Progressive inclusionism

Coining my own word here, I'm getting a bit irritated with the excessively-inclusive mentality of our prog metal team. Why are After Forever in the Archives now? What exactly happened to make them prog all of the sudden? I mean, I quite like them, but prog? They were more or less prog-related with Invisible Circles, but they definitely don't belong in the main sections. And before someone asks, I have Prison of Desire, Invisible Circles, Remagine, and the self-titled album. The latest album has but one track which could be cited as progressive, and that's Dreamflight. As much as I enjoy Floor Jansen and company, it doesn't belong. But it's more than that. Everything seems to be showing up these days. We have a prog-related section, but we don't use it. Instead we're overly inclusive. We don't need to justify adding Blind Guardian by repeating the mistake tenfold.

There was a time when I considered myself inclusive with regard to prog, but this is just getting silly.

Don't be too strict! All in all you're allowed to describe all the music included in PA writing reviews... In my opinion sub-genres are just tools to organize information: the inclusion of a band is, most of all, a way to inform the users of PA of their existence, then you can say if you like that band or not, if that band in your opinion is enough "prog" or not etc...

I'll leave this thread in place to allow members of the PM team the right of response. However, the tone of the first two posts is too aggressive and will simply lead to defensive responses, not the discussion they apparently seek. The underlying implication is that the team is either doing its job badly, or motivated by self interest.

Edited by Easy Livin - December 25 2007 at 05:45

I almost forgot to mention: Yes, by all means consider me to be an "inclusionist". Given the choice of being totally "exclusive" or totally inclusive I'll happily choose the latter. In my role as collab and member of the PMT I'd like to think that I maintain a balance between the two ... it makes sense to be exclusive sometimes, when adding a band would mean to stretch the boundaries of prog too far. But it also makes sense to be inclusive in order to be consistent, and to allow for the definition of "prog" to be gradually expanded and adapted to new circumstances. The world is not static ... it's changing every day, and so is music.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: I almost forgot to mention: Yes, by all means consider me to be an "inclusionist". Given the choice of being totally "exclusive" or totally inclusive I'll happily choose the latter. In my role as collab and member of the PMT I'd like to think that I maintain a balance between the two ... it makes sense to be exclusive sometimes, when adding a band would mean to stretch the boundaries of prog too far. But it also makes sense to be inclusive in order to be consistent, and to allow for the definition of "prog" to be gradually expanded and adapted to new circumstances. The world is not static ... it's changing every day, and so is music.

I remember someone once saying something like the Prog Metal team was particularly strict with inclusion as evidenced by the very limited number of metal bands in Prog Related (with minor notable exceptions such as Iron Maiden) to which I rather jokingly quipped that that's because the related bands are being given full Prog status.  Now I'm not saying that what I said is true, but I was just reminded of that

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ... it makes sense to be exclusive sometimes, when adding a band would mean to stretch the boundaries of prog too far. But it also makes sense to be inclusive in order to be consistent, and to allow for the definition of "prog" to be gradually expanded and adapted to new circumstances. The world is not static ... it's changing every day, and so is music.

I agree with this. 

I think it's important for this site to evolve so as to include more kinds of progressive music (and there were precedents for this band to be included).  As long as the categories and definitions are updated to reflect this, then I see no problem with it.  To me that's progress.  I can't really speak for these examples.  I'm glad that the site doesn't just stick to a more tradionalist view of Prog (or even Prog Metal which is a somewhat controversial category though very well-established).  We each do have our own ideas about what Prog is.  For me it's an attitude to making music that doesn't balk at challenging the listener and denying expectation, a blending of genres, and an experimental or adventurous approach to making music that is willing to go against more mainstream conventions.

Perhaps bands such as Blind Guardian, Nightwish, and After Forever are all  controversial to some , but for any doubters, I feel I should repeat the first words of the bio which boldly states that "AFTER FOREVER is a progressive-metal band...." I don't know enough to comment on this inclusion. but it seems like it's a "progressive" form of metal, whether it's Prog may be another matter (since music can be progressive (adjective) without being recognised as Prog (noun)).

Anyway, it's been a long time coming.  Can see that they were recommended over two years ago by a member: CLICK and inclusion was discussed again back in March CLICK, so plenty of time and thought has been put into this.

I don't even think what is Prog enough for the site that much.  I just think, does it fit a category, and if it's progressive and it doesn't, can we expand to include it?  I still want Nyman and Philip Glass, perhaps the PMT will be open-minded enough to accept them. haha. If the purists had their way, I would have missed out on so much great music.

There are varying degrees of Inclusionism and Exclusionism.

Gamemako wrote: A perfectly inclusive policy would have every band ever in there, period, and I don't think anyone here would ever be vying for that. There must be a balance, and I believe that the balance here is a bit out of whack.

Gamemako wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: Gamemako wrote: Coining my own word here, I'm getting a bit irritated with the excessively-inclusive mentality of our prog metal team. Why are After Forever in the Archives now? What exactly happened to make them prog all of the sudden? It didn't happen "suddenly" ... they had been cleared for addition for almost a year.  If you want to know what's happening in the PMT you can monitor the PM chart, or more precisely: the list of cleared bands: http://ratingfreak.com/home/progarchives.xhtml?path=pm/cleared I didn't go over old ones. It was previously rejected -- I got a laugh at it, actually, when I first saw it when it was still Progtology. I ghosted this forum long before I registered. Epica was always Under Discussion, but AF was blatently rejected. I don't recall them being rejected, but they used to have many "no" votes. But rejected bands can always be re-evaluated, as the circumstances change. Remember that we're not talking about mathematics here ... it's not an exact science. I don't expect rejected bands to be added unless they come out with a prog release, and AF certainly has not. I think it's safe to say that with the addition of Epica there was a small shift towards the inclusion of After Forever, considering the relations between the two bands. And even if they lost *some* of their progressive touch their last two albums are still far from being mainstream. I mean, I quite like them, but prog? They were more or less prog-related with Invisible Circles, but they definitely don't belong in the main sections. You're correct in that their current albums are less prog than their early albums. But whether they're prog enough to be added ... that matter is open for discussion. Where do we go to discuss it, then? There is no place for us to discuss things; we are at the mercy of the teams. We're discussing it right now, in this thread. If a democratic approach to adding bands is that important to you then you can always join ratingfreak.com ... but (not) surprisingly few people do so. Vanity ... definitely my favorite sin! New additions aren't usually announced. We just happen to find out later when browsing lists. I'm sure there are quite a few people who would agree that AF is certainly not prog, but they probably have no idea that AF is in the Archives. Maybe it would be nice to have a section where new additions are announced and are open for discussion. Actually I implemented a RSS feed which keeps track of genre team activity. Of course I knew all along that nobody would take notice ... And before someone asks, I have Prison of Desire, Invisible Circles, Remagine, and the self-titled album. The latest album has but one track which could be cited as progressive, and that's Dreamflight. As much as I enjoy Floor Jansen and company, it doesn't belong. Listen to Within Temptation, Evanescence or Edenbridge ... those are bands which won't be accepted. We don't simply include all Symphonic Metal bands with female vocalists. The decision is always based on the most progressive album of the artists, not on preconceptions about the genre. I have listened to all of them. I rather enjoy WT (mainly the Silent Force album), for that matter; I also have Heart of Everything. I have all of Evanescence's stuff up to their latest album (it's bad; I won't even track down the b-sides). So ... any comments on their music vs. Invisible Circles? Because *that's* what this discussion should be about. But it's more than that. Everything seems to be showing up these days. We have a prog-related section, but we don't use it. Instead we're overly inclusive. We don't need to justify adding Blind Guardian by repeating the mistake tenfold. I added Blind Guardian, and I stand by that "mistake". There will always be people who will never accept Nightfall in Middle-Earth as prog (Yes, that would be me )... but there are many people who consider it to be a masterpiece of prog. And there are people who consider Visions a masterpiece of prog. And I am indeed referencing the Stratovarius album. Can you show me five other people who share this opinion? And in such a situation it makes very much sense to add the band so we can review the album and talk about it. Aren't we supposed to review the bands and albums before we add them to figure out if it's really prog or just maybe-kinda prog-related, like BG? You certainly have a healthy ego. They're prog-related *in your opinion*. Of course I also have a healthy ego, so I'm simply defining that Nightfall in Middle-Earth shall be called "prog" henceforth. Kidding aside: It's certainly not "prog" in the original sense, but then again bands like Sigur Rós or Radiohead aren't either, yet they are listed here. They simply fit under the umbrella of prog/progressive, and so does Blind Guardian. And please remember that we're always talking about specific albums ... of course BG made some blatently non-prog albums, as did Yes and Genesis. There was a time when I considered myself inclusive with regard to prog, but this is just getting silly. One aspect of prog is the combination of classical music and rock/metal. Some bands take this more literally than others ... when I joined the archives more than 2 years ago Nightwish and Rhapsody were already here. It's a difficult decision for each symphonic metal band we add, but we *do* believe that some of them belong here. Of course for some people it's all just "metal with keyboards", but there *are* subtle differences in terms of musical complexity and sophistication. Yes, some do belong here, and as silly as Rhapsody can be, they still belong here. I could even make a pretty good case for Epica. But neither of them are here because their music is merely symphonic. They require other elements to be prog. That's where I draw the line, why BG isn't prog, and why AF isn't prog. So you listened to Nightfall with a closed mind ... if you come to the conclusion that it's simply a power metal album, then I can't help it. MikeEnRegalia wrote: theBox wrote:  It seems that clever orchestration is more than enough for the collabs in order to include a band. There are MANY arguments against our view which I have by now learned by heart and with a little luck, they are going to be posted here in a matter of hours. You do have a point there ... it's true that most symphonic bands lack many of the traditional elements of prog, even those we add. I don't have the time to go into details right now, but it's not *only* clever orchestration that warrant's the inclusion of After Forever. Their music is much more serious and involved than that of any mainstream act I know ... and if you're considering After Forever to be mainstream then I submit that your point of view is already very biased towards prog. I don't understand why AF being mainstream would bias an opinion. DT and Tool are relatively mainstream. So is The Mars Volta. Rush isn't exactly unknown, either. We would have to define what exactly "mainstream" means. In prog discussions I'm usually using the word to describe music which people listen to who don't like prog. Of course I know that prog elitists usually use the word in a different context ... it essentially includes all music (prog or non prog) which is known to a wide bandwidth of people ... so whenever a band is known to more than an elitist circle of specialists it becomes mainstream. I think that us prog freaks should watch some MTV from time to time, go to a club/disco/bar, listen to typical radio stations etc. ... so that we don't lose perspective. Dream Theater is *not* mainstream, you would encounter their music in those situations. Maybe at some point in the 90s when they released Pull Me Under, but it did not work out ... Prog and mainstream are not mutually exclusive. It may be a rare marriage, but it's not impossible. But as for AF being mainstream, I wouldn't really say that. I don't know that they've ever charted a single at all. And why might that be? Isn't that an indication of them being somewhat different to Within Temptation or Evanescence? Epica > After Forever > Edenbridge > Within Temptation > Evanescence That's my opinion ... in terms of progressiveness of their most progressive album. Edenbridge currently represents the threshold of possible inclusion ... they *might* be added as Prog-Related, but I wouldn't do that at this point. MikeEnRegalia wrote: I almost forgot to mention: Yes, by all means consider me to be an "inclusionist". Given the choice of being totally "exclusive" or totally inclusive I'll happily choose the latter. That there are extremes does not justify following them. I didn't say that I follow the extreme ... in effect I'm choosing a middle ground. In my role as collab and member of the PMT I'd like to think that I maintain a balance between the two ... it makes sense to be exclusive sometimes, when adding a band would mean to stretch the boundaries of prog too far. By my wager, the boundaries do not stretch. A band is prog or it is not prog. I don't think it's proper to stretch the boundaries to fit anything. Then you are simply living in the past. Nothing wrong with that, it's simply not something which a website like the archives can afford to do. You don't have to follow every trend, but prog changed over the last few decades, and so must the definitions. But it also makes sense to be inclusive in order to be consistent, and to allow for the definition of "prog" to be gradually expanded (wait, what?) and adapted to new circumstances. The world is not static ... it's changing every day, and so is music. Yes, so let the prog movement include the punk revolution! Change does not justify eschewing ideals. Clever demagogism, but it won't work. [...] A perfectly inclusive policy would have every band ever in there, period, and I don't think anyone here would ever be vying for that. There must be a balance, and I believe that the balance here is a bit out of whack. And it is out of whack, because ... *you* don't agree? Can you get more presumptuous? On my website there is a perfectly inclusive policy in place - any band can be added. The prog status is then determined by majority vote. Like I said above ... you're very welcome to join and mark all BG albums as "Not Progressive" ... nobody will stop you. On this website however you will have to accept the decision of the owners, who BTW fully endorsed the addition of BG, in fact M@x even posted some clappies in the thread in which I announced the addition.

Edited by MikeEnRegalia - December 26 2007 at 05:51

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Desoc wrote: I think the main problem is that the policies are not consisent, not that inclusivism is being carried out. If the rest of the teams were as freeminded as the PMT we'd include bands like Flaming Lips, Arcade Fire and others that have progressive albums/moments, but that are neither prog nor metal in their entirety.   Every team is independant because the reality of each sub-genre is different.   I honestly consider myself a purist, Prog should be kept as pure as it's possible if we want it to survive, because when a genre looses it's essense, it becomes a hybrid and vanishes. If Prog is alive after almost 4 decades, is because it has kept a safe distance from mainstream, but sometimes we need to accept bands that COMBINE at least in equal proportions mainstream and Prog in order to keep growing.   But we can't take things to extremes either, if we were all purists in the Neo Prog Team, many bands should be deleted because they share a lot of mainstream elements, and that's also wrong, there's a balance and we must try to keep it.   Each team has their own parameters and idea of what Prog is and each one is consistent with theiir own reality, I respect a lot the work the PMT has done, I may agree or disagree with some inclusions, but they know more than me and they should be left to decide what's OK.   The only thing I agree with is that I'm tired to be called close minded because I don't agree with with bands ees (believe it or not they were proposed) and Boston in Prog Archives, because they are not remotely related to the genre.   Iván

I have more than a feeling you're absolutely right. (sorry about that, sometimes I can't help myself)