A question about prog-related

I have an interesting question about prog-related: if a band has almost the same line-up as a certain prog band but does not play prog is it then prog-related? I think yes, but I would lkike to hear other opinions

I would say it depends on the music. If the members of, say, Yes got together and made a real out and out pop or jazz album, would we add them?

^ Good question, but I can't see how to exclude solo artists from this debate, it's all about the same global criteria and how it should be applied, no?

BaldFriede wrote: chopper wrote: I would say it depends on the music. If the members of, say, Yes got together and made a real out and out pop or jazz album, would we add them? I guess this is why we haven't added Phil Collins the solo artist yet (have we?) On the other hand we have Asia in the database. Also my question was NOT about solo albums of members of prog bands.

Interestingly Japan are under prog-related, but Rain Tree Crow (exact same lineup, no more proggy) are under Crossover Prog, and I'm assuming both are here mostly because of a few of David Sylvian's solo albums.

BaldFriede wrote: Quinino wrote: ^ Good question, but I can't see how to exclude solo artists from this debate, it's all about the same global criteria and how it should be applied, no? There is a slight difference: You may have noted that I talked about line-up. A solo artist's line-up of an album does not necessarily consist mostly of prog musicians. And that's what the question is about.

OK, but on the other hand the driving force behind the solo album is the artist (composer/performer/producer?) member of the original prog band
So my argument stands - though I understand it was not your initial idea to be so comprehensive in your question

In the end what should count is the music but exceptions already exist and IMO rightly so - it's better to risk being over-inclusive than to exclude the borderline cases in the name of some "purity" conception.

Quinino wrote: SteveG wrote: One word: Sussudio.

Vompatti wrote: From the official definition: "3) Members of important progressive rock bands - Although most of the recorded solo output of artists like Greg Lake and David Gilmour falls more in a mainstream rock style, their contributions to progressive rock in their respective bands insures them a place in our prog-related genre." So why isn't Phil Collins here exactly?

A couple of things:

1) To get into prog related these days (and in the past 5 years or so) the artist needs to have influenced the prog scene on a large scale. Somehow put their mark on the genre yet without being fully fledged prog because....

2) Prog related is not prog.

3) The sub used to be a dumping ground for members' fave bands (and everyone could add bands as they saw fit) and indeed acts that sounded "sorta proggy". Which is THE main reasons we have so many 'is X band really prog?' or different varieties where everything gets mumbled up in these muddy and extremely complex discussion filled to the brim with 'if Tori Amos is here then why not Sade?'.

4) Solo Phil Collins is not in any way influential to any part of the prog scene as far as I know...which is why he isn't here.

5) Many of us, including myself, would prefer scrapping the whole sub and be done with it as it generally seems to yield more inane, often heated and frustrating genre bending discussions rather than pull people in from afar - sneakily getting them into pork via the backdoor. It doesn't really work that way though.
But erasing an entire sub also means deleting the many fine reviews it holds and that would be a real shame imo.


Edited by Guldbamsen - October 05 2017 at 12:08

I wish you guys would google progressive music and look up under Wikipedia...  Progressive music has various time signatures.  Not just one like pop music.