It is certainly an interesting idea.

I get tired of people constantly trying to get their favorite semi-progressive bands accepted as actual prog.  Some folks on this site seem to have a certain fear of liking non-prog bands, so they want to make sure all their favorites are prog.  Well, some of them are just simply not prog, but many did have important influences both on and from the prog genre. 

I like this idea because this site is a resource for finding new music that you might like.  We come here to learn about music and get listening advice from (somewhat) like-minded individuals.  So, if there are other bands that are popular amongst people with similar listening tastes (i.e. everyone on this site; i mean, would we all be here if we didnt have a lot in common musically?), perhaps they should be included in their own section for reference so people could appreciate them as well and learn about them.

The point is, we all like a lot of the same music and want to learn about more, so expanding the database (as long as it is kept organized) should not only be acceptable, but should be a goal.

Good idea, Dave! I took time to read your suggestion, and to my shame, I thought of a similar idea but did not come up with...
I'll tell my additional suggestions anyway:

The "non-prog", or "prog-related" section might include only proggy albums (not the band's whole catalogue) and be reviewed by site admins, or at least by progarchives collaborators. I also think it might be helpful to provide opportunity for the rest to suggest bands or albums to include in that section.

or, a very distinct sub-genre entitled "proto-prog", "close-to-prog", or whatever you might suggest, might be included, with some of the bands-artists I mentioned below, and reviewers review them as usual, but knowing it is not definitely prog. (reviews might be excluded from the front page, or a distinct sign could be placed on the album descriptions etc.)

I also believe it is about time to include two new subgenres, heavy prog and pomp-prog (at least the first one), both are mentioned in the history of prog section and does not appear as seperate genres. That's why Uriah Heep is listed under symphonic, to which it has absolutely no connection, apart from Salisbury of course (and even in that, on the title track only). Given that UH was first under prog-metal genre, its removal from this to that is simply ridiculous!!! Other bands in these genres are often filed under art-rock category, and causes confusion with bands like Procol Harum, Supertramp, Moody Blues, Saga, A.Parsons Pr. etc, which are either more poppy, or "proto-prog". (I'm talking about those who have no idea of a particular band is like, and try to figure out what it may be like from its genre... You can have an absolute idea of a band when, for instance, it is filed under "prog-metal", or "Krautrock" category, but not in Art-Rock...). Since Electronic is also included as a genre (otherwise TD and Kraftwerk could well fit into Krautrock category...), I think it is also necessary to discriminate harder oriented or "pompous" bands from mainstream art-rock acts...

I am insistent on my idea to get Deep Purple and Jon Lord here, not just because "constantly trying to get my favorite semi-progressive band accepted as actual prog", as Golden Spiral suggests, and I don't have "a certain fear of liking non-prog bands, so want to make sure all my favorites are prog", either. As an example, I can say I like Led Zep, Black Sabbath, Metallica, Iron Maiden, Alice Cooper etc, and despite all of these bands' prog tendencies, I don't try to get them into archives (though in a poll for metallica my vote would be pro...). These bands (along with The Doors, The Who, Beatles etc.) would be perfect samples for the section barbs suggested in the first place...
(I certainly agree with Golden Spiral anyway, isn't it those guys who had Radiohead placed here in the first place?!?!?)

My claims and some other pros and cons for DP (and Jon Lord) are in http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8895&PN=1 - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8895&a mp;PN=1
please have a look...

keep on proggin'

All:

Something of this nature is already being looked into by the admin group.  However, keep up the discussion, as it will help us to properly define the parameters.

Peace.

Bilek wrote: Good idea, Dave! I took time to read your suggestion, and to my shame, I thought of a similar idea but did not come up with... I'll tell my additional suggestions anyway: The "non-prog", or "prog-related" section might include only proggy albums (not the band's whole catalogue) and be reviewed by site admins, or at least by progarchives collaborators. I also think it might be helpful to provide opportunity for the rest to suggest bands or albums to include in that section. I was hoping that by the time this stream had exhausted itself (not a huge response at the moment) most members would have suggested refinements to the idea (Maani has already said they are considering something and encouraged feedback) which would include album suggestions or even EPs. or, a very distinct sub-genre entitled "proto-prog", "close-to-prog", or whatever you might suggest, might be included, with some of the bands-artists I mentioned below, and reviewers review them as usual, but knowing it is not definitely prog. (reviews might be excluded from the front page, or a distinct sign could be placed on the album descriptions etc.) I also believe it is about time to include two new subgenres, heavy prog and pomp-prog (at least the first one), both are mentioned in the history of prog section and does not appear as seperate genres. That's why Uriah Heep is listed under symphonic, to which it has absolutely no connection, apart from Salisbury of course (and even in that, on the title track only). Given that UH was first under prog-metal genre, its removal from this to that is simply ridiculous!!! I am not certain Bilek, if you would be able to muster the support for extra subgenres, as some people are already concerned that prog is either incorrectly categorised in the first place and I have seen other comments in posts where some people consider subgenres as counterproductive to the traditional idea of what prog is (or was).  Opens the door to a much wider spectrum of musical influences.   I think it is also necessary to discriminate harder oriented or "pompous" bands from mainstream art-rock acts... Some examples of what you  think this would look like would be helpful I think.   I am insistent on my idea to get Deep Purple and Jon Lord here, not just because "constantly trying to get my favorite semi-progressive band accepted as actual prog", as Golden Spiral suggests, and I don't have "a certain fear of liking non-prog bands, so want to make sure all my favorites are prog", either. As a medical condition would this be termed, antiprogaphobia.

Thanks for the feedback Bilek