Breaking news: PROG-RELATED IS NOT PROG

Shakespeare wrote: Ghost Rider wrote: Why do we always have to see people overreact every time a band is suggested for addition in PROG-RELATED, as if someone had said they were as prog as, say, Genesis, Yes or King Crimson? I'm one of these people who sometimes overreacts. The reason is that this is in fact a prog rock website, and if these prog related bands were not at all prog, they would not be here. The other point I have brought up before is that an enormous amount of bands exercised a style of music similar to prog, or the odd complex time metre, but generally, were not at all prog. If we added all of these bands to the archives, they would likely outnumber the prog we have here, and thenceforth we'd be known as "The rock archives (with some prog, too)." I have no problem with some bands being added, just not too many. But the famous questions stands: "Where does it end?" I'd prefer it to end sooner than later.

yes... but as we all know.. .that is not our decision...  'related' is here to stay.. either we accept it.. or find a purer site.   Unless they are all added... all the groups that were related.. any of them added will be appear to  the general posters to be arbitrary, random, or worse... products of 'fanboyism'


Edited by micky - October 07 2007 at 11:11

Shakespeare wrote: Ghost Rider wrote: Why do we always have to see people overreact every time a band is suggested for addition in PROG-RELATED, as if someone had said they were as prog as, say, Genesis, Yes or King Crimson? I'm one of these people who sometimes overreacts. The reason is that this is in fact a prog rock website, and if these prog related bands were not at all prog, they would not be here. The other point I have brought up before is that an enormous amount of bands exercised a style of music similar to prog, or the odd complex time metre, but generally, were not at all prog. If we added all of these bands to the archives, they would likely outnumber the prog we have here, and thenceforth we'd be known as "The rock archives (with some prog, too)." I have no problem with some bands being added, just not too many. But the famous questions stands: "Where does it end?" I'd prefer it to end sooner than later.

I see your point, but still an essential fact remains: PR is here because the owners want it - they call the shots, and if they want X added, then they will be, even if we kill each other in order to stop the addition.

With this simple fact in mind, I think we spend far too much time fighting amongst ourselves, when we should know that no one will be able to prevent other controversial additions. As I have already said multiple times, we have no choice but accept this state of affairs, or leave and start our own website. As long as we don't own PA, it will NEVER end - so, why don't we just accept it and stop poisoning the atmosphere with endless debates and personal attacks?

Shakespeare wrote: Although I don't necessarily want them added, I wasn't aware of any heated debates or personal attacks. I don't care that much. I'm happy with what the PA governments decides.

those words weren't directed towards you... but others who lurk.

micky wrote: Shakespeare wrote: Although I don't necessarily want them added, I wasn't aware of any heated debates or personal attacks. I don't care that much. I'm happy with what the PA governments decides.  those words weren't directed towards you... but others who lurk.

ah

Ghost Rider wrote: Shakespeare wrote: Although I don't necessarily want them added, I wasn't aware of any heated debates or personal attacks. I don't care that much. I'm happy with what the PA governments decides.  As Micky said, these words were NOT directed to you in the least. You are a very civil, articulate person, and your only flaw is a tendency to hijack threads. Unfortunately, there are people around who are not like that, and who vent their spleen about controversial additions on those who are responsible for them.

to finish youy thought...

when the person adding them is only carrying out a TEAM decision.  And an Admin team decision at that.  Hopefully with any future addtions... the big stick will be taken to the ass of any who decide to take it personal.. or make it personal.

Finnforest wrote: We could just cut to the chase and have a category called "70s classic rock."

BTO RULES !!!

Goose should get a Bugatti Veyron and at least three hot chicks for that post.

Finnforest wrote: The T wrote: The T wrote: I have the best idea EVER. Just take the "prog" word out of the genre... and voila...... RELATED.   The RELATED genre.... man! Nobody will complain ever again! And the remain is explicit, informative enough to be a good genre name!   My idea is so great, it deserves self-quoting...   Anyway, I just came up with a better idea (well, that's almost impossible, but):   A new genre called MUSIC PA MEMBERS LIKE A LOT BUT IT'S NOT PROG BUT THEY WANT TO INCLUDE IN THE WEBSITE SO THEY CAN REVIEW THEIR ALBUMS.   Don't we already have 2 or 3 of those??

You're not meaning to say that Jazz Fusion, Canterbury or Krautrock might be stretches genre-wise that are included here so some of us (not me or the T) can review them ?
If so, let's make it simple - no PR or PP groups allowed on our vaunted top prog albums. So we'll see Deep Purple disappear & a few places open up in the rankings. Maybe Ange will get a well deserved position amongst the parade of prog (near) perfection ?

P.S. I do agree with those views who opine that some purists object to the very concept that something could be "kinda" prog, with the seemingly but never quite final straw being the continued appearance of said bands in these pages. Too often, their world seems too easily divided into set black & white categories - PROG OR NOT ... Prog-related is a great category, kick 'em out of the standings, keep the same process as other sub-genres when it comes to debating inclusion, and prepare yourself for the next anti-almost but not quite prog rock n roll band that one of us plebes will dare to suggest for admission into prog related; which we all know is a way to get "classic" rock bands into PA through the back door.
Zep, Sab, Purple, Heep and many others are not prog. They were part of a progressive era in Rock music because they added things in the mix that weren't generally part of it. They weren't proto-prog, which was really where the seeds were sown. But they are a fine addition to attempt to more fully view how a prog scene came to be & still continues to establish & expand what music can be. So While we cannot add Motorhead in these pages, despite their mix of R & B, Hard Rock & Punk; we can still write about BOC or another group & the stew they put together in trying to create their own sound.
Oh, let's make this a bit easier to swallow for the elite  - say you have a country music site. You have your Johnny Cash/George Jones/Roy Acuff etc ... but you might also have the Eagles/Poco/Grateful Dead as artists who have shown a country music influence while not really being country music. So even if you have a sub-genre called "Americana" or "Roots" you can still see that these acts are not country, but share a same view or approach of the music.

Ghost Rider wrote: goose wrote: Truth be told, I'd rather efforts went into detailing some of the more obscure actual progressive bands at the expense of anything "related" or "proto." After all, that's what this site as about. But, I don't run or contribute to this site so, it's not really my call and this is an opinion, not a complaint  This is what most of the genre teams are doing. When a team embarks on a clean-up session, as the Symphonic Team has done at least twice, and the Art Rock team(s) are still doing, they do a lot of research - and the more obscure the act in question is, the more research is needed. Though it is easy to judge from outside and say that no one does any detailing of more obscure prog bands, still it's excusable when the criticism comes from a non-collab like you - much less so when it comes from within the Collab ranks.

That's not quite what I meant - my thinking is that every Prog Related or Proto-Prog band that's added means time spent that could have been spent adding a truly progressive band.

I think that while the PR and PP categories do have value as a description of progressive music as a larger whole, they wouldn't have any place in a website that I would make.

But you and others feel that they do have a place here, and since I wouldn't have the dedication to work on a site like this I'm glad that a site with slightly differing views to me exists rather than none at all .

Also, debrewguy makes good points: I've never seen a connection from, say, post rock to progressive rock, much as I enjoy it. And even Krautrock has a rather different sensiblity to those generally considered Gold Standards of '70s prog, like Yes, Genesis and so on (again, I'd rather listen to plenty of Krautrock than either of those two, but it's not the point )


Edited by goose - October 07 2007 at 12:27

goose wrote: That's not quite what I meant - my thinking is that every Prog Related or Proto-Prog band that's added means time spent that could have been spent adding a truly progressive band. I think that while the PR and PP categories do have value as a description of progressive music as a larger whole, they wouldn't have any place in a website that I would make. But you and others feel that they do have a place here, and since I wouldn't have the dedication to work on a site like this I'm glad that a site with slightly differing views to me exists rather than none at all .

I'm afraid you got it wrong. First of all, I don't feel they have a place here - I just realise that I am not the owner of the site, and if the owners want PP and PR, then it's either accept it, or leave.

As to adding 'real' prog bands, please check this:

http://ratingfreak.com/home/progarchives.xhtml


This chart shows all the bands that have been suggested, discussed or added to PA in at least the past year or even more by most genre teams (the Symphonic and Jazz-Rock team are missing). So, please, before you say we don't spend enough time on adding real prog acts, make sure you get your facts right.