Forum Home Forum Home > Site News, Newbies, Help and Improvements > Help us improve the site
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Revolutionise the site
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedRevolutionise the site
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456>
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
lazland View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: October 28 2008
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 13274 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 19 2013 at 15:07
Okay. Here goes:

Okay then. This is the post where I try and invite some comments as to what you all feel could possibly be the way forward for the site. In doing so, could I also ask members to look at the "Neo" thread as well on the Prog Lounge, because an awful lot of comments pertinent to this debate have been made there as well?

I will not repeat much of what has been said already, except to say, and repeat, my opinion, that the way we categorise artists and albums here is not only deeply unhelpful, but it also makes no sense whatsoever. Why do we, for example, make a differentiation between these categories? Look at Yes. They are a symphonic band, yes? Well, okay. But, is 90125? That would fit within Crossover as we define it here. How about Asia? Prog related on the site, but I would argue that the classic debut album contains more than enough symphonic prog to warrant inclusion there. Just listen to Wildest Dreams, for goodness sake, a symphonic masterpiece if ever there was one.

I am breaking my rule here. I do not want to repeat the debating points, but to try to put forward some thoughts here that we could possibly take forward, so here goes:

1. I do not believe that we will ever reach a consensus on ridding the site of all sub-genres, my preferred option, so I think this will have to be dropped as a realistic option.
2. There is more of a consensus, although nowhere near unanimous, in some form of rationalisation of the sub-genres. Therefore, I propose these. Neo and symphonic to be merged into a single "symphonic influenced" sub-genre. Art Rock to encompass eclectic, crossover, Canterbury, psych, prog folk. Progressive Electronic, which is self explanatory. RPI. Prog Metal, to encompass all heavy and metal related acts. Finally, Fusion, which would encompass all avant, jazz rock, rio, zeuhl. Yes, we would still have piles of rows about these categories, but wouldn't it be a damned sight better than now?
3. I support,fully, the many posts which have suggested album and artist multi tagging. This would address the many issues we have with so many acts who have not produced the "same kind of music". There was a very good post about Tull, here under Prog Folk. In fact, they are probably the archetypal eclectic band. We could do this along the lines of our sister sites. And I, for one, would be very happy to go through all of my reviews and tag them according to my interpretation of the style of music. First up, Pendragon's Passion, a heavy prog album if ever I heard one.
4. Lastly, probably the most controversial suggestion. As things stand, someone will suggest a new artist for inclusion on the site. The New Artist team will say, okay, let us send it to, say, PE for evaluation. Trouble is, if that team say no, I.e. reject the suggestion, then we have perfectly valid artists not getting onto the site. Or, of course, with the move option, a game of ping pong between teams. Squackett was only the most high profile example. We have many others. How about, then, having an expanded New Artists team deciding whether an act is progressive enough to warrant inclusion on the site? If the answer is yes, and it usually is, then a special collab could add them, and members could add albums and review under an interim category of "Sub-genre pending". The teams could then argue and be as pedantic and anal as they wished, because it would not make an iota of difference. The artist is added, simple as.

There we go. Some suggestions to debate. We really do have to get away from the parochial system we have now, whereby a couple of people have the absolute right to decide upon addition or sub-genre, this based upon their own, at times, exceptionally anal viewpoint of a particular style of music. Let us open it up a bit. Lastly, a very important point. The teams here decide upon matters which are the property of the entire site, not just their own narrow empires. It should be open to all collabs and members to query decisions made, without fear of admonishment or retribution. If we can move forward on some of these issues, no more will we hear the phrase "do not interfere in my team". It is not your team. This site is a tool for the whole world to look at.
Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org
Back to Top
Finnforest View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 03 2007
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 16913 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 19 2013 at 15:26
I actually like the teams and the fact that people are promoted up after showing some willingness to do work for the site, and when recognized by fellow collabs/Admin as having some decent knowledge of progressive rock.  It's working pretty well despite your efforts to malign it, and simply saying "open it all up" does little to help in the proper sorting of bands.  It will not reduce conflicts to have more people involved, nor is the answer to allow SCs to simply add bands on their own accord.  I think that was tried before with some questionable bands being offered.  I think you are just mistaken that our process sucks.  I think it's a pretty good process whereby there is some good debate/discussion and most of the time, consensus and addition. 

And thanks for yet another insertion of your beloved "pedantic and anal" phrase as regards the teams, it really helps things out Steve. 


Edited by Finnforest - January 19 2013 at 15:26

Back to Top
The Bearded Bard View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: January 24 2012
Location: Behind the Sun
Status: Offline
Points: 12859 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 19 2013 at 15:27
As someone who's still fairly new to progressive rock and use the site to find new artists and explore new music, I find the sub-genres on the site very helpful. In my relative short time as a user of the site I've come to be very fond of the way it categorises progressive rock, and I'm glad to see others feeling the same way. I agree that the sub-genres, in their current state, have their limitations, but when one knows about those limitations and accepts that not all bands fit their sub-genre perfectly, I find they work as an excellent tool in the search for more or less hidden musical treasures.
 
Therefore I feel reducing the number of sub-genres, or even worse, getting rid of the sub-genres all together, would be the wrong way to go for the site. If the sub-genres were to be reduced or removed I think my interest in using the site would be reduced as well. I don't know in detail how the way the site is build up makes the collabs work more difficult, but I see that several collabs complain about it hindering new artists getting on the site in reasonable time, so I guess leaving things as they are is not an adequate alternative either.
 
Therefore I feel that, if changes were to be made, the multi and/or album tagging system, similar to MMA and JMA, would be the best way to go. This would make the site even more helpful to prog-newbies like myself, and at the same time effectively remove the problem of getting an artist on the site in reasonable time (I would imagine, as the only question needing answer before inclusion would be "is the artist prog rock or not?").
 
I know this would mean a lot of work for the collabs, but changing systems gradually and letting members take part in the tagging work, as irrelevant suggested, would ease that workload, and I think that the site has many knowledgable members that could be of help with such work (myself not includedWink).
Back to Top
lazland View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: October 28 2008
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 13274 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 19 2013 at 15:29
Originally posted by Finnforest Finnforest wrote:

 

And thanks for yet another insertion of your beloved "pedantic and anal" phrase as regards the teams, it really helps things out Steve. 

You are welcome.
Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org
Back to Top
jude111 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 20 2009
Location: Not Here
Status: Offline
Points: 1744 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 19 2013 at 15:38
Instead of classifying an artist as belonging to one genre, why not classify each individual album (or, for those bands that went from one genre to another, break them up into phases. So, there's Pink Floyd's psychedelic/space rock phase, then their whatever-genre-you-would-classify-DSOTM-WYWH-The-Wall-period.
 
On a different matter, I'd love it if we could rate individual songs in the same way that we could rate albums. Would be cool to see the top 100 or top 200 prog tracks as rated by nearly everyone here.
Back to Top
Dayvenkirq View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 25 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 10970 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 19 2013 at 15:56
^ OK, ... maybe you have missed the numerous posts written by a number of people who argued that the "Top 100 Prog Albums" list is nothing but a joke. It's like a funny representation of what's cast in stone. Why would we even need this list? It's just math. We don't need another "Billboard chart" of sorts.

As per the division of a band's/artist's discography into periods, ... I actually like that idea.

Actually, now that I've read jude's post, I'm thinking that maybe we have too many ideas for the site: the multi-tagging, the division of an act's catalogue, ... . I mean, don't we have reviews for that? If we seriously consider any alternatives, I don't think any of them would matter as long as we have the informative little darlings called reviews. We aren't lazy to read, are we? Can't we make up our own minds about what an album is like?

... which then throws me to a suggestion made by Gerard (Gerinski): for every album/act let the user decide what kind of an album/act it is. We might just as well multi-tag the act and make up our own mind about what sub-genre an album it belongs to. 


Edited by Dayvenkirq - January 19 2013 at 16:03
Back to Top
HolyMoly View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin

Joined: April 01 2009
Location: Atlanta
Status: Offline
Points: 26133 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 19 2013 at 16:03
One could argue that 90125 is a math rock album, because of the intro to "Changes".  Same problems we have now, but at the album level rather than the artist label.    But anyway...

I do kind of like Steve's mention (I don't know who first suggested it) to have a "temporary" genre for albums like Squackett that clearly belong on the site (because many prog fans are interested in what Squire and Hackett do, no matter what it is), but for which immediate genre classification is undecided.  I think such cases are rare, though.  It would only really happen when high-profile "obvious" prog guys put out an album under a new name, in a style not immediately agreed upon.  That would at least avoid embarrassing delays like the Squackett case, which seems to be one of the main thorns in the side of those who seek change.
My other avatar is a Porsche

It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle if it is lightly greased.

-Kehlog Albran
Back to Top
Dayvenkirq View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 25 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 10970 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 19 2013 at 16:05
Originally posted by Finnforest Finnforest wrote:

I actually like the teams and the fact that people are promoted up after showing some willingness to do work for the site, and when recognized by fellow collabs/Admin as having some decent knowledge of progressive rock.  It's working pretty well despite your efforts to malign it, and simply saying "open it all up" does little to help in the proper sorting of bands.  It will not reduce conflicts to have more people involved, nor is the answer to allow SCs to simply add bands on their own accord.  I think that was tried before with some questionable bands being offered.  I think you are just mistaken that our process sucks.  I think it's a pretty good process whereby there is some good debate/discussion and most of the time, consensus and addition. 

And thanks for yet another insertion of your beloved "pedantic and anal" phrase as regards the teams, it really helps things out Steve.
I think Steve would like to know what exactly you mean by "malign". Just a thought.
Back to Top
Finnforest View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 03 2007
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 16913 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 19 2013 at 16:10
It's pretty obvious, if you've been reading about the abolishment of teams/subs and charges of pedantry and dysfunction that are not the whole story

Back to Top
Dayvenkirq View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 25 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 10970 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 19 2013 at 16:22
^ Don't think that I forgot what you wrote in your first post on this thread - something to the effect of that the abolishment of the teams and the removal of the sub-genres would essentially undo the work that the teams did in the past. And I sympathize with you on this one. Of course, this is just one alternative that I personally oppose.

Edited by Dayvenkirq - January 19 2013 at 16:23
Back to Top
jude111 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 20 2009
Location: Not Here
Status: Offline
Points: 1744 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 19 2013 at 16:23
Originally posted by Dayvenkirq Dayvenkirq wrote:

^ OK, ... maybe you have missed the numerous posts written by a number of people who argued that the "Top 100 Prog Albums" list is nothing but a joke. It's like a funny representation of what's cast in stone. Why would we even need this list? It's just math. We don't need another "Billboard chart" of sorts.
Well, for those who don't like the list, I'd advise not to look at it. There's not just one single top 100 list, you can also organize it the way you want - by genre, by year, by decade, by country, by live release, and any combination. It's ingenious, I love it, and it's how this site has introduced an incalculable wealth of new bands and albums to me.
 
There were some bands that just didn't click with me. Genesis, Camel, Marilllion, Hawkwind - and others I could go on to name. But because they're rated so highly here at PA, I stuck with them to try to figure out what's special about them. And eventually fell in love with these bands, or certain albums by them. For people who are new to prog, it's an invaluable resource.
Back to Top
aapatsos View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: November 11 2005
Location: Manchester, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 9226 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 19 2013 at 16:26
Steve

I do see some benefit in the "sub-genre pending" proposal, although I think this can be done by admins where a difficult case exists - e.g. from the suggestions thread and where there is a problem, a group of admins can decide and then send to a team.

I also agree with Jim's comment on the values of SCs being promoted for a specific reason etc etc, so to rule the whole process out (which I am sure it is not what you are proposing?) would not be a solution.

On your note about heavy and metal subs being one (just picking that as an example) I see a few problems: there are most of the time discrete tendencies in the subs, see for example the trademark heavy rock/prog sound of Atomic Rooster/Heep/Rush etc with the metal sound of DT/Fates. One is the evolution of the other, but the influences and sound are not the same. Same applies within the subs of metal (although I accept some overlaps). Fates Warning / Isis / Enslaved have almost nothing in common in terms of influences (as an example), although I would not care too much if they were all under PM.

EDIT: just remembered, there are plenty of cases where a band has been rejected for PM and was passed onto another team for evaluation, to ensure that we are not denying the opportunity - I think this happens elsewhere as well. But where there are blatant cases (no, Stratovarius are no PM, but metal definitely) then I think they don't need to be tossed around. And really, I don't expect us to be perfect Wink.

EDIT2: tagging would be beneficial if applied with care - we need a new team for this if we are to do it, which would agree between the genre teams (just to add a bit more complexity!)



Edited by aapatsos - January 19 2013 at 16:35
Back to Top
Finnforest View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 03 2007
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 16913 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 19 2013 at 17:02
The band "holding pen" "sub" has been proposed many times and would seem to alleviate those very rare situations like Squackett.  However the idea has always been pretty soundly rejected in the CZ, if memory serves....though I can't remember the exact concerns they had.

Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5093 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 19 2013 at 18:32
In my opinion a "sub-genre pending" tag would look very unprofessional.
"Look at these guys, they call themselves 'the ultimate Prog resource on the net', they have added a band so supposedly they have listened to it enough to identify it as Prog and yet they can not tell what kind of Prog they play, hahaha"

The site user does not need to know how the site works internally, that team members are just volunteers, how does the addition process work etc, many casual users will probably assume that the site is run by a professional team who knows what it's doing and we should try that it looks as such for the outside world.

There should be a simple democratic process, if the band is tossed between let's say, Symphonic, Crossover and Neo without quick consensus, all the members of these 3 teams vote and the band goes to whichever of the 3 sub-genres has been most voted, without further discussions. As simple as that.

For the rest I repeat that I am not in favour of merging sub-genres, the result would be even less accurate tagging than now, I would not like to see Rush tagged as a Prog Metal band Confused


Edited by Gerinski - January 19 2013 at 18:37
Back to Top
Finnforest View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 03 2007
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 16913 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 19 2013 at 18:37
Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

In my opinion a "sub-genre pending" tag would look very unprofessional.
"Look at these guys, they call themselves 'the ultimate Prog resource on the net', they have added a band so supposedly they have listened to it enough to identify it as Prog and yet they can not tell what kind of Prog they play, hahaha"

The site user does not need to know how the site works internally, that team members are just volunteers, how does the addition process work etc, many casual users will probably assume that the site is run by a professional team who knows what it's doing.

There should be a simple democratic process, if the band is tossed between let's say, Symphonic, Crossover and Neo without quick consensus, all the members of these 3 teams vote and the band goes to whichever of the 3 sub-genres has been most voted, without further discussions. As simple as that.

For the rest I repeat that I am not in favour of merging sub-genres, the result would be even less accurate tagging than now, I would not like to see Rush tagged as a Prog Metal band Confused


Not a bad idea, man!  Let's remember to suggest this be tried next time we have a difficult placement that everyone agrees belongs.....

Back to Top
Atavachron View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 64384 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 19 2013 at 19:40
Originally posted by lazland lazland wrote:

Look at Yes. They are a symphonic band, yes? Well, okay. But, is 90125? That would fit within Crossover as we define it here. How about Asia? Prog related on the site, but I would argue that the classic debut album contains more than enough symphonic prog to warrant inclusion there. Just listen to Wildest Dreams, for goodness sake, a symphonic masterpiece if ever there was one.
I think maybe a major difference we're all having is in one of historic perspective, something that seems to be important to many here.   90125 and Big Generator could be considered Crossover Prog, but it ended up being Yes' (the project at that time called Cinema and not originally intended as a Yes album) response to both the new possibilities and new realities of the 1980s.   It was still prog, it was still Yes, and relative to most other rock bands of the time, rather complex and innovative.   To require these albums to be considered or tagged as something separate from 'normal Yes' cheapens what the band was doing and may miss the point of progressive rock, which presumably is to progress.
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5093 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 19 2013 at 20:05
Originally posted by lazland lazland wrote:

Look at Yes. They are a symphonic band, yes? Well, okay. But, is 90125? That would fit within Crossover as we define it here.
But unless album tagging or band multi-tagging would be implemented (your # 3) with your proposal # 2 (merging of sub-genres) 90125 or Big Generator would go to Symphonic Influenced and not to Crossover either.

Implementation of # 2 unless there is also # 3 not only does not solve anything but it would make band tagging even less accurate than it currently is (in the sense of conveying less information content in the majority of the cases).

But if you have # 3 then the problems are solved and you do not need # 2 anymore (because normally for a single album it should be quite clear which of the current sub-genres can be used).

Which makes # 2 either undesirable or unnecessary IMHO.




Edited by Gerinski - January 20 2013 at 05:17
Back to Top
Angelo View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: May 07 2006
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 13239 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 20 2013 at 06:18
Originally posted by lazland lazland wrote:

Okay. Here goes:

Okay then. This is the post where I try and invite some comments as to what you all feel could possibly be the way forward for the site. In doing so, could I also ask members to look at the "Neo" thread as well on the Prog Lounge, because an awful lot of comments pertinent to this debate have been made there as well?

Let's not, this discussion is repetitive at best, and has been for years now.

Originally posted by lazland lazland wrote:

I will not repeat much of what has been said already, except to say, and repeat, my opinion, that the way we categorise artists and albums here is not only deeply unhelpful, but it also makes no sense whatsoever. Why do we, for example, make a differentiation between these categories? Look at Yes. They are a symphonic band, yes? Well, okay. But, is 90125? That would fit within Crossover as we define it here. How about Asia? Prog related on the site, but I would argue that the classic debut album contains more than enough symphonic prog to warrant inclusion there. Just listen to Wildest Dreams, for goodness sake, a symphonic masterpiece if ever there was one.
Changing rules and agreed ways of working because there are exceptions is never a valid reason. Ever heard of what we call 'non sequitur', false logic? It's like saying "In 25% of the cases of deadly traffic accidents, at least one driver had consumed alcohol. In 75% of the cases, at least one of the drivers had a coffee. We should ban coffee in traffic". 
As David already pointed out, a lot of bands are placed in a certain the category, based on musical as well as historical grounds. Don't change that, learn music history instead.

Originally posted by lazland lazland wrote:

I am breaking my rule here. I do not want to repeat the debating points, but to try to put forward some thoughts here that we could possibly take forward, so here goes:

1. I do not believe that we will ever reach a consensus on ridding the site of all sub-genres, my preferred option, so I think this will have to be dropped as a realistic option.

Thanks for adopting the conclusion that was drawn many times over the past 8 years.

Originally posted by lazland lazland wrote:

2. There is more of a consensus, although nowhere near unanimous, in some form of rationalisation of the sub-genres. Therefore, I propose these. Neo and symphonic to be merged into a single "symphonic influenced" sub-genre. Art Rock to encompass eclectic, crossover, Canterbury, psych, prog folk. Progressive Electronic, which is self explanatory. RPI. Prog Metal, to encompass all heavy and metal related acts. Finally, Fusion, which would encompass all avant, jazz rock, rio, zeuhl. Yes, we would still have piles of rows about these categories, but wouldn't it be a damned sight better than now?

I tend to disagree on that one, agin for the reasons of respecting musical history, as well as not trying to change classifications that are used world wide - there is a world outside PA that talks about jazz rock, fusion, zeuhl and neo progressive. It's not like things were just made up as we went along, did you notice there is a whole world outside prog archives as well?

Originally posted by lazland lazland wrote:

3. I support,fully, the many posts which have suggested album and artist multi tagging. This would address the many issues we have with so many acts who have not produced the "same kind of music". There was a very good post about Tull, here under Prog Folk. In fact, they are probably the archetypal eclectic band. We could do this along the lines of our sister sites. And I, for one, would be very happy to go through all of my reviews and tag them according to my interpretation of the style of music. First up, Pendragon's Passion, a heavy prog album if ever I heard one.
I've been a supporter of this idea since it first came along. It would be great if combined with the classification system that we have. The problem with an team driven classification system is that the input from the non team-members tends to be left unheard in some cases. Not because people don't want to listen, but because they simply don't hear or see what others are saying and doing, being to involved with their work (be aware that some spent a lot of time on their team work!). This could be solved by tagging in the sense that it will provide a means for regular members to influence the tagging of individual albums, while the overall classifiation, which is one of PA's strengths according to many who joined over the years, stays in place.

Originally posted by lazland lazland wrote:

4. Lastly, probably the most controversial suggestion. As things stand, someone will suggest a new artist for inclusion on the site. The New Artist team will say, okay, let us send it to, say, PE for evaluation. Trouble is, if that team say no, I.e. reject the suggestion, then we have perfectly valid artists not getting onto the site. Or, of course, with the move option, a game of ping pong between teams. Squackett was only the most high profile example. We have many others. How about, then, having an expanded New Artists team deciding whether an act is progressive enough to warrant inclusion on the site? If the answer is yes, and it usually is, then a special collab could add them, and members could add albums and review under an interim category of "Sub-genre pending".

This was suggested before, and if this is what you want mostly, this thread could've been a whole lot shorter. As far as I'm concerned, this is something that could be added right away. It fits the way of working, and it's technically a lot less challenging than introducing the tagging system. Provided that you can convince the teams and M@X, I agree fully.

Originally posted by lazland lazland wrote:

The teams could then argue and be as pedantic and anal as they wished, because it would not make an iota of difference. The artist is added, simple as.
There we go. Some suggestions to debate. We really do have to get away from the parochial system we have now, whereby a couple of people have the absolute right to decide upon addition or sub-genre, this based upon their own, at times, exceptionally anal viewpoint of a particular style of music. Let us open it up a bit. Lastly, a very important point. The teams here decide upon matters which are the property of the entire site, not just their own narrow empires. It should be open to all collabs and members to query decisions made, without fear of admonishment or retribution. If we can move forward on some of these issues, no more will we hear the phrase "do not interfere in my team". It is not your team. This site is a tool for the whole world to look at.

And here's where you murdered your own child. Well, not exactly, you murdered in in the starting post already. Having been around for five years, you should know by now that if it wasn't for the teams, and the willingness of their members to do a lot of work, and have fights when necessary, ProgArchives would have been dead before you even joined.
Building a site and a community like we have at ProgArchives involves the following:

1 a sound technical infrastructure, 
2 a few people mainintaining that infrastructure,
3 a team of willing and working collaborators
4 mutual respect amongst these collaborators, for their work, expertise and contribution

The disregard of what is going on in the world outside PA with respect to musical classification, ignoring the historical context of classifications made and dismissing the efforts the teams have put into getting us to where we are now voids your proposal almost completely. It may sound harsh when you read it out loud, but I fully agree with Finnforest here.

Disclaimer: I am a very irregular visitor of the forums these days. As a result, it may take quite a while to get back on any reactions to what I wrote above. This is not arrogance, nor laziness, but a fact of life - I have two companies to run these days and not a lot of time to hang around here.
ISKC Rock Radio
I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected]
Back to Top
Finnforest View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 03 2007
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 16913 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 20 2013 at 07:51
Angelo, thanks for the long and thoughtful post, it is much appreciated.  When I tried to impart to Steve that his continually pushed view of the teams is unfair and inaccurate, I had missed his phrase "narrow empire" which is nothing more than again, another cheap shot that does not reflect the people I work with every day (on all the teams, not just RPI).   Steve will say he means no offense I'm sure....and yet, as the collective targets for the words I've been protesting, he could makes the same points without the jabs that give the members a skewed view of what kind of people the volunteer collabs are. 

I do not believe however that "sub genre pending" is a good road to go down and I'll tell you why.  Two things could happen....the new decision authority team could stack up bands that the genre teams may find problematic, causing a glut of bands noted "genre pending" which makes us all look silly, see Gerinski's comment below.....or consider the opposite....the new bands team may reject a band that the genre team would have approved.  It is nothing more than another level of potential conflict that sounds good on paper, but doesn't really help the end result.  It kicks the can down the road and the new potential conflict could cause strife that costs us valuable people.

Because remember, though Squackett gets bandied about here like it is an everyday occurrence, it is very rare that such an event happens.  When we start to see lists of prog bands that have been killed by the teams because we have a hard-on for rejecting bands, I might be more open to Sub Genres Pending.  Where exactly are the throngs of people rioting in the streets because the teams are refusing them??.....let there be some evidence that Squackett is the norm before you take the decision away from the genre teams and give it to others.  

Ultimately that is what frustrates me so about Steve's charges.  He puts forth the idea that his scenarios are the norm, and they are not!  The norm is that most bands get in, and lately they get in with increasing efficiency.  The norm is that my fellow collabs on these teams work well together most of the time and we get done what we are asked to get done.  Steve's view of the teams are the rare exception, not the rule.  We really don't need "sub genre pending", we take our responsibility for these decisions quite seriously and try very hard to be inclusive without watering down the site to a ridiculous level. 

I assume the site does want some level of review and checking by the people they've promoted to CZ.....if we're nothing more than a rubber stamp for every suggestion ever made, then yes, there is no point in having us around.  My contention is that the VAST majority of suggestions do get approved in a reasonable manner.  The ones that do cause some debate should be handled with care, and I agree genre teams should act more cooperative when disputes arise. I think we were heading that direction naturally for the most part. 



Edited by Finnforest - January 20 2013 at 09:40

Back to Top
lazland View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: October 28 2008
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 13274 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 20 2013 at 09:59
I don't think I am going to say a great deal more. Firstly, I am clearly upsetting people for whom I have the utmost respect, and like. Such was not my intent. Secondly, as is the norm on this site, any attempt at reaching some form of consensus is probably doomed from the beginning, no matter who is to "blame".

However, I will make this clear Jim, and Angelo. I do not take "cheap shots". The rules of this site prevent me from saying too much openly, and certainly naming individuals. Neither of you, however, are stupid, and you must surely know honestly that instances of certain teams, or individuals, lecturing, pontificating, and being bloody rude when others try to disagree, happens on an almost weekly basis. Not all teams. Not all collabs. Certain collabs, and certain instances. If you want to carry on that particular debate, PM me. I do not want to risk censure for breaking site rules.

Squackett was most certainly a high profile example, but Olav said(and if there is anyone on this site who is beyond reproach for behaviour and knowledge, it is him), that this was by no means an exception. It isn't.

I was, until recently, a collab on the neo team. I loved working with Keishiro and Apostolis, so please do not interpret these remarks as being personal, because they are not. But I do remember two major arguments we had on the team. Firstly, Alan Reed, ex Pallas frontman. His debut EP was rejected by our team. I disagreed strongly. Fair enough, but the rejection meant that he could not even be included on the site, a massive affront in my opinion, and wrong, at a time when the major Prog magazine in the world was featuring him, and other sites had him. I had to bear the brunt of communicating the rejection, and I do not think that it did us proud. And made me feel particularly bad.

The second was Edison's Children, THE success story of 2011. An album, and act, which broke some records in terms of exposure, and sales, particularly in the US. I am mightily proud of having been asked by Eric and Pete to review the album and get the act on the site. We had a huge row about that, as well.  I prevailed, but not before Olav had made the extremely pertinent point that neo, as well as all other styles, progresses and moves forward.

These are not isolated examples. I know for a fact that a very respected SC on this site stated in the CZ, to which I do not have access, of course, that he no longer submits acts for a certain sub-genre, because he has no faith that they will get on. Instead, he goes to neo and crossover as an alternative, a dumping ground, if you will. We also have the extremely unedifying position, on more than one occasion, of artists themselves being lectured in open forum about how we classify their music.

Do you want me to continue? Is there a need for me to be even more explicit?

I would, also, repeat a very important point. Eclectic and crossover especially do not exist as forms of music. They are wholly figments of our own imagination. They are convenient descriptions of music which we cannot, or will not, place elsewhere.

Jim. None of these criticisms apply to you or your team. You know that. I know that. You also know full well what I am talking about. That is my last word on the topic. In the interim, I will start exploring other sites, because this is getting me down. Regrettably, I am anal enough myself to continue fighting a losing battle. There you go. A comment you found rather objectionable being applied by myself to myself.
Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.