Should ProgArchives turn into ProgMusicAr

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

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...

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

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

There shouldn't be a prog-related section in the first place, that is why expanding it would be a problem.

salmacis wrote: Erik, IMHO it is best not to take these inclusions to heart, to be honest. There are some inclusions here that I don't agree with as well but it matters very little in the long run. Prog Archives remains the best resource for the genre, imho.

The site is fine as it is. If it encompasses wider range of  music than the prog rock content (for which it was originally started) then the site would (to me) be diluted too much and not hold any worth to me.

Less focus should be on proto-prog and prog-related and more should be on prog itself.

If any changes should be made to the site I think it should be that proto-prog and prog-related by merged into one category and some bands be removed that do not fit the merged category.

I also would suggest that the Top 100 (and other Top (enter number here) lists) include only one album per artist so these lists aren't swamped with just one artist, not giving other artists equal exposure. I also think that the Top 100 should be more decided on rating than the number of reviews (but not by much just not 50/50 -  I assume it is).




Edited by progismylife - June 21 2007 at 17:19

the name ProgArchives doesn't need to change in order to be more inclusive... the word 'rock' isn't in the name anyway, and the site is already rather inclusive and open-minded, which is why we get debates over certain bands.

Atavachron wrote: the name ProgArchives doesn't need to change in order to be more inclusive... the word 'rock' isn't in the name anyway, and the site is already rather inclusive and open-minded, which is why we get debates over certain bands.

That's what I think too -- change it from "THE ULTIMATE PROG ROCK RESOURCE" to give it more general progressive music parameters (and rewrite other areas to note the scope).  Problem is, "Prog" is commonly used as an abbreviated form of "Progressive Rock" rather than just "progressive".  Others use "Prog Rock" specifically as the abbreviation for "Progressive Rock".

I'd rather use prog to mean progressive music, and indeed the ratings guide for albums state:

Essential: a masterpiece of progressive music (17%)

Excellent addition to any prog music collection (33%)

Good, but non-essential (44%)

Collectors/fans only (6%)

Poor. Only for completionists (0%)

note the small p in "prog" and "progressive music" (progressive and prog can act as an adjective rather than a noun in a true genre sense).


Edited by Logan - June 21 2007 at 17:49

I have to say I think the owners (and Admins, too) often get it right and have made some good, tough calls. It is correct to include the Beatles here, and would be incorrect to include Cream. imo.








Edited by Atavachron - June 21 2007 at 18:27