redefining Proto Prog and Prog Related

after several years of pearls of wisdom such as this....

pop fan masquerading as a prog fan wrote: That's it, i'm off this site because i'm  pretty sure that in a few months you will all be discussing how good VAN HALEN is as a  prog band because of the few keyboard bars they put in a song or two!! THE WHO??? Goodbye, it was fun the time it lasted.

There is discussion about renaming and reclassifying the two most controversial and CONSTANTLY misunderstood categories here.  Proto-Prog and Prog Related.  To eliminate the frequent misunderstanding about these two there is a proposal  to refine them down to their base elements; the 'bands that influenced prog' (proto) and those 'bands that were influenced by prog'  (PR)   The names are not exactly sexy but they leave no room for unintentional misunderstanding.  That has long been a problem here. 

The merits of the categories aren't worth the time to type, so don't bother..... you all should know that owner wants them and we have them.  The thing to be done is find the best way to implement what he wants... and also what serves the site.


What does everyone think.... like it the way it is?...  or would renaming it and redefining it help?



Edited by micky - July 29 2007 at 15:40

R o V e R wrote: Remove them please

out of the question.

a bit of a general message:

let's try to be serious and productive over this serious problem, enough bickering and shallow understanding was already done.

R o V e R wrote: Ricochet wrote: R o V e R wrote: Remove them please out of the question.a bit of a general message:let's try to be serious and productive over this serious problem, enough bickering and shallow understanding was already done. I was not joking

Of course you weren't.
The even more serious thing, there will be even more who will suggest we erase completely two genres that, after all, do have some strong bands that merit those genres.

Therefore, the suggestion of removing PP and PR is out of the question.
Try "redefining", "rethinking", "re-valuing".

micky wrote: after several years of pearls of wisdom such as this.... pop fan masquerading as a prog fan wrote: That's it, i'm off this site because i'm  pretty sure that in a few months you will all be discussing how good VAN HALEN is as a  prog band because of the few keyboard bars they put in a song or two!! THE WHO??? Goodbye, it was fun the time it lasted. There is discussion about renaming and reclassifying the two most controversial and CONSTANTLY misunderstood categories here.  Proto-Prog and Prog Related.  To eliminate the frequent misunderstanding about these two there is a proposal  to refine them down to their base elements; the 'bands that influenced prog' (proto) and those 'bands that were influenced by prog'  (PR)   The names are not exactly sexy but they leave no room for unintentional misunderstanding.  That has long been a problem here.  The merits of the categories aren't worth the time to type, so don't bother..... you all should know that owner wants them and we have them.  The thing to be done is find the best way to implement what he wants... and also what serves the site. What does everyone think.... like it the way it is?...  or would renaming it and redefining it help?

First and foremost: why are they listed among prog sub-genres on the front page? They should be separated.

okkay ..

how about "Vintage Rock"

Angelo wrote: Not sexy, but effective - I'm all for it. But, I repeat myself even when not under stress, only if the bio for each of the bands includes a clear statement on how they influenced prog or were influenced by it.

yes... it would involve a rewrite of some bios I think.  At least to add 'site applicable' material to the bios. Why should a prog fan be interested in Zeppelin or Iron Maiden for example?  Some sort of write up as to how exactly they were influenced by prog.

R o V e R wrote: okkay .. how about "Vintage Rock"

how is that less confusing that Prog-Related....   hell...we'd have people calling for Buddy Holly for inclusion.

Tuzvihar wrote: How about a general description of what and how influenced prog and what and how was influenced by prog? Only short paragraphs about proto-prog and prog related ban ds and albums without the possibility of rating?

the reviews ARE the best way to explain the relation to prog.. be it influencing or influenced by but doing them without the possibility of rating again violates another bedrock belief of the owners.  The review with only a  rating is here for the non-english speakers here.  Do I agree with that...NO.  Is that policy going to change... no. 

The relationship should be noted in the bio as I just posted.


Edited by micky - July 29 2007 at 16:13

micky wrote: Tuzvihar wrote: How about a general description of what and how influenced prog and what and how was influenced by prog? Only short paragraphs about proto-prog and prog related ban ds and albums without the possibility of rating? the reviews ARE the best way to explain the relation to prog.. be it influencing or influenced by but doing them without the possibility of rating again violates another bedrock belief of the owners.  The review without rating is here for the non-english speakers here.  Do I agree with that...NO.  Is that policy going to change... no.  The relationship should be noted in the bio as I just posted.

Of course. By no ratings I meant no reviews also.

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.