Revolutionise the site

I've only been a regular here for about a year, so I've held my thoughts to myself until now.  I like how the discussion is going, though.  I am personally undecided on what I would want to do.  I guess what it comes down to is -- a) is the current system really that unmanageable, and b) are the alternatives any more manageable.  By the way I phrased this, you can probably tell that my gut reaction to both is "no", but then again, I really haven't experienced the same frustrations as many more seasoned collabs and other site users have.

With a solution like album-tagging, I can also see a potential for a bunch of new problems associated with that option, even as the current problems are solved.  As for slimming down the number of subgenres, I really have no opinion on that, I don't feel particularly strongly about such labels anyway (other than as a convenience), though Jim's early comment about his team's dedication to RPI really moved me, and I imagine other teams feel a certain pride and ownership of their little specialty areas.

So I don't have a whole lot to contribute to the discussion, it's just that from my perspective, there really isn't a big enough problem to warrant the huge effort it would take to overhaul the system, in favor of a new system with all its inherent flaws.  (Is there a perfect system?  I can't think of one, that's why this topic is so thought-provoking).

I do applaud lazland for starting this discussion and inviting exchange of ideas among everyone, as well as collating and synthesizing our thoughts and ideas.  I'm always very impressed by how dedicated so many of us are to this site.

Thanks again for all the comments. Actually, much of this debate has also spilled over into the neo debate on the prog music lounge, so I am going to take my time over the weekend to pull much of the debates together, and then make some suggestions on the back of it.

I think things work generally pretty well around here. While I understand that many bands have evolved and moved on from some of the sub-genre’s they emerged from, whether they like it or not they are mostly associated with those original genres. I think it helps newcomers exploring an artist for the first time understand where they came from, how they continued on and how they actually progressed. It’s a helpful way in for brand new listeners. Perhaps the bios of bands could be updated over time to mention how the artist has evolved. I think this already happens from time to time.

I don't understand why others have to be so ashamed to have their band/artist linked to a sub-genre they feel is derogatory or insulting to them. I'm sorry, but `neo prog', `crossover prog' etc is not a reason to be offended, and none of the sub-genre's are designed to be a dumping ground for lesser artists. Every one of the existing sub-genres in place are truly warranted, and serve an important purpose.

On a personal note, if the RPI sub-genre were to be somewhat insultingly removed from the Archives, it would seriously lower the site's credibility...Despite some people having hang-up's and resentment over it's use, that sub-genre is recognized AROUND THE WORLD, not just solely for our site - we didn't patent it and create it ourselves, it's a recognized name and description for a particular type of progressive music that has so many original, defining and unique qualities, that's loved by so many people around the world. It was also well in place before the Archives came along. To dismiss it as merely `symphonic prog just sung in Italian' is hugely offensive and all but ignorant. In the 23+ years of collecting progressive music, I've lost count of the amount of RPI albums that sound NOTHING like symphonic albums from the rest of the world. But that's not really what this thread is about, so I'll let that go for now.

Prog Archives is in a hugely valuable position where it is. Don't know if anyone else has noticed, but if you do a general search for a progressive rock artist/album, more often than not the first Google result will be an Archives listing. We have such a wide exposure for our music, and it didn't happen accidently. Through hard work, dedicated Prog aficionados keeping up the quality and content of the site, we've helped contribute to making it the defining progressive rock resource on the internet, and that is through maintaining the system that works so well now. The team bashing/dismissals and personal hang-ups about nagging little unimportant issues that pop up from time to time only risk to ruin the good work and good will of a terrific group of people who are passionately devoted to our favourite musical genre, who work towards keeping up the integrity and status our site has.

Edited by Aussie-Byrd-Brother - January 17 2013 at 17:41

^^ I would have to whole-heartedly agree as well as I said before, if some extra flexibility is required then limited band-tagging could be the solution

As I've mentioned in another thread, IMHO, current "progressive rock subgenre categories" in PA are existing roughly for every fan who tries to research his/her taste or fondness, not for us to give a place strictly to a progressive rock artist.

The most important matter for Collabs belonging to subgenre teams is, to make a decision whether a candidate can be thought as progressive firstly, and whether he/she/they can be fit for a subgenre (and no problem if not completely) secondly.

Music leans itself on continuity ... no one here cannot classify it strictly / completely. As other collabs have said they love the current classification, I'm fond of this roughness and flexibility in the current classification of subgenres in PA.

Gerinski wrote: As for Dayvenkirk's proposal of multiple tagging per band, I like it, it can reflect more accurately the different styles a band may have explored, it's easier to handle and it can be done gradually. Although following your points, deciding which tags are applicable to each band might also cause disputes among Genre Teams?

Jethro Tull is listed under the Prog-Folk subgenre. If I go by Prog-Archives own definitons, Jethro Tull is not a Prog-Folk band (this site only notes Songs from the Wood and Heavy Horses as actual Prog-Folk albums) . Can anyone really say (without a smirk) that A Passion Play is Prog-Folk? To me, that is just as Eclectic-Prog as any VdGG or Gentle Giant album. The JT album This Was isn't even Prog, truthfully, it's Blues-Rock. How about a couple of their 80s albums like "A" or Under Wraps? Not Prog-Folk at all (i'm not even sure what the hell they are).By definition, Aqualung (Crossover-Prog) and Thick as a Brick (Symphonic Prog) aren't Prog-Folk either (but it is humorous they are two of the highest rated "Prog-Folk" albums on Prog-Archives ). Just because there happens to be an acoustic guitar in the mix does not make it "folk". Tull and Ian Anderson solo eventually integrated a lot of world music into later albums. So what one has an amalgam of different styles, and truthfully none take precedence over others for more than an album or two.

What I am getting at is that bands with a wide range of influences, styles and thematic changes from album to album, like Tull or King Crimson, deserve some sort of multi-tagging as Dayvenkirk suggested.

I tend to agree with Todd. The system we have is undeniably flawed and is sure to benefit from improvement, but smashing all the bands into a few concentrated subs is not the answer. It makes it, like Todd said, more confusing for newcomers and it makes things more crowded. 

Again, my thanks for the contributions. I am leaving a response until we have more posts. I don't want to muddy the waters, really. I will leave it until the end of the week, when more have contributed, and I will try to pull it all together.

Roland113 wrote: Now that I've gotten that off my chest, I don't know all of the specifics about 'album tagging' but if we're having problems classifying bands, isn't the problem just going to multiply if we have the option to debate each individual album as well?   Guys, this site works as it is.  The Squackett debate was the exception rather than the rule.  I don't think we're doing any justice by trying to revamp the entire process when most of the time, it works.

Album tagging: Agreed.

Squackett case: Not an exception. Bute one made visible due to actions taken.

Sorry Steve, I didn't have a chance to post yesterday when this was still over in collaborators land, but there is one thing that hasn't been addressed as of yet.

Has anyone asked M@X what his thoughts are as of yet?  We can debate endlessly about reclassifying things, tagging albums and so on, but the reality is that we don't own the site, and it's not a democracy.  What are the owners willing to do?