redefining Proto Prog and Prog Related

chopper wrote: It's a mistake a lot of people have made. Because the Beatles are on the site, people assume we are saying they are a prog band - we're not. We need to make the distinction clear and we need to concentrate on the real prog genres more. I don't have a problem with the names but pp and pr should be removed from the PA Top 100.

of course we focus in on the real prog groups... but we can't ignore that it is those categories that are the cause of much of the discontent around here. 

hahhaha... I'd hope you wouldn't Alan..  but the constant confusion with others here, is what is behind this proposal to change the names of those categories.  To help the site get past it.. and worry about other things such as those real prog groups that get added everyday... yet who notices.  They are bickering as to how the Who are a prog group.

Personally, I like the site the way it is. I am continually mystified by why some people get so angry about inclusions they disagree with. Anyone who would stop visiting this excellent resource because the Who are listed is a fool.

I wwouldn't be angry about the name change you suggest, and perhaps it would clear up some confusion, but if it caqame to a vote I would say keep things the way they are.

chopper wrote: It's a mistake a lot of people have made. Because the Beatles are on the site, people assume we are saying they are a prog band - we're not. We need to make the distinction clear and we need to concentrate on the real prog genres more. I don't have a problem with the names but pp and pr should be removed from the PA Top 100.

Actually, the idea of a redefinition (including a possible name change) was mine, if you look at the thread I started a few days ago in the Help Us Improve the Site section. I am a linguist by background, which means I know how important the correct wording can be. Many people only see the 'prog' part in PP and PR, as well as seeing both categories listed together with the 'real' prog genres. Moreover, I think 'proto-prog' is a misnomer, as it implies the bands and artists included in the category were prog before prog came into being, not that they influenced its development (as it is often the case).

As concerns the removal of PP/PR albums from the Top 100, I understand your point perfectly, even though I couldn't care less about that list - nor am I particularly upset by seeing "Quadrophenia" or "Machine Head" in it, or by finding "Who's Next" mentioned as Album of the Week. However, I agree that we need to be consistent: if we keep on saying that the acts included in PP or PR are not prog, we cannot have albums by those acts appear in a PROG Top 100.

In my very humble opinion, we should continue having reviews of those albums, and be able to give them 5 stars - however, the definitions should be changed, scrapping the "masterpiece of prog" or "essential addition to any prog collection" in favour of something more neutral. This is, I think, the only way forward, and the only one that can bring some measure of peace and collaborative spirit back to the site.

micky wrote: exactly the point of the thread... to clarify.  Simple category names such as 'bands influenced by prog' and 'bands that influenced prog' are not exactly grandiose sounding category names... but that is exactly what they do ... clarify.

Especially, as some clever soul on the first page mentioned, if they are shown next to prog rather than below prog (as sub-genres).
As for the suggestion to have generic descriptions of what influenced what and how - that's impossible, because it differs for every combination of bands.

thellama73 wrote: Linguistics is aa fun branch of study, isn't it?

Are you sure it's just linguistics? It's beginning to get the smell of politics

How about sister sites: Proto-prog Archives and Prog Related Archives?

Ghost Rider wrote: Moreover, I think 'proto-prog' is a misnomer, as it implies the bands and artists included in the category were prog before prog came into being, not that they influenced its development (as it is often the case).

So, you're drawing a parallel between this term and 'proto-indoeuropean'? Maybe pre-prog would be a more suitable term albeit a quite clumsy-looking one.

Kotro wrote: Way before Proto-Prog and Prog Related were created, I sugested the creation of a space in the main page for "honourable mentions", where prog albums, or borderline prog albums from non-prog bands (not the bloody bands themselves) could be introduced and reviewed as the others. Of course, no one listened (or should I say, read)...   Proto-prog is an especially repugnant name. How can The Who's album from 2006 be proto-prog? When I agreed that bands like Deep Purple and Queen could be added, I supposed someone would block album entries, so that only the albums that got them here could be added... Obviously, no such control was made.

I totally agree! That's what I meant in my post on the previous page but I wasn't so eloquent.

Kotro wrote: Way before Proto-Prog and Prog Related were created, I sugested the creation of a space in the main page for "honourable mentions", where prog albums, or borderline prog albums from non-prog bands (not the bloody bands themselves) could be introduced and reviewed as the others. Of course, no one listened (or should I say, read)...   Proto-prog is an especially repugnant name. How can The Who's album from 2006 be proto-prog? When I agreed that bands like Deep Purple and Queen could be added, I supposed someone would block album entries, so that only the albums that got them here could be added... Obviously, no such control was made.

first off...again.. the owners want complete discographies.. prog and non prog.

reading that post Kotro .. this might be the place to bring up what no one here has asked yet.  I think the name change is a no brainer... but looking ahead (as I have been)  reclassifiying those categories there hides potentially a thornier issue for the forum... and yes.. to some my fellow collabs as well. 

What about those bands currently in PR (and some in PP)... that aren't influenced by prog but did prog albums and had prog periods. They don't belong in PR if they did prog.. that would be like saying Rush should be just because they followed others.. were they PR?

Simply put.... can this forum understand that if a band is in a certain sub-genre that is in no way reflective of the band's career but of their PROG output. Seeing how this is a prog forum.  If we do differentiate between prog and non prog...  what to do with the prog albums.   Some examples... Styx, Peter Gabriel, ELO, Alan Parsons, Queen.  My thoughts ... the same as groups like Genesis and Rush ... we focus (and classify) based upon the prog... not what came later when they left prog. as nearly all did if they stayed together through the changes in the musical world.

I like the idea of differentiating them from "true" prog, eventhough I do believe they are integral to the archive and should (nay - must) be here.

Edited by darqdean - July 29 2007 at 20:13

I think a redefinition of the two categories is rather urgent. If you look at the Suggest New Bands section, there are a number of suggestions for addition to PR or PP. People won't stop suggesting all kinds of acts to be added to those two controversial categories, and every new addition will bring further unrest, at least if things remain as they are. Unless we decide to stop them altogether, we have to find a way to present PP and PR in a more effective, less misleading way. Perhaps this wouldn't stop the ever-present "if X are here, not Y?" and similar comments, but at least it would improve the site's image and credibility.