A RULE ON THIS SITE HAS BEEN VIOLATED!!!

I think it's a silly rule. Surely we should just use common sense when adding groups?

same applies for even metallica, megadeth and death

^ So add them Frenchie, thats what happened with Queen I believe.

i am not going to add any of the bands i mentioned... i will personally stick to the rule.

as for arcade fire i have put in a request for them to be deleted. this was a mistake of judgement and i apologise for insulting you hardcore proggers by adding them!

Trouserpress wrote: Cygnus X-2 wrote: Maani and I were talking about something that would allow for us to "include" them. The suggestion he made was for a Influenced/Proto-Prog section, so pretty much all those suggestions would apply. Of course, nothing has been finalized. I feel this is really the way forward. I'd also suggest Queen get moved to such a section.

That's the way I feel. I am a big Queen fan (always have been), but I don't feel they deserve a place here.

the influenced/proto prog is a good idea. we should still acknowledge albums such as sgt peppers that have had a historical impact on prog, even if the band themselves are not technically prog rock.

The Who are said to have made the first prog track, circa 1966, "A quick one while he is away". The Who, along with the beatles made some of the first concept albums with tommy and quadrophenia.

Black Sabbath arguably made some of the first ever prog metal tracks.

led zeppelin not only had a strong prog connection but jimmy page taking the bow to the guitar is something that inspired many post rock prog bands such as GYBE!.

These bands have strong prog connections but are not officially prog bands themselves.

frenchie wrote: has anyone noticed how black sabbath, the who, the beatles and led zeppelin are much proggier than queen yet no1 is adding any of these bands.

That's very true!! Especially, regarding Sabbath and Zep -- they were far more prog-related than Queen, not only concerning the musical quality but also concerning the consistent application of new ideas into the realms of rock.

Regards.

Trouserpress wrote: Cygnus X-2 wrote: Trouserpress wrote: Cygnus X-2 wrote: Maani and I were talking about something that would allow for us to "include" them. The suggestion he made was for a Influenced/Proto-Prog section, so pretty much all those suggestions would apply. Of course, nothing has been finalized. I feel this is really the way forward. I'd also suggest Queen get moved to such a section. That's the way I feel. I am a big Queen fan (always have been), but I don't feel they deserve a place here. I do. Well, they need acknowledging as so-called "proto-prog", hence my support for a section dealing with it.

A section named specifically "proto-prog" would not be the right place for QUEEN, as their first album was released in 1973 and the prefix proto- would give the connotation of QUEEN having been the first or the origin of something. There is no way that QUEEN were proto-Prog. For QUEEN specifically I favour Tony Banks' term for QUEEN ("imaginative pop"), or maani's term "progressive pop".

proto-

1.	first in time, earliest protolithic protomartyr
2.	original, ancestral protostar Proto-Norse
3.	first in a series, having the least amount of a particular element or radical protactinium

[From Greek prôtos ; ultimately related to pro (see pro²)]

 

perhaps the section should be proto prog/influenced/post prog. i feel that bands like radiohead and muse are more post prog or influenced by prog rather than prog themselves. this is pushing it tho.

make a section called "unpure" prog so we can all act like elitists and put whatever prog band we find not too prog in there.