Dire Straits: Prog-Related? YES. - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

Negoba

Prog Reviewer

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210

Posted: May 11 2009 at 09:17

I like Dire Straits, at one point loved them, but for the love of sanity, no. If you want to go down the country / blues route, there are a number of nimble fingered artist who do a combo of jazz and bluegrass that is just phenomenal. We already have Bela Fleck's Flecktones here. But as a lover and performer of folk, blues, bluegrass, and country flavored singer-songwriter music, NO. Prog is about a different aspect of music completely. Dire Straits is firmly in a different category of music. When will this madness end?

Even Metallica (which I think is extremely tenuous for PR) deeply influenced virtually all of the extreme (and non extreme) prog metal that exists today. (Of course they influence pretty much all metal, prog or not, but that's another story). Bands that dabbled in prog stylings for one album do not need to be here, IMO.

Moreover, I think the primary function of this site is to steer prog fans to new bands they might like. Is turning people on to Dire Straits in accord with that goal at all?

I know I've overstated things but we can't include every band that actually knows how to play their instruments.

You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.

TGM: Orb

Prog Reviewer

Joined: October 21 2007
Location: n/a
Status: Offline
Points: 8052

Posted: May 11 2009 at 09:21

npjnpj wrote:

Hang on a moment, this whole thing is off-kilter.

Instead of discussing whether the band is prog, this discussion is about whether 1 (one!!!) of their albums can be considered prog or not, and this is supposed to be the basis on which their inclusion would be considered?

Sorry, that's just not enough!

Eh, wrong there.

The site policy is to include the entire discography of an artist with one prog album, even when it is clear that this other material isn't prog (e.g. Miles Davis, or Rush's mid-late 80s albums).

Additionally, if the site aims to be the 'ultimate prog rock resource', by definition it should include every prog rock album. Since we have an 'all or nothing' approach to artists, that means that an otherwise unrelated band with one prog album should be here.

clarke2001 View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 14 2006
Location: Croatia
Status: Offline
Points: 4160

Posted: May 11 2009 at 09:26

npjnpj wrote:

Hang on a moment, this whole thing is off-kilter.

Sorry, that's just not enough!

Okay, but they influenced Jethro Tull. Pinch

TGM: Orb

Prog Reviewer

Joined: October 21 2007
Location: n/a
Status: Offline
Points: 8052

Posted: May 11 2009 at 09:27

Negoba wrote:

Moreover, I think the primary function of this site is to steer prog fans to new bands they might like. Is turning people on to Dire Straits in accord with that goal at all?

I know I've overstated things but we can't include every band that actually knows how to play their instruments.

The sticking point is Love Over Gold, not the band's general output, in my opinion. I think that one is certainly a full progressive rock album, and consequently, should be here. Even if the rest of the band's output is in that category, if that one album is progressive rock, according to site policy, they should be here.

'Moreover, I think the primary function of this site is to steer prog fans to new bands they might like. Is turning people on to Dire Straits in accord with that goal at all?'

I think the site's aim, at least, is to be the ultimate prog rock resource. That means including every prog album, even those by bands which, unarguably, generally did not make 'prog' music.

Negoba

Prog Reviewer

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210

Posted: May 11 2009 at 09:35

I know this has been suggested before, but if we're going to include a band with a long discography based on a single album, shouldn't we just include that album?

There are many who have devoted much more time than I to this site who have decided it's primary goals. If the goal is to be comprehensive first and foremost, then I think we need to be able trim the "Kill Em Alls" and "Brothers in Arms."

You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.

Padraic

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169

Posted: May 11 2009 at 09:39

Negoba wrote:

I know this has been suggested before, but if we're going to include a band with a long discography based on a single album, shouldn't we just include that album?

It's a constant suggestion - but right now site policy is no partial discogs. If an artist is in, every album gets added, regardless of any one album's prog quotient.

rushfan4

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 22 2007
Location: Michigan, U.S.
Status: Offline
Points: 66828

Posted: May 11 2009 at 09:40

Negoba wrote:

I know this has been suggested before, but if we're going to include a band with a long discography based on a single album, shouldn't we just include that album?

Unfortunately, this goes directly against another directive from M@x that any band that is included on PA must have their entire discography included. There are hundreds of suggestions like this because of situations just like this, but until such time that M@x is persuaded otherwise this is another firm site policy.

Negoba

Prog Reviewer

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210

Posted: May 11 2009 at 09:42

Yikes, ok...I need to find some samples of that album.

You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.

Negoba

Prog Reviewer

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210

Posted: May 11 2009 at 10:36

To call that album full prog is a stretch. There's some great music there, but there is also a fair bit of long-form jamming over the same progression. Using some rhythmic and dynamic rises and falls over the same chords is pretty standard jam style playing, almost the opposite of prog composition.

At the same time, there are some more intentional rhythmic and harmonic shifts, prominent keys, but the music itself still revolves around Knopfler's strength as a straight-ahead songwriter and blues-based guitarist.

I suppose once you get to the end of the list, and are trying to be absolutely inclusive, this could be considered. But it seems like it would have to be way way down the list.

Again, great music, but coming from a different part of the music universe. I say as I listen to Le Orme. (Truly progressive music that I never would have known about without this site)

You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.

debrewguy

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596

Posted: May 11 2009 at 10:52

That was my initial case to begin with - are the suite-length songs prog by their duration only ?

oh, and BTW, the comment about changing rules ... why the need to change rules because of a disagreement over one band ?
If there is a case to be made, let it be debated in a separate thread about the rule(s) in question ...

"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: May 11 2009 at 14:17

TGM: Orb wrote:

Doesn't affect my support for an addition.

Of course you have the right to support an addition till the end of tha days, but that's the problem, we must know where to stop, the reasons are clear, the administrators are clearly against.........Shouldn't we be using the valuable bandwith in caring about real Prog bands that are left outside and nobody cares, instead of a Commercial, mainstream band thatmay or may not have connection in one album?

that seems to be maintained for the sake of completeness (solo artists, tangential artists like Kate Bush or David Bowie, later influences on prog), I can say that I think the inclusion of Dire Straits here would be rational if they were to make the site.

My point was that the overly heavy-handed application of that rule would prevent perfectly valid artists ing included as much as controversial ones.

I berlieve you just agreed before that Dire Straits has absolutely no influence in Prog Rock evolution, if they were to be added, this addition should be based in the closeness to Prog.

That wasn't my point at all. My point was that confusion for the community can be cleared up pretty easily, so it shouldn't prevent an artist who should be here being here by itself.

It's easier to explain when an artist has Prog credentials, but Dire Straits has almost 20 releasdes and one barely related for a few persons, I believe that's absurd.

I think, helped express reasonably the motivations behind his inclusion in proto-. I think 'confusion for the community' is a very imprecise term, and somewhat of a watery get-out-of-jail-free card. Understandable, but I think community confusion is something which could very easily be worked around, and consequently, this condition should perhaps be seen in that light.

It's very patronising to suggest that general music fans know nothing (and lastly, those are reviews on a site, not the express views of that site) about progressive rock. After all, prog rock is part of general music. At least some of them indicated grounds of reference for progressive rock, and a few suggested a preference for progressive rock. Some prog rock sites may well have different criteria for addition to us (for instance, a site which says that a band can be included only on the balance of their career couldn't possibly include Dire Straits as a prog band, otoh, our system quite reasonably could). I don't know. Also, given you're denying that these prog sites (with AOR and William Shatner what have you) are credible, if they were on the other side, you'd probably ignore them, too.

That's exactly my point.

Non Prog sites priorizem,POP, Rock, Raop, Hip Hop, Botyys6 Giorls bands over Prog,k theiy simply don't care about Prog, the people that works for them don't care about prog (I know it, i was offered a paid job in one of them), so their ionformation is biased and mostly bvased in half truth and lack of deep knowledge, ask them about Maddona, Britnet or even ABBA and you will find reliable info, ask them about Prog bands and they don't even undertsand the genre.
Prog sites have differences, but are clearly much more reliable when talking about Prog.. If we made a section about Punk, it wouldn't be remotely informed as punk77 mainly because Punk is not our main insterest.
Plus, the rule of controversial bands talks about PROG sites

No, it's not even close to your point. I was speaking about a biased view against the progressive aspects and elements of their music.

If a band is Prog or related, at least one site will add them in three decades, i read all the prog sites and literature, and that's more than obvious.

People also talked with the posts, yes? If someone says they don't think a band should be here, but they think that band has a prog album, their 'no' is invalid in the context of whether they support a band addition. Also, talking up 18 people as 81.87%, while technically accurate, 18 is hardly representative of a majority view.

People has marked NO, that's enough,

The few are sometimes right, or at least reasonable, the conception of progressive is always changing, and the interpretation of a band's material in retrospect is a crucial part of creating genre definitions and understanding. Preventing re-suggestion would, at best, be overkill, and at worst, cause a rigid non-recognition of changing views. I would, maybe, support the idea of leaving the existing suggestion thread open and not allowing the opening of a new one so that the idea of the band's merit for inclusion can still be discussed once it's been rejected/accepted, because then people can then register their changing views without necessarily re-suggesting a band.

We shoulsd agree to disagree here, at least a tyhree strikes rule should be created.

You really don't need all that many folks to reject an addition, and at least putting in and defending the suggestion takes a surprising amount of effort. Frankly, it's not been the same person suggesting it every time.

You don't get my point:

To add a band you only need a newbie that hasbn't been present in previous debates, we have newbies in daily bases.
To reject a band you need a TEAM of 3, 4 or 5 persons to decide, a team that is not only prepared in Prog, but knows nmore about an specific genrem, that means much more to me.

And frankly, if we were that worried about losing time trying to put square bands into round genre holes, we wouldn't be on PA anyway LOL

That's not the point, we work hours a day here, but when we ask help for addiing a real Prog band, not even the person of the country of the band helps, on the other hand, Boston, Toto and worst Dire Straits are proposed and we loose 6 pages on them despite won't be added.

So0me collaborators are abandoning the site becauise lack of support, I never jhad a problem to complete a team, now with Guigo and Claude we are suffering because not even asking volunteers we have replie, and many of them are out because of doubious additions.

Eric (E-Dub) one of the best workers we had, has lost almost all the interest, HT, a guy who worked 5 6 hours daily, had disagreements and now has his own blog, we are loosing valuable people interested in Prog, because the excessive care for tangential bands.

Iván

russellk

Prog Reviewer

Joined: February 28 2005
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 782

Posted: May 11 2009 at 15:31

I take your points, Ivan. But one thing we can't afford to take into consideration when discussing the merits of potential additions is the effect of this on other people's workloads. If we did, then genuine prog bands may not be suggested. I feel bad that someone with the unique expertise of E-Dub has lost his enthusiasm because of this sort of thing, and I know how frustrated you must feel when the rules you have worked so hard to draft get called into question, but any inclusion/exclusion boundary involves a grey area.

My personal view is that Dire Straits is not in the grey area - I don't think they are prog-related. They have clearly been influenced by prog, but they did not influence prog.

You know, I've found myself wondering recently about my own personal boundary - where I draw the line between prog and non-prog. (Ignoring for the moment my personal definitionof what prog actually is!) For me, I find I assess bands and albums on the basis of whether they are PRIMARILY prog.

So: 'Love Over Gold' is a classic rock album with rock/blues song structures, with a strong prog polish in the song arrangements. Dire Straits as a band were minimalist classic rock, their appeal was their return to 70s rock values and an emphasis on guitar work in an age dominated by synth-pop. Neither 'Love Over Gold' nor the band themselves are primarily prog. This suggests to me that they don't belong here.

kenethlevine View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Prog-Folk Team

Joined: December 06 2006
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 9196

Posted: May 11 2009 at 15:51

I don't disagree with either your assessment or your criteria Russell. And applying the same criteria makes me wonder why groups like JOURNEY made it in here when groups like early Fleetwood Mac had much greater influence on prog at a much earlier time. Not that I am pushing for Fleetwood in any way!!!

Edited by kenethlevine - May 11 2009 at 15:54

Tony R

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: July 16 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 11985

Posted: May 11 2009 at 15:52

russellk wrote:

I take your points, Ivan. But one thing we can't afford to take into consideration when discussing the merits of potential additions is the effect of this on other people's workloads. If we did, then genuine prog bands may not be suggested. I feel bad that someone with the unique expertise of E-Dub has lost his enthusiasm because of this sort of thing, and I know how frustrated you must feel when the rules you have worked so hard to draft get called into question, but any inclusion/exclusion boundary involves a grey area.

My personal view is that Dire Straits is not in the grey area - I don't think they are prog-related. They have clearly been influenced by prog, but they did not influence prog.

You know, I've found myself wondering recently about my own personal boundary - where I draw the line between prog and non-prog. (Ignoring for the moment my personal definitionof what prog actually is!) For me, I find I assess bands and albums on the basis of whether they are PRIMARILY prog.

So: 'Love Over Gold' is a classic rock album with rock/blues song structures, with a strong prog polish in the song arrangements. Dire Straits as a band were minimalist classic rock, their appeal was their return to 70s rock values and an emphasis on guitar work in an age dominated by synth-pop. Neither 'Love Over Gold' nor the band themselves are primarily prog. This suggests to me that they don't belong here.

Tony R

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: July 16 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 11985

Posted: May 11 2009 at 15:54

kenethlevine wrote:

I don't diagree with either your assessment or your criteria Russell. And applying the same criteria makes me wonder why groups like JOURNEY made it in here

Because of their first two albums.

The argument put forward was a winning one. I don't necessarily take pleasure in the band being here but a convincing case was made.

As to whether we really need them here, well that's another argument entirely.

Mandrakeroot View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Italian Prog Specialist

Joined: March 01 2006
Location: San Foca, Friûl
Status: Offline
Points: 5851

Posted: May 11 2009 at 16:09

If we look at there would be too many bands to be included in Prog Related.

But in my humble opinion if you include Dire Strates is obbligatory to include Police... And how many other bands...

Sure Bryan Ferry is more Prog than Dire Strates, for me.

Edited by Mandrakeroot - May 11 2009 at 16:10

TGM: Orb

Prog Reviewer

Joined: October 21 2007
Location: n/a
Status: Offline
Points: 8052

Posted: May 11 2009 at 17:57

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

TGM: Orb wrote:

Doesn't affect my support for an addition.

Of course you have the right to support an addition till the end of tha days, but that's the problem, we must know where to stop, the reasons are clear, the administrators are clearly against.........Shouldn't we be using the valuable bandwith in caring about real Prog bands that are left outside and nobody cares, instead of a Commercial, mainstream band thatmay or may not have connection in one album?

I'm not sure it's a case of instead, really.

that seems to be maintained for the sake of completeness (solo artists, tangential artists like Kate Bush or David Bowie, later influences on prog), I can say that I think the inclusion of Dire Straits here would be rational if they were to make the site.

My point was that the overly heavy-handed application of that rule would prevent perfectly valid artists ing included as much as controversial ones.

There was no rule whenMike and Kate were added, I believe the triule started with the addition of Steely Dan....Who by the way has a lot of more Prog credentials than Dire Strait

Hm. My point was that I felt both of those artists were perfect fits, and that rule would have excluded them if applied too sternly. Of course, you disagree on the inclusion of those, so it's, in that context, not a great argument.

Closeness never equals influence on the development of. So I don't get what you're trying to say here.

I berlieve you just agreed before that Dire Straits has absolutely no influence in Prog Rock evolution, if they were to be added, this addition should be based in the closeness to Prog.

Well, exactly. My point here was that one, if not two, of the possible criteria for inclusion are somewhat hamstrung by the catch-all 'PR bands are influential to the development of prog' (which is what PP is for, anyway?) backline, unless you insist on stretching the definition of development of prog to the extent that Dire Straits couldn't be clearly excluded by that criterion.

That wasn't my point at all. My point was that confusion for the community can be cleared up pretty easily, so it shouldn't prevent an artist who should be here being here by itself.

It's easier to explain when an artist has Prog credentials, but Dire Straits has almost 20 releasdes and one barely related for a few persons, I believe that's absurd.

Six studio albums, right? One of which is potentially related, another of which is clearly prog 'for a few persons', and considered at least sort of related by more, and another two with a smattering of tiny touches which could be considered prog. It would hardly be impossible to explain, imho.

I think, helped express reasonably the motivations behind his inclusion in proto-. I think 'confusion for the community' is a very imprecise term, and somewhat of a watery get-out-of-jail-free card. Understandable, but I think community confusion is something which could very easily be worked around, and consequently, this condition should perhaps be seen in that light.

If all the administrators and the voters of the poll think they don't belong here, well it's clearly a confusion

Community confusion isn't hard to work around or explain.

If 81.87% of the voters, all the adnmionistrators are agaionst and no Prog site has added them in 32 years....ADDIONG WOULD CREATE CONFUSION.

81.87% is not crushing evidence when it represents the views of 18 people only. Some of whose views, in context of posts appended to the poll, would actually be in support if they were fully in agreement with general site policy.

That's exactly my point.

Non Prog sites priorizem,POP, Rock, Raop, Hip Hop, Botyys6 Giorls bands over Prog,k theiy simply don't care about Prog, the people that works for them don't care about prog (I know it, i was offered a paid job in one of them), so their ionformation is biased and mostly bvased in half truth and lack of deep knowledge, ask them about Maddona, Britnet or even ABBA and you will find reliable info, ask them about Prog bands and they don't even undertsand the genre.

It's a general music fan/review site I was referencing. People go on and talk about what they like/know about a bit. Those were general reviews by general internet users - not by an axis of NME-generated evil... most of them seemed to me to have an idea of what they were saying or they only put down very brief reviews... indeed, one review there suggested that the album's one non-prog (their opinion) song was a weakness in and of itself. Out of interest, why do you always capitalise 'pop'? (no offense meant, at all, I'm genuinely curious)

Prog sites have differences, but are clearly much more reliable when talking about Prog.. If we made a section about Punk, it wouldn't be remotely informed as punk77 mainly because Punk is not our main insterest.

And yet, William Shatner and an AOR subgenre? I suspect you'd bring those up if the prog sites had pre-empted an addition, instead saying that they're not particularly credible.

Plus, the rule of controversial bands talks about PROG sites

I was just using those reviews to indicate there's some support for the idea that LOG is a prog album - when taken individually - and it's not especially hard to find that support. Certainly, if Prog sites are included in that rule, it should be applied just like that.

No, it's not even close to your point. I was speaking about a biased view against the progressive aspects and elements of their music.

If a band is Prog or related, at least one site will add them in three decades, i read all the prog sites and literature, and that's more than obvious.

Well, I'll let that one alone. Don't think you're entirely right here, but I can't say I know enough about the methods of the other prog sites to contradict you directly.

People also talked with the posts, yes? If someone says they don't think a band should be here, but they think that band has a prog album, their 'no' is invalid in the context of whether they support a band addition. Also, talking up 18 people as 81.87%, while technically accurate, 18 is hardly representative of a majority view.

People has marked NO, that's enough,

No, it isn't. In the same way that me voting no in a poll and appending, 'Miles Davis shouldn't be here, but Bitches Brew sure as hell is a prog jazz/rock album' isn't enough. There, the expressed beliefs of the voter indicate that a band should be on the site according to site policy, just not according to their preference.

We shoulsd agree to disagree here, at least a tyhree strikes rule should be created.

Well, reiterating myself here, but how about just leaving the suggestion thread open for the purpose of not preventing valid + reasonable discussion, and not allowing another official resuggestion (i.e. one that has to be looked over by the admins etc.) to be put to the team unless someone of 'sufficient stature' thinks that a reevaluation is maybe required?

Think that'd be good news for all sides involved really.

You don't get my point:

To add a band you only need a newbie that hasbn't been present in previous debates, we have newbies in daily bases.

To reject a band you need a TEAM of 3, 4 or 5 persons to decide, a team that is not only prepared in Prog, but knows nmore about an specific genrem, that means much more to me.

The same team of 3, 4 or 5 persons, right? Quantitatively speaking, that makes 7:5 or so . About newbie x, their opinion is still valid, even if it's maybe not been as full of 'which subgenre would this go in' thoughts as the team. I assume noone's suggested the very popular AC/DC (even here, they seem to have a fair few fans): this is because noone sees the potential connection for AC/DC, while a fair few do, to a greater or lesser extent, for Dire Straits.

And frankly, if we were that worried about losing time trying to put square bands into round genre holes, we wouldn't be on PA anyway LOL

Iván

Pity about Eric... but me, I think the biggest threat to the site is folk around are getting a bit humourless and highly strung and we angst about genres too much, while there doesn't really appear to be that much interest in exploring/creating ideas and understanding tastes in the 'music' area of it at the moment. Having a couple of tangential or borderline bands, I think, doesn't affect the site that much. Anyone who specifically leaves because of a 'dubious addition', I think, is missing the point.

Six pages of arguments about whether Dire Straits could qualify are at least quite interesting in a way for looking at the definition of prog... they could have been put into another 'SEBTP vs. Close To The Edge' or 'Which of Camel's masterpieces is the best' poll (I'm not complaining, particularly, about those existing - but I don't think we, collectively, end up getting a lot out of those recurring threads which we potentially could).

I think a lot of the obvious prog we're adding is simply too obscure for a lot of people to be interested. A lot of us who weren't there first time round simply haven't a hope in hell of getting hold of or hearing something like Wide Open N-Way (n.b. don't actually know how rare this one is... but for a lot of us in the student life, an OOP album is simply not something we're going to obtain or even be able to), even if we would be interested in helping out. Just as many don't have an interest in the debut effort of a completely 'new' band.

(For the record, I'm still interested in helping out once the coming exams are out of the way... didn't think I had the expertise to make a judgement in psych, and my last computer was literally just about useless for checking out myspaces etc. to get song samples.)

Dire Straits, on the other hand, I 'know' about (have all the studio albums, Private Investigations as an anthology w. the various extras on that), so I can somewhat intelligently contribute on that one. And if I feel like doing that, does it really matter all that much if I do?

And an edit based on the few responses saying, 'Well, if Dire Straits is here, you'd have to have The Police/Bruce Springsteen etc.'
Possibly the most trotted out cliché I've seen is the classic, 'X is here, so Y should be also'. This is usually answered with a 'that just compounds mistakes'. Surely the same process works in reverse, no...? (i.e. saying another un-added band is more related doesn't relate to the question of a proposed addition)

Edited by TGM: Orb - May 11 2009 at 18:14

Atavachron View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65892

Posted: May 11 2009 at 18:53

Tony R wrote:

kenethlevine wrote:

I don't diagree with either your assessment or your criteria Russell. And applying the same criteria makes me wonder why groups like JOURNEY made it in here

and let's remember the particulars of that and each addition; Journey was suggested for HeavyProg, we determined though the first two albums absolutely contain some prog and fusion, they were not prog records.

as for the Dire Straits, I've not heard all their releases so I'll refrain from giving an opinion as to ProgRelated.. at the same time, the fact that itunes and some radio sations or DJs say the Straits are prog has 0 impact on me and hopefully most of the other Collabs, in fact it makes me that much more suspect because those 'in the know' often seem to have their heads quite far up their rear ends.

Edited by Atavachron - May 11 2009 at 18:54

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: May 11 2009 at 19:15

A few points:

The Controversial Bands Addition rules do not apply to Prog Related or Proto-Prog bands, though we do take some of those rules into consideration when evaluating a band for those categories.

The "One Prog Album" rule does not necessarily apply to Prog Related - a band can have no Prog albums and still be eligible. The rule cannot apply to Proto-Prog by definition.

The "Full Discography" rule is carved in stone as far as I am aware - but discuss it by all means.

Prog Related generates a lot of interest because the bands are usually well known and people generally have very polarised opinions on those bands. If an obscure band was added to PR no one would say a word.

I don't think these debates do distract from adding other bands, nor do they lessen the number of "Genesis vs. Dream Theater" polls. People post in threads because they have an opinion to express on that topic, regardless of what the topic is or how often it's been repeated.

People are leaving and joining the site for a multitude of reasons - additions policy is only one of them and some people have left because that policy is too restrictive.

It doesn't matter whether an addition is well known or totally obscure - the goal for every subgenre except Prog Related and Proto Prog is to add every band who produced a Prog album. PP and PR are special cases and there is no need to add every band that made a nearly-prog album.

No one expects 100s of people to review obscure or OOP albums - I'd be highly suspicious if they did.

What?

debrewguy

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596

Posted: May 11 2009 at 20:12

O.K., how about we take this one step at a time and see what we can agree on.
First song - Industrial Disease. Can we agree that it is not prog ?

"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.