Wish They Weren't Here

Nah, I'm pretty good at making my own calls on music, with or without reviews. And this is only one place I seek out reviews on albums.

KarmaMan wrote: ProgBob wrote: My interpretation of what he was saying - and I must admit it took me a while as I think it might have been expressed a little more clearly - is that a lot of stuff that is good gets downgraded simply because it is not really prog. He is using the example of a fan of Italian prog who reviews one of these 'non-prog' albums and gives it a bad review simply because it doesn't conform with his idea of prog. I think he is saying that it would be better if such albums weren't here or if they were placed in some category that makes it obvious that they should not be reviewed as prog albums.  ( In my opinion, Prog-related already serves that need. ) Anyway that's just my interpretation and maybe I have completely misunderstood the point.   Yeah I think it was  fairly clear for those who concentrated on what was actually written. Never said Italian prog wasn't legit, just expressed a dislike.

I have to admit, I didn't feel that your point was clearly expressed at all.  Though it's clear that you can express yourself quite reasonably, as evidenced by your second post.  Try make em all like that I guess, as you know what it's like reading text online. No tone of voice, lots of room for misinterpretation.

Innuendo is one of the tracks that does show me vague prog leanings but what was the band at its core? - I think that that is important. Queen were at times pop, at times stadium rock and very early on glam metal. Liar and Great King Rat are among my all time favorite tracks. They along with tracks like Innuendo and Bohemian Rhapsody, I think, spur a prog argument but one or two warm days don't make a summer. Hell, I could argue that most "pop" artists have done a few tracks that I would term prog or proggish - I definitely wouldn't term them prog.

My problem - in my own head - is that when I see some bands represented on the site in any fashion in any category who common sense tells me are not prog then I decry the fact that certain bands who many have rabidly argued on behalf of in the past still aren't represented. The door for unhapiness in that regard will always be open while the non prog inclusions are represented here.

Sorry your view of progmetal landmarks is limited to those 2 bands. Try taking things at face value instead of reading what you want into other peoples' statements. There is nothing more to be gained from this conversation. 

^So which part of that had anything to do with what I said? DT? Al DiMeola? lulwut?

Warthur wrote: I don't mind the presence of "prog related" myself. And it would be a shame to ditch it at this point, now lots of us have spent time and effort populating it with reviews. But if it got pinched off and used as the core of a new "rockarchives" site - for all rock music not proggy enough to be prog and not metal enough to be metal - I could be happy with that.

I disagree. It is one of the strengths of this site that it has a broad view of what constitutes prog and what might be of interest to prog fans.  The problem with a "rockarchives" site is that it would expand so far from that prog-related core that it would become useless as a resource for people who like interesting music but aren't too bothered about whether it can be strictly labelled prog.  

I don't mind the presence of "prog related" myself. And it would be a shame to ditch it at this point, now lots of us have spent time and effort populating it with reviews.

irrelevant wrote: richardh wrote: Queen and Led Zeppelin Wait. You are kiddin' right?

The problem, as ever, is with the very vague, amorphous, changing, subjective nature of the term "prog."