on the endless "if X is here, why not Y?" question

akin wrote: Maybe, but we should add first Chad Stuart and Jeremy Clyde in proto-prog.

akin wrote: salmacis wrote: The only time I ever used that argument was when Deep Purple were going to be added. It didn't make sense to me at all that bands who followed in their wake (Quatermass, Uriah Heep to some extent) and even spin-offs like Warhorse and Captain Beyond were here when Deep Purple were not. That inclusion was a simple case of 'common sense', imho, as of course, Deep Purple's first few albums alone were merit for their inclusion too. The music mattered more, obviously. But otherwise, this is an argument I abhor. A favourite was one I heard the other day 'if The Doors are here, so should The Stranglers be'. So in essence, that amounts to adding a non prog band because another non prog band (The Doors are featured in proto prog- I had no problem with that, as it is stressed that they aren't a prog act nevertheless but influenced the genre) are here and The Stranglers sound a bit similar to them. A very weak argument, imho. I'm not commenting on The Stranglers' prog credentials- in a sense I guess they have them (though I wouldn't include them myself by any means)- but more commenting on how such a poor argument pretty much ruins the suggestion's credibility. I didn't know anyone would take my post seriously, I just posted that because the discussion about The Doors was so messed up that I felt like giving a sugestion like: "if the band X was added, add band Y which is vaguely related to X", mainly because these controvertial bands are being added with this argument masked by a demagogic "Every band should be considered at their own merits". I personally do not think The Stranglers has anything to do with progressive rock, though I like their music very much and they have many interesting and experimental songs (including use of studio techniques and electronics, good musicianship and odd time signatures). I don't think they have anything to do with punk also, which is the label people gave to them. I like music that is not prog and I don't think everything I like is prog, The Stranglers is one of these bands.

Sorry Akin, that wasn't aimed at you in particular. It's an argument I've seen crop up once or twice yet intended in all seriousness, yet yours was not.
    

removing bands would also remove reviews that people have put time and effort into writing.

Ghost Rider wrote: progismylife wrote: I think a good way to solve this is to get rid of proto and prog related.  Guys, I hate to be boring, but we CANNOT do that... None of us owns this site, and the owners happen to want both categories. End of story. It's a 'take it or leave it' situation, however galling it might be. If we want to have a site to our own measure, we should probably think about setting it op ourselves...

It was just a suggestion that would solve the problem. A bit drastically though and hopefully will not happen, I like prog related and proto prog.

progismylife wrote: I think a good way to solve this is to get rid of proto and prog related.

Guys, I hate to be boring, but we CANNOT do that... None of us owns this site, and the owners happen to want both categories. End of story. It's a 'take it or leave it' situation, however galling it might be. If we want to have a site to our own measure, we should probably think about setting it op ourselves...

Because you are not so cruel.


Maybe a better way to do this is to limit the number of bands into prog related and proto prog.

I think a good way to solve this is to get rid of proto and prog related. 

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ ok - so what if we say "Y influenced Prog band A just as much as X did, so they are equally related to prog as X and thus should be added as well".

That would be another good argument to use. Considering that both X and Y influenced a band taht is prog and both have equal relations to prog. But if X was more proggier than Y, then it should just be X because it would have a stronger relation to progressive rock.

I think the only way this argument will work is if X is a progressive rock band, not proto or prog related. That way it can be somewhat justified.


Edited by progismylife - January 16 2007 at 12:29

salmacis wrote: The only time I ever used that argument was when Deep Purple were going to be added. It didn't make sense to me at all that bands who followed in their wake (Quatermass, Uriah Heep to some extent) and even spin-offs like Warhorse and Captain Beyond were here when Deep Purple were not. That inclusion was a simple case of 'common sense', imho, as of course, Deep Purple's first few albums alone were merit for their inclusion too. The music mattered more, obviously. But otherwise, this is an argument I abhor. A favourite was one I heard the other day 'if The Doors are here, so should The Stranglers be'. So in essence, that amounts to adding a non prog band because another non prog band (The Doors are featured in proto prog- I had no problem with that, as it is stressed that they aren't a prog act nevertheless but influenced the genre) are here and The Stranglers sound a bit similar to them. A very weak argument, imho. I'm not commenting on The Stranglers' prog credentials- in a sense I guess they have them (though I wouldn't include them myself by any means)- but more commenting on how such a poor argument pretty much ruins the suggestion's credibility.

I didn't know anyone would take my post seriously, I just posted that because the discussion about The Doors was so messed up that I felt like giving a sugestion like: "if the band X was added, add band Y which is vaguely related to X", mainly because these controvertial bands are being added with this argument masked by a demagogic "Every band should be considered at their own merits".

I personally do not think The Stranglers has anything to do with progressive rock, though I like their music very much and they have many interesting and experimental songs (including use of studio techniques and electronics, good musicianship and odd time signatures). I don't think they have anything to do with punk also, which is the label people gave to them. I like music that is not prog and I don't think everything I like is prog, The Stranglers is one of these bands.