redefining Proto Prog and Prog Related
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Site News, Newbies, Help and Improvements
Forum Name: Help us improve the site
Forum Description: Help us improve the forums, and the site as a whole
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=40374
Printed Date: June 02 2025 at 00:36
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: redefining Proto Prog and Prog Related
Posted By: micky
Subject: redefining Proto Prog and Prog Related
Date Posted: July 29 2007 at 15:39
after several years of pearls of wisdom such as this....
There is discussion about renaming and reclassifying the two most controversial and CONSTANTLY misunderstood categories here. Proto-Prog and Prog Related. To eliminate the frequent misunderstanding about these two there is a proposal to refine them down to their base elements; the 'bands that influenced prog' (proto) and those 'bands that were influenced by prog' (PR) The names are not exactly sexy but they leave no room for unintentional misunderstanding. That has long been a problem here. The merits of the categories aren't worth the time to type, so don't bother..... you all should know that owner wants them and we have them. The thing to be done is find the best way to implement what he wants... and also what serves the site. What does everyone think.... like it the way it is?... or would renaming it and redefining it help? ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
pop fan masquerading as a prog fan wrote:Replies:
Posted By: R o V e R
Date Posted: July 29 2007 at 15:51
|
Remove them
please |
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: July 29 2007 at 15:54
out of the question. a bit of a general message: let's try to be serious and productive over this serious problem, enough bickering and shallow understanding was already done.   ------------- 
|
Posted By: R o V e R
Date Posted: July 29 2007 at 15:57
I was not joking |
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: July 29 2007 at 15:59
Of course you weren't. The even more serious thing, there will be even more who will suggest we erase completely two genres that, after all, do have some strong bands that merit those genres. Therefore, the suggestion of removing PP and PR is out of the question.  Try "redefining", "rethinking", "re-valuing". -------------
|
Posted By: Angelo
Date Posted: July 29 2007 at 15:59
|
Not sexy, but effective - I'm all for it. But, I repeat myself even when not under stress, only if the bio for each of the bands includes a clear statement on how they influenced prog or were influenced by it. ------------- http://www.iskcrocks.com" rel="nofollow - ISKC Rock Radio I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected] |
Posted By: Tuzvihar
Date Posted: July 29 2007 at 15:59
First and foremost: why are they listed among prog sub-genres on the front page? They should be separated. ------------- "Music is much like f**king, but some composers can't climax and others climax too often, leaving themselves and the listener jaded and spent." Charles Bukowski |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: July 29 2007 at 16:00
neither am I.... read the damned post Rover... the owners want it and it stays... this thread is for constructive discussion... ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: R o V e R
Date Posted: July 29 2007 at 16:01
|
okkay ..
how about "Vintage Rock" |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: July 29 2007 at 16:04
not a bad idea, but it doesn't hurt a thing having them there really. Most people are adult enough to realize they aren't prog and won't mistake them for... yet is easy enough to find if people are interested. ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: July 29 2007 at 16:07
yes... it would involve a rewrite of some bios I think. At least to add 'site applicable' material to the bios. Why should a prog fan be interested in Zeppelin or Iron Maiden for example? Some sort of write up as to how exactly they were influenced by prog. ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Tuzvihar
Date Posted: July 29 2007 at 16:09
How about a general description of what and how influenced prog and what and how was influenced by prog? Only short paragraphs about proto-prog and prog related bands and albums without the possibility of rating? ------------- "Music is much like f**king, but some composers can't climax and others climax too often, leaving themselves and the listener jaded and spent." Charles Bukowski |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: July 29 2007 at 16:09
how is that less confusing that Prog-Related.... hell...we'd have people calling for Buddy Holly for inclusion.  ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: R o V e R
Date Posted: July 29 2007 at 16:10
hmmmmn |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: July 29 2007 at 16:12
the reviews ARE the best way to explain the relation to prog.. be it influencing or influenced by but doing them without the possibility of rating again violates another bedrock belief of the owners. The review with only a rating is here for the non-english speakers here. Do I agree with that...NO. Is that policy going to change... no. The relationship should be noted in the bio as I just posted. ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Tuzvihar
Date Posted: July 29 2007 at 16:12
I mean just for clarity's sake. ------------- "Music is much like f**king, but some composers can't climax and others climax too often, leaving themselves and the listener jaded and spent." Charles Bukowski |
Posted By: Tuzvihar
Date Posted: July 29 2007 at 16:15
Of course. By no ratings I meant no reviews also. ------------- "Music is much like f**king, but some composers can't climax and others climax too often, leaving themselves and the listener jaded and spent." Charles Bukowski |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: July 29 2007 at 16:16
 exactly the point of the thread... to clarify. Simple category names such as 'bands influenced by prog' and 'bands that influenced prog' are not exactly grandiose sounding category names... but that is exactly what they do ... clarify. ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: July 29 2007 at 16:16
|
It's a mistake a lot of people have made. Because the Beatles are on the site, people assume we are saying they are a prog band - we're not. We need to make the distinction clear and we need to concentrate on the real prog genres more. I don't have a problem with the names but pp and pr should be removed from the PA Top 100. |
Posted By: Tuzvihar
Date Posted: July 29 2007 at 16:18
Agreed! ------------- "Music is much like f**king, but some composers can't climax and others climax too often, leaving themselves and the listener jaded and spent." Charles Bukowski |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: July 29 2007 at 16:22
of course we focus in on the real prog groups... but we can't ignore that it is those categories that are the cause of much of the discontent around here. hahhaha... I'd hope you wouldn't Alan.. but the constant confusion with others here, is what is behind this proposal to change the names of those categories. To help the site get past it.. and worry about other things such as those real prog groups that get added everyday... yet who notices. They are bickering as to how the Who are a prog group. ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Tuzvihar
Date Posted: July 29 2007 at 16:26
There's one more thing that bugs me. I've seen several five star reviews for proto-prog or prog related band's albums (e.g. The Who). I mean how can they be masterpieces of prog when they aren't even prog?  I think that maybe we should implement different rating systems for them or just block four and five star ratings? ------------- "Music is much like f**king, but some composers can't climax and others climax too often, leaving themselves and the listener jaded and spent." Charles Bukowski |
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: July 29 2007 at 16:26
|
Personally, I like the site the way it is. I am continually mystified by why some people get so angry about inclusions they disagree with. Anyone who would stop visiting this excellent resource because the Who are listed is a fool. I wwouldn't be angry about the name change you suggest, and perhaps it would clear up some confusion, but if it caqame to a vote I would say keep things the way they are. ------------- 
|
Posted By: R o V e R
Date Posted: July 29 2007 at 16:34
this is not fare,.. if any record is good, then it is good,, you cant block the ratings |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: July 29 2007 at 16:38
Actually, the idea of a redefinition (including a possible name change) was mine, if you look at the thread I started a few days ago in the Help Us Improve the Site section. I am a linguist by background, which means I know how important the correct wording can be. Many people only see the 'prog' part in PP and PR, as well as seeing both categories listed together with the 'real' prog genres. Moreover, I think 'proto-prog' is a misnomer, as it implies the bands and artists included in the category were prog before prog came into being, not that they influenced its development (as it is often the case). As concerns the removal of PP/PR albums from the Top 100, I understand your point perfectly, even though I couldn't care less about that list - nor am I particularly upset by seeing "Quadrophenia" or "Machine Head" in it, or by finding "Who's Next" mentioned as Album of the Week. However, I agree that we need to be consistent: if we keep on saying that the acts included in PP or PR are not prog, we cannot have albums by those acts appear in a PROG Top 100. In my very humble opinion, we should continue having reviews of those albums, and be able to give them 5 stars - however, the definitions should be changed, scrapping the "masterpiece of prog" or "essential addition to any prog collection" in favour of something more neutral. This is, I think, the only way forward, and the only one that can bring some measure of peace and collaborative spirit back to the site. |
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: July 29 2007 at 16:43
|
Linguistics is aa fun branch of study, isn't it?
-------------
|
Posted By: Angelo
Date Posted: July 29 2007 at 16:48
Especially, as some clever soul on the first page mentioned, if they are shown next to prog rather than below prog (as sub-genres). As for the suggestion to have generic descriptions of what influenced what and how - that's impossible, because it differs for every combination of bands.
Are you sure it's just linguistics? It's beginning to get the smell of politics  ------------- http://www.iskcrocks.com" rel="nofollow - ISKC Rock Radio I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected] |
Posted By: paolo.beenees
Date Posted: July 29 2007 at 16:54
|
Stretching the length of a song, experimenting with new instruments and recording techniques, making fanciful cross-over with classical/jazz/oriental/folk music, introducing concept albums, dealing with engaged topics, improvising, introducing unusual instruments... There's more than a reason to say that many bands between 1965 and 1969 really changed the face of rock - and therefore they were PROGRESSIVE in the LITERAL meaning of this word. Early Pink Floyd, the mature Beatles and Pet Shop Boys, Jimi Hendrix, the Who, Traffic, Grateful Dead... they were far more daring and free-form experimenting than any band coming later. Even if they're not my favourite bands, I have to admit they represented a real shift in rock music. By my own part, I would add also bands like Small Faces and Love to this category. By the way, I'm pretty surprised at seeing how many people would complain about The Who's admission to this site. Listen carefully to their music, please, and you will realise that - in a period between "Tommy" and "Quadrophenia" - they were more complex, "orchestral" and epic than (say) Hawkwind or the Moody Blues... ------------- 
|
Posted By: Tuzvihar
Date Posted: July 29 2007 at 17:03
|
How about sister sites: Proto-prog Archives and Prog Related Archives? ------------- "Music is much like f**king, but some composers can't climax and others climax too often, leaving themselves and the listener jaded and spent." Charles Bukowski |
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: July 29 2007 at 17:06
|
This will clearly become a major discussion so please keep it on topic.
Do not discuss here whether we should have the categories at all. Do not discuss whether individual bands should have been added. There are plenty of threads for those matters already.
Please only use this thread for discussing how these categories can be best presented. Please also avoid one liners and joking comments in this thread, in order to keep it readable.
|
Posted By: Time Signature
Date Posted: July 29 2007 at 17:22
As to prog-related, I think it should be retained since it seems to allow for the taking into account of artists that link prog and comercial rock.
|
Posted By: Kotro
Date Posted: July 29 2007 at 17:32
|
Way before Proto-Prog and Prog Related were created, I sugested the creation of a space in the main page for "honourable mentions", where prog albums, or borderline prog albums from non-prog bands (not the bloody bands themselves) could be introduced and reviewed as the others. Of course, no one listened (or should I say, read)...
Proto-prog is an especially repugnant name. How can The Who's album from 2006 be proto-prog? When I agreed that bands like Deep Purple and Queen could be added, I supposed someone would block album entries, so that only the albums that got them here could be added... Obviously, no such control was made. ------------- Bigger on the inside. |
Posted By: Tuzvihar
Date Posted: July 29 2007 at 17:41
I totally agree! That's what I meant in my post on the previous page but I wasn't so eloquent.------------- "Music is much like f**king, but some composers can't climax and others climax too often, leaving themselves and the listener jaded and spent." Charles Bukowski |
Posted By: glass house
Date Posted: July 29 2007 at 17:41
I mentioned the same thing ages ago.
Good call Kotro.
|
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: July 29 2007 at 17:52
first off...again.. the owners want complete discographies.. prog and non prog. reading that post Kotro .. this might be the place to bring up what no one here has asked yet. I think the name change is a no brainer... but looking ahead (as I have been) reclassifiying those categories there hides potentially a thornier issue for the forum... and yes.. to some my fellow collabs as well. What about those bands currently in PR (and some in PP)... that aren't influenced by prog but did prog albums and had prog periods. They don't belong in PR if they did prog.. that would be like saying Rush should be just because they followed others.. were they PR? Simply put.... can this forum understand that if a band is in a certain sub-genre that is in no way reflective of the band's career but of their PROG output. Seeing how this is a prog forum. If we do differentiate between prog and non prog... what to do with the prog albums. Some examples... Styx, Peter Gabriel, ELO, Alan Parsons, Queen. My thoughts ... the same as groups like Genesis and Rush ... we focus (and classify) based upon the prog... not what came later when they left prog. as nearly all did if they stayed together through the changes in the musical world. ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Man With Hat
Date Posted: July 29 2007 at 19:35
I actually like that idea as well.  ------------- Dig me...But don't...Bury me I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: July 29 2007 at 20:11
|
I like the idea of differentiating them from "true" prog, eventhough I do believe they are integral to the archive and should (nay - must) be here.
I would prefer there to be a completely seperate section of the Prog Archives where we could put these categories possibly called Honarary Mentions, it's as good a name as any. Here we could create sub-categories to further explain a bands presence and possibly even add bands like Mew with impunity.
However, that is a drastic change, the following are much simpler to impliment:
exclude them from the Top 100 and Album of the Week.
remove the word "Prog" from their genre names completely (they are not real Music Genres anyway - it's just a convenient classification for the PA).
do not have PP or PR reviews on the front page.
move them from the PROG SUB-GENRES: menu to the MISC: menu.
change the colour of the header on their pages from Purple to Dark Blue (or something) - a simple change that maintains the look and feel while indicating they are not a direct part of the archive.
------------- What? |
Posted By: progismylife
Date Posted: July 29 2007 at 20:22
|
I think Prog-related is fine, it seems self explanatory and the definition is quite clear as to what it is. The Proto-Prog definition is fine, but the name (as Raff said) is misleading. I think Time Signature's suggestion of renaming it to Pre-Prog would maybe help clarify things |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: August 02 2007 at 10:22
|
I think a redefinition of the two categories is rather urgent. If you look at the Suggest New Bands section, there are a number of suggestions for addition to PR or PP. People won't stop suggesting all kinds of acts to be added to those two controversial categories, and every new addition will bring further unrest, at least if things remain as they are. Unless we decide to stop them altogether, we have to find a way to present PP and PR in a more effective, less misleading way. Perhaps this wouldn't stop the ever-present "if X are here, not Y?" and similar comments, but at least it would improve the site's image and credibility. |
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: August 02 2007 at 11:26
|
No new definitions or renaming those two categories! It is clear and simple! Too bad for the "idiots" not being able to understand the subtleties!
let them go back to Van Halen!
 BUT let's get PR out of the alphabetical order (i'd rather keep proto in) and out of the other genres on the tool bar.
Let's place prog-related at the same height as the Misc on the purple tool bar, or at least place them behind the various and tributes!!
And to keep the PR entries from the front/homepage and from the top 100 list is fine too!
Edit: I think Dean's got the same idea ! ------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: August 02 2007 at 11:32
I agree to a point.. ^^good points... but we end up with the same question I raised earlier... what about those prog albums that are IN Prog Related. I see 3 options... either let them rot in hell, move those bands that had prog periods, out of PR(even if they may not have defined their careers so to speak), or scrap the whole damn system and rate by album which I don't see happening. ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: August 02 2007 at 11:37
Maybe ask M mailto:M@X - @X to change the rule and only allow the given prog albums (and not the enitire discography) in those PR groups!
this poses less a problem for P¨R groups than proto groups where almost every Vanilla Fudge and HP LOvecraft albums are progressive, though!
------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword |
Posted By: andu
Date Posted: August 02 2007 at 11:41
|
^ The idea is excellent but I don't believe it can actually work: the debate on what's prog and what's not from these prog-related artists' discographies would be endless (before and after such a change would be implemented).
------------- "PA's own GI Joe!" 
|
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: August 02 2007 at 11:42
hahahha... we both know that isn't going to happen. Nor should it...let's take ELO for example, if someone here gets into the prog era and wants to explore their latter albums they are already listed here. As I posted earlier, it is a matter of people understanding that if they see, for example, Deep Purple in heavy prog, or ELO in AR that it doesn't reflect the entire career of the group. It reflects the PROG albums that group did....being.. o' silly me....a damned prog website ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Shakespeare
Date Posted: August 02 2007 at 11:52
|
Seems we're in a pickle. {Well, Peter Gabriel and Wishbone Ash could easily be Art Rock, Blackfield and Roxy Music should be considered for psychedelic........} |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: August 02 2007 at 11:55
if the AR reorganization goes through... which I'll be coming back to when the summer is over and life returns to normal for me. I think the PR question can be resolved...or at least simplified. ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: August 02 2007 at 11:59
This is of course where those multiple genre belonging (another pet peeve of mine
 ) would come in handy!!! and would take care of 85% of the problems and misunderstanding!read you tomorrow!! ------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword |
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: August 02 2007 at 12:13
|
mailto:M@x - M@x is looking at the best way to remove Proto prog and Prog related form the middle of the genre listings on the front page. They will still be there of course, but shoudl be shown separately from the prog genres.
Full discographies will always be the case, it is one of the owners basic rules for the site.
|
Posted By: Shakespeare
Date Posted: August 02 2007 at 12:25
|
PROG SUBGENRES: Art Rock, Canterbury Scene ... NON-PROG SUBGENRES: Proto-Prog, Prog Related ARTISTS: A B C .... MISC: .... Would something like that work? |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: August 02 2007 at 13:19
the format would make sense, however I think Raff was spot on though that if removing confusion, and the resulting threads is the goal. Then renaming Prog Related and Proto-Prog should happen. People see the word prog... and think prog. It's easy to do, to rename it, it's not like we'd be trying to improve on the wheel here hahhaha. ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: August 02 2007 at 13:28
it would.... I think you can make that 95% hahha...and maybe it is time for that to happen. I think most of us understand we are putting square pegs into round holes here. Either that or we have sub-genres based on historical/regional rather than based on a purely subjective musical basis. Which would eliminate 100% of the problems and misunderstandings hahha. It has worked here... and could work....but won't happen across the spectrum I know ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Shakespeare
Date Posted: August 02 2007 at 13:32
We could call PR simply "Rock" then. Or, if you'd prefer, simply "Related". |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: August 02 2007 at 13:34
or ... just call them what they are... influences on prog... influenced by prog. anyone who misunderstands that... simply deserves to be eaten alive ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: August 02 2007 at 13:38
|
^ calling it just "Rock" would be asking for trouble. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Shakespeare
Date Posted: August 02 2007 at 13:40
|
PROG SUBGENRES: Art Rock, Canterbury, ... RELATED PROG SUBGENRES: Influenced prog, influenced by prog that could work |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: August 02 2007 at 13:41
understatement of the year ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: August 02 2007 at 13:43
I like that... lets see what those in the Ivory Tower of Prog have to say. I am but the facilitator not the arbitrator ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Rivertree
Date Posted: August 02 2007 at 13:55
A first step forward honestly ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Rivertree" rel="nofollow">  |
Posted By: Rivertree
Date Posted: August 02 2007 at 14:11
Why subgenre? I would name it simply RELATED PROG ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Rivertree" rel="nofollow"> |
Posted By: Kotro
Date Posted: August 02 2007 at 14:52
|
What it looks like to an outsider and layman on web design (and so I might be a bit unfair) is that you are simply lazy. You apear to be trying to continuously "adapting" the site instead of "rebuilding" it from scratch, because that would be too much work. ------------- Bigger on the inside. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: August 02 2007 at 15:37
It's more refining or fine-tuning of the site, which isn't broken so a redesign is unnecessary ------------- What? |
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: August 02 2007 at 15:49
We always try to be honest, clarity perhaps!
|
Posted By: 1800iareyay
Date Posted: August 02 2007 at 15:51
| I don't think he meant it that way: more like "it's honestly a step forward" rather than criticizing the site |
Posted By: Fassbinder
Date Posted: August 02 2007 at 15:56
|
I think there was an accidental confusion (by Bob) between "honestly" (an adverb) and "honesty" (a noun).
Uwe meant it as an adverb.
Eugene
|
Posted By: Mandrakeroot
Date Posted: August 02 2007 at 16:02
|
Ok... I enter in the discussion... And I spend 2 cents!!! For me Prog Related is too ambiguous how is now. But I would not know like change. I haven't them the just knowledge. But, I am secure of what I say(!!!), for the Proto Prog has been correctly to create a team because is an autonomous and real sub genre. Clear this team should create a genre bio. Because, to difference of the PR the Proto is recognized what sub genre from everything and in unequivocal manner. So I have expressed and I hope that someone it is all right with me. Because first or then this proposal I would have done it. Since the matter is me at heart. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Hirgwath
Date Posted: August 02 2007 at 16:22
|
I wonder if there would be any benefit to mixing both of the non-prog genres, since many of the "proto-prog" bands didn't just stop once the clock hit January 1, 1970, and it's probably true that some of the "prog-related" bands influenced prog as much as prog influenced them. Just brainstorming... |
Posted By: Rivertree
Date Posted: August 02 2007 at 17:02
 You've got it , 1800iareyay That's the way I wanted to express - please excuse my unprecise english ... ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Rivertree" rel="nofollow"> |
Posted By: Mandrakeroot
Date Posted: August 04 2007 at 11:19
About the underline section of my previous post that I have quoted... Who is your opinion? -------------
|
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: August 04 2007 at 11:43
| As you have started a new thread on that topic Mandie, let's not duplicate that discussion here. |
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: August 13 2007 at 09:46
|
mailto:M@x - M@x has now updated the homepage so that PP and PR are at the end of the genres list, and in an alternative colour.
(Sorry, I know this was discussed in another thread, but I'm not sure which one!
 ) |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: August 13 2007 at 09:54
Erm, don't want to be picky, because it's a great idea, but I think the alternative colour is a bit bright - it's like a highlight.  ------------- What? |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: September 29 2007 at 13:41
|
*bump* seeing the Coheed and Cambria discussion.. again....what about renaming Prog Related .... this is getting old quickly... ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 29 2007 at 14:15
Too many people see:
Prog Related
...and seem unable to see past that. ------------- What? |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: September 29 2007 at 14:22
exactly...as was noted by a certain collab some time back.. whose brains.. match her beauty.. 
------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: September 29 2007 at 17:06
|
I don't perceive a lot of enthusiasm for the proposal among the memebrs or collaborators. Personally i think the name is quite adequate. As suggested, PR and PP have been removed from the alphabetic list of genres and presented in a different colour to address any perception issues. I don't think there has been an alternative proposed which met with any sort of enthusiasm either.
|
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: September 29 2007 at 17:08
fair enough... let the other collabs deal with these posters then. I am the one having to explain this.. not them. ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |