Who would you remove ?

Secret Machines. I mean really, how did they get on here? A Kraut influence is definitely not enought to put them in Space Rock. Great band, but they don't belong on a Prog site.

And there isn't any "The" in their name. At least clear that up.

Edited by Philéas - March 07 2008 at 13:44

This thread should be either be closed, or disappear into oblivion before I do something I might regret later, and mention the door...

debrewguy wrote: What about people like me who don't give a fig about the fact that there is a proto-prog &/or prog-related section & simply enjoy the site for all its' content ? There is some merit to the anti "prog-related" arguement in that some groups seem to be added because of their popularity. But then, on the other hand, some of these same groups (one with the initials L Z) happen to have been generally included in what was called the "progressive rock" scene in the late 60s/ early 70s. So maybe is there a better term to describe these bands that were clearly considered on par with Yes, King Crimson, and others for their attitude towards their music.  Of course,  it's more fun to say that  the definition was not quite  correct, but that is in relation to  our current  way of seeing these things. I also might add that the term progressive pop has been around for quite some time, yet no one here is suggesting that we add a new genre. Thankfully, as P.P. would be quite the genre to bring in any top 40 group that showed even the slightest intelligence in their lyrics.

brilliant point

..and as far as ProtoProg goes, not only do I really love the bands in Proto, I think it is an vital category-- hey, history, it's important






Edited by Atavachron - March 05 2008 at 18:43

rudderhead wrote: 1 Deep Purple 2 Led Zeppelin 3 Black Sabbath 4 Iron Maiden 5 Triumph These bands arent prog(related) they are heavy metal 6 Tool 7 Radiohead 8 Mars Volta 9 Primus 10 Muse These bands arent prog(related) they are esoteric alternative acts Also I dont consider postrock and deathmetal related bands as prog(related) Fusion is a catagory in itself This doesnt mean that I think they should be removed. I have no problems with them being in it. Im doing this for the fun of it

Again you!!! Saying that Sabbath, Led and DP are HM, how dare you!! No joke here!

What about people like me who don't give a fig about the fact that there is a proto-prog &/or prog-related section & simply enjoy the site for all its' content ?
There is some merit to the anti "prog-related" arguement in that some groups seem to be added because of their popularity. But then, on the other hand, some of these same groups (one with the initials L Z) happen to have been generally included in what was called the "progressive rock" scene in the late 60s/ early 70s. So maybe is there a better term to describe these bands that were clearly considered on par with Yes, King Crimson, and others for their attitude towards their music.  Of course,  it's more fun to say that  the definition was not quite  correct, but that is in relation to  our current  way of seeing these things. I also might add that the term progressive pop has been around for quite some time, yet no one here is suggesting that we add a new genre. Thankfully, as P.P. would be quite the genre to bring in any top 40 group that showed even the slightest intelligence in their lyrics.

This was the original prompt for this thread:

"Hypothetically...

You save BOTH Proglucky and M@x's life. In addition to the generous $$$ they hand you, they offer you the chance to remove 5 "prog-related" bands of your choosing without argument from them or the administration team. Which 5 bands which you don't think belong here get the boot ?"

So by choosing Prog-Related bands to remove we are somply following the goal of the originator of the thread.

For myself, I've always had a bit of a problem with that whole category being included here in a way that allows it to compete for front page review space and overall ratings status (the top 100) with true prog. As a category for discussion I do find it interesting and worthy. I just don't like the comeptition for space on the front page.

The whole "related" category just looks like a way for people to get their favorite non-prog bands listed on a prog site. Think about it this way; prog borrows from all types of music. Thus, all music is "prog-related". To me it feels like a "slippery slope" category and I would remove it altogether rather than just taking out 5.

just my two cents, which after inflation aren't even worth that much.

Easy Livin wrote: Many of the bands named in this thread tend to be listed in the proto prog or prog related categories.   If you check the definitions for these genres, you'll see that we're not saying they are prog. They are there to help people to discover prog.

No no no. Too much time reading definitions, means not enough time to write irrelevant posts. Next people will suggest actually reading other people's posts before "riposting".

Tommy wrote: debrewguy wrote: Tommy wrote: debrewguy wrote: Tommy wrote: RUSH like Genesis should be removed. What is prog about anything they've done since 1980. They became a cheesy straight forward rock/synth band. Duran Duran were much better at it! Yes, let's remove all bands who put out at least one album of music that some of us consider to not be prog. Here's the starting list to which you may add : King Crimson - the 80s; Yes - the first album & the 80s, Jethro Tull - blues based debut , Gentle Giant - Civilian, Harmonium - francophone America clone on debut , Kansas - AOR drivel albums 7 -9, Moody Blues - R & B debut &  90s pop tunes, Pink Floyd - Psychedelia debut, Marillion & neo in general - pop prog, Camel & PFM & Le Orme & many others - pop period ... etc etc . I say we quote Sonic Youth & kill our idols. WHoa, wait my idol is already dead, Bon come back , I gotta do my part !!! Allow your mind to progress, allow your music to progress; but I digress ....   That 's the trouble, Rush 's & Geneisis's music didn't progress, it regressed. Remove Genesis  & Rush 80's to present! Regression means going back to your past. Rush & Genesis had never put out that sort of music before, so,  ergo, they progressed; grosso moddo, they forged ahead; i.e. they moved on ; you should too Problem removed !   They hadn't but other bands did. They saw bands like Ultravox. Human League, Duran Duran making a quick buck and wanted some of the action. They  were no longer prog bands and shouldn't be discussed on this forum as such.  Remove 'em I say!

Kinda funny how you can "sell-out" after you've made a mint. But then being a music idol has its' responsabilities ... like never changing your music because your fans are too stoned to remember where they put your previous albums, so you have to re-write the same stuff over & over again, so they can buy it over & over again & hopefully remember where they put the new album that they just bought. And don't dare insinuate that you're trying to keep it fresh for you ... fresh is what clean underwear are for. If 1 & a half tracks is what you recorded my favourite album on, it's heresy if you move on to stereo. And by god, every band with integrity knows that to preserve that integrity you have to make sure you never sell enough albums so that your fans end up not being the only ones who "get" them, that would be hell on earth artistically. Even better if you can keep putting out albums that no one buys, then they can become collectibles when fools have bought every other obscure album that they could put their hands on. To push it to its' utter perfect end, just name the band, provide a short arrogant description of the musical masterpiece that you would put out if it wasn't below your dignity to dirty yourself with such crass earthly sinful activity as actually putting your weinie on the chopping block & seeing what other people think of your "compositions". Then, once you start getting fans who hate being proven right about your music being good, go out on tour & talk about how life is actually pretty good now that your music is getting recognised. Of course, don't mention the 300 gigs a year that you did for 5 years. We don't want to hear that you actually worked for it.
And most of all, remember - you the musician don't count. We, the music listener, can do just fine without your music, or anyone else's music for that matter. Oh wait, then we'd be able to think about all this & see the inherent qualities of a troll scoping out his out of reach outside world of reality.
Mellow out , man ! We mean it !
Nasty inanities are in abundance.

Tommy wrote: debrewguy wrote: Tommy wrote: RUSH like Genesis should be removed. What is prog about anything they've done since 1980. They became a cheesy straight forward rock/synth band. Duran Duran were much better at it! Yes, let's remove all bands who put out at least one album of music that some of us consider to not be prog. Here's the starting list to which you may add : King Crimson - the 80s; Yes - the first album & the 80s, Jethro Tull - blues based debut , Gentle Giant - Civilian, Harmonium - francophone America clone on debut , Kansas - AOR drivel albums 7 -9, Moody Blues - R & B debut &  90s pop tunes, Pink Floyd - Psychedelia debut, Marillion & neo in general - pop prog, Camel & PFM & Le Orme & many others - pop period ... etc etc . I say we quote Sonic Youth & kill our idols. WHoa, wait my idol is already dead, Bon come back , I gotta do my part !!! Allow your mind to progress, allow your music to progress; but I digress ....   That 's the trouble, Rush 's & Geneisis's music didn't progress, it regressed. Remove Genesis  & Rush 80's to present!

Regression means going back to your past. Rush & Genesis had never put out that sort of music before, so,  ergo, they progressed; grosso moddo, they forged ahead; i.e. they moved on ; you should too Problem removed !

Tommy wrote: RUSH like Genesis should be removed. What is prog about anything they've done since 1980. They became a cheesy straight forward rock/synth band. Duran Duran were much better at it!

Yes, let's remove all bands who put out at least one album of music that some of us consider to not be prog. Here's the starting list to which you may add : King Crimson - the 80s; Yes - the first album & the 80s, Jethro Tull - blues based debut , Gentle Giant - Civilian, Harmonium - francophone America clone on debut , Kansas - AOR drivel albums 7 -9, Moody Blues - R & B debut &  90s pop tunes, Pink Floyd - Psychedelia debut, Marillion & neo in general - pop prog, Camel & PFM & Le Orme & many others - pop period ... etc etc .
I say we quote Sonic Youth & kill our idols. WHoa, wait my idol is already dead, Bon come back , I gotta do my part !!!
Allow your mind to progress, allow your music to progress; but I digress ....