Swans

ArturdeLara wrote: Guldbamsen wrote: Hold on a minute. First you bring me flowers and then we'll go from there <span style="line-height: 1.2;"></span> <span style="line-height: 1.2;"></span> Congratulations, you just made my day.

Glad to be of service.

BTW do you know of Quarteto 1111 - Jose Cid's prog band? Their second album is a real beauty

Guldbamsen wrote: Hold on a minute. First you bring me flowers and then we'll go from there

Let's do it.

ArturdeLara wrote: Dean wrote: Eh? José Cid only has one album listed here because no one has bothered to add the others - if you feel like adding more José Cid  albums then please, be my guest. Even the poppiest, cheesiest ones?

The rule is "the whole discography", so yes, even the poppiest cheesiest ones.

It is a tough nut to crack, yes it is.

And to reply to Electrocuted somewhat sarcastic comment, we are not arguing over what is and isn't prog just because we're a bunch of nerds who have nothing better to talk about (or "babies in a filing cabinet" as you said).   The scope of music covered by this site is something that's taken pretty seriously, and lots of people take great care that the boundaries of "prog" don't get trampled on too badly.  Not because "prog" is an exclusive club that's better than anything else, but because a more defined scope of musical styles is necessary to keep things orderly here.  Years ago, they were a lot more lenient (in fact very little oversight at all) about what bands could be added, and the database became unmanageable and the site suffered as a result.  Teams were then built to provide this oversight and handle band suggestions. Perhaps someone who was around back then could confirm this, but that is the story I have heard.   I say this because I remember when I was new here, and wondered why the hell everyone was so hung up on what prog is/isn't, and why they were so picky about what bands should be included.  I understand now.

As for Swans, they are possibly my favorite band at the moment.  They are progressive and forward-looking, especially nowadays.  Yet I feel no slight at the idea that they are probably not a good fit for this site.  I still love the band, and I can discuss them in other areas of the forum.  What have I lost?  Nothing.

Eh? José Cid only has one album listed here because no one has bothered to add the others - if you feel like adding more José Cid  albums then please, be my guest.

Swans belong in PA 

No, I didn't interpret it as anti-Swans at all Jim, and I appreciate you sharing your position on that

HolyMoly wrote: I love the Swans, but I have to admit this is probably a tough call.  Only one album is required to qualify a band as prog, but if a band's done non-prog (progressive perhaps, but not prog; a distinction I've come to accept here) albums for 30 years and makes one prog album, does that really make them a prog band?  Just playing devil's advocate here, because of course I'd love to have the chance to officially review their albums here, but I trust the teams' judgment to make the right call here.

While this was the stated rule for a long time (the "one and in" rule), it apparently came out of the founder's initial desire to get bands added and build up the database.  These days this "rule" has been discussed and reconsidered by some collabs and at least one member of the A team that I'm aware of....whereas the thinking would be that when an artist has a huge discog, there really should be more than just "one prog album" to their name.  Rather, they should have a few, enough to call a portion of their career a "prog" period.....if that makes sense. 

Keep in mind this is just my take on discussions I've had....not PA policy.


Edited by Finnforest - December 31 2012 at 14:57

Bonnek wrote: We should have song tagging and put each individual Pink Floyd and Can song in it's own neat little box

Not necessarily.  Can songs would fit more neatly into a can.