I've been thinking about this for a long time and I'd love to get some other views.  In your opinion, are there any bands featured in Progarchives that you consider that they do not belong here? If yes, why?

Also if you consider that a band released one or more, progressive release, but the others are of a different style, should all the albums by that band be reviewed here, or only the progressive release?

Thanks

There aren't really double standards with Opeth. Opeth have done one straight up progressive rock album, something no one even out of the more adventurous extreme metal groups has done to my knowlege (perhaps Amorphis, actually, but I'm not too familiar with them). While I'd consider Edge of Sanity more progressive as a band than Opeth, they've never done that.

Incidentally when did Anacrusis get added? I like them but I seem to remember a while ago they weren't going to be added? (and I agreed)

Errr... grunge band? Pyramid Song? Paranoid Android? Airbag? Subterranean Homesick Alien? I Might be Wrong? Kid A?

That's not by any means an exhaustive list, but a few that sprung to mind. The only song they've done that could really be considered grunge is Creep, and that's either a very good parody of grunge or a very good example of post-grunge.

I'm divided on the issue.  First, it's kind of retarded to see bands like Opeth, Dream Theatre and the other pseudo metal bands on a prog list.  Then you see people missing on the other end of spectrum like Brian Eno or Vangelis (although I guess Vangelis is sort of on the list).  Eno and a bunch of other guys are just as much prog as Opeth and DT if our definition is that broad.  And someone like that actually was an innovator.

On the other hand.  One of the things that is great about this site and others like it is that you can see a vast amount of information about bands with different styles.  I like this exposure to stuff I normally wouldn't even think about.  Especially bands from outside the US. 

I just wish the fanboys would give it a rest.  If I see 5 stars on a metal band review it's a dead giveaway that the review has nothing to do with the album, but only with the reviewers OMGZERS DIZ BAND IZ TEH RULE!11!!!.  There are a few exceptions but not many.

All the bands in the Archives belong there - it's the decision of mailto:M@X - M@X and Rony!

I think that the question should be "What bands in the archives are not strictly Prog Rock bands?"

Asia are top of the list

Something I tried and probably failed to say is that when some of the darker metal bands take the metal out of their sound, they sometimes tread similar ground to Devil Doll, and that causes metal fans to adopt Devil Doll as their own. Likewise melodic doom metal bands take the metal out of their sound, they often end up sounding like European neo folk, and some of the more openminded metalheads then adopt those sort of groups too, even though folk is obviously miles away from the average metal band. I'm quite happy to see them as prog too, I suppose.

penguindf12 wrote: Ummm....who cares?!! Anyone added is fine with me, I'd rather expand the archives rather than limit it with stupid bickering of what is prog or not. Of course, we shouldn't just rush out and add everything that's obviously not prog, because it'd just waste time. But arguing about things already added is pointless, if they're taken off that'd just be even more time wasted. I personally wouldn't care if Britney Spears herself was added, and while it'd be very baffling and annoying, I wouldn't really care too much unless they dropped the real prog bands. So borderline stuff is fine by me, prog isn't an exclusive club, it's a fairly ill-defined disaffected musical genre. I wouldn't mind if they added the Beatles, the Who, Queen, Led Zeppelin, even Black Sabbath would be okay. I really don't care. Go waste your time somewhere else, don't bicker about this stuff. As long as real prog is here, it doesn't matter what else is added (unless it goes to an extent that it interferes with real prog). And honestly, I think Max and Rony know what they're doing. And no, Britney Spears is not going to be added any time soon.

Well I cannot agree that the more bands we add, the better. We should stick with prog rock groups. Nobody would like a 'progressive rap' band added for example!

Cheers

marktheshark wrote: I can do without Styx in there. To me they're what I call pseudo-prog. A hard-rock group throwing in a few prog moments here and there.

Yea.........but America has to have SOMETHING on this site.  That's the closest our country comes to Prog.    They are'nt that bad. 

Man Overboard wrote: As for Dream Theater?  Yes, they're progressive.  A bit technical and showoffy, but we've had that in prog before.  How can you listen to something like "A Change Of Seasons" and say "Well, this just isn't prog, not in any sense of the word"?  That's like looking down at your cock and saying "Durrr!  I'm a guuuurl!"  (replace genders/organs if you're a female.)

Playing scales and arpeggios in unison for 15 minutes IS NOT PROGRESSIVE, it's retarded.  You got one thing correct.  Most of the prg-metal is very derived from KC.  The difference is that KC was into rhythmic interplay.  How many scale sessions have you ever hear them do for entire albums?  Changing the tempo in the middle of a song does NOT MAKE IT PROGRESSIVE.  Change of Seasons is like the longest pile of poo that I ever heard try to be passed as prog rock.  It's a wanna be pop/rock/metal/prog/ballad wank fest that fails at every single thing it tries to be.

Snow Dog wrote: How can it fail if so many enjoy it?

I didn't say they couldn't enjoy it.  There is lots of crappy music that I enjoy just because it's fun.  That doesn't make it great or original or anything other than enjoyable.  Also, just because I like prog doesn't mean every band that has extended solos qualifies as a prog band. 

I even enjoy listening to DT sometimes.  But it isn't prog.  I respect the guys in DT as very good musicians.  But it isn't prog.  There are zillions of great jazz and classical and heck even country guitarists/drummers/bass players etc... that are just as good as those guys.  Just because they are the high school and college metal band du jor, doesnt make them great.  People are finally starting to figure out what a bunch of crap metallica is.  But for 10 years people thought they were the greatest thing since sliced bread.  I actually think Metallica hit some better song development than DT in their middle albums.  But, it sure wasn't prog.

You said

It's a wanna be pop/rock/metal/prog/ballad wank fest that fails at every single thing it tries to be.

Well it doesnt fail at everything if its succesful and people like it..or does it?

Snow Dog wrote: You said - It's a wanna be pop/rock/metal/prog/ballad wank fest that fails at every single thing it tries to be. Well it doesnt fail at everything if its succesful and people like it..or does it?

no you are right, it doesn't fail at all of it.  It is a very successful wank fest.  Very nice scales.

Dude, again...I'M not saying they suck.  I'm saying that it isn't prog.  I'm also saying the musical concepts are not new.  They also aren't that complicated other than the technical skills required to play the scales. 

Seriously, DT would be better compaired to jazz fusion than progressive rock.  It's much closer to say something like metal fusion than it is progressive.  Fusion is music based around melodies derived from scales over non-traditional meter.  In that comparison though their ability to develop melody out of solo lines is extremely limited and narrow (in other words they repeat themselves endlessley).  Mostly because the scales/solos are right out of practice books.  It's the stuff that the 2nd and 3rd year music college students are all doing. 

Prog is not about solos, fast, slow or otherwise.  It's about broad melodic exploration of themes.  One thing about prob singers is that when things are going well none of the playing stops, the song continues un-abaited by the addition of the voice.  DT and even the old veteran proggers are in the habit of stopping the song to let the singer sing for a bit, then they jump back in for the solos.  This is bastardized pop rock NOT prog.  One of the things that made the first several Genesis albums so great is that they did NOT get bogged down by solos.  The real genius of Tony Banks isn't that he's the fastes keyboard player ever, it's the fact that he can carry so much of a song through texture and infurence.  They were also great at letting the shape of the instrumental interplay, including the voice, carry the song from section to section.

None of that exchange happens with DT.  They are much more in line with the old jazz fusion concept of "ok, your turn".

I dont really want a turn. I'm a bit sleepy now. I think that Dt are Prog , of a sort, progish at the very least. Even if i believed they werent though, I wouldnt care. I just like them a lot. Personally , about the Cd ratings I would only give Scenes from a memory *****.I believe iots fair for that album. If you dont consisder it prog though, then, according to the rating system here, it cant be ..can it?

I'm just getting tired of all these arguments, no one is gonna budge an inch on this issue!

Asia, Radiohead, Mars Volta?

JMCecil wrote: Man Overboard wrote: As for Dream Theater?  Yes, they're progressive.  A bit technical and showoffy, but we've had that in prog before.  How can you listen to something like "A Change Of Seasons" and say "Well, this just isn't prog, not in any sense of the word"?  That's like looking down at your cock and saying "Durrr!  I'm a guuuurl!"  (replace genders/organs if you're a female.) Playing scales and arpeggios in unison for 15 minutes IS NOT PROGRESSIVE, it's retarded.  You got one thing correct.  Most of the prg-metal is very derived from KC.  The difference is that KC was into rhythmic interplay.  How many scale sessions have you ever hear them do for entire albums?  Changing the tempo in the middle of a song does NOT MAKE IT PROGRESSIVE.  Change of Seasons is like the longest pile of poo that I ever heard try to be passed as prog rock.  It's a wanna be pop/rock/metal/prog/ballad wank fest that fails at every single thing it tries to be.

Even though I'm saying this as a kettle to a pot:

A fitting description of your attitude and tactlessness, JMCecil.

Asia, Radiohead, Styx & Roxy music are not realy prog. The same with Supertramp. But I do'nt feel it is that much of importance. I prefer a bit wider range than narrowing it. Anyway if some artist has done some prog then better review all his career. This way yoy get more information. It will look funny if (for example) the discography of Genesys will end after Wind & wuthering" .

What bothers me more is the lack of some good & inovative artist here such as :

Led zeppelin (they are at least prog as kansas & rush)

Deep purple (invented metal)

David Bowie (ca'nt you call it space prog ?)

Jefferson airplane (folk rock but american folk)

Kate Bush (art rock looks a fair way to describe it)

Steely dan (jazz-rock, fusion ?)

Lets throw another one in
BE BOP DELUXE !
Bill Nelson what a guitarist !!!
( Art Rock ? )

The only ones I might possibly agree to are Jefferson Airplane, at least before they changed their second name they did some kind of psyche folk rock, but then Grateful Dead should be added as well. The second one is Steely Dan, they might fit into fusion sub-genre. LedZep, although I like a lot, never have shown real significant prog elements, they were playing blues influenced R'R. Deep Purple is mainly a hardrock, although did some things with symphonic orchestra, mainly due to John Lord's affinity to classical music. The fact that "they invented Metal" as you claim (not quite whether it was them or Black Sabbath) does not make them Prog. I don't think "Metal" is regarded as a progressive element. In fact DP were playing originally a kind of heavy bluesrock, I'd not classify them as Metal, whereas BS shows more Metal signs (DOOM METAL). Well Bowie did many things from psyche rock over indie to pop rock, but to call him Prog, quite questionabe I'd say. Same with Kate Bush, she did some good stuff, but as well some more pop-ish things. Prog? No! Just my opinions about this!

omri wrote: Asia, Radiohead, Styx & Roxy music are not realy prog. The same with Supertramp. But I do'nt feel it is that much of importance. I prefer a bit wider range than narrowing it. Anyway if some artist has done some prog then better review all his career. This way yoy get more information. It will look funny if (for example) the discography of Genesys will end after Wind & wuthering" . What bothers me more is the lack of some good & inovative artist here such as : Led zeppelin (they are at least prog as kansas & rush) Deep purple (invented metal) David Bowie (ca'nt you call it space prog ?) Jefferson airplane (folk rock but american folk) Kate Bush (art rock looks a fair way to describe it) Steely dan (jazz-rock, fusion ?)

JMCecil wrote: Playing scales and arpeggios in unison for 15 minutes IS NOT PROGRESSIVE, it's retarded.  You got one thing correct.  Most of the prg-metal is very derived from KC.  The difference is that KC was into rhythmic interplay.  How many scale sessions have you ever hear them do for entire albums?  Changing the tempo in the middle of a song does NOT MAKE IT PROGRESSIVE.  Change of Seasons is like the longest pile of poo that I ever heard try to be passed as prog rock.  It's a wanna be pop/rock/metal/prog/ballad wank fest that fails at every single thing it tries to be.

Why do people blindly love dream theater or stupidely hate it? Man, that's pushing a bit. Change of Season is a great song. You might not like it, but the longest pile of poo you ever herd?...  Can people you hate this band accept it as being bad prog? I mean, It's prog, no doubt, but it's not necessairly good. Why each time a guy like him hates a band, it is automaticaly not prog?

What I also really hate here is the 'If band X is prog, than band Y is prog too'. It's seem like the only argument a lot of people got when they want one of their band to be included. Like : 'Why do you think it's worth a place here?', and he just answer 'If Opeth is, then why not my band. It sound a bit like a Opeth...?'