Should there be a new Category?

 

Well I think we still just as many problems now I don't think prog related is perfect, also Art Rock section has its problems - yes King Crimson belongs there but I don't think Van Der Graff Generator does etc so there are still disputes, the fact that Bitches Brew by Miles Davis on this site is also a problem, I still think a strict criteria still should apply, infact I think It'll improve everything a lot we can dump all the Beatles early stuff, they certainly don't belong on this site. Its down to the question is this particular album prog? if it is it belongs here if not it doesn't. I'm not talking about AOR stuff like Greendays latest album, I'm talking about pure prog here. Its basically kicking out all the dead wait that isn't prog on this website like the non prog Styx albums? while having classic prog albums that are here.

 

I get your point, The Beatles are not mainly Prog (Except SPLHCB and Abbey Road) and Genesis is the best Prog band ever (That's what I honestly believe).

 

But I do believe their albums after Duke should be deleted.

 

I like the idea, as i said I see no reasoon why Their Satanic Majesties Request is not here, but the risk of some inadequate additions that would attempt against the nature and essense of this site is too high.

 

Iván

 

Yeah I don't like the Beatles there either, good point.

 

In addition, it wil further dilute this site by shifting the focus away from the truly progressive artists.

 

Quite some time ago, before many of you joined, it was decided by "the powers that be" (the owners -- and this site is NOT a democracy; nor am I saying it should be) that once an artist was in, then the entire discography of that artist would be in.

The entire notion of "prog or not/where the cutoff point for an artist should be" is VERY subjective, because "prog" itself is a subjective notion. Unlike, for example, jazz or blues, "prog" is not really a genre, but a subjective value judgement -- it is in the "ear of the hearer," so to speak. (Just think of the wide range of very diverse artists represented here: for example, we have Yes, Deep Purple, Dream Theater, some "death" metal, Talk Talk, Queen, Radiohead, the Beatles, etc, etc. The "connections" or  "common ground" among all of those artists are tenuous at best!

 

Also, consider all of the artists that are regularly held up for potential inclusion: we've had everyone from Talking Heads to Steely Dan to Black Sabbath. Clearly, again, "prog" is a very subjective notion (that is what I mean when I say that it "doesn't really exist") that is up to each of us to privately define. If you think Talking Heads, Sabbath, early Genesis and Steely Dan belong together, then great: burn your homemade "prog" compilation and arrange your collection accordingly (but don't expect others to necessarily "buy into" your vision of "prog").

 

No, I see partial representation of an artist as just one more thing to argue about, divide us, and make the site even more exclusive (whereas the owners want PA to be inclusive) and elitest.

 

As another person has suggested above, I think we have too many "hair-splitting," amorphous categories already. As I've said many times, art is not math or science -- our words and "definitions" cannot neatly contain it. It is not an intellectual exercise -- it lives more in the heart of the individual, not the head. All of these "boxes" of words (and words are open to interpretation) we keep designing for the "categorization" of music simply do not work -- except, perhaps, on an individual listener basis. (And that's also the reason to drop the words which accompany the star ratings!)

 

Let the individual reviews address the (subjective) issues of "progginess!"

 

I find it interesting that all of the "oldest" members - Peter, Ivan, Video Vertigo - are the ones trying to explain why the idea is probably not a good one.

 

As another veteran member (and one of the first, if not the first, admin), I must agree with them.  In fact, it was I who first brought up this idea over three years ago - before many of the "debated" bands were included (Radiohead, Queen, Beatles et al).  At that time, I suggested a category for prog (or proggish) albums by non-prog groups.  I was thinking of everything from Revolver, Pepper and MMT by The Beatles, to Original Soundtrack and How Dare You by 10CC, to English Settlement and Mummer by XTC, etc.  I even argued that the inclusion of Supertramp was a mistake, since only their second album and Crime of the Century could truly be considered "prog" or "proggish."

 

My suggestion met with an approximately equal amount of support and rejection.  But it was the wisdom of veterans like Peter and Ivan that convinced me I was going down the wrong road, for the very reason that Peter makes clear (and that cheesecakemouse seems to be missing or ignoring): how does one determine which albums by which groups are "prog" or "proggish" when no "conclusive" definition of "prog" can be agreed upon?  And even if such a definition could be generally agreed upon, how does one determine the "degree" of "proggyness" of a particular album? What are the parameters?  Who decides?

 

Peter, Ivan and VV (among others) are correct: this idea - which is admittedly well-intentioned and even, to some degree, well-argued (just as mine was) - is an unnecessary and potentially divisive one - more divisive than most of you are able to see right now in your well-intentioned, but ultimately limited, focus on the seeming merits of the idea.

 

Peace.