Why is Richard Wright prog related?

Back in October 2007 Andu suggested moving Rick Wright to Xover, having re-assess his music Micky and I agreed and I put the proposal for moving them into the Admins (along with The Alan Parsons Project) ... anyway, long story short (skipping the part where I cocked-up the vote-count ): Both approved for moving and now residing in Crossover. Case closed, thank you for your time and patience.

Edited by Dean - November 09 2008 at 18:04

Angelo wrote: CCVP wrote: Angelo, i'm sorry, but i can't see anywhere in the definition that the solo works of certain musicians  who are known as members of prog bands should go to the prog-related category. In fact, though i understand some additions in the prog related, such as David Gilmour and even Roger Waters (though he is listed in the crossover, but anyway), i can't see why Wright is listed there. i mean, he has 2 releases that are DEFINITELY prog (wet dream and broken china), wile you can't say the same thing about most of Gilmour's, Water's or even Mason's. Well - Guigo clarified what I was referring to already, and apparently Wright has a different history here. What could help though, is if you have an opinion on a matter like this, you write what you mean, instead of building a sarcastic text around it - that's bound for misinterpretation, given that neither you nor I are native English speakers.

Though i didn't intended to be sarcastic or anything, ok, no problem.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: CCVP wrote: ya, another interesting case is Alan Parsons. Still don't know why the hell he is in prog related. I think that he would fit better in the progressive electronic session, though it have been some time since i last listened my father's APP LPs . . .   I respectfully disagree with you CCVP. IMO Alan Parsons is one of those artists who fits perfectly in Prog Related (Even when I had my doubts before) because: Tales of Mystery and Imagination: Is closer to Symphonic than to any other sub-genre, but not enough to grant an inclusion. Absolutely no connection with Electronic I Robot: Is some form of Electronic meets ambient, great album, but not a 100% Prog Release. Barely related with Electronic. as much as with new Age or Ambient Pyramids: Excellent album, one of my favorites, but not more Prog than ATYX, the fact that Andrew Powell adds excellent orchestral arrangements and the production is fantastic, doesn't make it closer to Prog than any Pomp Pop band, Absolutely no connection with Electronic Eve: Lucifer and Damn if I do, it's POP, and boring POP again the Powell orchestral arrangements. make it seem slightly related to Prog. The turn of a Friendly Card: No Prog connection, excellent POP music, great arrangements and pristine production, but nothing more than nice POP. Much better than the previous, but not remotely related with Electronic Eye in the Sky: Top 40 stuff. Ammonia Avenue: Again Powell saves the day because of the Orchestral arrangements, good Pop Then everything goes faster down the hill, the formula of pristine POP with Orchestra gets exhausted. I believe a band can't be considered full Prog just because of one album, mainly when most of his production is POP, good, even outstanding POP, but not Prog, and definitely no Electronic connection. Maybe forcing a bit the scheme, could go to Crossover,. but the Adm Team has to decide the benefits and accuracy against the negative points, none of bothsituations (Prog Rlated or Crossover) would be wrong, even when I'm more oriented towards PR.   Iván

ok, no problem. BTW, i don't have any problems with anyone disagreeing with what i think, we don't need to be so formal. After all, (at least thats how i face it) this is supposed to be fun and friendly.

CCVP wrote: ya, another interesting case is Alan Parsons. Still don't know why the hell he is in prog related. I think that he would fit better in the progressive electronic session, though it have been some time since i last listened my father's APP LPs . . .

I respectfully disagree with you CCVP.

IMO Alan Parsons is one of those artists who fits perfectly in Prog Related (Even when I had my doubts before) because:

1. Tales of Mystery and Imagination: Is closer to Symphonic than to any other sub-genre, but not enough to grant an inclusion. Absolutely no connection with Electronic
2. I Robot: Is some form of Electronic meets ambient, great album, but not a 100% Prog Release. Barely related with Electronic. as much as with new Age or Ambient
3. Pyramids: Excellent album, one of my favorites, but not more Prog than ATYX, the fact that Andrew Powell adds excellent orchestral arrangements and the production is fantastic, doesn't make it closer to Prog than any Pomp Pop band, Absolutely no connection with Electronic
4. Eve: Lucifer and Damn if I do, it's POP, and boring POP again the Powell orchestral arrangements. make it seem slightly related to Prog.
5. The turn of a Friendly Card: No Prog connection, excellent POP music, great arrangements and pristine production, but nothing more than nice POP. Much better than the previous, but not remotely related with Electronic
6. Eye in the Sky: Top 40 stuff.
7. Ammonia Avenue: Again Powell saves the day because of the Orchestral arrangements, good Pop

Then everything goes faster down the hill, the formula of pristine POP with Orchestra gets exhausted.

I believe a band can't be considered full Prog just because of one album, mainly when most of his production is POP, good, even outstanding POP, but not Prog, and definitely no Electronic connection.

1. Trespass
2. NC
3. Foxtrot
4. SEBTP
5. The Lamb
6. ATotT
7. W&W

Two light Prog albums.

1. ATTW3
2. Duke

And only 4 Pop albums

1. Abacab
2. Invissible Touch
3. Shapes
4. We Can't Dance

One hybrid between Prog and pop

1. CAS

So stop putting Genesis in the same sack, with full albums as Foxtrot, Terespas, NC, SEBTP and The lamb, there's no other place as Symphonic.

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - November 09 2008 at 14:58

Not sure what the purpose or intent of that Rant was Micky. As Guigo says, we have always been open to proposals to move bands out of PR and into a prog category. Suggesting we "often have little knowledge.. or understanding"  is derogatory to us in the same way as you would be the first to complain if someone said it about you. Let's keep it friendly eh?

CCVP wrote: ya, another interesting case is Alan Parsons. Still don't know why the hell he is in prog related. I think that he would fit better in the progressive electronic session, though it have been some time since i last listened my father's APP LPs . . .

Definitely not in prog electro...

As for a move in Xover, I know it sounds favorable to some, in my view he could stay in Related, only one album is of a progressive rich value (almost reminding me of Jon Anderson's case, with Olias...), otherwise I never saw AP as a full-fledged prog (rock) artist.

let me be blunt.. if a genre team evals a group that is presently in PR...  and think it fits... who are anyone.. including the admin team to say it DOESN"T fit.. they moderate the forum.. and are not in charge of additions.. that duty was given to the various genre teams....  the admins aren't genre team members... and usually are not of that particular team and as personal experience has shown.. often have little knowledge.. or understanding of what the various teams are doing within their teams.  If you are an SC.. and a genre team member.. you have been trusted by the site owner to make good calls for the site.


it is as if the band had never been added in the first place.. if a team believes a band belong in their sub.. that band is added.. whether they are a new band.. and should be for one that either erroniously.. or through developments within the site..  later belongs to a category where it might not have before.

Atkingani wrote: Angelo referred to an original guideline that allowed members of prog bands to be checked for inclusion in the prog-related section if they didn't fit a real genre.

the thing is...  new categories exist where they didn't before when an artist was  originally added.  ..and the teams do not have freedom to move them at the moment.  The admin team guards the site with PR additions..but once in.. if a team thinks they fit a sub... shouldn't the genre be allowed to have them? Where they fit best.. and where their music might be best described and found for those exploring a certain branch of prog.

I understood you.  I found your post clear.  Interestingly, in 2004 when there was no Related category, and Wright was listed as "Progressive Rock", Zee was not included in the discography (it may have been added later that year), so perhaps that is why.  I'm not sure why things were placed where they were in the shuffle.  Side-note: Looking through that time, I see that Alan Parsons Project was in the Art Rock subcategory (now in Related).

Note: Before Prog Related, David Gilmour was listed in "Progressive Rock", as was Roger Waters, Jon Anderson, Mike Rutherford, Rick Wakeman, Anthony Phillips (plus, Frank Zappa, Neal Morse etc.) http://web.archive.org/web/20040810164720/www.progarchives.com/Progressive_rock_discography_LIST.asp?style=2

I wonder how much distinction was placed when putting those solo-project names from big Prog bands in Prog Related.

For what it's worth, I agree with CCVP that Wright is better suited to a Prog Category (Xover).  As for the Genesis remark, that's an analogy that is often made, but I wonder if there was a misunderstanding and it was thought that the initial post was implying that Wright shouldn't be in the archives at all.  Phil Collins is an example of one who was not allowed in.

This thread has lived up to ten posts so far; that's longer than some of mine.
Incidentally, Wright was added in 2004, and the place was quite different back then with different parameters, teams, and fewer categories.  He was originally added to the "Progressive Rock" category, and I believe that was before there was a Prog Related category, and I don't know why it was decided that it should be placed in Prog Related when changes were made.

See here: http://web.archive.org/web/20040710185706/www.progarchives.com/Progressive_rock_discography_LIST.asp?letter=W