Revolutionise the site

Dayvenkirq wrote: Atavachron wrote: Not anal?  Prog fans? No, the collabs. I'm just getting the vibe that they don't want to redo what was already done.

By 'prog fans' I meant all of us.

I like the current sub-genre system, and to see sub-genres merging unnecessarily with others will not help those who come to the site searching for artists with a specific sound, and perhaps artists from a specific time. I think individual album tagging with using the already existing sub-genres as a guide, is the best way to go. The problem that arises then, is that's a hell of a lot of work, and it is, if members from sub-genre teams and such are dealing with it all. 

Edited by irrelevant - January 13 2013 at 21:53

Dayvenkirq wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Dayvenkirq wrote: ^ In this case it really does sound like this discussion should be open only to the teams and the collabs, because, well, ... I don't know a first thing about how hard it comes for them to work out things like "where should this band be". I disagree.  I am a believer in transparency and open discussion, and I think the opinions of regular members are just as valuable on this issue, because they use the site and are affected by the system too.  No one is going to be happy if the collabs decide to introduce a new system that everybody else hates (not that I think that would happen, but it's best to have everyone involved so that we can safeguard against that type of thing). Can't please everyone. And why would anyone be unhappy with or hate a new system that seems rational?

You would be surprised how many people hate systems that either are or seem rational.

I mean, we're prog fans, right?  A lot of us probably don't like the system in the music business right now.  It's totally rational; it's geared toward making money, which is quite a rationally justifiable pursuit.

And although you can't please everyone, the decision should be made in a way that would best serve all the members of the site.  Thus, it seems reasonable for all members to be able to give their input.  That seems to be what Steve wanted.

Edited by Dayvenkirq - January 13 2013 at 22:27

What about having a "site tag" for the band (assigned by the Collabs as-is) and a "reviewers tag" for each album. Each time a review is posted the reviewer is asked to assign the sub-genre he thinks best fits the album. The system would display for each album the tag which has most votes (optional to have different weight for Collabs and non-Collabs, same as with the stars).

Sorry Steve, I didn't have a chance to post yesterday when this was still over in collaborators land, but there is one thing that hasn't been addressed as of yet.

Has anyone asked M@X what his thoughts are as of yet?  We can debate endlessly about reclassifying things, tagging albums and so on, but the reality is that we don't own the site, and it's not a democracy.  What are the owners willing to do?

Roland113 wrote: Now that I've gotten that off my chest, I don't know all of the specifics about 'album tagging' but if we're having problems classifying bands, isn't the problem just going to multiply if we have the option to debate each individual album as well?   Guys, this site works as it is.  The Squackett debate was the exception rather than the rule.  I don't think we're doing any justice by trying to revamp the entire process when most of the time, it works.

Album tagging: Agreed.

Squackett case: Not an exception. Bute one made visible due to actions taken.

Again, my thanks for the contributions. I am leaving a response until we have more posts. I don't want to muddy the waters, really. I will leave it until the end of the week, when more have contributed, and I will try to pull it all together.

I tend to agree with Todd. The system we have is undeniably flawed and is sure to benefit from improvement, but smashing all the bands into a few concentrated subs is not the answer. It makes it, like Todd said, more confusing for newcomers and it makes things more crowded. 

Gerinski wrote: As for Dayvenkirk's proposal of multiple tagging per band, I like it, it can reflect more accurately the different styles a band may have explored, it's easier to handle and it can be done gradually. Although following your points, deciding which tags are applicable to each band might also cause disputes among Genre Teams?

Jethro Tull is listed under the Prog-Folk subgenre. If I go by Prog-Archives own definitons, Jethro Tull is not a Prog-Folk band (this site only notes Songs from the Wood and Heavy Horses as actual Prog-Folk albums) . Can anyone really say (without a smirk) that A Passion Play is Prog-Folk? To me, that is just as Eclectic-Prog as any VdGG or Gentle Giant album. The JT album This Was isn't even Prog, truthfully, it's Blues-Rock. How about a couple of their 80s albums like "A" or Under Wraps? Not Prog-Folk at all (i'm not even sure what the hell they are).By definition, Aqualung (Crossover-Prog) and Thick as a Brick (Symphonic Prog) aren't Prog-Folk either (but it is humorous they are two of the highest rated "Prog-Folk" albums on Prog-Archives ). Just because there happens to be an acoustic guitar in the mix does not make it "folk". Tull and Ian Anderson solo eventually integrated a lot of world music into later albums. So what one has an amalgam of different styles, and truthfully none take precedence over others for more than an album or two.

What I am getting at is that bands with a wide range of influences, styles and thematic changes from album to album, like Tull or King Crimson, deserve some sort of multi-tagging as Dayvenkirk suggested.