| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
ProgBagel 
Prog Reviewer
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2819
|
 Posted: October 31 2007 at 09:45 |
|
It's just like the old saying. Listen to what you like. If two bands sound similar...theres still a good chance you will not like them the same, or the other at all. Just a matter of searching and chance.
|
 |
jmcdaniel_ee
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 25 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 141
|
Posted: October 31 2007 at 08:58 |
I've often wondered the same thing. I know what standards I would use, but how do you apply that in an objective way? Even group consensus doesn't make something 100% objective.
Maybe it could be analogous to a sphere (or prog-planet  ), where there are certain genres that makes up the core* of prog (symphonic, neo-progressive, RIO/Avant), then you have certain genres slightly outside of the core that have been influenced by particular styles but still considered fully progressive (prog folk, prog electronic, jazz/fusion, etc). On the outskirts (the outer atmosphere  ) are the prog-related, some art rock, proto-prog and crossover prog. Probably the prog related would be the gateway category for groups that may or may not be fully progressive.
* it could be argued that these "core" genres I mentioned are also influenced by a particular style (classical music [baroque, classical, romantic, modern]). Oh man, this is getting complicated.
Edited by jmcdaniel_ee - October 31 2007 at 09:04
|
|
Raff
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 29 2005
Location: None
Status: Offline
Points: 24439
|
Posted: October 31 2007 at 08:58 |
 Trademark wrote:
"if prog means sounding like the big Seventies bands, half of the entries in our database should be deleted."
I find myself generally falling into this category, but then I'm old. |
So am I... my year of birth is in my profile, since I must be the only woman alive who's never hidden her age!  And yes, perhaps this thread has already surfaced, though probably with a different title. The concept of something being 'more prog' than something else is one of my pet peeves, and it's highly likely that I have vented my frustration on former occasions, even if under a slightly different title.
|
|
Casartelli
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 17 2006
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 401
|
Posted: October 31 2007 at 08:55 |
Hasn't a thread exactly like this been opened several times before?
However, one thing I'd like to express: this debate is exactly why I like the existence of the Proto-Prog and the Prog Related category. Some prog borderline cases are in an appropriate prog category in our beloved archives and some are, sometimes less and sometimes more appropriate in the PP and PR categories. You might debate their particular placement, but more important than the exact category they're in, is the fact that they are in here. Every individual user can discuss the boundary cases the way he/she likes.
You still have discussions if a certain band might enter the PP/PR categories or has nothing even remotely to do with prog at all. But those discussions are a lot less relevant on a site where full-fledged prog music is the core business.
|
|
Trademark
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
|
Posted: October 31 2007 at 08:34 |
|
"if prog means sounding like the big Seventies bands, half of the entries in our database should be deleted."
I find myself generally falling into this category, but then I'm old.
|
|
Failcore
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 27 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 4625
|
Posted: October 31 2007 at 08:32 |
|
This thread is not proggy enough. :P Yeah I agree. Prog means prog, for me, not 1969-1976.
Edited by Deathrabbit - October 31 2007 at 08:32
|
|
chopper
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 13 2005
Location: Essex, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 20047
|
Posted: October 31 2007 at 08:27 |
It's a subjective thing. Whilst being obvious in some cases (e.g. Yes are definitely more prog than Steps) it is less obvious in most cases and depends what you define as "prog" in the first place.
Didn't someone invent the prog-o-meter to measure this sort of thing?
|
|
Raff
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 29 2005
Location: None
Status: Offline
Points: 24439
|
Posted: October 31 2007 at 08:24 |
|
I suppose every member of this forum has come across such an expression when browsing through the various threads. Especially the Suggest New Bands/Artist section seems to be full of posts where someone claims band X belong in PA because "they are 100 times more prog than band Y/many of the bands (albums) included here/etc.etc."
Now, I have to admit such an expression bugs the hell out of me. Is there an objective way in which we can measure the 'prog quotient' of a band or artist in relation to others? Or does it all boil down to our own idea of what prog should be like?
Let's face it: if prog means sounding like the big Seventies bands, half of the entries in our database should be deleted. If prog is just an abbreviation of progressive, said database should be much more inclusive. Though PA is founded on the concept of prog, no one seems to
agree on what it really means. So, is there any point in trying to
quantify such a concept in order to either push some act we like, or put
down some other act we dislike?
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
'More Prog'
