Blind Faith

micky wrote: therin lies the way to unhappiness, crabs, the 7 year itch, divorce and ultimately a shallow grave

Thus spake Zarathustra

Dean wrote: SteveG wrote: Dean wrote: Including other potentially suitable artists into the discussion at the same time is often counter-productive, the IF X THEN Y argument is never used here.  Additions are generally based upon the music released by the artist/band, not the personnel who played on it. Complaining about Prog Related and Proto Prog, and how they are managed here is also counter productive. I have to respectfully disagree with your first statement as I have in the past prosed Y and was told that X and Z would have to be included,opening the floodgates of admitting a multitude of past artists. Yup and nope. It looks like the same argument because it uses the same logic conditional, but the logic itself is different. The IF Band X THEN Band Y argument for adding Band Y because Band X is already here relies on the perceived musical similarities between the two bands, for example suggesting Megadeth because Metallica is here. This is not a "floodgates" situation because the conditions for entry haven't changed, if Megadeth couldn't get in before the addition of Metallica then they still can't get in after. The IF Band Y THEN Band X and Z argument for not adding Band Y requires a subtle change in the conditions of entry (rules/criteria) to allow Band Y in that would make it possible to also add Band X and Z. This is a "floodgates" situation (though I'd not use the word myself) because the entry conditions have changed. SteveG wrote:   As for complaining about how proto prog and prog related is managed being counter productive, it can only  be because the colabs don't consider the logistics of these two vastly different and unrelated subgenres. That sounds a little presumptive of you, but let's ignore that for the moment... SteveG wrote:    Proto prog is a small fraction of the sixties rock world which PA, IMHO, has listed 96% of the truly innovative and influential artists, but still leave out a few like Cream with the paranoid felling that hundreds of proto prog groups would have to be include instead of a handful.   Prog related is a broad genre that could quite conceivably open the floodgates as almost artist from Dire Straits to Los Lobos has produced a prog style album from time to time. So, the math is reversed 4% included with 96% beating on the doors. Ah. I see. Except I don't because the maths is made up and doesn't sound even remotely correct to me. As the situation with both categories stands (i.e., without changing any of the entry criteria) there are a number of bands that could feasibly get added into Prog Related and very few (if any) that could be added into Proto-Prog. I'll not pull numbers out of thin-air to back that up, (as you pointed out elsewhere, such statistics would be riddled with holes if I did), and I'm not that interested in quibbling over numbers. As I explained in the post you pasted from the "what upset you today" thread, we don't want to add lots of bands into Prog Related so over the years have made the entry criteria more stringent. That still leaves some bands that could be added, but nothing like as many as can feasibly be suggested. Proto Prog is a different kettle of fish, here we have not changed the entry criteria since the category was first used here in 2006, in 2007 Iván rephrased Brian's original category definition but that neither tightened nor relaxed the conditions for entry. Since all the bands in this category fit in a narrow time-frame, they haven't changed either. So suggestions that have been discounted in the past will require some extensive re-evaluation of either their music or the use of Proto-Prog as it is currently interpreted here. As we are not interested in re-evaluating Proto Prog as a category, then that means discussing the music created by those suggested bands. SteveG wrote:   It's time for PA to see and understand the deference between this two so called related genres and let artists like Cream be listed in the proto prog genre without worrying about the imaginary floodgates bursting open. A few points: The PA (i.e., the Collaborators and Admins) fully understand the difference between PP and PR. The submissions policies for both are different in the Site Guidelines, they look similar but are deliberately separated to distinguish between them. The category "definitions" are different. Some Senior Members may not understand the differences between them, and all the Prog subgenres, but a few of them never read the documentation we list on the site so allowances can be made. PP and PR are categories not genres. Genres are based upon stylistic similarities whereas categories can have no such stylistic similarities but are based upon external factors. A "Record Fayre" reseller's genre called Proto Prog exists, but that that is not a definition we use here, the only similarity between them is the name. We do not add artists into Proto Prog because of their relationship (musical or otherwise) to other artists in Proto Prog. We do not add artists into Prog Related because of their relationship (musical or otherwise) to other artists in Prog Related OR Proto Prog. The two categories are not related (so called or otherwise) to each other. Both categories are related to Progressive Rock, but the relationships are different. We group them together (on the Front Page and in Forum conversations) because they both deal with artists that are not considered to be Progressive Rock artists. I accept that the "floodgate" argument is imaginary. Very few Collaborators use this word or this argument, I see it more from non-Collabs who oppose adding particular bands. The only time I have experienced the "floodgate" argument was when I proposed opening up the PA to self-released albums. In this instance the result was a flood of unsuitable suggestions, not a flood of additions. However, changing the entry conditions will result in an increase in additions. Referring to that as "opening the floodgates" is IMO an exaggeration to make a point, not a reality (such is the nature of metaphor). Without exception, all discussion centres around high-profile bands. Discussions are proportional to the popularity of the artist A popular band will be suggested more times than an obscure one, this does not add weight to the suggestion. Now all this sets the ground-rules for suggesting a band such as Blind Faith or Cream and goes some way to explaining why such a suggestion could be successful or unsuccessful. The requirement here is to discuss the music within the prescribed boundaries, not to discuss changing the boundaries (all that does is cloud the issue and should be discussed separately elsewhere). [I sit here wishing for some reason that I'd stopped off at the triple-fff brewery to buy a couple of bottles of Pressed Rat & Warthog beer to sup with my evening meal...]

A quick rebuttal. The flood gate argument is not is not an exaggeration, if you'd like me to present several as exhibits, as trying as it is, I'll backtrack through PA and provide some quotes from a past admin to that effect.

SteveG wrote: Atavachron wrote: Cream were proto-Protoprog.  In fact they were the proto-Protoprog band.  This goes to artists that are "related to Prog-related".   There has to be a cutoff point. David, if Cream and the Hendrix Experienced were both formed in 1967 and released their first albums in 1967, then how can Cream be proto to the Hendrix Experience?   Are you thinking of the Yardbirds, possibly?

I don't see Blind Faith as prog or even prog related.  They were a blues-rock supergroup comprised of amazing musicians but there was nothing especially proggy about that.  Their album was fabulous but it was a series of rock songs that were great but not really ground-breaking in any way.

Cream on the other hand were very prog in my opinion.  Disraeli Gears as an example of proto-prog and the live version of "Spoonful", a 20 minute bluesy proggy jam that was outstanding at the time--less so now--but I can't even imagine how many players were influenced by that music.

"Sea of Joy" has a very proggish nature. Changing time signatures, Rick Grech throwing in some sorrowful fiddle, and Ginger Baker's ever inventive percussion:

The Dark Elf wrote: "Sea of Joy" has a very proggish nature. Changing time signatures, Rick Grech throwing in some sorrowful fiddle, and Ginger Baker's ever inventive percussion:     I would give the album a proto-prog/prog-blues tag. It's all a matter of context and perspective, really. If "I Can't Find My Way Home" was on a later Traffic album, there would be folks extolling its prog-folk values: