Boston???

ghost_of_morphy wrote:   You are engaged in a paradox of massive proportions here.   You claim that prog related is NOT progressive music, but you justify rejecting music because it isn't related musically (i.e. doesn't sound like prog.)  Well, what is progressive music except something that sounds like it?     The obnly one that sees the Paradox are you, the definition is clear:   [quote]Prog Related is the category that groups bands and artists that: - Without being 100% Prog, received clear MUSICAL influence of this genre, OR Phil Collins received Motown influence, he never played a singgle Prog chord in his solo career, neither Toto or Boston - Are widely accepted as MUSICALLY influential to the development of Progressive Rock by the community, OR   Clear as water, Phil solo career, Bioston or Toto have influenced no Prog band. - Blend characteristics of Progressive Rock with mainstream elements creating a final product that despite not being part of the genre is evident that are close to Prog.   This is wehere your confusion starts, a prog band is one that has most of the elements of the genre of the genre and is accepted by the community as that, a Prog Related one is a band that is not part of the Progressive Rock genre, but blends some elements with mainstream music.   Not the case of Phil Collins who played bland POP and nothing else during hiiw whole careeror Boston that played AOR neither Toto who blennded Pop with diluted Jazz. http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive-rock.asp#38 [quote]   It's transparent.   The fallacy should be quite apparent to anyone.  You are refusing to let in bands to a genre that is there for music that doesn't sound like prog because the music doesn't sound like prog   No is not, I, as 73% of the voters in one poll and 66% of the voters in the other Poll   agree with adding a  band that is not Prog, and Is not influenced by Prog Is influential for Prog Blends Prog elements with other genres. If you still have problems, well isd futile trying to explain to you. Iván

^ they didn't make Bob an admin just for his looks alone you know 

ghost_of_morphy wrote:   Skipping all of the other obtuseness, this is extremely clear.   Boston received clear musical influence from this genre, which has been thoroughly documented, and which I cited in my original post.   The "or" in the above thread is  a conjunction that signifies that if one of the conditions (such as the one mentioned above) is true, then the statement is true regardless of the other conditions.  Boston received clear musical influence, hence Boston is prog-related.   If you support the definition you cite, you support Boston's inclusion.   And yet you still persist in your obtuse insistance that to be prog-related something must sound like prog.  That's silly.  What sounds like prog IS prog!!!!  Not prog-related, prog!!!!  If you don't like the sound of Boston, that's fine, but don't pretend that you are following the definition instead of your whims and preferences.

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - November 12 2007 at 14:45

Ghost of Morphy wrote:

And yet you still persist in your obtuse insistance that to be prog-related something must sound like prog.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:   A BAND MUST BLEND AT LEAST SOME PROG ELEMENTS....BOSTON DOESN'T BLEND THEM....AS CLEAR AS WATER, NOT ONLY FOR ME BUT FOR THE HUGE MAJORITY OF THIS FORUM MEMBERS.

well Bob if the admin hat is on.... lets cut the crap about trying to tell you all what PR is about and discuss Boston...

I think everyone with half a head would agree that they fit in PR...  but the question is...  should they be inducted.   Is the policy is to be ALL prog-related groups... or the select ones that have some special relation to prog.  I thought we on the XOver team had the finest line to walk.. we got nothin... on you all hahahha.  Just what are YOUR thoughts, since the admin hat is off, on PR addtions.  All... or select ones.  Targeted to the site.. or a sense of completeness.

Personally, I agree with Ghost of Morphy that at the very least Boston is Prog-related.  When I saw them live a few years ago I couldn't believe how progressive they sounded to me. 

micky wrote: well Bob if the admin hat is on.... lets cut the crap about trying to tell you all what PR is about and discuss Boston... I think everyone with half a head would agree that they fit in PR...  but the question is...  should they be inducted.   Is the policy is to be ALL prog-related groups... or the select ones that have some special relation to prog.  I thought we on the XOver team had the finest line to walk.. we got nothin... on you all hahahha.  Just what are YOUR thoughts, since the admin hat is off, on PR addtions.  All... or select ones.  Targeted to the site.. or a sense of completeness.

The Doctor wrote: micky wrote: well Bob if the admin hat is on.... lets cut the crap about trying to tell you all what PR is about and discuss Boston... I think everyone with half a head would agree that they fit in PR...  but the question is...  should they be inducted.   Is the policy is to be ALL prog-related groups... or the select ones that have some special relation to prog.  I thought we on the XOver team had the finest line to walk.. we got nothin... on you all hahahha.  Just what are YOUR thoughts, since the admin hat is off, on PR addtions.  All... or select ones.  Targeted to the site.. or a sense of completeness.   Just let me know when I can start flinging my own .... at my PC monitor.    But seriously...(sorry for the Phil Collins reference)...I've sort of changed my opinion on the whole PR thing in the last few months.  If we're going to have a policy of inclusiveness, I think any band which sensibly could be considered as PR should be inducted.  If the idea is to expand the scope of the site, then the criteria should be along the lines of what Bob said earlier about will it attract people to the site who might enjoy prog...and also, would it be something that prog fans would find value in.  I see no problem in having a PR section that is inclusive as long as it remains distinctly identified as non-prog.

I have never cared for PR to be honest.... but if we have it... you might as well do it right.  And for all the tales of the site losing crediblity and sh*t like that... this site is the same site that it was before Sabbath was included .... Zeppelin was included.  I didn't agree with any of those.. .but you know...who really cares. I am not a mission to purify PA's .. only make my corner of it  the best I can for the users here.  The whole mission here is to serve the site users.  And if these kinds of addtions help the site and bring new people in... I'll surpress my damned prog sensiblitiies to realize that this site isn't about me .. or my ideas... but about the users.. and bringing new ones in...so we can hook them with the 'good' stuff.

Certif1ed wrote: Easy Livin wrote: Ivan, I was not suggesting for a minute that you had misunderstood the poll question!   Looks however like you may not be reading mine though. I said "bring in people who would be interested in prog".   I don't think that Boston would necessarily bring in people who would be interested in Prog - I think it would be more likely that people interested in Prog would become acquainted with Boston's music.   To my mind, only "Long Time" on their first album is even Prog-Related.   The rest is Smokin' classic rock - great stuff, but not related to the stuff we listen to here!