Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all.
Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage") |
|
Post Reply 
|
Page 123 4> |
| Author | |||||||||
Smurph 
Forum Senior Member 
Joined: January 11 2012 Location: Columbus&NYC Status: Offline Points: 3167 |
 Topic: XTCPosted: July 17 2013 at 22:37 |
||||||||
|
Rather than fret over the inclusion of one or two old bands that were never part of the "Prog scene" more of a concern to me is the inclusion of amateur bands whose only presence in this world is through the glare of self-publicity. To paraphrase an ex-Admin here: some of these albums have been heard by exactly two people - the artist and the guy that added them to the PA. No. I love these groups because that's often where I find my recent favorite albums. Procosmian Fannyfiddlers mmmm |
|||||||||
 |
|||||||||
|
BrufordFreak
Collaborator 
Honorary Collaborator Joined: January 25 2008 Location: Wisconsin Status: Offline Points: 7955 |
Posted: July 17 2013 at 21:20 |
||||||||
|
Sounds to me as if the old guys like me who listened to music in the 60s and 70s are just wanting to include more of the creative bands we liked back then. This makes some sense since we didn't really differentiate between bands' orientations, explorations or morphs, they were just creative artists experimenting with fusions and technological advances.
I am more of the opinion that we should stop trying to include all of our past and instead continue appreciating the ongoing present. There is SO MUCH good music being created around the planet in this, the 21st Century--music that fully and intentionally fits into the progressive rock definition(s) that we've argued about for so long--that we should just let the dust settle on the past and let the newbies churn it up. The likes of Wobbler, Steven Wilson, Riverside, Moon Safari, T, and Big Big Train are doing a wonderful job of keeping the spirit and sounds of "classic" progressive rock alive, while the likes of Anglagard, Omar Rodriguez-Lopez, Toby Driver, Devin Townsend, Richard Wileman, and AltrOck Productions are doing their best to push the envelope of "progress" in creative album-oriented rock. Let's give the musicians who are today making conscious efforts to create "progressive rock" a chance, the credit they might be due, and, hopefully, a place in our hearts. |
|||||||||
|
Drew Fisher
https://progisaliveandwell.blogspot.com/ |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator 
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: July 10 2013 at 04:05 |
||||||||
That we are reading things differently is self-evident, no one in this thread has stated "if we admit XTC, then we would have to admit Y and Z..." or in any other thread since Peter back in two-thousand-o-blimey-was-it-that-long-ago. (while I wasn't here during some of those early suggestions, I've been in the thick of it for all those that have occured in the past six years) While the distinction does indeed rest upon the semantics of the language used, that also determines the meaning and intent of those words. A sentence containing XTC followed by a list of other bands does not always mean "if we admit XTC, then we would have to admit Y and Z...".
Max and Rony (& Philippe) have had little active interest in the site for the past xx years and none at all this year. Bob, Jim, Andy and myself are mere caretakers - we cannot create or destroy, we can only prop-up what's already here and try and keep a control on how things function within the constraints we operate under - if there is a vision then it's not a coherent one or one that's been disseminated down the ranks for a long time.
I find these perennial discussions to be not much more than a distraction because the same arguments come up each time and that will never change no matter what we do - even if we never added Queen, BÖC, Ironing Maiden et al, or magically removed all the "controversial" bands from the PA database, people will still start a new threads suggesting the same old rejected bands over and over again. If we widen the scope to allow XTC and other progressively-minded artists then all we do is move the border further south and they'll be a new list of borderline bands for people to argue over. Rather than fret over the inclusion of one or two old bands that were never part of the "Prog scene" more of a concern to me is the inclusion of amateur bands whose only presence in this world is through the glare of self-publicity. To paraphrase an ex-Admin here: some of these albums have been heard by exactly two people - the artist and the guy that added them to the PA. 
Peas Edited by Dean - July 10 2013 at 04:06 |
|||||||||
|
What?
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
maani
Special Collaborator
Founding Moderator Joined: January 30 2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2632 |
Posted: July 09 2013 at 21:55 |
||||||||
|
Dean:
Thank you for your measured response. The only real issue I have with it is that either you did not read all the posts, or you and I are reading things differently; i.e., in this merely 4-page thread, I have seen more than one member bring up the "if we admit XTC, then we would have to admit Y and Z because Y and Z are just as progressive if not moreso than XTC" argument. Otherwise, your reading of those posts is largely semantics. I realize that only Max or Rony can remove a band (that, of course, is what I was implying, though I did not state it as such). I was suggesting that they should; i.e., that if they have some actual "vision" of what "progressive" means vis-a-vis owning a site called "Progarchives," then it behooves them to "clean it up," since, clearly, there remain issues - even, if seems, with you, a long-time administrator. [N.B. Had I not left for a number of years after the Queen debacle, I would be celebrating my 9th year here, undoubtedly having taken on some sort of administrating duties.] Indeed, as a Founding Moderator and Special Collaborator, I can only say that it is "troubling" that, at least in the current respect, "nothing has changed" in all the years I was gone; i.e., this same discussion/debate is still being had. And I believe it is being had, as I suggest, because there seems no interest on Max' or Rony's part in "biting the bullet," getting their hands dirty again, and putting an end (I am guessing at least for MOST people) to this debate by either (a) allowing the inclusion of even more bands in categories such as prog-related and crossover (and maybe, just maybe, taking me up on the suggestion about a "progressive pop" category, which at least some people seem to think makes sense, since "art rock" was eliminated), or (b) "scrubbing" the site of bands (and, if necessary, categories) that don't "fit in" with whatever CLEAR "vision/definition" of "progressive" they want a site called Progarchives to have. I know it sound like I am trying to tell everyone how to run the site, what should be included, what should not, etc. Not so. And I am acutely aware that the owners cannot satisfy EVERYONE all the time (nor should they). I am simply pointing out that, unless and until the owners "make a choice," they (and you) will have to continue dealing with the same debate (including the frustrations of some, possibly many members) going forward - a debate which, as noted, has been going on apparently continuously since the Queen debacle many, many years ago. I continue to support PA, and still consider it the best site of its kind on the Web. I continue to participate in forums. And I continue to appreciate the time and dedication that you and other admins put in here (since I can truly sympathize! LOL). Peace.
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: July 09 2013 at 19:54 |
||||||||
It's not that much of a snotstorm to be honest, and the reasons why are obvious - dilution - when there are so many not-really-Prog bands already here the level of controversy sparked by proposing one more is never going to be that great, however, you could try proposing Stratovarius to see if we can raise "snot" to "shot" (then "shop", "ship" and finally the word you're searching for)
That's not really a fallacy, more a missreading of the counterarguments. No one gave a version of the age-old "if we add XTC then we will have to add X, Y and Z" counterargument because we've already dispensed with that tactic using the tried and tested "IF X THEN Y" argument, ref: "If Oingo Boingo are then XTC should be here"... (never an argument winner that one)
What has been presented thus far are two other related counterarguments that seem to be saying the same thing, but are not: there is the "if we broaden the acceptance criteria to include XTC then X, Y and Z will follow" argument (which I think was implied more that stated) and the superfically similar "X, Y and Z are more deserving bands to add than XTC" argument (which is a paraphrasing of the one I made).
I don't see what makes XTC a special case when viewed in that light and judged by those criteria. If your argument is that bands X, Y and Z would not be let in, then I don't see the reason why that would be so.
Most of the ablums we've got listed are never reviewed as it is and many of the bands here never get discussed. The "more" we have doesn't dictate the level of reviewing or discussion that ensues.
We can't, only Max can delete bands. This is why people have to fight so hard to add these left-field controversial bands, because we cannot rectify a mistake after the event, we have to be absolutely certain that a band really needs to be here before we add them. This is also why we get a little narked when someone slips a band in through the backdoor.
Sure there are a number (not many, but some) bands that were added back in the days before the Genre Teams were set-up that we could delete, and there are several that were added by the Genre Teams that some people would rather we did delete, there are a few people here who think any band formed after 1979 should be deleted.
[I've been an Admin here for the past five and a half years, I have a name.
 ]As I said - no one has presented the "if we admit X, then we have to admit Y and Z" argument.
Several times over the years I have described my Law of Incremental Additions - which, simply put, says: "A Genre is defined not by the wordy Genre Defintion at the top of the page that no one reads, but by the bands contained within the Genre, therefore every band added subtly changes that definition." This does not mean that adding band X opens the door for bands Y and Z, but it does mean the door is opened just a little wider - and each band addition widens the door just a little more. Which leads not to a deluge but a slow trickle so Oingo Boingo dribble in and no one noticed. (Though it would have been nice if the Xover team had informed the Admins before hand, not that we'd have done anything about it of course, but it would have been "nice" if they'd at least played lip-service to the guidelines)
We can't delete W. This is not lack of will or because we cannot admit a mistake - If I could delete Rainbow or Mercury Rev I'd do it in a heartbeat (if the rest of the Admin team agreed that I should of course - I'm not an anarchist).
I can go to the User profile and hit a button marked [DELETE] and the account disapears
I can go to a Review page and hit a button marked [DELETE] and the review disapears I can go to an Album page and hit a button marked [DELETE] and the album disapearsI can go to a Video page and hit a button marked [DELETE] and the video disapears
I even have a button marked [DELETE] where I can delete all the reviews and ratings of a User.
But when I go to a Artist page there is no button marked [DELETE] so I cannot make an artist disapear.
[to answer the unspoken question, if I could, would I delete Oingo Boingo? Nope, because they were fairly voted in by the Xover team¹ - however, if I had still been on the Xover team I would have voted against them. If they had been proposed for Prog Related I would have also voted against them.
¹ ... we have delegated the responsibility of including artsts into the PA to selected teams of people - those teams are representative of the whole PA membership and they are given the authority to make those decisions on behalf of the membership - the sovereignty (autonomy) of those teams generally precludes any Admin "interferance" in those decisions]
A broad brush.
One of the "problems" I had when I first found the PA was the marked difference between what I understood as Prog Rock from my 40 years of listening to it and what everyone else understood Prog Rock to be. Even though I count myself as being in the Inclusive camp, I'd scan down the list of artists here and think "Really?", because those in the Exclusive camp are prone to adding bands that they think are Prog Rock that I don't. The "problem" there is not that each band is clearly Prog or not Prog, but our perception of what Prog is varies from person to person even when using a broad brush definition like the one you've presented because even you could apply that "progressive approach" definition to a numner of artist that would easily tick all the boxes and you'd still not call them Prog (erm, I dunno - try Prince - he's a box-ticker that even touched on pscyhedelic pop/rock at one point - or Sting or Joe Jackson or Tears For Fears [I can imagine people jumping up and down in their seats already]).
I tend to delineate between "Progressive" as a noun, as used in the genre name of "Progressive Rock" and "Progressive Trance" (for example) and "progressive" as an adjective used to describe music that is progressive in approach. Sure enough what we call Progressive Rock (n.) grew out of progressive music (adj.), but being different is not enough to be considered as a Prog Rock artist.
Sadly, nothing has to be fair, and there is logic in what you are saying IF the PA was under the full control of one person alone, which it of course isn't.
Piece. Edited by Dean - July 09 2013 at 19:56 |
|||||||||
|
What?
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
lazland
Prog Reviewer
Joined: October 28 2008 Location: Wales Status: Offline Points: 13249 |
Posted: July 09 2013 at 15:36 |
||||||||
|
Art rock encompassed a whole range of bands, many slightly progressive, or of that era, and many not so much. I still think, though, it is a better description that many of the sub genres we have here, for example crossover, eclectic, and prog related, to name but three (all of which never existed as so called sub genres at the time).
This issue will never be sorted out satisfactorily, that much I found out when I raised it myself.
|
|||||||||
|
Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
maani
Special Collaborator
Founding Moderator Joined: January 30 2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2632 |
Posted: July 09 2013 at 15:06 |
||||||||
|
Well, I do seem to have a knack for creating a s---storm. LOL. [N.B. I would have been perfectly satisfied with XTC in the Art Rock category.] I still think there is a fallacy in some of the counterarguments here.
The newest argument is, "Well, if we let XTC in, then we have to let in lots and lots of other bands." One could approach this from either direction. On the one hand: okay, so why not? Let's do it! The more, the merrier! More albums to review! More bands to discuss! Yay! However, the other counterargument is the elephant in the room. If PA added bands that, in retrospect, should NOT be here, then...get rid of them! Out with the trash! You don't belong here! Our bad! Boo! Seriously, though, why would that be so terrible? If PA "saw the light" a little later than they wanted re admitting certain bands (not least BECAUSE of the "if we admit X, then we have to admit Y and Z" argument) - or even having certain categories - it should not be seen as "losing face" to "clean up" the site so that it properly reflects WHATEVER "should" be included on a "progressive rock" site. This is especially true if, as at least one person posits, the "mercenary" argument I proposed doesn't hold water: i.e., that simply admitting a new band does NOT necessarily lead to an increase in visitors and members. The problem seems be that PA is unwilling to take EITHER position strongly: they do not want to admit X because then they have to admit Y and Z, but they will not eliminate W (which is why X is being proposed) because, well, W is already here! BTW, at least one person noted that "progressive" is an "approach." I agree. And let me restate my OWN definition of "progressive": "Progressive rock is a mindset, a conscious and deliberate approach to
writing rock music based on certain elements, which usually include some or all
of the following: incorporation of Western (classical, jazz et al), Eastern
(Indian, Middle Eastern, et al) and/or "world music" (African, Latin, et al)
influences; use of non-standard (for rock) chord progressions; use of odd and/or
shifting time signatures; use of non-standard (for rock) instrumentation (from
sax, flute, or violin to sitar, bagpipes, or African percussion); an
"orchestral" (i.e., "score") approach to arrangement; extended compositions,
often including extended instrumental passages; virtuoso musicianship, often
including extended solos; lyrics that tend toward the esoteric or fantastical
and/or include numerous literary references; and the use of keyboards
(Mellotron, synthesizers, etc.) and the recording studio itself to create
effects, textures, and atmospheres." Imperfect, to be sure. But I think most would agree it is a solid start. If so, it is clear that few if any bands in ENTIRE CATEGORIES would be included on PA. But it is also true that some categories (particularly proto-prog), and their bands, DO belong on a "progressive" music site. However, it is also true that some of the bands in other categories (e.g., prog-related, crossover, art rock) approach(ed) their songwriting from a perspective that was DISTINCTIVELY DIFFERENT from most other "rock" bands - a perspective that is/was, in a somewhat broader sense, "progressive." Imho, 10CC, Klaatu, ELO and XTC (and, arguably, Queen and Supertramp) fit this mold. In this regard, my position is simply this: XTC is easily AS "progressive" - if not moreso - than other bands IN ITS SAME CATEGORY. Thus, either XTC should be added out of "fairness," or the other bands should be removed to create a "level playing field." To do otherwise is - as others have also pointed out - to invite exactly the type of situation that my post seems to have created. Peace.
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Evolver
Special Collaborator
Crossover & JR/F/Canterbury Teams Joined: October 22 2005 Location: The Idiocracy Status: Offline Points: 5482 |
Posted: July 09 2013 at 13:38 |
||||||||
If this is the fear, then we should throw out about a third of the approved crossover artists. I like XTC, and have a few albums. I can see an argument for their inclusion. I have not seen them submitted to the crossover team for evaluation. 
|
|||||||||
|
Trust me. I know what I'm doing.
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Logan
Forum & Site Admin Group
Site Admin Joined: April 05 2006 Location: @ wicker man Status: Offline Points: 32690 |
Posted: July 09 2013 at 13:03 |
||||||||
|
Dean got in first, I was checking wayback machine myself.
Queen was in Art Rock before the creation of Prog Related (this from July 2005).
Quite a few bands in the Art Rock category were moved to Prog Related and Proto Prog as Dean said. The site has changed a lot since Maani's prime PA days, and things do work quite differently now. |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: July 09 2013 at 12:52 |
||||||||
When the site was first established the categories of Prog Related and Proto Prog were not present. Many of the bands that are now in those categories were in Art Rock at that time (even Vanilla Fudge
 ). |
|||||||||
|
What?
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Tuzvihar
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: May 18 2005 Location: C. Schinesghe Status: Offline Points: 13489 |
Posted: July 09 2013 at 12:41 |
||||||||
As far as I can remember Art Rock split into Crossover, Eclectic and Heavy Prog. |
|||||||||
|
"Music is much like f**king, but some composers can't climax and others climax too often, leaving themselves and the listener jaded and spent."
Charles Bukowski |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
ExittheLemming
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2007 Location: Penal Colony Status: Offline Points: 11415 |
Posted: July 08 2013 at 22:02 |
||||||||
I agree wholeheartedly with thellama73 as debate should be encouraged but the trouble is, any expression of a differing view from those of the genre teams can give rise to the sort of paranoid defensiveness above  Edited by ExittheLemming - July 08 2013 at 22:06 |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
ExittheLemming
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2007 Location: Penal Colony Status: Offline Points: 11415 |
Posted: July 08 2013 at 21:29 |
||||||||
Perceptive post. I too found Maani's argument to be serious flawed but would need to ask if both Queen and 10cc were admitted to the archive before there was a Prog Related category, and if so were they under say, Art Rock? Both seem entirely plausible from my limited understanding of the latter (as would Talking Heads, XTC, Wall of Voodoo, Magazine,Television and Pere Ubu etc) Art-Rock wasn't a hybrid of proto and Prog related definitions surely? It also seems entirely plausible that several artists included on PA that would qualify as Art-rock would not have sufficient credentials for proto-Prog or Prog related. However, the idea of Proto and Related being created as mere window dressing to entice casual music fans to the site does not I'm sure, sit easily with many of us and seems palpably untrue. Does anyone really give a discarded fig what Max and Rony's 'own standard' of any particular classification may or may not have been if its purpose was only that of a flimsy disingenuous ruse? The site has now taken a lot of time and trouble to have arrived at (broad and overlapping) ongoing definitions for the many sub genres. Both Proto and Prog related submissions are ultimately sanctioned and tightly controlled by the Admins, so there is precisely ZERO chance of such categories swelling to unacceptable levels and very, very few of the many Queen, 10cc, Black Sabbath, NIN, Robert Plant, Led Zep, David Bowie, Talking Heads, John Cale or XTC fans I know, would come anywhere within a million miles of PA. Apart from filling Max's pockets, I can't see what benefit there is to be gained from clogging up our relatively clean air with Sunday driver traffic  Edited by ExittheLemming - July 08 2013 at 21:56 |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Smurph
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 11 2012 Location: Columbus&NYC Status: Offline Points: 3167 |
Posted: July 08 2013 at 19:30 |
||||||||
|
I didn't mean to make it sound like that.
What I mean is, if we included xtc, then we would basically have to take many of those bands, and nomeansno included. Blergh. I'm half asleep. |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: July 08 2013 at 19:09 |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
What?
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Smurph
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 11 2012 Location: Columbus&NYC Status: Offline Points: 3167 |
Posted: July 08 2013 at 18:17 |
||||||||
Nomeansno I think deserves to be here more than any of these people.
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Guldbamsen
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin Joined: January 22 2009 Location: Magic Theatre Status: Offline Points: 23098 |
Posted: July 08 2013 at 15:57 |
||||||||
|
I see both sides actually, but no matter how much I believe that the real progressive rock and indeed progressive music mostly was outside of prog from ca 1976 and onwards, PA as of now is still about prog rock and its affiliates(Krautrock, Zeuhl, RIO, Avant and the electronic music that helped shape a lot of these branchings.)
The danger of opening up to a progressive artist like XTC who popped up with post-punk, is that you would have to include so many others, just like Dean says. XTC weren't half as experimental as say Wire or Chrome - and they don't really fit in here either. Prog is not a badge of honour - it's a style of music, which this particular website deals with. If it dealt with progressive music then sure we could have Infected Mushroom, Ol' Dirty b*****d, Scott Walker, Prokofiev, Rage Against The Machine, Sun Ra, Boris, Edith Piaf, Sarah Vaughn, Sonic Youth, FSOL, F*ck Buttons, Pharoah Sanders, AMM(Music), Edgar Varese, Sergio Leone, Stravinsky, Mano Chao, Prodigy, Bob Marley, Type O Negative, Aphex Twin, Cannibal Corpse, Velvet Underground, Bob Dylan, Cream, Funkadelic, Flamin Lips, James Brown, Cocteau Twins, Wu Tang Clan, The Trashmen, The Orb, John Lennon, Neelix, The Paul Butterfield Blues Band, Neil Young and indeed XTC up in this mother........but then again we might as well call it Music Archives without Mariah Carey and Sha-na-na.
|
|||||||||
|
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”
- Douglas Adams |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
yam yam
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 16 2011 Location: Kerberos Status: Offline Points: 5820 |
Posted: July 08 2013 at 15:30 |
||||||||
|
^^^^ (@maani) Thank you very much for this post. This certainly adds a whole new dimension to my perception of how progarchives has developed into its current format. If the site wasn't already struggling to cope with a seemingly exponential rise in the number of new band/artist suggestions (both prog and otherwise) then the creation of a 'progressive pop' (or similar) category would definitely provide a means of dealing with these controversial artists that seem to crop up all too regularly on here, but as Dean says - there would be a hell of lot of them to take into consideration, and as things stand at the moment there just wouldn't be the resources available to be allocated to the task. Interesting idea though...
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
akamaisondufromage
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member Joined: May 16 2009 Location: Blighty Status: Offline Points: 6797 |
Posted: July 08 2013 at 13:13 |
||||||||
|
A new catagory of 'PeopleWhoLikeProgAlsoLike'. Great band though!
|
|||||||||
|
Help me I'm falling!
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: May 29 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 8368 |
Posted: July 08 2013 at 13:03 |
||||||||
|
^Queen and 10CC are here as prog related artists, not as prog artists, so I'm not sure what that has to do with XTC being considered as a prog artist.
Lobbying for the inclusion of prog related artists is never going to be a winning proposition, because the admins think that category is getting too big as it is and want to keep the site focussed on genuinely prog artists. |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page 123 4> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
XTC
Topic Options
maani wrote: