Scorpions for Krautrock or prog related

progrockfreak wrote: Yes you can. And find five pages with nigh on 100 posts to wade through. What I'm talking about here is a simple definitive conclusion when the collaborators have all had their say, and the band has been rejected. Something that will show up in a normal google search for a band, and that will lead the reader to a single summarial entry saying what the band were (or are) about, and why they were considered unsuitable for inclusion in the site proper. It would make things a whole lot easier for the casual user just looking up a band they were interested in, and add to the functionality of the site in my opinion.

That's something I've been in favor of for a long time. We even discussed it in collaborators zone a few times. No result - although many people agree it would be a good idea. We had had heated debates about The Stranglers, XTC, Grateful Dead, even Dire Straits. It would be nice to acknowledge a proposal, even unanimously  rejected - ''okay, we all voted no for Dire Straits but we all agree they had some lengthy songs/solos/arrangements in their early years and they might appeal, even sound progressive to some fans". Such a list would be great for a ultimate prog rock resource, and it would make easier for newbies while doing new proposals. It will also show that we, as a community, do not live in vacuum, we have dozens of collaborators with various levels of expertise: we are aware of Bob Dylan's significance, Velvet Underground's significance, Judas Priest, we know for that one prog album by The Rolling Stones, even Bee Gees.

The problem is, we have 6000+ bands in the database, and I have no clue how many others were rejected during 7 years of website existence. We used to have something called 'Master List' in the early years, but such a list is obsolete nowadays, if it exists at all.

The general argument is - we're all unpayed volonteers spending our spare time here, and we should be focusing on new prog bands to be added, rather than waste energy on issues not crucial for the web site. While in general I don't blame anyone with such an opinion, I still think it's a pity we are not sorting out our inner mess.

clarke2001 wrote: progrockfreak wrote: Yes you can. And find five pages with nigh on 100 posts to wade through. What I'm talking about here is a simple definitive conclusion when the collaborators have all had their say, and the band has been rejected. Something that will show up in a normal google search for a band, and that will lead the reader to a single summarial entry saying what the band were (or are) about, and why they were considered unsuitable for inclusion in the site proper. It would make things a whole lot easier for the casual user just looking up a band they were interested in, and add to the functionality of the site in my opinion. That's something I've been in favor of for a long time. We even discussed it in collaborators zone a few times. No result - although many people agree it would be a good idea. We had had heated debates about The Stranglers, XTC, Grateful Dead, even Dire Straits. It would be nice to acknowledge a proposal, even unanimously  rejected - ''okay, we all voted no for Dire Straits but we all agree they had some lengthy songs/solos/arrangements in their early years and they might appeal, even sound progressive to some fans". Such a list would be great for a ultimate prog rock resource, and it would make easier for newbies while doing new proposals. It will also show that we, as a community, do not live in vacuum, we have dozens of collaborators with various levels of expertise: we are aware of Bob Dylan's significance, Velvet Underground's significance, Judas Priest, we know for that one prog album by The Rolling Stones, even Bee Gees. The problem is, we have 6000+ bands in the database, and I have no clue how many others were rejected during 7 years of website existence. We used to have something called 'Master List' in the early years, but such a list is obsolete nowadays, if it exists at all. The general argument is - we're all unpayed volonteers spending our spare time here, and we should be focusing on new prog bands to be added, rather than waste energy on issues not crucial for the web site. While in general I don't blame anyone with such an opinion, I still think it's a pity we are not sorting out our inner mess.

I agree that would be very nice to have info and a summary of reasons for rejection. Yeah there would be tooooons of bands to have and its not a priority, but its a good idea that I agree would benefit the site.

The band have been rejected and, of course, there are no new albums or discoveries to add to the argument.

Fine band in the 70s, hair band in the 80's and onwards. Never released a full-on Prog album. Case closed.