| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Rorro 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 31 2005
Location: Uruguay
Status: Offline
Points: 508
|
 Posted: May 05 2006 at 11:42 |
I agree with all that said that proto is to 60's groups and prog related can be reffered to any time.
The problem is that if the archives include all the bands that are similar to any prog band this will become a non prog site. Then someone who doesn't know what prog is, but likes good quality music finds this site and sees the bands listed, and then realises that almost all the bands he knows are progressive, then he thinks that prog is a general term to describe good bands, i wouldn't like that happening.
IMO the prog related term should be applied only for groups that in their entire carreer (i mean almost in every album) , there are clearly some prog elements, but the entire albums can't be considered progressive. Then i question bands like Radiohead of being even prog related.
|
 |
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21847
|
Posted: May 05 2006 at 11:45 |
|
^ Most Radiohead albums are progressive. In fact, IMO only the debut and Hail to the Thief are "just" prog related.
|
|
|
|
Rorro
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 31 2005
Location: Uruguay
Status: Offline
Points: 508
|
Posted: May 05 2006 at 11:50 |
|
Ok, i was thinking of that two albums as "not prog at all", but it's true that there are less progressive albums by other bands, so i may be wrong.
|
|
Rorro
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 31 2005
Location: Uruguay
Status: Offline
Points: 508
|
Posted: May 05 2006 at 11:51 |
|
Also i don't know if Pablo Honey is prog-related. The Only one that without a doubt is progressive is Ok Computer.
Edited by Rorro - May 05 2006 at 11:52
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21847
|
Posted: May 05 2006 at 11:52 |
|
Not wrong - we just have different opinions of where the thresholds are between "not prog", "prog related" and "prog".
|
|
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21847
|
Posted: May 05 2006 at 11:54 |
 Rorro wrote:
Also i don't know if Pablo Honey is prog-related. The Only one that without a doubt is progressive is Ok Computer. |
to me it is prog related, but I can understand people who think it's not prog.
|
|
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: May 05 2006 at 12:16 |
Rorro wrote:
Also i don't know if Pablo Honey is prog-related. The Only one that without a doubt is progressive is Ok Computer. |
Are you saying that Kid A and Amnesiac aren't progressive?
I think those are Radiohead's major works of Prog!
|
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
aapatsos
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: November 11 2005
Location: Manchester, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 9226
|
Posted: May 05 2006 at 12:23 |
For me Proto- relates to 60's and 70's
prog related can be at any period
I don't reckon any Proto- beyond 60's/70's (regarding prog)
Edited by aapatsos - May 05 2006 at 12:23
|
|
Trickster F.
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 10 2006
Location: Belize
Status: Offline
Points: 5308
|
Posted: May 05 2006 at 12:26 |
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
ivansfr0st wrote:
I have the same reason for not wanting to see Metallica in the archives as I have with Cradle Of Filth: they may be progressive, proggy or prog-related enough, but they are not GOOD enough.[IMG]height=17 alt="Thumbs Down" src="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley21.gif" width=23 align=absMiddle>
Of course, that, like you say, is a prejudice and I don't deny it!
-- Ivan |
What do you mean by "not good enough" - are you saying that we should only accept good bands?
|
No. I just mean that I would not feel comfortable with Metallica on the archives. I'd gladly review their albums expressing my opinion so that the argument is valid and understandable, but I wouldn't exactly hurry up and speed up the process of their inclusion in the archives(something I'd gladly do for the bands whose inclusion I am really interested in!). And for the record, it is hard to consider something progressive when you consider it to be CRAP.
-- Ivan
|
|
Rorro
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 31 2005
Location: Uruguay
Status: Offline
Points: 508
|
Posted: May 05 2006 at 12:29 |
Certif1ed wrote:
Rorro wrote:
Also i don't know if Pablo Honey is prog-related. The Only one that without a doubt is progressive is Ok Computer. |
Are you saying that Kid A and Amnesiac aren't progressive?
I think those are Radiohead's major works of Prog!
|
I think thy're prog related, but my point was that not all the Radiohead discography is prog IMO.
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21847
|
Posted: May 05 2006 at 13:17 |
ivansfr0st wrote:
No. I just mean that I would not feel comfortable with Metallica on the archives. I'd gladly review their albums expressing my opinion so that the argument is valid and understandable, but I wouldn't exactly hurry up and speed up the process of their inclusion in the archives(something I'd gladly do for the bands whose inclusion I am really interested in!).
|
Metallica have been rejected by the Prog Metal team ... it is highly unlikely that they get added any time soon. However, when Max finally implements the genre per album feature (whenever that might happen) I would reconsider their addition - at least Master of Puppets can be included as Prog Related.
ivansfr0st wrote:
And for the record, it is hard to consider something progressive when you consider it to be CRAP.
-- Ivan |
I think that this ability is what separates the really good reviewers from the rest. I hope I'll master that someday!
Edited by MikeEnRegalia - May 05 2006 at 13:17
|
|
|
|
Trickster F.
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 10 2006
Location: Belize
Status: Offline
Points: 5308
|
Posted: May 05 2006 at 13:32 |
Will that ever happen? And if so, will it be like your site, i.e. users deciding the genre by themselves?
And I disagree. I think that a good reviewer should be as objective as possible, still trying to find good sides even in the music he doesn't find too pleasing. I know I try to. 
-- Ivan
|
|
Padraic
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
|
Posted: May 05 2006 at 13:49 |
|
Thanks all, this has been a really interesting discussion. The
categories of proto- and related have to be handled very carefully, in
my opinion, or the database could get out of control very quickly.
No offense to the collaborators who did this, but I'm not sure I see
the value in prog-related. A quick look on the subgenre page
showed Queen as one of the top artists - my point is, why do they need
to be on the website at all if they have been deemed to be not
prog? Is the point to suck in newcomers with a sentiment like,
"Hey, you've probably heard of and really enjoy Queen; well, they're
not too far from some bands that this community calls "prog", why don't
you check them out?".
Since I'm such a metal fan I guess I'd love to see at least Iron Maiden
as a proto-prog-metal (I agree with Master of Puppets and Rust In Peace
as isolated "proggy" moments, but I'm not sure I'd like to see those
bands in the archives), but I realize that this too can get
unwieldy. Brings up other questions too, such as I've always
viewed Rush as a progenitor of what we call prog-metal. But
they've also been deemed to be "flat-out" prog. What to do?
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21847
|
Posted: May 05 2006 at 14:40 |
ivansfr0st wrote:
Will that ever happen? And if so, will it be like your site, i.e. users deciding the genre by themselves?
|
I don't think so ... that is (and will remain) an unique feature of my website. 
ivansfr0st wrote:
And I disagree. I think that a good reviewer should be as objective as possible, still trying to find good sides even in the music he doesn't find too pleasing. I know I try to.
-- Ivan |
That's just what I said ... why do you say "disagree"?
|
|
|
|
Trickster F.
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 10 2006
Location: Belize
Status: Offline
Points: 5308
|
Posted: May 05 2006 at 15:15 |
No, really, what I said makes a significant difference. Seeing good sides of unpleasant music is what makes a good reviewer, seeing progressive in sources where you wouldn't normally expect progressive makes a good progmetal team member. If I am writing a review, I'll just make myself a tiny note that 5 stars means a masterpiece of progressive music and is reserved for things that are progressive, unique, emotional and balanced, and the rest is for judging that is not as perfect. I will not give things 1 star, unless they wouldn't fit any progger's collection(see my reviews so far), I'll at least give two stars, if I know that there is something here that people would enjoy.
However, if I was a progmetal team member or something, things would be a lot different. I would have to stop judging groups by how much I like them, and instead concentrate on the proginess factor alone. See what I mean? I may not like the opportunity of adding Blind Guardian or Nevermore to the site, although if I was a member of a team, whose decision affects the result. To sum it all up, the aim of a sub-genre team member is to be as inclusive as possible, the aim of a reviewer - to share his passion for music, cover as much area as possible and be as convincing and still objective as you can.
If a reviewer/team member doesn't follow these rules, he does not make much good for the site, besides feeding his own ego.
This could be an outsiderish look at the things, so you are more than welcome to correct me. 
-- Ivan
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21847
|
Posted: May 05 2006 at 15:32 |
What I said was simply that a good reviewer should be able to separate how he likes something from how progressive he thinks it is. Both elements are then combined in the star rating.
A team member must try to do the exact same thing. He cannot vote for a band that he likes very much although he knows that they're not progressive enough ... but he also mustn't reject a band just because he thinks they're crap - if they're progressive enough they have to be added.
BTW: A team member should be open minded - after all Max wants this website to be inclusive. But that doesn't mean that he has to vote for the inclusion of bands that he thinks are not prog - and I hope that the history of additions shows that we don't include every band that is a little bit more complex than Manowar.
|
|
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: May 05 2006 at 18:08 |
Rorro wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
Rorro wrote:
Also i don't know if Pablo Honey is prog-related. The Only one that without a doubt is progressive is Ok Computer. |
Are you saying that Kid A and Amnesiac aren't progressive? I think those are Radiohead's major works of Prog! [IMG]smileys/smiley1.gif" align=middle> |
I think thy're prog related, but my point was that not all the Radiohead discography is prog IMO. |
Indeed - just as not all the Genesis discography is prog (roughly 30% of it, if you work it out chronologically).
In other words, since Radiohead's studio output is at least 50% prog, that makes them more prog than Genesis, doesn't it?
|
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
Trickster F.
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 10 2006
Location: Belize
Status: Offline
Points: 5308
|
Posted: May 06 2006 at 06:47 |
That's not how *I* would put it, Cert, especially knowing that the whatever percent of Genesis music is prog is associated with prog practically by anyone, whereas the only people who consider Radiohead are the overtly obsessed prog fans who pay so much attention to classification and categories. Most of us, basically.  So, in any case, Genesis is more prog than Radiohead.
-- Ivan
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21847
|
Posted: May 06 2006 at 06:53 |
|
^ Or in other words: Genesis are more obviously prog (at least the 30% of their discography that are), and Radiohead are not prog in the 70s sense, but if you stretch your imagination a little bit and acknowledge the fact that their music is progressive, and they're a rock band.
|
|
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: May 07 2006 at 16:28 |
ivansfr0st wrote:
That's not how *I* would put it, Cert, especially knowing that the whatever percent of Genesis music is prog is associated with prog practically by anyone, whereas the only people who consider Radiohead are the overtly obsessed prog fans who pay so much attention to classification and categories. Most of us, basically. [IMG]height=17 alt=LOL src="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley36.gif" width=17 align=absMiddle> So, in any case, Genesis is more prog than Radiohead.
-- Ivan |
At least you seem to get the little joke there, Ivan...
But I don't think it's true to say that I pay any attention whatsoever to categories - I hate subgenres with silly names with a passion.
While I was of course teasing about Genesis, I still take issue with statements like "Only OK Computer is Prog, so Radiohead aren't prog", because of Kid A and Amnesiac, which are, if not "Symphonic Prog", at least the same sort of Prog as Can or possibly early Kraftwerk and in the same Avant-garde school of thinking as some of the early electronic bands like the Silver Apples, Fifty Foot Hose and White Noise.
Radiohead have only produced one "Indie" album (if you can call it that, as Parlophone is hardly an independent label!), and that's Pablo Honey.
So it's not fair to lump them in with "Britpop" bands, even if bands like Blur and Pulp did come up with some very inventive material, they were never as off the wall as Radiohead were with Kid A or Amnesiac.
|
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Proto/Related ... only for 70s?
