In response to the recent uproar regarding whether or not a band such as The Beatles should be listed on ProgArchives,  I have come up with the best possible "solution" to settle this whole dilemma.

I originally proposed my idea in the "BEATLES HERE, WHY?" thread... but everybody was too busy BARKING at each other to notice.   So now I insist that all of you SIT DOWN WITH YOUR HANDS FOLDED and HUSH UP for a moment ... or I will send you to your room WITH NO SUPPER!!  Oh...and, yes...Supper's Ready!  (sorry)

Anyway...

Instead of having the site focus so much on entire Band Catalogs, have entries decided by INDIVIDUAL ALBUM requests.

QUADROPHENIA by The Who should be on ProgArchives ... IT'S HARD by The Who should NOT.

ABBEY ROAD by The Beatles should be on ProgArchives ... A HARD DAY'S NIGHT should NOT.

THE GRAND ILLUSION by Styx should be on ProgArchives ... CORNERSTONE should NOT.

Unless a band is an OBVIOUS Prog band, then there's really no reason to list EVERY album that they've ever done.   Who are we kidding?   Deep down we know who the "real" prog acts are... and who truly isn't.   The Beatles are magnificent--but they're not a prog band.  They have albums with prog elements--but they are NOT a prog BAND.

Then... Can't we set up some sort of online majority vote for "questionable" Album Requests?  Maybe through the forum...only accessible by logged-in users

Well-- I suppose you get the basic idea.

You're free to go.

mmm, I dont know...then for the same matter we should get rid of the last Genesis album...actually that´s not such a bad idea!!

Still, I feel it´s ok the way it is...

I'm currently implementing my website and I'm really focusing on the albums, not the artists. In fact you even rate individual tracks, but the main "unit" of information that will be displayed in the ultimat top lists will be albums. And of course the genre is also determined on the album level. 

It's people like this that really make me wish I could remove the Beatles from this website;

Review by MARK
11:45:41 AM EST, 2/16/2006

 —  WARNING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This album may have some of the beginnings of prog rock, but!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This site is now in dangerous territory. The Beatles were a melodic pop band producing original (extremely rare) songs. But, they were only songs. Any prog they may have produced is vastly outweighed by their influence on pop. Every corner of music regards The Beatles as their own. Oasis think they are The Beatles mark II.

Where's BOWIE on this site. Another is David Sanscious. He produced an album called TRUE STORIES. That album is 99% more prog than anything The Beatles ever did.

If Madonna, Robbie Williams & the rubbish in pop music ever makes here, then change the web site name to Pre-Madonna, non-musicians, love myself, bull[&*!#] site.

That said, if anyone who likes real music has'nt bought this album, obviously you need to do so.

I'm taking a star away because John Lennon once said they were rubbish musicians.

The Ryan wrote: It's people like this that really make me wish I could remove the Beatles from this website;   Review by MARK 11:45:41 AM EST, 2/16/2006  —  WARNING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This album may have some of the beginnings of prog rock, but!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This site is now in dangerous territory. The Beatles were a melodic pop band producing original (extremely rare) songs. But, they were only songs. Any prog they may have produced is vastly outweighed by their influence on pop. Every corner of music regards The Beatles as their own. Oasis think they are The Beatles mark II. Where's BOWIE on this site. Another is David Sanscious. He produced an album called TRUE STORIES. That album is 99% more prog than anything The Beatles ever did. If Madonna, Robbie Williams & the rubbish in pop music ever makes here, then change the web site name to Pre-Madonna, non-musicians, love myself, bull[&*!#] site. That said, if anyone who likes real music has'nt bought this album, obviously you need to do so. I'm taking a star away because John Lennon once said they were rubbish musicians.                       What a great review

Sadly you get idiots reviewing albums like this from any band, not just The Beatles, remember the Yes/Genesis/Dream Theater sabatour.

As far as the thread starters idea goes its a great one, I think the only real problem would be implomenting it and policing it. 

Well, IMO, it's the "Admission team" who should decide the "progness" of the albums... of course, allowing us the sacred right to complain... .

The only difficulty'd be the time needed, but IMO, it would be less than it seems. IMO, few people would disagree if the "Admission team" "deprogged" Beatles albums until Sgt. Peppers or Revolver... Maybe PA should start hiring lots of inquisitors to judge "Progness"

The Ryan wrote: This sounds like a decent idea. A problem we might still have after using your idea is everyone will still be fighting about which albums are progressive. We might be back at base one.

Yes, and "progressive" is a very subjective notion.

In any case, I believe that once a band is listed here, all of their releases, "proggy" or not (again, a subjective concept) should be included, because then the REVIEWS (this site's major aspect) can address the issue of an album's "progressiveness" (or lack thereof).

People may want to read about even those clearly non-prog releases, and perhaps why the reviewer doesn't consider them to be prog, for example:

"This is the one where it all went downhill from a prog fan's perspective. The songs are now shorter, quite predictable, and much simpler in structure than the classic, complex material that preceded it. It is not a bad pop album, but as a prog album, it fails miserably...."

Plus, most of us don't only listen to prog, to the exclusion of all else.

akin wrote: This is definitely not a good idea. In your own opinion Quadrophenia is a prog album. In your own opinion Grand Illusion is a prog album and Cornerstone isn't. Keep in mind how difficult it would be to decide if an album like the post-Hackett Genesis albuns is progressive. There are lots of people who think they are, there are lots of people who think they aren't. Much easier is to add the whole discography of the band, otherwise these discussions will grow bigger and bigger. So someone will argue that David Bowie album (put your favourite here ) is progressive. Other will like to include the Rolling Stones (put your favourite here ) album. The other the Metallica.(put your favourite here ) album. And so on with Led Zeppelin, Spooky Tooth, Guess Who, Tommy James & The Shondels, Cat Stevens, Beach Boys, Baker Gurvitz Army, Spirit, Mountain, Cream, The Doors, Allman Brothers Band, Bee Gees, Joy Division. Blood, Sweat and Tears, Golden Earring, The Animals, The Kinks, The Who, Black Sabbath, Scorpions, Elton John, Chicago, Van Morrison, Iron Maiden, Helloween, just to name some bands that some one can clearly argue has a progressive album.

Agreed, you won't solve anything by just having a bands progressive albums, the arguing/fighting would still goes on and on. And don't we want discussion? Isn't that what the forum is for?

A problem seems that many don't see the differnece of prog and the proto-prog/prog-related genres. Bands categorized under proto-prog/prog-related is NOT progressive, however, they are pretty close. PA lists these bands because their music can be of interest for prog-fans (as someone of the collaborators said, sry but don't remember who).

IMHO the name prog-related should be changed. What do you mean by related? are the musicians in prog-realted bands relatives to musicians in prog-bands? HAve prog-related artists auditioned/played with prog-bands? Does the music sounds like it is progressive but really isn't that?Prog-inspired is a better name but still not good enough. The name prot-prog speak of itself.

The Ryan wrote: It's people like this that really make me wish I could remove the Beatles from this website;   Review by MARK 11:45:41 AM EST, 2/16/2006  —  WARNING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This album may have some of the beginnings of prog rock, but!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This site is now in dangerous territory. The Beatles were a melodic pop band producing original (extremely rare) songs. But, they were only songs. Any prog they may have produced is vastly outweighed by their influence on pop. Every corner of music regards The Beatles as their own. Oasis think they are The Beatles mark II. Where's BOWIE on this site. Another is David Sanscious. He produced an album called TRUE STORIES. That album is 99% more prog than anything The Beatles ever did. If Madonna, Robbie Williams & the rubbish in pop music ever makes here, then change the web site name to Pre-Madonna, non-musicians, love myself, bull[&*!#] site. That said, if anyone who likes real music has'nt bought this album, obviously you need to do so. I'm taking a star away because John Lennon once said they were rubbish musicians. What a great review

It's not the Beatles which should be removed.

ooh ooh -- I got another idea for this!!

How about each album review gets both of these:

(1)  a  STAR RATING  of 1 to 5  for overall quality (like we already have)

(2)  a  PROG-OMETER rating of  1 to 5  for overall "prog" feel.

Granted, it's still very subjective -- but, heck, it'll be a little more FUN ... and, over time, it just might help to properly balance out the general "prog status" (if you will) of each album.

example:

1 prog-ometer star = basically Pop with  little-to-no  progressive elements (Genesis Invisible Touch)

2 prog-ometer stars = Pop or Hard Rock (etc) with extensive Prog moments (Yes 90125)

3 prog-ometer stars = Prog in an easy-to-label sense... mostly derivative  (Starcastle first album)

4 prog-ometer stars = Original, truly progressive... but not completely groundbreaking  (UK Danger Money)

5 prog-ometer stars = Wow...where did THAT come from?!  (Close to the Edge, Tarkus, Inner Mounting Flame)

If you're a true prog fan... you should also be able to distinguish "personal taste" vs. "appreciation".

You may score King Crimson's LIZARD as 5 on the prog-ometer (recognition of the effort), but only 3 on the overall quality score (which tends to be based on personal enjoyment).

Does this make any sense?

C'mom... It'll be FUN, dagnabbit!!

We've already got a unique rating system that awards 5 stars to a Masterpiece of Progressive Music, down to 2 stars for a Collectors/fans only item.

This is a great combination of both - but more people need to realise that it's not "marks out of 5", but a scale of Progness.

You won't get the same answer to that question twice...

I think it's prog if it's progressive in the literal sense, in all 5 elements of music - AND lyrics.

I think the simplist way do try and appease everyboady a little (ie, not eliminating dissent, but making the site more exclusive and getting to what everyone really cares about who comes here--prog music) is to have only select prog(*) albums by bands that are non-prog as a whole included. I think Collabs, Admins. and the owners should vote/decide on what albums get included.

* Prog music, not progressive music. I make a distinction. Prog music is usually clearly defined. It is complex, may use keyboards and so on. Progressive music is highly subjective and can be molded to meet almost any criteria.