Should ProgArchives turn into ProgMusicAr
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Site News, Newbies, Help and Improvements
Forum Name: Help us improve the site
Forum Description: Help us improve the forums, and the site as a whole
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=39243
Printed Date: January 22 2025 at 09:54
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Should ProgArchives turn into ProgMusicAr
Posted By: erik neuteboom
Subject: Should ProgArchives turn into ProgMusicAr
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 13:58
|
Hello fellow progheads.
I just read the discussions about the The Who addition. In my opinion there is nothing to discuss because we should add every interesting rock band with progressive ideas, from The Who and The Jimi Hendrix Experience to The Tubes and The Stranglers. OK, this sounds quite cynically but it's based upon the changing of direction I notice since I started to work for Prog Archives early 2004. When you enter the site you will read (excerpt):
ABOUT PROG ARCHIVES
The Prog Archives Web site Project came out from a common dream of a small group of fanatic progressive rock music collectors who decided to develop a WEB SITE for the online progressive rock music community, with the goal of "providing extensive Progressive Rock Music information", as well as interaction features for the prog surfers.
HAVE FUN AND ENJOY THE WEB SITE.
ProgLucky (Rony) and mailto:M@X - M@X Well, in my opinion the focus is no longer on "providing extensive Progressive Rock Music information" but also on progressive pop, prog-related, hardrock and the element rock is not really present in prog folk and progressive electronic music. Why many bands with mainly a folky or electronic sound but no rock in their music have been added to Prog Archives while there is so much opposition against bands like The Who and The Jimi Hendrix Experience or on a smaller level The Tubes and The Stranglers, all rock bands with very interesting progressive ideas/elements?
My conclusion: in fact ProgLucky and Max should change the name Prog Archives into Prog Music Archives and mention that this site not only focus on Prog Rock, what are your thoughts about this? |
Replies:
Posted By: andu
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 14:12
|
1. NO. I shall later get back on this. 2. Wrong section. The proper section for this thread is "Help us improve the site".  ------------- "PA's own GI Joe!" 
|
Posted By: BePinkTheater
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 14:15
|
Well, after reading a bit of the Dredg thread, I had an idea.
Someone (i'm sorry, I don't remember who said it...) said that Dredg definitely had some progressive ideas, but isn't really a prog band. However, they should be in the archives becuase they are a band that fans of prog are undoubtably interested in them and enjoy them.
So I think if we keep it ProgArchive, but add a section for interesting bands with progressive ideas like Dredg and The Who and others we will benefit from it.
If we change the directiong from archiving a definitive list and information of Progressive bands, to a site collecting information of bands that the progressive community enjoys to spread the word about bands, I think that it will give us a site that we all want. ------------- I can strangle a canary in a tin can and it would be really original, but that wouldn't save it from sounding like utter sh*t. -Stone Beard |
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 14:27
|
That's actually a really good idea, BePink. I don't see why people get steamed when bands are added into the "prog related" section, because no one is saying that they are prog, only that they have some progressive elements, which is hard to deny with most of the bands included there.
------------- 
|
Posted By: puma
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 14:30
|
I think the art rock, proto-prog, and prog related categories are open-ended enough for bands like Jimi Hendrix and The Who to be included in, no need to make any big changes |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 14:31
|
I'd like to see more modern progressive music on the non or quasi rock side here -- as long as as the place is well organised with more categories. Rather like the Art Rock category, I'm not keen on the Prog Related category because it's too eclectic in terms of diversity of bands' styles. Nebulous... Multi-tagging would help. It would be ridiculous to change the domain name of this site at this stage, but I do think this could be ProgArchives.com Your ultimate modern progressive music resource. Sure Prog is short for Progressive Rock rather than just progressive, but if this site had confined itself to classically defined Progressive Rock artists, I would have missed out on so much good music. I don't mind a revisionist approach. As long as the categories are quite clear, I could see much more music of a progressive nature being included here. An important aspect of Prog is the fusion of styles element, so of course many bands/ composers could fit into various categories. We could look for more commonalities structurally (and in terms of influences/ attitude etc.) to broaden this site's parameters even more. I like the idea of more music related to the music in the categories here... As long as it's labeled clearly, I see no problem with the venture. Perhaps, along with more sections, coming out with more forums would help too so that we don't feel the site is becoming too diluted and convoluted. I think there may be a place here for people such as Michael Nyman and Philip Glass (a minimalist section perhaps, or whatever). I'd even like to see artists such as Peter Raben and, say, Shigeru Umebayashi here. Hmmm. And I'd like to see more progressive jazz and funk artists here, but... I do wish Miles Davis was here. If it's modern, experimental and adventurous, then I think a case can be be made for a band or composer. It moved away from just rock quite a long time ago, and I for one appreciate that since non rock music may still appeal to my progressive mindset (the progressive part of Prog is more important than the rock part for me). |
Posted By: The Miracle
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 14:33
|
It did a long time ago when prog electronic, kraut and avant categories were added, since many artists there aren't remotedly rock ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/ocellatedgod" rel="nofollow - last.fm |
Posted By: Chris H
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 14:37
|
I say that the more big changse that get made to the site, the more unhappy members. Why not just leave it as it is, with the existing name and criteria for addition? This was born as a strictly progressive rock database, and bands that aren't full progressive rock shouldn't be added in the first place, therefore we shouldn't maipulate the site's name or genre categories to fit them in. ------------- Beauty will save the world. 
|
Posted By: darkmatter
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 14:44
If many "interesting bands with progressive ideas" were added to this site, it would become too diluted by bands that aren't truly prog rock. It sounds like what you're talking about are the proto-prog and prog-related categories. While it helps to have those two categories, they are not the priority of the site in which to add bands. The priority is to add progressive rock bands, not bands with progressive tendencies that aren't prog rock. And if the site was changed to a collection of information of "bands that the progressive community enjoys", I think that would defeat the purpose of this being a progressive rock website, since progressive rock fans enjoy music that is not just prog. Then it would just be a music website. |
BePinkTheater wrote:Posted By: explodingjosh
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 14:54
|
Yea I would also love to see expansion in the site.
Maybe a "Also Loved by Prog Fans" section of some sort.... Something that could include Miles Davis, The Who, System of a Down, Bjork, Aphex Twin, Hendrix or whatever you guys also like.
"A section including bands with progressive ideas that are appreciated by fans of Prog Rock, but aren't necessarily progressive in their entire catalouge." ...something like that.
Porcupine Tree would fit nicely.
 |
Posted By: cmidkiff
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 14:55
|
They should probably just change it to "Music Archives". Eventually it will get there. ------------- cmidkiff |
Posted By: Moogtron III
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 15:12
| And why not much more bands / artists, like The Who and Jimi Hendrix, in "prog related"? I think we will always disagree about which bands should be added and which not. I think "prog related" is a good section for a big, big number of bands. |
Posted By: darkmatter
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 15:12
Adding bands "also loved by prog fans" would dilute this website too much with bands that aren't truly prog rock bands. I'm sure there are countless bands out there that people here like that aren't prog rock. This site shouldn't become "Music Archives". I think this website should stay the way it is, for the most part. |
Posted By: Dirk
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 15:14
|
^Cmidkiff, agreed, The site already has strayed quite far from what was meant by progressive music in the 70's. If the name was changed to Music Archives we wouldn't have tedious discussions about adding bands like Iron Maiden and Split Enz.Moreover excellent bands like the Kinks and Creedence Clearwater Revival could be added without there being endless discussions about there being prog or not. |
Posted By: explodingjosh
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 15:15
|
I completely agree with Logan... as long as the sections are clearly labeled as "not necessarily prog", I have no problem with it as a prog fan.
Because my friends have even seen me look up Zeppelin's discography by using ProgArchives, and before one of them even finished asking "Wait, what?? Zeppelin is prog?", he saw that Zep was in the Prog Related section and everything made sense again.
I think it would say something about the prog fan. I think that such expansion would reflect the idea that prog fans don't just listen to prog. I'd feel that it would be a sort of "pat on the back" for us, to show that we can be conossieurs of music in general.
It all comes back to just how conservative we should be about the site...but it is ProgArchives.com, not ProgRockArchives.com, so....
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 15:17
|
I think it is fine as it is.
If it were more loosely defined we wouldn't have all these lively and informative debates on who to add (or not). And by not blindly following the If X then Y arguments then Y has to be justified on it's own merits, which is healthy and right.
It isn't broken, so don't fix it.  ------------- What? |
Posted By: Chris H
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 15:18
|
darkmatter is right, if we just start adding bands that have no ties to progressive rock other than the fact that one random prog fans likes them, this will fast become just a "Music Archive", and that wasn't the aim of this website.
I see you mentioned System of a Down in your description, explodingjosh, and those are the types of bands that have absolutely no types of ties to the progressive rock genre, as vast as it is.
This debate seems kind of pointles to me, I mean what is so hard about just adding prog bands to a prog website?  ------------- Beauty will save the world.
|
Posted By: explodingjosh
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 15:19
Hey I'm fine with that too. Just make the "Prog Related" section more open.
|
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 15:22
one way to sort this out would be to create a sister site called "Rock Archives", and if it was successful we could create a site called "Jazz Archives", then one called "Blues Archives" , then "Classic Archives"....then......
-------------  Prog Archives Tour Van 
|
Posted By: explodingjosh
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 15:24
Yea I seriously debated mentioning SystemOAD.
 Maybe I'm just a fanboy. Or maybe I'm right. |
Posted By: Chris H
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 15:27
And then "Pop-Rock Emo Archives"???
------------- Beauty will save the world.
|
Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 15:28
|
Yes, Prog Archives should be renamed Prog Music Archives. Otherwise people might think it has to do with Prog Automobiles, or Prog Reading Material, or Prog Gun Collecting. To be honest, I don't think the Who really belong here, although I'm a big fan of their music and think they occasionally show prog flourishes. I don't even think Zeppelin belongs here, although I don't really like this band. However, I'm not going to get upset by the inclusion of bands which I don't necessarily think of as prog. And I'm not opposed to a more expansive "prog related" category where bands which a good majority of prog-lovers might also get enjoyment from are listed. So there's my two cents which really wasn't even worth that. ------------- I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you? |
Posted By: explodingjosh
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 15:32
 I would never leave my computer. Sooo many times have I dreamed about a collection of websites as comprehensive as this one, especially for Classical. |
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 15:34
|
I really wish they would actually tighten the scope of the site and keep it truly prog. I hate to see it continue to slide to the point of this being an all out rock site. Leave the name alone and keep it truly PROG. That is what makes it special in the first place.
Just my opinion. ------------- ...that moment you realize you like "Mob Rules" better than "Heaven and Hell" |
Posted By: vingaton
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 15:36
|
from darkmatter
"Then it would just be a music website. "
It already is
V ------------- I want to see beyond that tree And defy the force of gravity |
Posted By: fuxi
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 15:36
I totally agree. I also think the present system is perfectly fine! |
Posted By: darkmatter
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 15:37
You know what I mean, it would just be a rock music website, rather than a progressive rock website. |
Posted By: Disconnect
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 15:38
| Leave it as is. If I personally think something isn't prog, I simply don't listen to it. It doesn't bother me if it's on this site. |
Posted By: StyLaZyn
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 15:38
|
I think that since there is select music by non-Prog bands that contains many Prog elements, a special browseable section of this material would be nice.
The Who was mentioned. I consider Tommy and Quadrophenia both Progressive, but that is essentially the extent of The Who's progressive efforts, or at least what comes to mind.
------------- 
|
Posted By: vingaton
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 15:40
|
from darkmatter
'You know what I mean, it would just be a rock music website, rather than a progressive rock website."
it already is
V ------------- I want to see beyond that tree And defy the force of gravity |
Posted By: explodingjosh
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 15:42
Those "sister" websites are looking real good...
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 15:42
|
How about a "mentioned in dispatches" section that just lists the nearlies and the wannabies who are not quite prog (yet) ------------- What? |
Posted By: darkmatter
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 15:46
Are you trying to be obnoxious? Don't be so petty. What I was saying is that if this website was loaded with bands that weren't truly progressive rock bands, this website would become a rock music website without a focus on progressive rock. |
Posted By: Trademark
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 15:47
|
Tighten up the focus of the site on Progressive Rock only.
AXE the prog-related category altogether, or at the very least remove them from the ratings algorythm. The day an Iron Maiden or Deep Purlple album makes the top 20, I quit the site. |
Posted By: Sckxyss
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 15:57
| I don't mind the prog related category, but I agree with Trademark that it should be completely separate from the top 100. I don't see what changing the name of the site would accomplish, as I don't see how "Prog" explicitly refers to "progressive rock", espcecially by today's standards. |
Posted By: vingaton
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 15:58
|
Stonebeard said
"What I was saying is that if this website was loaded with bands that weren't truly progressive rock bands"
I have observed that almost every inclusion these days gets somebody's goat, in that members and guest alike figure say a band like Santana or Radiohead or Deep Purple (me) or even Queen do not belong here. Someone always objects anyway. So, why not just continue on being inclusive? I mean....whats the problem with the site having a larger scope and less subjectivity. It has expended its rockasphere already. Why not continue on and grow? Thats what the word "progressive" means.
I hope that is clearer and a less "obnoxious" a response.
V ------------- I want to see beyond that tree And defy the force of gravity |
Posted By: vingaton
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 15:59
|
Stonebeard said
"What I was saying is that if this website was loaded with bands that weren't truly progressive rock bands"
sorry....I guess that was darkmatter
I appologize
V ------------- I want to see beyond that tree And defy the force of gravity |
Posted By: explodingjosh
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 16:06
|
Hmm... so expand the "Proto" and "Related" sections, but do not include them in the Top 100. I like that idea. That means the Top 100 would be 100% prog albums, which would be cool, and there'd be more beloved bands on the site.
Sounds like a nice compromise, guys...
 |
Posted By: akin
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 16:06
| The proposed idea is a bad idea. If it is hard to define which band is progressive or not, imagine to define the "progressive ideas". Millions of bands arguably have progressive ideas. |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 16:09
Or, if I had my way, it would became a progressive music website without such focus on rock. "Progarchives.com: Your ultimate modern progressive music resource". I'd like to see more acts (bands/ composers) that 'push the boundaries of music' and experiment even if they are not rock-based. I would set temporal limits, however, even if I'd rather like to see Tallis, for instance, here for his 16th Century progressive music. But I do expect this to remain a "band" rather than "composer" based website. |
Posted By: russellk
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 16:23
|
I care about one thing only: discovering new music. If we start subtracting from this site in the interests of some fundamentalist progressive rock 'purity' we will deprive people of that chance.
We need to trust people's reading skills. If it says 'Prog Related' then people can surely draw conclusions from that. Consider the following: 1) As shown by the reactions on this thread, there is no widespread agreement on what defines progressive rock or progressive music. Therefore, where do we draw the line? Who decides? 2) In a very real way, that line IS slowly being drawn by ProgArchives. Read the new reviews for a few months and you will see how people deal with what they think are 'marginal' albums or groups. I'm getting a much better sense of what the prog community thinks is prog, and I'm surprised by how much it differs from my own view. 3) The 'Top 100' is still occupying too much of our attention. If 'Queen II' or 'In Rock' gets into the top 10, I'm not going to waste a second worrying about it. Neither album will sound any different the next time I listen to it. So, personally, no need to change anything. I am enjoying the way the site is developing. |
Posted By: vingaton
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 16:27
|
russellk said
"So, personally, no need to change anything. I am enjoying the way the site is developing."
Here here! well put! Wish I had said it!
V ------------- I want to see beyond that tree And defy the force of gravity |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 16:29
I don't know why they haven't done that yet... It's been suggested many times. PS. I really think Cream should be here under Proto-Prog. Wish they'd change the algorithms for the list at the same time so that number of ratings and reviews is less important for placement.I do wish that Prog-Related was split up into different sections though that describe a band's music more since it's too diverse to be a useful category for me. Useful for getting people into the site, though, and for including borderline Prog bands (though what is Prog is to an extent in the ear of the behearer and is arguable -- some in Prog Related that I think worthy of Prog status, and some bands in Prog sections that to me are merely related). Actually, you know, some bands listed here under Prog Related released truly Prog albums, just as many bands that are listed here as Prog released non-Prog albums (as widely recognised to be Prog or not Prog). Perhaps rather than bands being labeled Prog, albums could so that Prog albums by Prog-Related bands could be included in the top 500 list, but albums that are not deemed sufficiently Prog by recognised Prog bands would not have a look in. But I digress. But as more of an inclusionist, I don't mind that much if non-Prog albums make it to the top 100 (still tagged Prog-related). And as I'm not a reviewer here... |
Posted By: erik neuteboom
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 16:38
|
Thanks for your many posts until so far, very interesting and varied, important issues are: 'who decides what the borders are?' and 'Prog Archives has become a site with many non-prog bands'.
By the way, Cream is a good call, Logan, excellent prog without keyboards, it's possible
|
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 16:40
|
The only thing I'd change is "Your Ultimate Prog Rock Resource" to "Your Ultimate Prog Music Resource" since it's progarchives and not progrockarchives. I've always been more of big tenter when it comes to what I personally consider progressive and pretty much all of the music in collection is progressive if not technically progressive rock.
I would include Miles Davis and Debussy here before Iron Maiden, but I have no problems with their exclusion as they are easily categorized as other than prog rock. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 16:51
As long as the emphasis was on progressive music (genre-bending, adventurous, experimental, fusion of styles, innovative etc.) I wouldn't mind that. And yes I know that Prog doesn't need to be all those things. Just because it's labeled Prog, it doesn't have to be innovative or progress music (rock, really, in the case of Prog as we know it). But I'd rather have those styles represented under the progressive label here at this site... I can see problems in implementation, but If it's labeled clearly by category, I don't worry about dilution of the site. When one gets tired of rock music, it's nice to have other avenues to turn to that are represented here and will likely appeal to many proggers due to compositional approach, technicality etc. I say, let's redefine the boundaries of this site. Since the site has been moving away from just a Progressive Rock resource for a long time, let's acknowledge that. Can't turn back the clock. To boldly go where no Prog site has gone before and all that... Revise, revise, revise to allow more styles of progressive music in. I call it progress. But accept the valid arguments against my penchant for more non-or-quasi rock progressive music. I like the variety of "rock-related" progressive music here. |
Posted By: Gorcbass
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 17:01
|
Expand the prog related section. I really can't understand why anyone would have a problem with that. |
Posted By: Sasquamo
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 17:05
| No matter how many "prog-related" bands are added, Yes, Genesis, King Crimson, etc, will still be the most talked by far, so the focus will still be on that kind of prog, for better or worse. |
Posted By: Chris H
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 17:05
|
There shouldn't be a prog-related section in the first place, that is why expanding it would be a problem. ------------- Beauty will save the world.
|
Posted By: salmacis
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 17:07
| Erik, IMHO it is best not to take these inclusions to heart, to be honest. There are some inclusions here that I don't agree with as well but it matters very little in the long run. Prog Archives remains the best resource for the genre, imho. |
Posted By: Chris H
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 17:09
Exactly, the sub-genres themselves are very well categorized, and the bands that I don't feel belong here make up about .5% of the whole database anyways. ------------- Beauty will save the world.
|
Posted By: erik neuteboom
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 17:16
Ooops, some disagree Salmacis and Zappa88 (understatement for "objective!"), as a Prog Archives veteran I have to admit that the Prog Archives band addition policy doesn't please me at all but gradually I have learned to cope with my frustrations here So no The Tubes and The Stranglers but "yes" to Osibisa, JM Jarre, Iron Maiden and Talk Talk, I strongly disagree but meanwhile I enjoy my Belgian beer 
|
Posted By: progismylife
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 17:18
|
The site is fine as it is. If it encompasses wider range of music than the prog rock content (for which it was originally started) then the site would (to me) be diluted too much and not hold any worth to me. Less focus should be on proto-prog and prog-related and more should be on prog itself. If any changes should be made to the site I think it should be that proto-prog and prog-related by merged into one category and some bands be removed that do not fit the merged category. I also would suggest that the Top 100 (and other Top (enter number here) lists) include only one album per artist so these lists aren't swamped with just one artist, not giving other artists equal exposure. I also think that the Top 100 should be more decided on rating than the number of reviews (but not by much just not 50/50 - I assume it is). |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 17:23
Yeah, there's the problem: Who defines the boundaries? That would be the site owners' decision ultimately (but I imagine others would do the leg-work and writing-up and provide the recommendations). I would like to see so-called classical (as a loose genre, not a period) music here, but that would be a bit unwieldy (huge undertaking and imagine the debates on which is progressive enough)... I think there would need to be temporal limits and more else this becomes an all-music site. Once you stretch the boundaries, with inertia they keep on stretching until it becomes a stretch. Already is under the present, apparent goals of the site.
Indeed, it is very possible. Quite a few of my favourites at this site have no keyboards. I can only guess that Cream isn't here because it's considered too jam-based and too bluesy... Yet other bands here share the same qualities. An influential band for the Prog scene, for sure. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 17:32
|
the name ProgArchives doesn't need to change in order to be more inclusive... the word 'rock' isn't in the name anyway, and the site is already rather inclusive and open-minded, which is why we get debates over certain bands.
|
Posted By: Ghandi 2
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 17:44
|
I would like to see prog-related gone for the most part if not completely (what purpose does it serve on a prog website? They're not prog.), and instead focus all that energy and time on adding new prog groups.
I think that, as much as I would like to see certain groups included, if we don't focus on groups that have a significant rock aspect (the post-rock and avant teams have had trouble with this) the website will become too diluted and stretched too thin.
|
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 17:45
That's what I think too -- change it from "THE ULTIMATE PROG ROCK RESOURCE" to give it more general progressive music parameters (and rewrite other areas to note the scope). Problem is, "Prog" is commonly used as an abbreviated form of "Progressive Rock" rather than just "progressive". Others use "Prog Rock" specifically as the abbreviation for "Progressive Rock". I'd rather use prog to mean progressive music, and indeed the ratings guide for albums state: note the small p in "prog" and "progressive music" (progressive and prog can act as an adjective rather than a noun in a true genre sense). |
Essential: a masterpiece of progressive music (17%)
Excellent addition to any prog music collection (33%)
Good, but non-essential (44%)
Collectors/fans only (6%)
Poor. Only for completionists (0%)
Posted By: erik neuteboom
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 18:14
| The discussion in this thread is moving towards the embryonal prog rock state, the era when electric folk, psychedelica, classical, eclectic rock/pop and progressive blues led to the movement progressive rock. Cream had an important role and their music was pivotal for almost every progrock guitarist because of the blend of several styles and improvisional element. Of course The Jimi Hendrix Experience should also be mentioned, the album Electric Ladyland is a true progressive rock statement (with a great contribution by Steve Winwood) and in my opinion this band deserves an addition more than The Beatles, in my opinion no more than an interesting but very overrated progressive pop band. But the reality is that they got a huge support by the founders of this site, quite subjective in my opinion! |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 18:24
|
I have to say I think the owners (and Admins, too) often get it right and have made some good, tough calls. It is correct to include the Beatles here, and would be incorrect to include Cream. imo.
|
Posted By: erik neuteboom
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 18:31
Well Atavachron, of course music is a matter of taste but in the view of rock history, I consider Cream way more interesting than the overrated The Beatles, Cream rocks and their music was an inspiration to most of the Seventies progrock musicians,a big hand for their improvisional talents, exciting interplay and focus on extended soli, main elements of prog rock 
|
Posted By: nuncjusz
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 19:54
|
I think that when it already went to the point that the have a prog-related category and we have the bands like The Beatles, Deep Purple, Iron Maiden, Led Zeppelin, Queen and more recently Radiohead and Muse than it is really unfair NOT TO HAVE bands like The Who, Cream or Jimi Hendrix Experience which were LOT MORE INFLUENTIAL on prog music than the most of the above mentioned bands. Take The Who for example. Someone said that "Tommy" and "Quadrophenia" (i'd personally add "Sell Out" which was psychedelic so proto-prog) was progressive but that was all, nothing more in their catalogue. But what about The Beatles then? "Sgt. Pepper", "MMT", "Abbey Road" and... that's all. And what about "Please Please Me", "Help" etc.? Pretty straightforward pop. Of course, they were innovative and influential, but The Who wasn't? C'mon, they were the first to trully explore the concept of rock-opera, which later became one of the main features of prog. Take "The Lamb..", "The Wall", "Operation:Mindcrime", or more recently "Scenes from a Memory" or "The Human Equation". They're all influenced by "Tommy". So, let's be fair. They deserve the addition as much as all the above mentioned bands.
But... The other thing is if this should be taken into account for the Top 100 ranking? My opinion is - SURELY NO! It'd be better to create a seperate prog-related section and put all these bands there, and maybe make a seperate Top list of the prog-related albums? That'd be a good idea, because I also find it strange to see Deep Purple, Iron Maiden or The Beatles's albums on the list... |
Posted By: Chris H
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 19:59
Cream = 100% Proto-Prog, but that ain't what this discussion is about  ------------- Beauty will save the world.
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 20:02
|
I'm sorry, the Beatles had a greater influence on progressive rock than Cream and Jimi. That doesn't necessarily mean they shouldn't be here, it's just an observable phenomenon. However, the Who should probably be added, Proto would seem the best place.
|
Posted By: KeleCableII
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 20:33
| Why does it seem like everyone here is always so melodramatic? |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 20:35
because all prog is a little melodramatic so we like melodrama I guess ------------- What? |
Posted By: Chris H
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 20:37
Nobody is being melodramatic ------------- Beauty will save the world.
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 20:38
| we all just like a nice talk now and then |
Posted By: Arsillus
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 21:43
We will take over the internet! |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 21:45
Not while the Sys-Ops are still Goths you won't. ------------- What? |
Posted By: obiter
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 21:49
|
there are many bands here that suprise me by their inclusion, but the site's all the richer for it (as am I). i'm all for inclusiveness, but there have been progressive bands in all genres of music, does that mean they should all be included? where do you draw the line? who were the progmetal bands of the 70s? why are they not in? sabbath influenced a generation, as did the who, and the beatles... but I must admit that there is a synergy in the site. I felt I had an eclectic taste in music before I visited the site. I was very suprised to find that over 80% of the several hundred LPs I had accumulated arractically over the years were on this site. since joining I've really been astounded by the number of bands of which i had no knowledge and yet i;ve really liked ... this is stark testimony that the present rules about inclusion are working. if the choice was more catholic i think it would lose a great deal. ------------- An té nach mbíonn láidir ní folláir dó bheith glic |
Posted By: Arsillus
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 21:50
We will simply cater to them with GothArchives. 
|
Posted By: Spyro
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 22:36
|
I believe no change is necessary ! if there was to be a change it should be prog rock archives because of the techno conflict to its name , but after all we were prog first |
Posted By: Mellotron Storm
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 22:59
|
I agree with you Eric that more bands should be added even if there is just a little progressiveness in their music. Just think of how many fans of those bands might find this site because of thir inclusion here. And in finding this site they hopefully will discover some great prog bands. Black Sabbath is a band i'd love to see on this site. ------------- "The wind is slowly tearing her apart" "Sad Rain" ANEKDOTEN |
Posted By: BroSpence
Date Posted: June 21 2007 at 23:46
| I think it should stay Progarchives, but the addition of bands should be looked upon carefully. The Who certainly have prog elements that could fit them in prog-related, but other bands that are that way too need to be looked at carefully. If they use prog elements make sure to add them because they use them a fair amount and not just once and album or every now and then. |
Posted By: chamberry
Date Posted: June 22 2007 at 00:46
There are more modern prog bands being added almost every day. Just look at the recently added thread to see for yourself.
Actually, there already is. The problem is that when a band gets added under proto-prog or prog related all the attention is drawn to it while many prog bands gets added in all the different genres every day. For every 1 band that gets added under proto-prog and prog related section there are around 50 prog bands already added under the other genres in the archives. In my opinion the name should stay ProgArchives. We are already very inclusive with the bands as it is. It's up to you prog fans to discover and listen to those bands to truly see what we Collabs are doing here. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: June 22 2007 at 01:20
Sorry if the context wasn't clear in my posts... By modern I don't mean very recent, I mean not of the distant past. In this sense all rock music is modern music. What I'm suggesting when I say that is that temporal limits may be warranted for inclusion (ergo no progressive composers such as the 16th Century Tallis which I mentioned before, or indeed much more recent) this site could expand into more progressive music (not progressive rock) from non-rock genres. As long as it's categorised well, I can see this progressive site growing to encompass many more styles and movements in music. Anyway, I've already gone into that in some depth. Perhaps 1960's progressive music and up... Though that might necessitate earlier music still (Carl Orff, early 20th Century avant garde composers etc.) The scope gets really big and unwieldy (and then we argue if a composer is progressive enough... As I said before, the focus at this site is on bands/ artists rather than composers)... I suggested minimalist and experimental composers before: Perhaps Nyman and Philip Glass (not rock, but suitable for a "progressive music" site perhaps). Particularly mentioned for argumentation, really. I won't reiterate all I wrote. I see this as problematic, and wouldn't seriously expect this, but as I said, I like the idea of the archives progressing from Progressive Rock into other progressive kinds of music... Progressive jazz, funk, art music etc. They already have moved from Progressive rock to an extent... Problem is defining the boundaries (where does it end? Does it ever end?). Just thoughts. I'll have a look at the recently added thread to see how many non-rock based and quasi-rock progressive bands/ artists have been added of late (I don't much care which era they are from -- the modern or classical era . Some ancient Egyptian Prog would go down pretty well right about now. Don't have any, The Bangles Walk Like an Egyptian it is for now -- haha.). Okay, checked: Quite a few recent ones on the at least quasi-rock side, I believe (and maybe some that are hardly or not "rock" at all, though rock-related I would think). Have to check more. But I was thinking of adding many more categories of music still.EDIT: and someone else suggested Debussy. Anyway, I don't know where the lines would be drawn, but I am happy for this to be a progressive music, rather than just a progressive rock, site. |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: June 22 2007 at 04:00
|
we have a saying in the American South.... if it ain't broke ... don't fix it. if people don't like the direction of the site.... easy...find another one. I have never cared for the PP and PR categories...and I think your addition of the Doors, Erik, was one of the worst ideas for this site. In the end though.... it really doesn't matter much... prog bands brought us here, and it is what keeps us here. As I told someone regarding some addition one time... the world still rotates, the sun still shines.... and prog rock (the classic stuff) is still what drives this site. |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: June 22 2007 at 04:12
|
To those who would argue against diversity, exactly how many more reviews of
do you need to see? All fine albums. There is a certain line to be drawn regarding what gets included and what doesn't, but it's better to err on the side on inclusion. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: The Whistler
Date Posted: June 22 2007 at 04:18
WE DON'T HAVE NEARLY ENOUGH!!! ------------- "There seem to be quite a large percentage of young American boys out there tonight. A long way from home, eh? Well so are we... Gotta stick together." -I. Anderson |
Posted By: The Whistler
Date Posted: June 22 2007 at 04:19
|
Hey! This topic's about the Who and Cream! Awesome. ------------- "There seem to be quite a large percentage of young American boys out there tonight. A long way from home, eh? Well so are we... Gotta stick together." -I. Anderson |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: June 22 2007 at 04:23
I couldn't agree more  .... we may disagree on additions, but should never lose sight we all see prog differently. |
Posted By: darkshade
Date Posted: June 22 2007 at 04:30
|
what im still baffled about is why Miles Davis, Herbie Hancock, Tony Williams Lifetime, and John Scofield arent on this site under Jazz Rock/Fusion?
o and why is Phish under Prog-related??
makes no sense to me... ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/MysticBoogy" rel="nofollow - My Last.fm 
|
Posted By: The Whistler
Date Posted: June 22 2007 at 04:33
|
Because life...is cruel. Get used to it. ------------- "There seem to be quite a large percentage of young American boys out there tonight. A long way from home, eh? Well so are we... Gotta stick together." -I. Anderson |
Posted By: darkshade
Date Posted: June 22 2007 at 04:35
|
o i know life is cruel. thats why i come to this site. to escape it. and dammit thered be no fusion without the man who started it all (not Zappa though, folks) ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/MysticBoogy" rel="nofollow - My Last.fm
|
Posted By: erik neuteboom
Date Posted: June 22 2007 at 06:58
When I visited Prog Archives for the first time in January 2004, I was very pleased with the homepage: you had an excellent view on new and interesting prog bands and you could easily switch to more band information. Now, 3,5 years later, the situation is different: the homepage is flooded by lots of non-prog reviews and a review disappears quickly from the homepage because of the huge amount of reviews that are offered to the homepage. And let's not forget that Prog Archives is a commercial site, I notice a huge increasement of adds in comparison with 3 years ago, due to the more 'non-prog friendly musical direction' of Prog Archives, more and more non-prog fans have discovered this site and enjoy reading about bands like Tool and Muse. I think that within a few years the non-prog bands will outnumber the prog bands  ...
|
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: June 22 2007 at 08:02
hahaha... didn't you have just get back from vacation.... Christ! Erik.... I thought I was melodramatic.... There has been one.... ONE .. approved PR addition here in the last few months. As I said earlier.... the sun is still rising.. the earth turns...and this is still a prog site.. and will be a prog site. We control additions, and those we don't... are handled responsibly by the admins. Who gives a hoot if your reviews are knocked off a the main page... I think people here know where to find your reviews... both in the review sections and with your reposting of them in the main forums. Personally I think the collab/ PR reviews should be the only ones displayed on the main page and have suggested it to the admins. Those people.. especially the PR's EARN that position by writing good reviews and should be spotlighted. However as you know. or should know... that idea...went nowhere fast. Bitching about it isn't going to change it. Face it.. people would rather voice the 1000th opinion on some DT album then some album that Hans got new in stock. You know you won't reach everyone... but you know you reach some... and you should appreciate that... I know I've always been thankful to some of the suggestions you made to me in regards to Prog Andaluz. |
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: June 22 2007 at 08:19
|
We just need to decide if we're a Progressive Rock site (that's progressive with a capital P, a recognised (in some places) genre of music that includes bands such as Yes, Genesis etc) or a progressive (small p) music site, encompassing any type of music that is "progressive" (whatever that means). The latter means we accept music of any genre, jazz, reggae, rap, whatever, as long as it is deemed to be progressive.
It seems obvious to me that the original intention of the site was to be the former so that's generally what we should be working towards. There will always be disputes about some bands as there is no fixed definition of "prog" and the proto-prog and prog-related genres will continue to be controversial. As has been said before, we should be concentrating on adding the 100s of genuine prog bands in the queue and not worrying too much about prog-related.
|
Posted By: StyLaZyn
Date Posted: June 22 2007 at 08:30
It is a commercial website and users should not ignore that. While it gets comfortable to many, I feel it is inappropriate for them to act like they own it. Sure their input matters but is should not be the "be all, end all".
I am EXTREMELY happy other bands that are not full blown Prog are here. Why? It has opened the door to music I never would have known otherwise. This provides a valuable service to all of us. I do believe however that each genre should have its own top 50 or so albums, and not all inclusive as it stands now.
I think Erik should poll this so it could be measured correctly.
-------------
|
Posted By: honganji
Date Posted: June 22 2007 at 08:36
Yes, I agree with you.
There are too many non-prog albums' reviews ....
I often think there's no need to add all albums by temporarily prog bands. For example, early Split Enz was surely a prog band. But later they became to play different music from prog. I think PA database need only early works. But this opinion may be too violent. (Even I think so though I said it ...)
 Also "only one album is prog" or "temporarily prog bands / artists" are frequently missed. Miles Davis is the most difficult musician for Prog Archives, I think?! Because lots of music fans take for granted he is the beggest jazz musician in the history. They may wonder why he is a rocker ? But I must say he was entirely a progressive musician, especially between 1969 - 1975.
Tony Williams Lifetime has the same situation. Tony Williams is no doubtly one of the most important jazz drummers. But this group played progressive jazz rock. Organ + guitar + drums. Emregency ! was not jazz what we thought at that time in late 1960s.
I Pooh is an important band. Many PA users think it is entirely different from prog rock. Merely pop rock band ! But they released very good 3 albums for proggers; Parsifal, Un Po'Del Nostro Tempo Migliore, Forse Ancora Poesia. Unfortunately I Pooh is usually missed.
J-Pop singer Nakamori Akina, Italian singer Caterina Casselli, J-Pop singer Shiina Ringo, Spanish singer Miguel Rios, Canadian singer Gino Vannelli, French singer Serge Gainsbourg, etc sometimes popular singers made progressive albums. But they are frequently missed.
It is very difficult to add database. I don't think The Beatles should put on PA. But PA took it for database. I think it is correct even though the band is entirely different from prog in my opinion. What should be omitted, what should be taken. The border is very obscure. If the border is apparently clear, no one would be annoyed.
I wish many prog albums would be listed in database. But please don't add apparently non-prog albums. It is very shocking for me than the denial of my submission of Sound Horizon.
|
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: June 22 2007 at 08:55
some feedback on that .... from my understanding.. the owner wants everyone to have their say when it comes to reviews and the albums reviewed... and wants the entire discography to be included. He pays for the extra bandwidth to house all that....it's fine with me I guess. No harm no foul. Though I'd do it differently... but ..we don't own the site do we hahhaha. Tony Williams is a band I'd like to see added.... I'm sure it's a simple matter of it not having been done yet. How long did Cobham sit... approved ....before Raffaella added him. As far as Pooh.... that has been under debate by the RPI team... was rejected initially but I think, having thought about it some more.. and with Andrea C.'s input... I think they should.. and will be added. (edit - As far as Davis....I see there being a distinction as far as this site between fusion and J-R. J-R is in... fusion doesn't belong. That is often shadowy and I'll stay out of the Davis question ahhahhah) It really is a simple matter than someone else owns the site..... if we enjoy it.. and we do... then we just accept the way it is. We aren't going to change his mind. If we can't accept it... then like others... we'll leave the site and find another site more in tune with what we want in a site. Simple as that.. |
Posted By: erik neuteboom
Date Posted: June 22 2007 at 09:05
|
I am very glad with the huge feedback until so far and the reactions are almost "where opposites meet", the one calls my abovementioned statement too melodramatic, the other agrees completely, this epitomizes the very different views and opinions on the subject of this thread and I am sure we will go through a hell lot of emotion the forthcoming years because of the subjective views and opinons about new additions that border between prog, pop, hardrock and rock, I hope to welcome The Tubes and The Stranglers and THE JIMI HENDRIX EXPERIENCE, "time in on my side "!
|
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: June 22 2007 at 09:10
and I am not hahhahah Haven't we flogged that horse to death already anyway... |
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: June 22 2007 at 09:43
|
For those of you who want only bands which are strictly prog rock included, you realize of course that that would mean the removal of all the Krautrock and Progressive Electronic bands, as well as most of the RIO/Avant Prog section. I don't know about you, but I'm not ready to live in a ProgArchives without Tangerine Dream, Amon Düül II, Neu!, Faust, Kraftwerk, Can, Klaus Schulze, Frank Zappa and The Residents. -------------
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: June 22 2007 at 10:30
Do you believe adding dubious Prog Bands will chhange this????
Last two years since Prog Related started, many non Prog bands have been added and the Close to the Edge, Foxtrot, DSOTM reviews outnumber more and more the non Prog ones.
You know why?
Because most people who come to Prog Archives, come for Prog music, if we loose identiity we risk loosing what we have achieved.
Iván ------------- 
|
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: June 22 2007 at 10:44
Just for the record, and because I see this error here so often, the expression is spelled "hear, hear," as in "listen to this person," not "here here" as in "at this location" -- which would make no sense.
Great thread, BTW -- carry on!  ------------- "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. |
Posted By: progismylife
Date Posted: June 22 2007 at 10:49
Here, Here!
|
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: June 22 2007 at 10:53
you can allude the "rock" thing, but it worth in a skeptical way . If directed towards the name, the site is still called Prog Archives (actually Erik himself asked a difference from Prog Archives...) Thing is the progressive standards allows a valorous conception, expansion, a "large" window into its art and its reflection, as to not imply the strictness that it's so feared. In fact, though I payed kind of little attention to this thread, I have absolutely no idea how a change of name triggered great grave seeming discussion such as "is prog rock too strict", "is prog rock too un-allowed", "is prog rock something at all", or have triggered the usual conversations about bands that should be included (with a healthy Prog Related or Prog-imaginary appetite) or even to detonate and wipe off entire sections of already approved and consolidated, certified and well-adapted progressive rock movements. Out of interest, you've mentioned quite few bands that can do rock. Krautrock is a massive psych rock movement, mainly in Germany, expressing the "acid", "experiment", "collapsing", "voidal" and "shattering" nuances. Half of the classic music is 'rock" in a dementia form. Tangerine Dream, from classic to the cheesy recent ambiances, do some "rock" by Froese's guitar work. Neu! is right under rock jam, I just listened to them and am totally impressed by the "rock" in their vein. Amon Duul, when trying out popular music, make "rock" nuances. Yes progressive electronic is tricky under "rock" and the specialists try to not avoid much of the 'rock" possible significance. But otherwise, the definitions state some influences coming from the electronization of kraut movements, of space rock, the Berlin School contains grains of rock and classic such sessions etc. etc. etc. And about RIO and avant, this is a music orientation certified in almost every progressive rock page; how would it be possible to deny its movement importance?  ------------- 
|
Posted By: clarke2001
Date Posted: June 22 2007 at 12:20
|
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... 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. 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... That's 27 bands, just off the top of my 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. What will happen than? Nothing!!! 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. Will the entries for full-blown prog bands became less worthy? Of course not! Will this web site remain the best prog web site? Yes. Will the prog rock fans community be widened, and new forum members introduced? Yes! Will this web site gain extra money? Yes. 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. (As for the "ProgRock vs. ProgMusic" and some other issues, in some other post, later, maybe.) ------------- |
Posted By: Mandrakeroot
Date Posted: June 22 2007 at 12:30
To my warning the category Proto Prog is right. Also because it is useful to understand what there it was before the true Prog and that can be considered Prog (at least for what can be worth). And because not to introduce also the 60's production of Manfred Mann? For how much it pertains the Prog Related... I don't know... I would have used this category for groups like the Asia, Wishbone Ash, ELO, 10cc.. How it is. But also for those groups Classic Metal... We say... Symphonic Metal, those that 7/8 progster on 10 consider Prog Metal. So how it is structured... excused... But it does not please me for nothing. So I am all right with Erik and honganji. ------------- 
|
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: June 22 2007 at 12:32
|
That's the most sensible thing I've heard all day, Clarke. -------------
|