Should ProgArchives turn into ProgMusicAr

Expand the prog related section. I really can't understand why anyone would have a problem with that.

The only thing I'd change is "Your Ultimate Prog Rock Resource" to "Your Ultimate Prog Music Resource" since it's progarchives and not progrockarchives.  I've always been more of big tenter when it comes to what I personally consider progressive and pretty much all of the music in collection is progressive if not technically progressive rock.

Edited by Slartibartfast - June 21 2007 at 16:50

explodingjosh wrote: Hmm... so expand the "Proto" and "Related" sections, but do not include them in the Top 100. I like that idea. That means the Top 100 would be 100% prog albums, which would be cool, and there'd be more beloved bands on the site.   Sounds like a nice compromise, guys...

I don't know why they haven't done that yet...  It's been suggested many times.

PS. I really think Cream should be here under Proto-Prog.   Wish they'd change the algorithms for the list at the same time so that number of ratings and reviews is less important for placement.

I do wish that Prog-Related was split up into different sections though that describe a band's music more since it's too diverse to be a useful category for me.  Useful for getting people into the site, though, and for including borderline Prog bands (though what is Prog is to an extent in the ear of the behearer and is arguable -- some in Prog Related that I think worthy of Prog status, and some bands in Prog sections that to me are merely related).

Actually, you know, some bands listed here under Prog Related released truly Prog albums, just as many bands that are listed here as Prog released non-Prog albums (as widely recognised to be Prog or not Prog).  Perhaps rather than bands being labeled Prog, albums could so that Prog albums by Prog-Related bands could be included in the top 500 list, but albums that are not deemed sufficiently Prog by recognised Prog bands would not have a look in.  But I digress.

But as more of an inclusionist, I don't mind that much if non-Prog albums make it to the top 100 (still tagged Prog-related).  And as I'm not a reviewer here...

I care about one thing only: discovering new music. If we start subtracting from this site in the interests of some fundamentalist progressive rock 'purity' we will deprive people of that chance.

We need to trust people's reading skills. If it says 'Prog Related' then people can surely draw conclusions from that.

Consider the following:

1) As shown by the reactions on this thread, there is no widespread agreement on what defines progressive rock or progressive music. Therefore, where do we draw the line? Who decides?

2) In a very real way, that line IS slowly being drawn by ProgArchives. Read the new reviews for a few months and you will see how people deal with what they think are 'marginal' albums or groups. I'm getting a much better sense of what the prog community thinks is prog, and I'm surprised by how much it differs from my own view.

3) The 'Top 100' is still occupying too much of our attention. If 'Queen II' or 'In Rock' gets into the top 10, I'm not going to waste a second worrying about it. Neither album will sound any different the next time I listen to it.

So, personally, no need to change anything. I am enjoying the way the site is developing.

Edited by russellk - June 21 2007 at 16:23

The proposed idea is a bad idea. If it is hard to define which band is progressive or not, imagine to define the "progressive ideas". Millions of bands arguably have progressive ideas.

I don't mind the prog related category, but I agree with Trademark that it should be completely separate from the top 100. I don't see what changing the name of the site would accomplish, as I don't see how "Prog" explicitly refers to "progressive rock", espcecially by today's standards.

vingaton wrote: from darkmatter 'You know what I mean, it would just be a rock music website, rather than a progressive rock website."   it already is   V

Are you trying to be obnoxious?  Don't be so petty.

What I was saying is that if this website was loaded with bands that weren't truly progressive rock bands, this website would become a rock music website without a focus on progressive rock. 


Edited by darkmatter - June 21 2007 at 15:56

Finnforest wrote: I really wish they would actually tighten the scope of the site and keep it truly prog.  I hate to see it continue to slide to the point of this being an all out rock site.  Leave the name alone and keep it truly PROG.  That is what makes it special in the first place.    Just my opinion.

I think that since there is select music by non-Prog bands that contains many Prog elements, a special browseable section of this material would be nice.