I must say that this is the best organized and most complete prog rock site but I have noticed that some bands listed have nothing to do with prog. I am not talking about bands like Queen or Styx tha t are a little "lighter" but still bands with some prog elements. I am talking about bands that are playing something completely diferent than prog. I am going to give some examples becouse it will make no good to speak about any band I think it falls to it.

Nightwish: A great band that I enjoy to listen but it is totaly power metal. Just becouse they have keyboards doesn't mean they are prog. If we have nightwish here we sould also have Stratovarious, Thunderstone, Sonata Arctica and a hundred such bands. Well guys I thing this is just europower metal and of course most music magazines say the same.

Rhapsody: For God's sake. Look at them ... All their albums are the same. All of them are power metal the Helloween way plus some orchestrecal parts. They don't even make a progress from an album to another. If this is prog then Metallica live with michael Kammen are prog to and so are Rage of XIII and Lingua Mortis albums.

Whaat do you think. I am sure that some of you will agree and you may have noticed such bands yourselves.

Nightwish got included after much discussions and uproar! I did not vote for or against this band because Metal as a genre is not my cup of tea! Some 25 years ago , I was a ltlle into it, but I really stop at NWOBHMB appeared.

But as much as I can say , both bands are here because the site has taken an option to be inclusive rather than exclusive.

This in order not to broadbrush , but to maybe hope to entice Nightwish fans to look at "similar" albums that are proposed by the site and maybe make him/her a metal proghead and ultimately a proghead!

If I can congratulate you on your moderate tone of writing , I do! Some others would have used abusive language!

Bravo! And I hope my answer was sufficiently satisfying to you.

Someone must consider them prog if they are here..that one is not me though. The only thing original about Nightwish compared to other pwer metal bands is that Tarja sings opera but that can't qualify to them being prog. I've haerd some songs by htem that maybe can qualify but have they done a whole album?

Of Rhapsody I've only heard a "best of" made by a friend. All I can say is that they are bombastic as hell. and of course that they have made the worst music videos ever.

I do like both bands, at least a bit, and I don't see any real problem of them being here, but I can as well do without them in the archives.

PeeWee wrote: The same arguments can be made about a band like Kraftwerk. If Kraftwerk is included, why are not artists like the Human League, Japan, Gary Numan and Ultravox included?

If Talk Talk are listed in the archives and I assume they still are, then Ultravox and Japan should also be there.

BTW..I like all the aforementioned bands..

Blacksword wrote: PeeWee wrote: The same arguments can be made about a band like Kraftwerk. If Kraftwerk is included, why are not artists like the Human League, Japan, Gary Numan and Ultravox included? If Talk Talk are listed in the archives and I assume they still are, then Ultravox and Japan should also be there. BTW..I like all the aforementioned bands..

Isn't Japan there? At least David Sylvain is. 

Blacksword wrote: PeeWee wrote: The same arguments can be made about a band like Kraftwerk. If Kraftwerk is included, why are not artists like the Human League, Japan, Gary Numan and Ultravox included? If Talk Talk are listed in the archives and I assume they still are, then Ultravox and Japan should also be there. BTW..I like all the aforementioned bands..

gosh,I'm glad I'm not the only one around here who had a soft spot for Ultravox...

Like Cygnus, I totally agree that the bands he pointed out do not fall within the boundaries of this site.

I'm thankful for, as Sean Trane puts it, the inclusive rather than exclusive nature of this site. A good variety of metal bands that are on the Progarchives deserve to be on and should most definitely stay on: Watchtower, Anathema, In The Woods, Atheist, Arcturus, Sieges Even, many more. 

Surely bands like Canvas Solaris and Mekong Delta deserve inclusion over the poor choices of Nightwish and Rhapsody. All due respect to the site's moderators and creators, of course. 

 I like Rhapsody alot!!!!!!!!!!!!

I like their pompous and bombast!!! Their first album was fabulous, the last is brilliant, between them I only pocess Power Of The Dragonflame which is a bit disappointing cos repetitive but the 2 others are surely not!!! Common guys it's their style!!!

Do you say that Genesis or Yes of the 70s are repetitive? No. Indeed they are alot if you consider they play always the same manier but for me, as Rhapsody, they sound great cos it's their style which is great! When you got your style and your materials are top, you don't need to change everything everytime the next album u make.

Moreover there are very significant evolutions depending on the story of each album.

slipperman wrote: Like Cygnus, I totally agree that the bands he pointed out do not fall within the boundaries of this site. I'm thankful for, as Sean Trane puts it, the inclusive rather than exclusive nature of this site. A good variety of metal bands that are on the Progarchives deserve to be on and should most definitely stay on: Watchtower, Anathema, In The Woods, Atheist, Arcturus, Sieges Even, many more.  Surely bands like Canvas Solaris and Mekong Delta deserve inclusion over the poor choices of Nightwish and Rhapsody. All due respect to the site's moderators and creators, of course.

Other examples are some of the bands you mentioned. Watchtower, Sieges Even and almost all the others could anytime replace Nightwish. Although I consider Anathema and In the woods atmospheric metal bands.

PeeWee wrote: The same arguments can be made about a band like Kraftwerk. If Kraftwerk is included, why are not artists like the Human League, Japan, Gary Numan and Ultravox included?

I was not warm on Talk Talk's inclusion , because they were pop an d close to new wave. But on the basis of their later albums (late 80's - early 90's) they got included , and they have a case!

As for Kraftwerk , this was also a major discussion! They are in IMHO , mostly due to their first three albums (the debut - Red Cone cover  does not even have one synth on it if you can believe it!) and the fact that they were Krautrock pionneers. They started in 71 and they sounded New Wave six years before all the others!

As for all the new wave bands mentioned here , I hated them all back then , because I suffered to hear radio-waves filled with those hateful digital beatbox symths when you could get a load of so much better tunes a few years before!

I prefer Punk and post-punk over new wave!

Frasse wrote: Blacksword wrote: PeeWee wrote: The same arguments can be made about a band like Kraftwerk. If Kraftwerk is included, why are not artists like the Human League, Japan, Gary Numan and Ultravox included? If Talk Talk are listed in the archives and I assume they still are, then Ultravox and Japan should also be there. BTW..I like all the aforementioned bands.. Isn't Japan there? At least David Sylvain is.

Japan made some crap pop, but albums like Tin Drum are very strange and very progressive IMO..

fandango wrote: Blacksword wrote: PeeWee wrote: The same arguments can be made about a band like Kraftwerk. If Kraftwerk is included, why are not artists like the Human League, Japan, Gary Numan and Ultravox included? If Talk Talk are listed in the archives and I assume they still are, then Ultravox and Japan should also be there. BTW..I like all the aforementioned bands.. gosh,I'm glad I'm not the only one around here who had a soft spot for Ultravox...

They're not a band I listen to these days, but I certainly had time for them years ago, even as a metal head! I occassionally dig out my compilation and give tracks like 'Hymn' or 'The Voice' a spin. They were great songs; very powerful.

What was that live mini album they had out? Was it 'Monument' or something? I had that on vinyl and used to play it so loud the house shook!

There was some good music in the 80's. Some of the 'pop' was pretty good. I like Tears for Fears too

Yeah, I definetly agree. Nightwish and Rhapsody are not prog... they are simply Power Metal. It's clear they have "some" elements that can be appeared as progressive... but that doesn't make them progressive IMO...

^^^Yep, I had 'Monument' when I was about 14; IMHO, The Voice was the best track they ever wrote, seconded by 'Mine For Life' off Quartet....

...I think T4F is where we part company though...

Blacksword wrote: PeeWee wrote: The same arguments can be made about a band like Kraftwerk. If Kraftwerk is included, why are not artists like the Human League, Japan, Gary Numan and Ultravox included? If Talk Talk are listed in the archives and I assume they still are, then Ultravox and Japan should also be there. BTW..I like all the aforementioned bands..

Talk Talk are included mainly for their later albums such as Spirit Of Eden. By then they were a different band to the original one (which I once saw supporting Duran Duran). The same could be said for Japan (e.g. Tin Drum). Not sure about Ultravox though.

Nightwish are probably a bit too metal for this site. I actually have one of their CDs at home (which my niece got me into) and it does have some prog elements in the orchestral bits but overall it's a bit too, well you know, METAL.

Blacksword wrote: PeeWee wrote: The same arguments can be made about a band like Kraftwerk. If Kraftwerk is included, why are not artists like the Human League, Japan, Gary Numan and Ultravox included? If Talk Talk are listed in the archives and I assume they still are, then Ultravox and Japan should also be there. BTW..I like all the aforementioned bands..

Actually, I thought the other way around, that since the Human League does not fit in here, Kraftwerk should neither be included.

I am a huge fan of those bands, and I still love bands like Human League, Ultravox and Japan. I do hovewer do not think that they belong in a progrock archive, just the same as Kraftwerk and Roxy Music. It is not about taste, I just do not feel that a band that do so clearly belong in the glam rock or synth pop genre is prog.

horza wrote: nimrodel wrote: pink floyd isnt prog. Pink Floyd ARE prog

sorry bad grammar

still, no prog.

Well..guys..there you have it..again.....we never seem to agree as

to what is prog and what is not!!! Maybe....the earlier intro...

cant remember his name...was right: This fabulous site eventually

could be named: Rock Archives!!??

As a great lover of Talk talk's last albums ("Spirit of eden" & "Laughing stock") I strongly feel they are prog - orchestral, complex and different. If one only heared the first 3 albums (including "The color of spring" which is pop with some prog elements) he can claim they do'nt belong here but the other two are prog all the way.

While I do'nt think human league or kraftwerk are prog (and no way ultravox) I do believe japan is not so far away and as a supporter in inclusive atitude I would put them in. Remembering that Roxy music, Styx and Supertramp are included this would only do justice IMO.

If any of you insist talking about Ultravox then at least mention "Viena" that is a very nice track.

And for that Camel fan who claims Pink floyd are not prog - Yes, and dogs do'nt bark !

fairyliar wrote:  I like Rhapsody alot!!!!!!!!!!!! I like their pompous and bombast!!! Their first album was fabulous, the last is brilliant, between them I only pocess Power Of The Dragonflame which is a bit disappointing cos repetitive but the 2 others are surely not!!! Common guys it's their style!!! Do you say that Genesis or Yes of the 70s are repetitive? No. Indeed they are alot if you consider they play always the same manier but for me, as Rhapsody, they sound great cos it's their style which is great! When you got your style and your materials are top, you don't need to change everything everytime the next album u make. Moreover there are very significant evolutions depending on the story of each album.

Don't get me wrong I like them a lot and I have 3 of their albums. It is just they don't play prog.

This isn't bad. As you said they have their own style as many other bands but still they don't play prog. Lucka Turilli calls their music Hollywood metal. For me it is epic power.

Tonny Larz wrote: Well..guys..there you have it..again.....we never seem to agree as to what is prog and what is not!!! Maybe....the earlier intro... cant remember his name...was right: This fabulous site eventually could be named: Rock Archives!!??

Rock archives could be more apropreate...

Cygnus wrote: fairyliar wrote:  I like Rhapsody alot!!!!!!!!!!!! I like their pompous and bombast!!! Their first album was fabulous, the last is brilliant, between them I only pocess Power Of The Dragonflame which is a bit disappointing cos repetitive but the 2 others are surely not!!! Common guys it's their style!!! Do you say that Genesis or Yes of the 70s are repetitive? No. Indeed they are alot if you consider they play always the same manier but for me, as Rhapsody, they sound great cos it's their style which is great! When you got your style and your materials are top, you don't need to change everything everytime the next album u make. Moreover there are very significant evolutions depending on the story of each album.   Don't get me wrong I like them a lot and I have 3 of their albums. It is just they don't play prog. This isn't bad. As you said they have their own style as many other bands but still they don't play prog. Lucka Turilli calls their music Hollywood metal. For me it is epic power.

What about Lord of the Rings Metal?

About Kraftwerk now, I can't say that I'm a big fan but I can say that they where half a decade before all the other mentioned bands, think of what people thought of how they sounded back in 73!

nimrodel wrote: horza wrote: nimrodel wrote: pink floyd isnt prog. Pink Floyd ARE prog sorry bad grammar still, no prog.

I think they're prog... and that yours is a great answer!

I agree withgt the original post, I tihnk that the site is adding bands, just to be adding them.

I tinhk a big reason is that the genre is so delicatly defined. Some bands have a lot of progressive ideas, but arent quite there. I do not think these bands should be included. This site should define what is considered prog, and not bend the rules when a bunch of people want bands like Queen ( who are amazing, and had some prog songs and albums, but overall are not prog) The people who are the desicion makers( i dont really know the process, so i'll just call them this) Should put their foot down, and not care about if they are hurting someones feelings. This site should be the deciding factor on whether a band is all out prog, or semi prog.

So i suggest this. In the archives, along wiht the name and country and subgenre, we should list the level of prog.

LEVEL5- All out prog, from start to finish, Had a big influence on their sub-genre

LEVEL4- Prog music in its complete form

LEVEL3-  mixture of pure prog music, with touches of mainstreem music in their corresponding genre

LEVEL2- A lot of prog ideas/albums or songs. But overall was/is more of a mainstream band.

LEVEL1- Had a few progressive ideas for their genre and had some prog songs/ albums but was not a big part of the prog universe

These can be changed around a little bit for one purpose or another, but its the general idea of having a Prog-class system that I'm pitching

What do you think?

i would also say that Voivod have little in common with prog on their first few albums...so lets put in Slayer and Celtic frost, coz they are about as prog as voivod were then....

makes no sense to me. I like thrash metal, I saw Slayer and Metallica many times in the mid 80s, but many bands listed here fit more with thrash than with prog!

Prog is genesis, Yes, floyd, ELP, KC, Flower Kings, Spocks, Magma, Caravan, Camel...

NOT

Heavy metal...sorry, had to say this.

GoldenSpiral wrote: your momma's not prog! oh, snap! owned!

What about yours?

PINK FLOYD...not prog????? Well shure friend......just let us take a minute to rejust to the thought..while we insert Tom Jones as the leading powerprog-soloartist!! Whats that?...you´d like Hank Marvin for superior leadguitarist?!!Yeah ...will do....and you say your grand ma´ are superior on vocal?? Why sure we´ll...let her in her..anything for you..as you obviosly know you progmusic!!

Let us know what else you have in mind...after all....this is a professional site!!

totally agreed with Cygnus

both are AWESOMEEE bands! but not prog,  they r symphonic/speed/power metal, simple

Tonny Larz wrote: Well..guys..there you have it..again.....we never seem to agree as to what is prog and what is not!!! Maybe....the earlier intro... cant remember his name...was right: This fabulous site eventually could be named: Rock Archives!!??

Mr Larz has it, I know I am new here but already reading a lot of posts it appears that if all views were adhered to, this indeed would be Rock Archives. For goodness sake, Japan? Talk Talk? I must be missing something here, coz they appear to have as much to do with prog (to my ears) as Mariah Caery does to singing. But, ahh, there's the rub 'to my ears'