Anyway, Folk isn't a synonimous of "Celtic"... we may find folk everywhere, be it in Ghana or Venezuela or South Korea and they have nothing to do with Celtic. Some people are supporting to change the name from Folk to Ethnic which in my opinion will bring more confusion because, in many countries, the term ethnic refers to some popular tunes, like salsa, rumba, cumbia, etc.

 

Not using the old "if X is here then why not Y" but Muse and Decemberists were already part of PA. If we decide to have bands considered 100% prog then our band list will fall from the current 3,000 to less than 10% of this number.

 

 

 

Unfortunately, I don't think this is the only age in which "3 chord-three minute pop songs" are the norm.  I have a very large stack of albums from the early 70s that make a good argument this was the norm when prog dinosaurs roamed the earth as well.

 

And "...is it functional to have artists who produce intelligent music included here?"  I hope so; otherwise we are resigned to becoming an anachronism rather quickly since there is very little new music being made today that fits any conservative definition of "progressive".  Most of the guys who defined the standard aren't even making anything we would include here today were it not for their historical bodies of work and their reputations.

 

Woven Hand (and the Decemberists, and probably Muse although I don't know them much) are definitely not here as a result of an "if X then Y" rationale.  And sure, there is some controversy about whether they should be here, although frankly there was a lot more controversy when the Beatles, the Who, Deep Purple, or even Blue Öyster Cult were added, but we seem to have survived.  I personally could name at least 50 bands I don't think belong here, as could most other members.  But that's not surprising considering the vast range of cultures, personalities, generations and interests that are represented here.

 

I don't think expanding our base of artists dilutes the focus of this site at all.  If anything, I would hope that recognizing artists who are actually still producing 'intelligent music' would serve to promote them and expand the interests of some of our members at the same time.  I have been richly rewarded by introductions to bands I previously hadn't heard of (Woven Hand among them) because someone took the time to present them here.

 

And the site's focus is still on the 'classics'.  Just check the Top-100 list: the newest album in the Top-10 is more than 30 years old; and the 4,586 combined reviews of those records will never be threatened by newer artists, at least not in our lifetimes.

 

As a collaborator I have the privilege of being able to add new bands to our archives, and like the other collabs I don't take that privilege lightly.  But as a habitual reviewer I also know I'd rather present my views on an album nobody else has reviewed, then to simply add another "me too" to the other 622 ITCHYCOCK reviews.

 

Hope that helps explain another perspective on your very valid question.

 

peace