Prog suggestions - is the best stuff already here?

Marty McFly wrote: I also realized that many of these suggestions that are doomed to fail are by people who are here very little time, months, weeks or sometimes even days. Hell, often it is their first post - purpose of their registration is to suggest group they like. Not Prog group, because they usually don't know how it's working here, but the first thing they do is suggesting band that stands no chance to be accepted. Oh dear.

As has been said, great music is being uncovered all the time.  There are a huge number of acts from past decades (including the late 60's and 70's) that are suitable for PA, and many more cropping up.  Additionally, the parameters of this site are expanding (so I'll talk of so-called Prog as being what's deemed acceptable for so-called Prog categories) as acts are let in, and I think there are many amazing ones that have been considered, but for various reasons haven't been accepted or have been accepted but never added, and many more that may not be suitable now will be deemed acceptable in the future -- at least hopefully, I think.  Part of that depends on what one's progressive rock and so-called prog categories parameters are.

Even major players that delved into some of the categories are not here yet (for instance, in JRF, but then most of those would be better known for jazz than Fusion... e.g. Sun Ra, Donald Byrd, or Herbie Mann who is famous for pop etc.)

Look through the past year's suggestions and you'll find an incredible number of suggestions that were deemed prog (and a lot of suggestions made directly to teams).

I rather like quite a few of those suggestions by new members whether I agree or not.  Because they don't have the same knowledge of how things work here, they might suggest music that veterans would not think to suggest and it might make certain veterans re-think the kind of music that could be allowable.  Of course it's common for such people to just be pushing a project because they have a connection to the act itself, and so it's a way to advertise the band, or it's just because they really like the music and don't really know "prog" (I hate the term to describe all the music under the PA prog banner here) as conisereed acceptable to teams at PA and commonly  are not familiar with our categorisation systems or the category definitions/ criteria.  Sometimes I'm upset about what seems to be ridiculing/ insulting/ sarcastic posts when someone suggests something that doesn't fit PA expectations. I think it's important to go a little farther in trying to be understanding and polite when shooting down new people's suggestions.  I really dislike sarcasm, though. You even find different members making the exact same disparaging, or sarcastic comments.  One can be frank, and explain, without rubbing it in (making someone feel like an idiot).

The big names, in terms of having international financial success, that are Prog proper are mostly here.  It's discovering the obscure but great for my tastes that interests me more, mostly, though. There are so many bands/artists I would like to suggest, but providing music for evaluation has been problematic (and I don't to have to add a bunch of bands, which is something I think the suggester SHOULD do (at least an SC add it for the member, but the work is in the preparation), and have already not stepped up to the plate to add bands a few too many times -- even some acts I really love I opted out of adding and feel bad about not doing the work beyond suggesting it and making a case myself, which can be very time-consuming in itself.).

Let me risk your disapproval with a suggestion on my first post, but I am really curious about what you are going to say about this little band..

I was thinking about these big names. There are some big names, but some of them are controversial, so their addition will be difficult. But when something is big name, why isn't it here already, what's preventing it from being here ? Time ? Other evaluations ? 

I'm not sure if big names or obscure albums are priority of this site.

Apparently, soon one or more of the teams will need to evaluate Ennio Morricone - now there's a "big name" 

DT-PT wrote: Oh. Why do I remember checking once and them not being there? Hm, weird.

They ran away and hid when you were looking for them.

Dean wrote: What is your definition of a "a big name" Marty? Who would be a big name that we haven't considered already - or even one that has been considered and not acted upon?

We can't make rules here, it's more feeling thing, but I suppose that for example

Pink Floyd, Genesis, Yes, King Crimson are big names.

Rolling Stones is big name too, but its addition is problematic, because most don't consider it as Prog. I don't know them at all, so I'll stay undecided in this matter, but 

what is big name and what isn't, where is this line, I don't know.

The problem is that we probably have all Prog big names here, the rest of big names are those who are partially Prog and has problems to get here. This is what I meant.

Evaluating Britney Spears or Phil Collins shouldn't take too much time... 

^ They are already here: NIRVANA

Slartibartfast wrote: DT-PT wrote: Oh. Why do I remember checking once and them not being there? Hm, weird. They ran away and hid when you were looking for them.

^ I was surprised too. For few seconds before page was loaded and content understood.