Who would you remove ?

Easy Livin wrote: Many of the bands named in this thread tend to be listed in the proto prog or prog related categories.   If you check the definitions for these genres, you'll see that we're not saying they are prog. They are there to help people to discover prog.

No no no. Too much time reading definitions, means not enough time to write irrelevant posts. Next people will suggest actually reading other people's posts before "riposting".

This was the original prompt for this thread:

"Hypothetically...

You save BOTH Proglucky and M@x's life. In addition to the generous $$$ they hand you, they offer you the chance to remove 5 "prog-related" bands of your choosing without argument from them or the administration team. Which 5 bands which you don't think belong here get the boot ?"

So by choosing Prog-Related bands to remove we are somply following the goal of the originator of the thread.

For myself, I've always had a bit of a problem with that whole category being included here in a way that allows it to compete for front page review space and overall ratings status (the top 100) with true prog. As a category for discussion I do find it interesting and worthy. I just don't like the comeptition for space on the front page.

The whole "related" category just looks like a way for people to get their favorite non-prog bands listed on a prog site. Think about it this way; prog borrows from all types of music. Thus, all music is "prog-related". To me it feels like a "slippery slope" category and I would remove it altogether rather than just taking out 5.

just my two cents, which after inflation aren't even worth that much.

What about people like me who don't give a fig about the fact that there is a proto-prog &/or prog-related section & simply enjoy the site for all its' content ?
There is some merit to the anti "prog-related" arguement in that some groups seem to be added because of their popularity. But then, on the other hand, some of these same groups (one with the initials L Z) happen to have been generally included in what was called the "progressive rock" scene in the late 60s/ early 70s. So maybe is there a better term to describe these bands that were clearly considered on par with Yes, King Crimson, and others for their attitude towards their music.  Of course,  it's more fun to say that  the definition was not quite  correct, but that is in relation to  our current  way of seeing these things. I also might add that the term progressive pop has been around for quite some time, yet no one here is suggesting that we add a new genre. Thankfully, as P.P. would be quite the genre to bring in any top 40 group that showed even the slightest intelligence in their lyrics.

rudderhead wrote: 1 Deep Purple 2 Led Zeppelin 3 Black Sabbath 4 Iron Maiden 5 Triumph These bands arent prog(related) they are heavy metal 6 Tool 7 Radiohead 8 Mars Volta 9 Primus 10 Muse These bands arent prog(related) they are esoteric alternative acts Also I dont consider postrock and deathmetal related bands as prog(related) Fusion is a catagory in itself This doesnt mean that I think they should be removed. I have no problems with them being in it. Im doing this for the fun of it

Again you!!! Saying that Sabbath, Led and DP are HM, how dare you!! No joke here!

debrewguy wrote: What about people like me who don't give a fig about the fact that there is a proto-prog &/or prog-related section & simply enjoy the site for all its' content ? There is some merit to the anti "prog-related" arguement in that some groups seem to be added because of their popularity. But then, on the other hand, some of these same groups (one with the initials L Z) happen to have been generally included in what was called the "progressive rock" scene in the late 60s/ early 70s. So maybe is there a better term to describe these bands that were clearly considered on par with Yes, King Crimson, and others for their attitude towards their music.  Of course,  it's more fun to say that  the definition was not quite  correct, but that is in relation to  our current  way of seeing these things. I also might add that the term progressive pop has been around for quite some time, yet no one here is suggesting that we add a new genre. Thankfully, as P.P. would be quite the genre to bring in any top 40 group that showed even the slightest intelligence in their lyrics.

brilliant point

..and as far as ProtoProg goes, not only do I really love the bands in Proto, I think it is an vital category-- hey, history, it's important






Edited by Atavachron - March 05 2008 at 18:43

This thread should be either be closed, or disappear into oblivion before I do something I might regret later, and mention the door...

Secret Machines. I mean really, how did they get on here? A Kraut influence is definitely not enought to put them in Space Rock. Great band, but they don't belong on a Prog site.

And there isn't any "The" in their name. At least clear that up.

Edited by Philéas - March 07 2008 at 13:44