1st disappointment with PA

utah_man wrote: <span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 153, 0);">...deep purple ?  </span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 153, 0);">machine head ?</span><br style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 153, 0);"> <br style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 153, 0);"> <span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 153, 0);">c'mon people... by placing these non-prog (sorry, "proto-prog"), hard rock elements, the door is now opened up for just about anything and everything to appear on a site which is supposedly dedicated to the <span style="text-decoration: underline;">progressive</span> rock sound both musically & historically. but on the other hand, there's such a high volume of extremely good examples of outstanding progressive rock... oh well... </span>

   
If that's the case, then Invisible Touch is not prog!: Genesis is not prog!! or you're gonna tell me Illegal Alien is prog!?

If they include a band... then they have to include the WHOLE DISCOGRAPHY... that's why "Machine Head" is here.... Deep Purple Mk. 2 were clearly not progressive... but they did that "Concerto For Group and Orchestra" and many other artsy things before 1970.... so they're proto-prog....

SolariS wrote: I think you're over-extending that. Korn and Papa Roach are not related to prog...This isn't exactly a slippery slope situation. Site admins have already said that "if ____ is here then why not ____" arguments do not cut it for inclusion into the prog related categories. There will always be bands that are clearly prog, others that have nothing to do with prog and those that are somewhere above the middle of that grey area. Artists such as Korn and Papa Roach, I'm sure our site admins will agree, are in the nothing to do with prog category.

I think you're over-extending that. Korn and Papa Roach are not related to prog...This isn't exactly a slippery slope situation. Site admins have already said that "if ____ is here then why not ____" arguments do not cut it for inclusion into the prog related categories. There will always be bands that are clearly prog, others that have nothing to do with prog and those that are somewhere above the middle of that grey area. Artists such as Korn and Papa Roach, I'm sure our site admins will agree, are in the nothing to do with prog category.

The T wrote: Good point. But I'll be the designated whiner and say: I like Amorphis and think they are prog.... many people think they are not... so they should be included here in the p-related genre... Or Not?   Well I think NOT. There shouldn't be a prog-related genre... Because we could end with some Pop artists here, the way their music influenced prog (believe me, at least once it must have happened)

So what if a pop artist gets added to prog-related. If they are related to prog so be it. It's still not an admission that they are a prog band.

I have no doubts about Proto Prog.

proto prog and prog related means that the bands are NOT prog!!! they only have some prog elements or influences. you should see this as a good thing.

take this scenario: you do not see iron maiden as prog metal. joe schmo does. well there's a chance that maiden could get listed under prog metal, but instead since they are not a complete prog band, they get listed under prog related. the benefit to you? iron maiden can now NOT get listed as a prog metal band. it's good for joe schmo too because he can now review and discuss the prog elements of iron maiden on the prog related portions of the website. everyone should be happy.






Edited by SolariS - December 03 2006 at 23:50

Is see proto and related more of a touch to bring those who are like "What in the world is prog" into a sense of what is prog and what isn't.  Such as Styx, there's a lot of songs that I don't consider prog from them, but they're here.  Plus Iron Maiden, because of their last 3 albums, and then Deep Purple, Primus, and a ton others.  I see the whole thing as simply linking those who are into classic rock like Journey for us to say "heard of these, well, that can be classified as prog, but look around and find what really is true prog".  That's how I got the picture when I first came to this site.  I like the prescense of proto and related, it helps a little bit to know what is true prog, and which is incomplete prog.  True the only progressive thing about Smoke on the Water is the intro, or really, not even the intro, but it gives the likage between prog, and non-prog, in my opinion.

oliverstoned wrote: W.Chuck wrote: This site is called PROG-archives and there should be a stricter criterion for the selection.      I totally agree with you. Which band caused your disappointment? Iron Maiden?

I do notice that it took Utah man over 11 months from joining to experience his first disappointment with the site. If only married life was like that!

This site is called PROG-archives and there should be a stricter criterion for the selection.