a scary consideration today about Black S

I honestly stop caring for proto-prog or prog related additions a while ago so I won't care if I see them out or in PA, but I will say that they did influenced prog bands one way or another and this can be seen in the stoner rock bands that are getting added in the psych rock genre, like The Wizard previously said, or the "post-metal" bands in the prog metal category.

The T wrote: It's sad that that "stop, cut it off here" always comes woth prog-metal, never before so "progressive" additions like The Who

Read above post. You obviously misunderstood my intentions.

Hirgwath wrote: "I agree, since I've just heard Beethoven and Mozart as wise ideas. This is criminal. From Sabbath to Hendrix and Dylan, all this has been waken up by the addition of Who." Were you referring to me? I was using them hypothetically to make the point that it's ridiculous to add Sabbath or Metallica. I am definitely not in favor of including any of those musicians or composers. Well, with the possible exception of Hendrix in proto-prog. I think that if you include the Beatles there, you might as well include Hendrix. But anyway, I don't think the inclusion of Beethoven in Mozart in the Prog Archives is anything other than a silly idea.

well that's a relief, though you still said they would be some kind of proto-symphonic-prog influence, and that's also silly.

I don't think Hendrix is in a relation with Beatles.

1800iareyay wrote: Only the dio and beyond work is in any way related to prog, which rules them out of proto b/c the dio era came not during but after prog's golden age.

I'd have to disagree with that... but it also points out the different views of what Sabbath did that was progressive, or 'proto-ProgMetal', and perhaps why they would be an inappropriate addition.

A lot of the bands in the psychedelic/space rock category fall into the stoner rock category, which definetely has heavy Sabbath influence, so I can kinda understand why they could be proto-prog.

... I find it interesting that some still think A equals B... the Who and their inclusion on PA has nothing to do with any other artists, and the music of Cream or Hendrix have nothing to do with the Who. Each artist will be independently assessed... why is that so hard to understand ?





Edited by Atavachron - July 24 2007 at 20:46

It's so interesting that, whenever one of this pseudo-interesting acts like The Who gets included, everybody starts asking for the inclusion of their favorite bands and the ones they think influenced prog in any way, like I did with Metallica.

Edited by The T - July 24 2007 at 20:25

stonebeard wrote: Stop. Just cut it off here.

I agree, since I've just heard Beethoven and Mozart as wise ideas.

This is criminal. From Sabbath to Hendrix and Dylan, all this has been waken up by the addition of Who.

Sabbath can't be proto-prog. It's a matter of definitions. Proto-prog is supposed to be the proggy stuff that came before prog, but Sabbath started at around the same time as the real prog movement, and was never considered a part of it.

Early Sabbath strikes me as vaguely prog-related, but I'd sooner see Jimi Hendrix included than the early Sabbath albums.

Also, the fact that they (and Metallica) influenced prog-metal is basically irrelevant. Are we going to include Woody Guthrie and Bob Dylan because they're proto-prog-folk? Should we include Mozart and Beethoven because they're proto-symphonic-prog? (Admittedly, I love all of those musicians/composers, but this is a *prog* website).

Hatters wrote: Black Sabbath are way more prog than a  lot of bands on here IMO. They are responsible the whole Doom Metal movement and some of the metal bands on here are obviously heavily influenced by them. However I think we need to sort out all the bands that have been added that everyone is complaining about before adding any more bands that are on the borders of Prog.

Probably a sensible conclusion