Should ProgArchives turn into ProgMusicAr

Mandrakeroot wrote: Thanks for words, Clarke2001. P.s.: Without to take not mine merits... The obscure bands/ artists that Andrea Cortese introduces in PA are almost all mine (I understand those of the 70's) because I don't be able to introduce bands/ artists in PA.

Andrea, did I ever mentioned Cortese?

clarke2001 wrote: Mandrakeroot wrote: Thanks for words, Clarke2001. P.s.: Without to take not mine merits... The obscure bands/ artists that Andrea Cortese introduces in PA are almost all mine (I understand those of the 70's) because I don't be able to introduce bands/ artists in PA.  Andrea, did I ever mentioned Cortese?

Oh... Sorry... I believed that since the bands/ artists come introduced from Andrea Cortese...

It can still be progarchives.  Just mention that the focus is on more forms of prog than just rock.

There are people out there in wide web land that don't know about prog, but they have read in the music press that their favorite band-of-the-moment is progressive, and they wonder what other bands are like their flavour of the month, so they Google their band name with the word progressive and see what comes up. Usually they find LastFM and Amazon, which is great, but it does not introduce them to other bands that they might be interested in.

The T wrote: ... Man, if the standars are not kept and raised, a day will come when a NON-ROCK artist wil be here, just like that joke of "RockHall of Fame" where they introduced a rapper, some day it could happen here....

That threshold was crossed long ago with the inclusion of many Progressive Electronic artists.  Also, one can find music that I don't consider to be rock, or hardly rock in other categories (jazz bands in Avant Prog, certain folk music etc.).
In Symph. Prog here, I don't think of Karda Estra as rock, really, but it shares enough qualities with Prog Rock to be suitable.

 I guess as long as it's rock-related, though (has enough similarities with rock music).  A hallmark of Prog is, after all, genre-expanding/ bending music -- a fusion of styles.  How predominantly rock-based the music should be is an issue here when it comes to inclusion.

Xolaeth wrote: It can still be progarchives.  Just mention that the focus is on more forms of prog than just rock.

I do think the the focus should remain Progressive Rock.  There's a lot of music that is related to it that is progressive, but not really rock, that is suitable for inclusion, I think.  Much as I might like to see this site to expand into various non-rock, or hardly rock, realms of progressive music that can still be related to progressive rock, focus on Progressive Rock is warranted, I think.

Considering that progressive rock draws on so many styles, most anything can be related to it.  I've certainly wished to see more progressive groups and artists in the jazz field here, because they are so closely related to Jazz/Rock Fusion which has been accepted here under the umbrella of Progressive Rock.  For instance, I do think Miles Davis should be here but then he was an important fusion artist.  Nyman and Glass's music can be related to artists at this site, but that doesn't mean they should be here.

As for Prog-Related and Proto-Prog: I don't think the inclusion of influental artists such as Cream and Jimi Hendrix etc. should worry people that much as long it's in a prog related category.  The Prog categories alone are so diverse here that you can find a huge range of styles under the umbrella.  Prog has come to mean so many kinds of music (and movements), and the various categories here highlight that (there is much diversity to be found within the categories). 

Defining and re-defining the parameters of Prog (and indeed what is sufficiently related) is an ongoing challenge.  As i once read at another site: Nomenclature is the bane of the archivist (but mighty fun for discussion in archives).


Edited by Logan - June 22 2007 at 15:43

^ Nomenclature is the bane of the archivist and interpretation and misinterpretation is the bane of the poster.

micky wrote: Logan wrote: ^ Nomenclature is the bane of the archivist and interpretation and misinterpretation is the bane of the poster. hahhaa... isn't that the truth.... that is why this site is so much damn fun....  no set means of nomenclature.... tons of petty archivists running around thinking their means of interpetation is best... and with lot of misinterpetation we have not the bane of the poster.... but the eternal enjoyment of the masses.

True; true.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: clarke2001 wrote: Oh, people, c'mooooon!!!! This is a lovely debate, rather than a bitter one. I love you all... Prog-related is not prog. Therefore, we have some non prog-artists here. It's clearly obvious that we have those non-prog artist here for some reason; because their music is somewhat proggy, because they released one or more 100% prog albums, because they're classic rock band with obvious parallels of comparison to prog rock from today's point of view, because the owners know that will attract more people to the web site...   Already the administrators have talked about the requirements, THIS IS A PROG SITE, some bands have been added to Prog Related, a group is OK a group is wrong IMO, but we can live with this, lets keep the site Prog This is, to me, more than a web site. This is a library of prog knowledge, the most comprehensive in the world. And I love to think about prog-related category as a section of some additional information about progressive rock in general. It's knowledge. It's simple as that.   Lets add a literature, a Painting, a games, a politics, a religion, etc forum, it's all knowledge...this is not lñogical, because it's a Prog site not a general music site, there's Allmusic for that. So, let's add all the bands that deserve to be in a PR category! Let's add them now! Let's add them a whole bunch in one afternoon! Talking Heads, Velvet Underground, Television, XTC, PiL, Black Sabbath, Toto, Bowie, Megadeth, Balanescu Quartet, Strangles, Tubes, Who, Miles Davis, Ultravox, Police, Beach Boys, Byrds, Hendrix, Blind Faith, Cream, System Of A Down, Air, Andreas Wollenweider, Future Sound Of London, Grateful Dead, Enigma... Most of this bands mentioned have been checked and rejected, what the hell has Toto or The Police have to do in a Propg site? The answeris absolutely nothing head...There's probably twice as more...three times more...four times more...that is...what? 100 bands What is one hundred bands? Nothing! This web site is listing three thousand  bands, with many more waiting for an approval. That's the problem, when people worry about NO PROG BANDS, the real Prog bands are left behind and that's wrong. What will happen than? Nothing!!! Loosing credibility is important for me, so it will be harmful. Two worst months in the history of the web site will follow, everyone will be reviewing familiar non-prog bands. Just turn off the bloody non-prog reviews from the front page...or locate them on the bottom! And exclude them from the top 100! Problem solved! Will this web site lose credibility? No. I believe we will full-blown prog bands became less worthy? Of course not! That's an absurd comentary, sorry Will this web site remain the best prog  web site? Yes. We are already the best one, why risk this? Will the prog rock fans community be widened, and new forum members introduced? Yes! False, we would loose some of the members who care about real Prog Will this web site gain extra money? Yes. False, many lurkers will come for a while, but many of the real Prog fans, who came to a Prog site because it's Prog will go and those are the faithful ones, the ones who keep this sitre running, the ones who stay here for hours working for nothing and the ones who bring people. And you are arguing about inclusion of The Who or Cream!? 100 bands more. That is hundreds of pages of knowledge more. And that's not everything. Hundreds  of prog bands will be added too, of course. The site will continue to develop. New DT polls will be made. Ronnie will write a new book about prog. People will come and go. Andrea, Igor and co. will continue to add obscure Russian and Italian bands. Sean will review them all.   Knowledge not related with Prog has no place in a Prog site just to keep some fanboys happy seeing their band included in another place.   Iván

Dear Ivan...there's no point of doing the vivisection of one's text...this was not my statement written for the court! You are taking things too literally, and I guess you're not reading between the lines, that's way you missed the point I guess..

Maybe you didn't miss the point...but in that case...you opinion resembles a certain "purism" of prog on this site as an ideal, which I respect, but that condition is long gone...!!!

Is there a point shouting "don't let prog-related in" if it's already in?

The thing is...I guess...you don't want any more prog-related bands, this was enough...am I right?
We are halfway there. Not adding Who, Cream and having all these bands already is hilarious, unreasonable...the condition right now is the best moment to lose credibility. So let the damn prog-related bands in, or kick them all out.

What else? I said:
This is, to me, more than a web site. This is a library of prog knowledge, the most comprehensive in the world. And I love to think about prog-related category as a section of some additional information about progressive rock in general. It's knowledge. It's simple as that. Lets add a literature, a Painting, a games, a politics, a religion, etc forum, it's all knowledge...this is not lñogical, because it's a Prog site not a general music site, there's Allmusic for that.

And I am saying now:

YES!!! Let's add articles about Mussorgsky, Roger Dean, Robert Moog!!! Of course not like band entries, just like some essays! Wouldn't you be glad to learn? Which novel influenced Genesis' "The Return Of The Giant Hogweed" more? John Wyndham's "Day of The Triffids" or John Christopher's "No Blade Of Grass"?

That is not  Knowledge not related with Prog, that's is knowledge RELATED TO PROG.


And nobody is doing that (me neither) just to keep some fanboys happy. Do you really believe in that, Ivan?

This is one sentence that hurts me deep:That's the problem, when people worry about NO PROG BANDS, the real Prog bands are left behind and that's wrong.

Do you really think I am worrying about non-prog bands more than Prog bands, Ivan?!?
If so, I suggest you to check the thread named Clarke's list  in Collaborator section. There are 1750 reasons to prove you the opposite.

There are non-music prog related articles in the forum already, perhaps these could be collated and put into the archive, e.g. things like:

Edited by erik neuteboom - June 23 2007 at 10:33