A question about site policy

I sometimes truly wonder about the site politics regarding artist additions. While a band like "Atlantis", (the German band which featuring Inga Rumpf of Frumpy (who are in he archives as fully prog) as singer who made at least twoo albums that border prog (thee first self-titled one and "It's Getting Better") the band "Jeronimo" is added under "Kraurock" though the only thing "Kraut" about them is that they are a German band. The music of Jeromimo however can best be compared to the music of Credence Clearwater Revival, and I am certain no-one would dream of having them added to the archives.

The reason I especially mention Credence Clearwater Revival in comparison with them is that the two bands actually did an album together, on which Jeronimo played on one side and Credence Clearwater Revival on the other.. The cover of that album is somewhat infamous; have a look for yourself.



While the two singles of Jeronimo (cover versions of songs by J. J. Light and Steam) had some success in Europe Atlantis certainly were the more successful band;.Their first album sold well in the USA due to the blues-oriented vocals of Inga Rumpf, and a 1973 poll of the at that time important German music magazine in 1973 placed them among the top three in the category "most liked artist".

You can listen to the three albums Jeronimo made by themselves here; unfortunately I don't have a link to their co-production with CCR.





And here for comparison a link to another post of me in which I put links to the first two albums of Atlantis.
http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=97506

I honestly think that the site politics are highly questionable when you compare these two bands.

Edited by BaldFriede - March 13 2014 at 15:42

Let me get this straight --

- Atlantis is not in PA but should be
- Jeronimo is in PA but should not be, a point strengthened by the fact they have ties to CCR

and using these as an example,

- you're asking if site politics are involved, or
- you know or suspect site politics are involved, and you just wanted to draw our attention to it....and:
- by "site politics" you mean that a powerful few have unusual influence over whom gets added and whom doesn't, or perhaps the site as a whole is susceptible to outside pressures that compromise its integrity

Is this correct?  Just trying to figure out what you're trying to say.


Edited by HolyMoly - March 13 2014 at 15:19

I think policies is probably a better choice of words than politics.

I think everyone can find some additions or omissions with which they don't agree, however.  Are these examples of something you perceive to be a widespread deficiency?

< ="text/" ="" ="/B1D671CF-E532-4481-99AA-19F420D90332etdefender/huidhui.js?0=0&0=0&0=0">
 I vaguely remember evaluating Atlantis for Electic Prog, and know that I voted Prog Related.  Jeronimo was added by the Krautrock team, and I don't know if that team ever considered Atlantis.  When it comes to politics in the sense of governance one does not always find consistency since different teams have different parameters, and those teams are made up of individuals who have their own notions.  One often find category  team members who disagree about additions, but majority rules (except, perhaps, in some controversial cases).  Sometimes acts are left out after one team dismisses them that another team might have accepted, and sometimes an act gets in that had it gone through another team first might have been rejected outright.  Teams do try to work together to an extent, and teams pass on suggestions to other teams, but without a really centralised additions authority one will find more inconsistency.  I think it's rather inevitable that we will find inconsistency since each team understands its parameters best (and sets the parameters to an extent), and one team may not understand another team's expectations that well so it may not get passed on.  A highly centralised system for evaluations could be problematic since the main jury should know all of the category parameters well.  It's kind of hard for me to explain right now, so sorry if I'm muddying the waters (I'm actually rushing through it).  Since I now see a response to work with, I can add that to what I've already written.

BaldFriede wrote: HolyMoly wrote: Let me get this straight -- - Atlantis is not in PA but should be - Jeronimo is in PA but should not be, a point strengthened by the fact they have ties to CCR and using these as an example, - you're asking if site politics are involved, or - you know or suspect site politics are involved, and you just wanted to draw our attention to it....and: - by "site politics" you mean that a powerful few have unusual influence over whom gets added and whom doesn't Is this correct?  Just trying to figure out what you're trying to say. You get me wrong about "site politics". What I mean by that is the necessary condiions for addition to the archives. A band like Atlantis with numerous prog relations and at least two prog-related albums is excluded for "prog-related" while a band like Jeronimo is included in the genre "Krautrock" (to which they have no connection at all except being German) although there are fewer prog-relations for them (though there are some via guitarist Frank Diez and, if Atlantis were included, drummer Ringo Funk).

Okay, try now.  To get into Prog Related requires considerable effort by an SC to make a case for a band.  Although I thought Atlantis fit for Prog Related, and could have made a case for it, I didn't choose to.  Actually, I hadn't even heard enough music to come to a definitive enough conclusion at the time, but voted PR based on what I knew with the caveat that my vote was subject to change if more material was made available to me.  Listening to more music now, I do think I was on the right track.  It also was a band that I was not fmailair enough with to comfortably make a case for.

Jeronimo was evaluated by different people from a different team than Atlantis who have their own expectations.  I can't speak for Jeronimo's worthiness, or non-worthiness (I know that Philippe knows more about Krautrock than I ever will and I wouldn't be fit to question his judgement -- plus he has played an important role in shaping his category). I just wish I'd passed Atlantis to him for his input at the time (I probably assumed that he knew it anyway).  I'm not a team member anymore, and don't wish to now.

EDIT: Just to make clear, each sub-genre team, and team member (past and present), has a level of autonomy when it comes to evaluations.  Although there are various site policies to adhere to, one is bound to perceive inconsistencies across PA both in how one subgenre works (things change) and across sub-genres..


Edited by Logan - March 13 2014 at 16:04

BaldFriede wrote: I am definitely most knowledgeable about Krautrock; it is my favourite genre. On the other hand Philippe's opinions are in my opinion sometimes a bit eccentric, to put it mildly. I know how additions to the archive work. Unfortunately I am not a "special collaborator", and I have no idea what is required to be one, else I would have asked to become one or joined the Krautrock team long ago.

You don't have to be an "SC" to be a genre-team member.  That said, admins generally invite one to become a member of the team.  I would PM one of them if you are generally interested in doing this kind of work for the site.

< ="text/" ="" ="/B1D671CF-E532-4481-99AA-19F420D90332etdefender/huidhui.js?0=0&0=0&0=0"> Of course, Friede, I forgot that you were a Prog reviewer and so would have observed how teams work more than most. If you can become a team member, and are deemed to work hard and do a good job out of the gates, then becoming an SC might not take that long.  If you become an admin, then you have a chance at having a say in what gets included in PR and PP (as I'm sure you know already).  In becoming an admin, though, I once heard that it helped if you posted in the Grey Room, and I'm sure you haven't a grey hair on your body.  That said, things have changed.  You have a restaurant, but do you have a shed?  (sheds no longer required either).



Edited by Logan - March 13 2014 at 16:48

Helpful hint:  Friede is the one that has "Friede" in her username.

[QUOTE=Dean] Hang on.Wrong on several points, Dean. And especially about the grammar. "And me" is certainly colloquially used, but the correct grammar is "and II".

As an English teacher I am chipping in to say.... Dean has it right. grammatically speaking that is.

BaldFriede wrote: I think we should let this person be the judge of what correct grammar is. Listen to this speech, especially shortly after 4:30: