifically looks for use of synthesizers.
On the plus side, progometer rates guitar/spaceship/UFO covers rather highly, especially if planets are shown as well.
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: December 05 2008 at 22:37
jammun wrote:
Damn, now I'm going to have to listen to my wife's LP of Don't Look Back and run it through the proprietary progmeter algorithms.
I forgot to mention progometer also looks at album notes, and has evaluated the "No Synthesizers Used" statement on the inner gatefold of the album somewhat negatively. Progometer specifically looks for use of synthesizers.
On the plus side, progometer rates guitar/spaceship/UFO covers rather highly, especially if planets are shown as well.
To tell you the truth, I hated synthesizers when I was younger. And to a degree, I still cringe at them sometime. To
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: December 05 2008 at 22:56
Epignosis wrote:
jammun wrote:
Damn, now I'm going to have to listen to my wife's LP of Don't Look Back and run it through the proprietary progmeter algorithms.
I forgot to mention progometer also looks at album notes, and has evaluated the "No Synthesizers Used" statement on the inner gatefold of the album somewhat negatively. Progometer specifically looks for use of synthesizers.
On the plus side, progometer rates guitar/spaceship/UFO covers rather highly, especially if planets are shown as well.
To tell you the truth, I hated synthesizers when I was younger. And to a degree, I still cringe at them sometime. To
Not to worry, progometer does not specifically subtract points for lack of synth unless synth priority is set to high (else many bands would be in trouble). So if keyboard competency is weighted to 10=Keith Emerson and 1=Eddie Van Halen then it will not overevalutate synthesizer presence. However It is programmed to subtract outright dissing of synths in liner notes.
By the way, it's currently analyzing Don't Look Back and is rating lyrics rather on the down side:
"So come on, put your hands together You know it's now or never, take a chance on rock 'n' roll "
On the other hand, it's rating competency of the guitarist rather highly.
The developers of progmeter are evaluating whether or not this should be user configurable in the final released version. Current beta settings are Sky Saxon=1 and Jeff Beck=10. Of course if it's user configurable then user could set Robert Fripp=1, which could cause obvious problems. Probable solution is to set certain predefined minimum/maximum values for every known guitarist. This will cause serious cost overruns for Progometer development, which frankly we can't afford in the current economy.
That Don't Look Back is a pretty good album, probably not prog-related.
Posted By: Alberto Muñoz
Date Posted: December 06 2008 at 01:23
mmmmmmmmmmm....ehhhhhh...ah......... oh....... sure.......ehhhhhmmmmmm.......... i don't know
Well the above is a joke, but i think that Boston is a less prog band and more Adult Oriented Rock, a good one BTW
-------------
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: December 06 2008 at 09:43
I think the point we can take from this is that it's all subjective. Progometer could in fact be developed, but the parameters it would use to evaluate would of necessity be subjective (which Peter has already pointed out).
npjnpj wrote:
[26.83%]
).
It's called your BRAIN, and it's strongly supported by your gut and heart.
The only problem with it is, yours only works for YOU, mine only works for me, etc.... 
