Casualties of Applied Metaphysics (Avant/Eclectic)

Sckxyss wrote: Just to stir the pot a little... Say a band had two borderline prog/pop albums that got suggested to and rejected by a genre team. Then, a year later, released an undisputable 100% prog album. Have they lost their chance to be in the database because they were already rejected once? My point is think it should be fair to allow a reevaluation if a band releases new material, especially if there is a significant improvement in quality or progressive tendencies.

as stated before such bands/artists have a controversial status - however - they don't have lost their chance ...
in such a case a team can re-evaluate and must have an unanimous decision ...




Edited by Rivertree - March 20 2010 at 06:39

Just to stir the pot a little... Say a band had two borderline prog/pop albums that got suggested to and rejected by a genre team. Then, a year later, released an undisputable 100% prog album. Have they lost their chance to be in the database because they were already rejected once?

My point is think it should be fair to allow a reevaluation if a band releases new material, especially if there is a significant improvement in quality or progressive tendencies.

So...

Is any team currently evaluating or re-evaluating this submission?

Tsevir Leirbag wrote: Dean wrote: Tsevir Leirbag wrote: JLocke wrote: Dean wrote: CoAM have been rejected by Eclectic and Avant in the past - if they are to be re-evaluated by either team it means they qualify as a "Controversial Band" and require the unanimous vote of every team member.   Identification of a controversial proposal Bands and artists will be considered potentially controversial if they: Are not generally listed by other prog sites* AND/OR They have been rejected in the past on the basis of their prog credentials ::snip:: Correct me if I am wrong, Dean, but nobody ever doubted that they were progressive when they were proposed the first time; it's just that nobody could quite agree on which genre they belonged in. I don't really see how this rule applies, in that case. My memory could be fuzzy, though.    I think he's right. I even think NOBODY said they weren't progressive. But that's some time ago, not sure if I remember well. Their rejection from ZART was on the grounds that they were not Avant-Prog - as stated on three seperate occasions by James when repeated claims that the music was Avant Garde were made - implying that it was the "Prog" part that the ZART team had the problem with.   Oh, sorry then I guess it won't be accepted this time again...

Negoba wrote: PA has already included amateur content from members.

Not because it was from members and no because it was amateur. Officially released/singed/purchasable units were evaluated, and evaluated music itself is prog rock.

We included loads of amateurish releases worldwide that had nothing to do with our members. We're not friend's music database, not even a good music database, we are listing released prog. Simple as that.


I know that you know that, I just had to get it off my chest...and just in case anyone's in doubt.

Also Psych/Space Team have already evaluated Casualties Of Applied Metaphysics around last April (yet I've not joined there) and rejected because of their less Psych/Space essence.

JLocke wrote: Dean wrote: CoAM have been rejected by Eclectic and Avant in the past - if they are to be re-evaluated by either team it means they qualify as a "Controversial Band" and require the unanimous vote of every team member.   Identification of a controversial proposal Bands and artists will be considered potentially controversial if they: Are not generally listed by other prog sites* AND/OR They have been rejected in the past on the basis of their prog credentials ::snip:: Correct me if I am wrong, Dean, but nobody ever doubted that they were progressive when they were proposed the first time; it's just that nobody could quite agree on which genre they belonged in. I don't really see how this rule applies, in that case. My memory could be fuzzy, though.

 

Alright, I just wasn't sure if that was what it meant.

Dean wrote: CoAM have been rejected by Eclectic and Avant in the past - if they are to be re-evaluated by either team it means they qualify as a "Controversial Band" and require the unanimous vote of every team member.   Identification of a controversial proposal Bands and artists will be considered potentially controversial if they: Are not generally listed by other prog sites* AND/OR They have been rejected in the past on the basis of their prog credentials ::snip::

 

There's a discussion about this topic, that's important thing. I have to say that I heard few tracks from their first CD and even I don't want to offend Alex, some of these tracks were unbearable.

However, some of you maybe know my relationship with RIO/Avant (Love/Hate), so it just maybe want some time. I'll certainly try their latest album, I hope it will be better beginning.

Let's be fair then.