Indeed, I seem to remember that bands like Purple and even Led Zep were referred to as progressive rock acts - in the loosest sense. They were also referred to as old school heavy metal acts, in the days of the New Wave of Metal back in the 1980s, Heavy Rock, Hard Rock - a multiplicity of terms, depending on who you talked to. None were "wrong" - although I certainly don't remember anyone referring to them as "Classic" Rock.

 

I guess that's all "what's in a name?".

 

But Prog-Related should include any band that has produced Prog-like material, which will be of interest to proggers, and people who are already fans of the bands in question, but have yet to discover the delights of Prog. It should also include bands that have influenced established Prog acts without discrimination.

 

This, of course, can lead to trouble when the band in question is somehow considered controversial - but Prog-Related is a category that seems to be used almost uniquely by this site, so I guess that Prog-Related is ultimately what the site owners say it is.

 

Prog related is as much about a personal feeling for what it is as prog itself is. The Admin team work pretty much from the same hymn sheet, as we can reach agreement on most proposals. Even then though, there is from time to time disagreement among us. In such cases, if there is a clear majority, that prevails. Otherwise, or if we think the proposal is particularly controversial, mailto:M@x - M@x will have the final say. We don't all agree with all the additions by any means. I was strongly against the Beatles for example. We are a team though, and are happy to support a decision when it is made (the Beatles was mailto:M@xs - M@x's  by the way).

 

My own perspective is that Prog Related bands are those who have a clear relationship with prog, but are not a prog band as such. Perhaps they have released an album which is out of character with the bulk of their output, which has strong prog elements (see Wishbone Ash). Perhaps their music is prog in a pop context, such as 10CC. Perhaps they have released one or more concept albums which bring successive songs together to form something substantially more than the sum of the parts (dare I say Boston!). All solo artists who are members of prog bands are prog related (except Phil Collins!). I believe it is important to ahve the catalogues of such artists added, if only to demonstrate how their solo careers use or do not use prog. How many of us have bought albums by solo memebrs of prog bands, only to find that they bear no relation to prog. I believe the site can provide a real service here by listing such artists, OK including Phil! Taking the phrase literally, of course they are related to prog. This does not extend to memebrs of prog related or proto prog bands, or to band such as Mike and the Mechanics who have a member who is also in a prog band.

 

These are just my own thoughts of course.

 

Can I also go back to a comment in the Boston thread suggesting there were inconsistencies in the Prog Related additionsand the admission process for them. As long as we all have our own diverse opinions, there will always seem to be inconsistencies. These are perceived as a result of the old, X is more prog than Y argument. The reality is that where one person thinks a band should be added, another does not, that is where the inconsistency really is!

 

Often people will shout foul because a band they want added is still waiting. They don't actually object to the band being proposed, they just think that the case for another is stronger. 

 

Interestingly, the number of bands rejected for PR since the Admin team took on overseeing it is very low indeed, 2 or 3 I think. Many people think that artists have been rejected when they have not. Those who come to mind include Bowie, Hendrix, Journey, Toto, etc. We've never been asked for permission to add any of these.

 

On top of all this, there are the purists who have not bought into the site policy of using prog related bands to bring people to the site. They object to every prog related proposal and bemoan people "wasting their time" on such bands.

 

Finally, can I point out just how successful this site is. We are often the first site to come up in Google searches for bands and albums. We have become the reference point of choice for literally thousands of people who don't actually join the site, but find it an indispensable resource. We have contributed enormously to the resurgence of prog.

 

If people search for information about say Black Sabbath (A band selected by me at random), they may well think, "I didn't realise BS had a relationship with prog". They come to the site to investigate further, and discover what that relationship is. They are presented on the front page with reviews of many fine prog bands, they see our top 100 albums and investigate further. They look at the forum, and find it to be friendly, informative and lively. Subtly we get them hooked. We sell them prog by playing on their interests where they overlap with prog.

 

This startegy was always mailto:M@xs - M@x's vision for the site. It is he who has mastered the Google search and steered us towards this goal. He takes the plaudits for the vision, and our members, and especially our collaborators, take the credit for making it happen.

 

Prog related is an essential part of this strategy.

 

Yes we have lost fine members along the way, we have seen serious disagreements about the site direction, but let's look at the positve side for a change. This is a huge success story. This is a wonderful site. This is our site.

 

 

 

 

Before a band can be added to Prog related, permission must be given by the Admin Team. We are not a genre team as such our function in monitoring such additions is to manage this always controversial part of the site.

 

Only Special Collaborators can actually add bands, so if a member wanted to add a band to prog related, they would need to get the support of an SC or an Admin. This is usually quite easy to secure, just make your wish known in the appropriate forum thread.

 

The fundamental difference with the classical composers is that they are not performers. The way the site is set up, it is based on performers, not composers. We would not for example add Lennon/McCartney, but we do have The Beatles.

Nice response Bob!!!  It is nice to have further insight into the thinking behind PR.  I think that it fits pretty well within my line of thinking, for whatever that is worth.

 

The London Symphony Orchestra have some pretty good prog cover albums.  Or is it the London Philharmonic Orchestra?  Wouldn't have thought of them as a prog or prog-related artist though?  

 

 

 

Surely not.   They are clearly proto-prog. 

 

Since prog-related bands are not prog per se, surely it should be expected that they would be classified under a multitude of other genres and are only here because of the relationship thatt they have with prog even though being a part of other genres.

 

An argument was brought up that Boston should be excluded because they are AOR.  Yet every prog-related band in theory belongs to a different genre than prog.

The rightful place for them would be (and is) Various Artists: Tributes ( http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=2635 - http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=2635 ) where both the RPO and the LPO already have a some entries.

 

That is true and I agree.  I forgot that I had seen albums under Tributes pertaining to these orchestras. 

 

Hi NS,

 

What I said about solo members of prog bands is a site policy agreed with mailto:M@x - M@x . We tend to joke about Phil Collins, but he is the only such artists we have specifically chosen to exclude up until now.

 

Some such people will fit into prog genres in their own right of course, but otherwise they are prog related. The same approval process is required via the Admin team of course.

 

 

Actually, Bob, that's not true - ALL Classical composers were superlative performers - Mozart, notably, impressed the King of England with his playing aged only 10 years, Beethoven would improvise for fun at parties, simply because he was the best, and Bach spent most of his non-writing hours improvising.

 

There also exist some rather wonderful recordings of Joplin and Brahms playing their own works.

 

er... now I read your post again, you do say "They are not performers...", rather than were...

 

 

Or we could look at in exactly the opposite way.   This site caters to prog afficianados and it would be only natural to host information that would be of interest to some of them despite the act being mentioned not being pure prog.

 

A clear example would be Phil Collins, where people would show interest in learning what he has been up to after Genesis, how people evaluate that body of work, and how it differs from prog.

 

Just lots of differing ideas pop into peoples' minds when you mention prog related.  The need for better guidance on the subject is pretty clear.

 

Not to mention the need to get people to realize that being prog-related does not put an act on the same elevated platform as that of their favorite prog bands.

 

I'm thinking along the lines of a section where new threads can only be started by an admin. We would have one thread for each relevant composer. We could call the section something like "Classical music in prog".

 

I don't understand - why would they be demos?

 

That suggests that the composers' own performance of their own music is not up to someone else's interpretations - and where does that leave the Prog bands on this site?

 

Are we saying that tribute bands are necessarily better?

 

...words are such slippery things

 

 

I like the idea of a Classical section - I think it should include only the WORKS that influenced prog - since many composers are noted for significant works;

 

e.g. Orff's "Carmina Burana", Copland's "Fanfare for the Common Man", Holst's "The Planets", Stockhausen's "Kontakte" and Varese's "Poeme Electronique" - but generally not the entire bodies of work and compositional styles.

 

 

There is a definite Progressive Music slant to this site, which allows for electronic music, jazz and folk - but "Prog-Related" is quite clearly not necessarily Prog OR Rock.

 

It's not "Prog-Related ROCK", It's "Prog ROCK-related".

 

 

"Four legs good, two legs better".

 

George Orwell.

 

 

 

I am agreeable with that.

 

I am agreeable with that too.  Boy am I easy!!!!

 

For example: imagine that you want to add an interesting band that rocks and has interesting progressive ideas, it is rejected by 'the teams' and the next day an electronic band has been added to this site that produces only some synthesizer waves and ethnic sounds, this is reality here on Prog Archives and I have strong objections towards this kind of addition-policy!

 

As I wrote elsewhere (but no one noticed ), many acts are there in the Related waiting for a second or a third thought about their "progressiveness".

 

It won't hurt if a team re-evaluates a band and decides they fit its parameters and then the team may manage with the Admin Team to move the band to a prog genre.

 

Fine!

 

...but there may be many Prog fans interested in the Stranglers  - not sure about the Tubes, I don't know their back catalogue well enough - but the Stranglers and their Doors-related brand of punk that evolved into something altogether more sophisticated are surely a band any progger would want to hear.

 

This is not snobbish but it's clear that I hate mediocrity and conformism. About your comment I would like to remind you the classical flamenco artists you added in the archives. These artists (Diego de Moron, Juan Martin...) absolutely not explore the progressive territories (I know what I say, my brother is a flamenco guitar player and performs some Juan Martin...). As it was said previously I always managed to seperate my personal favourites artists (that are beyond progressive rock) from the ones I include in the progressive electronic subgenre...you sould have a deeper view on the bands mentionned, none of them belong to classical avant garde. Moreover many of them include rock instrumentation and the primitive energy of this music.

 

You mean, like "Spirit of Radio", "Misunderstanding" and "Owner of a Lonely Heart" - that sort of thing?

 

You're making the basic mistake of judging the band on a hit single you've heard.

 

Granted, the Stranglers had many hits, like "No More Heroes", "Hanging Around", "Get a Grip on Yourself", "Duchess", "Golden Brown", etc - but all have proggy elements that really aren't a million miles away from either The Doors or Marillion.

 

They were only a "punk" band (for want of a better word - it only describes their attitude, not their music) for a few years. Aural Sculpture is a clear case of a progression - even "Golden Brown" is in 13/4.

 

If you don't know their entire back catalogue, it will surprise you immensely.

 

That would be J___n's last date....

 

 

 

 

Where IS our favourite Dutch youth lately, anyway?