Bjork go home! (the right one)

http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive-rock.asp#definition .

The genres of progressive rock music

I sincerley hope that those caught in a time warp see the common sense of this statement, probably supplied via Admin.

Maybe ACV, this will be enough eveidence to give it a rest. On this thread, again, peace out...

Tony R wrote: Well 25 people have voted for this being a good addition, that's quite an endorsement given that some think the addition is ridiculous.

Do you want to answer my question? plz , i just wanna know

Tony R wrote: Don't bait me please.

Ok , any other guy who knows how this type of things work? 

Atavachron wrote: but wouldn't the 'Radical Prog Party' want her added?  Isn't that a "radical" thing to do?

Xanatos wrote: Tony R wrote: Don't bait me please. Ok , any other guy who knows how this type of things work?

You have become too annoying for anyone to invest the time and effort into explaining a process to you that you will never be a part of.

Dean wrote: Xanatos wrote: Tony R wrote: Don't bait me please. Ok , any other guy who knows how this type of things work?  You have become too annoying for anyone to invest the time and effort into explaining a process to you that you will never be a part of.

I just want to know , why i cant know the process? , anyway that info needs to be somewhere here posted because is a vital process , and members like me dont know how it works, i have right to know, i just want transparency thats is all

Hercules wrote: Any successful business/forum has to attract new people - perfectly true. But it also has to retain its existing base. Occasionally, I attend the monthly (well it is supposed to be monthly if anyone bothers to organise it!) meeting of my local prog group. Last time, about 55 people turned up (mostly 50+ but with a sprinkling of youngsters). I mentioned progarchives and many said they had been members but only 2 still visited the site regularly - me and one other. We discussed why and the overwhelming reason was - it's not really a prog site any more; there are too many bands on who aren't anything to do with prog. Now, I know many thousands have registered on this site, but how many active members are there? 400 maybe, judging by perticipation in polls? How many long time members have lapsed?? Adding new bands with a tenuous link to prog may seem like a good idea at the time, but IMO it dilutes the focus of the site and deters long term hardcore prog fans. Be warned - I believe it will lead to this site becoming an irrelevance - and it deserves far better.

Wait, what? That's a silly reason. Bands are there to be looked at. It's not like they attack you if you stare too much at them or anything. Bear in mind that an overwhelming amount of posts is still about the same old things (I would estimate close to 90% deal with the same 10 or 15 bands in some way, shape or form; the rest deal with the definition of prog ). If anything, being stale is as likely to turn people away as moving too fast.

But coming back to my point. How is this not a prog site anymore? It's really hard for me to understand what makes it less proggy. The prog bands are still there, the interest in prog rock bands is still overwhelming, and the bands that aren't prog are most of the times treated as such in reviews and ratings.

As to the questions of active members, I'm much more inclined to say that question has to do with the threads being about the same old things. Who's better, Genesis or Yes? What's the best Pink Floyd album? Who else here things Dream Theater is the best thing ever?

Seriously? Is that all we can discuss? Are those all the bands we listen to? By the way threads have been evolving lately, it looks to me as if new people are coming in constantly and old people (no offense ) are taking the backseat. Being bored with what's discussed seems to me to be the bigger thing here, rather than not being able to keep up. How many times have threads been closed after someone noticed "I think we've had this thread six hundred times before"?

Getting bigger doesn't take away what's already there. It only makes it more interesting and gives it context. As for the image issue (people come here to see prog rock and they see Bjork and run away), maybe it's a good thing to select your audience, i.e., to make yourself attractive to people who are not quick to jump to conclusions rather than to people who can't stomach diversity.

Just sayin' .


Edited by Asphalt - December 08 2010 at 08:13

Man With Hat wrote: So, in summary, I agree and may even prefer that the site should consider becoming progressive music archives. But, in reality, I doubt that will ever happen, esp since the threads of that nature that occured in the past died quickly with litter discussion.

Asphalt wrote: Man With Hat wrote: So, in summary, I agree and may even prefer that the site should consider becoming progressive music archives. But, in reality, I doubt that will ever happen, esp since the threads of that nature that occured in the past died quickly with litter discussion. Let's keep trying then. Resilience is the first step in effecting change .

The RPP support this :)

Asphalt wrote: Hercules wrote: Any successful business/forum has to attract new people - perfectly true. But it also has to retain its existing base. Occasionally, I attend the monthly (well it is supposed to be monthly if anyone bothers to organise it!) meeting of my local prog group. Last time, about 55 people turned up (mostly 50+ but with a sprinkling of youngsters). I mentioned progarchives and many said they had been members but only 2 still visited the site regularly - me and one other. We discussed why and the overwhelming reason was - it's not really a prog site any more; there are too many bands on who aren't anything to do with prog. Now, I know many thousands have registered on this site, but how many active members are there? 400 maybe, judging by perticipation in polls? How many long time members have lapsed?? Adding new bands with a tenuous link to prog may seem like a good idea at the time, but IMO it dilutes the focus of the site and deters long term hardcore prog fans. Be warned - I believe it will lead to this site becoming an irrelevance - and it deserves far better. Wait, what? That's a silly reason. (You may think so - clearly others don't, because they're voting with their feet) Bands are there to be looked at. It's not like they attack you if you stare too much at them or anything. Bear in mind that an overwhelming amount of posts is still about the same old things (I would estimate close to 90% deal with the same 10 or 15 bands in some way, shape or form; the rest deal with the definition of prog ). If anything, being stale is as likely to turn people away as moving too fast. But coming back to my point. How is this not a prog site anymore? It's really hard for me to understand what makes it less proggy. The prog bands are still there, the interest in prog rock bands is still overwhelming, and the bands that aren't prog are most of the times treated as such in reviews and ratings. (I personally find it tedious to wade through reams of reviews of bands that contribute little/nothing to prog - clearly others do too.) As to the questions of active members, I'm much more inclined to say that question has to do with the threads being about the same old things. Who's better, Genesis or Yes? What's the best Pink Floyd album? Who else here things Dream Theater is the best thing ever? (I agree completely that this doesn't help - too many threads are repetitive, trivial or just posted by the anally retentive.) Seriously? Is that all we can discuss? Are those all the bands we listen to? By the way threads have been evolving lately, it looks to me as if new people are coming in constantly and old people (no offense ) Offence duly taken! are taking the backseat. Being bored with what's discussed seems to me to be the bigger thing here, rather than not being able to keep up. How many times have threads been closed after someone noticed "I think we've had this thread six hundred times before"? Too many, I admit - but that's another issue. Getting bigger doesn't take away what's already there. It only makes it more interesting and gives it context. As for the image issue (people come here to see prog rock and they see Bjork and run away), maybe it's a good thing to select your audience, i.e., to make yourself attractive to people who are not quick to jump to conclusions rather than to people who can't stomach diversity. My final point is that it's not just the addition of new bands that is the problem - it's their credentials to be here. I have a list of bands as long as your arm with credentials to be here as strong as or stronger than those already added, none of which I actually wish to see added. I'm currently listening to my favourite album of all time "The Best of British Folk Rock". Artists include Steeleye Span, Pentangle, Fairport Convention and Strawbs (all on this site) and New Celeste, Capercaillie, Oysterband, Runrig and Lindisfarne who aren't on it. I could, should I keep the habit of a lifetime and be awkward, put an irrefutable argument that 3 of the latter 5 are much more progressive than 3 of the former 4. In practice, I would put the argument that none really belong on a progressive website, fine bands though they all are. Just sayin' .

My final words on this issue - in bold.