Reforming the PA database in democratic manner

clarke2001 wrote: I would rather like to see PA database expanded to include certain artists: 1.) Prog-psych-hard rock-jam bands of early 70's ('proto' after 'proto prog' period) 2.) Avant-pop complex artists of new wave/no-wave period 3.) World fusion 4.) Some electronica (IDM in Warp Records style and similar granular textures) 5.) some classical Heavy Metal which borrows from classical prog - multi-part long compositions, bass solos etc. (Helloween, even Manowar, but not Running Wild) 6.) perhaps neo-classical gothic music 7.) prog-related needs EXPANSION (there's a good reason why - I'll elaborate why if anyone insists) By adding these, we would not open the flood gates - a huge mass of ProgArchives will simply relocate its barycenter a bit.

Edited by Sean Trane - March 24 2011 at 04:43

My feeling is that clarkes suggestions are fair - as long as we are adding to... not taking artists off the database.

Edited by AtomicCrimsonRush - March 24 2011 at 06:52

clarke2001 wrote: ^No, actually I don't like half of these.

 

moshkito wrote: DamoXt7942 wrote: Dean wrote: I'd never say "I'm an admin and I say shut up" btw - people are free to ramble all they want- just open a new thread for a new topic and ramble away to your heart's content.   I'll second that one ... Dean might not like it ... but I would buy him a dinner and a show in a minute if I was in London (wherever he is) for him and his significant other.   Now, as for his doggie ... sorry pug! We'll have to see about a bone!

Dean wrote: Sean Trane wrote: clarke2001 wrote: I would rather like to see PA database expanded to include certain artists: 1.) Prog-psych-hard rock-jam bands of early 70's ('proto' after 'proto prog' period) 2.) Avant-pop complex artists of new wave/no-wave period 3.) World fusion 4.) Some electronica (IDM in Warp Records style and similar granular textures) 5.) some classical Heavy Metal which borrows from classical prog - multi-part long compositions, bass solos etc. (Helloween, even Manowar, but not Running Wild) 6.) perhaps neo-classical gothic music 7.) prog-related needs EXPANSION (there's a good reason why - I'll elaborate why if anyone insists) By adding these, we would not open the flood gates - a huge mass of ProgArchives will simply relocate its barycenter a bit.     So basically you'd propose that the site changes name to: AnythingClarke2001LikesArchives.com, right???   sounds democratic enough!!! Moris is absolutely the last person you could accuse of doing that

Dean wrote: Sean Trane wrote:   Dean, it was a JOKE!!!!   Just in case.....     I know, but jokes lose their funny on the nth telling

Back on topic. I won't discuss the expansion of our database, which was the by-the-way idea on top of my mind, and it's not going to happen any time soon.

Keishiro mentioned reforming of our database - I guess that could be interpreted as organizing it in a convenient way - with an accent on obscure, even dubious artists listed in the most problematic category: prog-related.


I absolutely agree this should be done: someone might say 'our primary goal is addition of the bands', but if our database is messy, it will only get messier; PA is also prone to entropy.

There are plenty of ways in which this could be done, but I think there's no point in starting of avalanche concering multi-tagging, various sub-splitting of categories and so forth. These task require M@x to hot-rod our web engine; let's see what could be done with the resources we got.

Prog-related is a pile of artist which could be divided in few subcategories:

1)a bands with progressive members (that sounds ridiculous I know) which carried the torch cigarette lighter after the golden era, like Asia,
2)one-off artists, with one or perhaps two prog albums that went pop and are widely know for being pop,
3)borderline prog artists, balancing between prog and pop/new age/whatever
4)influential artists,
5)other (including mistakes).

This could be applied to proto-prog to a degree, and in fact to all prog genres here.

What we might do, (and we know we won't delete any bands) is to acknowledge in biographies to which flock each of the birdies belongs. Perhaps we might do a coherent history in a prog blog, maybe with something like 'rock family tree' picture. If I'm not mistaken, fields where biographies are written allow hyperlinks. That might be useful, minimize the confusion, and help even us, veteran collabs, discover relevant artists (for knowledge or for joy).



One more thing I must mention: each subgenre, and consequentially, each genre team have 'skeletons in the closet', but I feel Crossover is currently suffering the most from that syndrome. I see too often tasteless remarks with new suggestions along the lines of 'well add X to Crossover, it won't be more ridiculous than Y that is already there', sometimes even from the collaborators. I guess it would be good idea to move certain controversial artists to prog-related, regardless of what some of us might feel about the band, myself included. I'm like everybody else: with some additions I agree, with some I don't. Big deal. But for some it seems it is big deal, to the point they're laughing at our credibility, and we don't deserve that. Cynicism is one thing, trivializing of someone else's hard work is another. With moving these artists to PR, we would minimize, or at least localize our problems.






Edited by clarke2001 - March 26 2011 at 01:44

clarke2001 wrote: Back on topic. I won't discuss the expansion of our database, which was the by-the-way idea on top of my mind, and it's not going to happen any time soon. Keishiro mentioned reforming of our database - I guess that could be interpreted as organizing it in a convenient way - with an accent on obscure, even dubious artists listed in the most problematic category: prog-related. I absolutely agree this should be done: someone might say 'our primary goal is addition of the bands', but if our database is messy, it will only get messier; PA is also prone to entropy. There are plenty of ways in which this could be done, but I think there's no point in starting of avalanche concering multi-tagging, various sub-splitting of categories and so forth. These task require M@x to hot-rod our web engine; let's see what could be done with the resources we got. Prog-related is a pile of artist which could be divided in few subcategories: 1)a bands with progressive members (that sounds ridiculous I know) which carried the torch cigarette lighter after the golden era, like Asia, 2)one-off artists, with one or perhaps two prog albums that went pop and are widely know for being pop, 3)borderline prog artists, balancing between prog and pop/new age/whatever 4)influential artists, 5)other (including mistakes). This could be applied to proto-prog to a degree, and in fact to all prog genres here. What we might do, (and we know we won't delete any bands) is to acknowledge in biographies to which flock each of the birdies belongs. Perhaps we might do a coherent history in a prog blog, maybe with something like 'rock family tree' picture. If I'm not mistaken, fields where biographies are written allow hyperlinks. That might be useful, minimize the confusion, and help even us, veteran collabs, discover relevant artists (for knowledge or for joy). One more thing I must mention: each subgenre, and consequentially, each genre team have 'skeletons in the closet', but I feel Crossover is currently suffering the most from that syndrome. I see too often tasteless remarks with new suggestions along the lines of 'well add X to Crossover, it won't be more ridiculous than Y that is already there', sometimes even from the collaborators. I guess it would be good idea to move certain controversial artists to prog-related, regardless of what some of us might feel about the band, myself included. I'm like everybody else: with some additions I agree, with some I don't. Big deal. But for some it seems it is big deal, to the point they're laughing at our credibility, and we don't deserve that. Cynicism is one thing, trivializing of someone else's hard work is another. With moving these artists to PR, we would minimize, or at least localize our problems.

Guess such a discussion now we're doing may be very sensitive ... and such a large / expanding website commune like Progarchives can be improved or go forward upon a better way, only if we try to improve or drive upon the better way.
In this sense various opinions are welcome for us.

Quite well-said, Moris. We PA members have to clear various hurdles for improving this expanding commune, but we must can try to.

Many thanks.

clarke2001 wrote: One more thing I must mention: each subgenre, and consequentially, each genre team have 'skeletons in the closet', but I feel Crossover is currently suffering the most from that syndrome. I see too often tasteless remarks with new suggestions along the lines of 'well add X to Crossover, it won't be more ridiculous than Y that is already there', sometimes even from the collaborators. I guess it would be good idea to move certain controversial artists to prog-related, regardless of what some of us might feel about the band, myself included. I'm like everybody else: with some additions I agree, with some I don't. Big deal. But for some it seems it is big deal, to the point they're laughing at our credibility, and we don't deserve that. Cynicism is one thing, trivializing of someone else's hard work is another. With moving these artists to PR, we would minimize, or at least localize our problems.

Why move them?  Weren't said artists added to Crossover for good reasons and voted in?  Seems to me that's the point; trust.  If some Collab wants to be idiotic enough to continually bash a fellow team for doing their job, that's the problem.

 

russellk wrote: clarke2001 wrote: Prog-related is a pile of artist which could be divided in few subcategories: 1)a bands with progressive members (that sounds ridiculous I know) which carried the torch cigarette lighter after the golden era, like Asia, 2)one-off artists, with one or perhaps two prog albums that went pop and are widely know for being pop, 3)borderline prog artists, balancing between prog and pop/new age/whatever 4)influential artists, 5)other (including mistakes). One more thing I must mention: each subgenre, and consequentially, each genre team have 'skeletons in the closet', but I feel Crossover is currently suffering the most from that syndrome. I see too often tasteless remarks with new suggestions along the lines of 'well add X to Crossover, it won't be more ridiculous than Y that is already there', sometimes even from the collaborators. I guess it would be good idea to move certain controversial artists to prog-related, regardless of what some of us might feel about the band, myself included. I'm like everybody else: with some additions I agree, with some I don't. Big deal. But for some it seems it is big deal, to the point they're laughing at our credibility, and we don't deserve that. Cynicism is one thing, trivializing of someone else's hard work is another. With moving these artists to PR, we would minimize, or at least localize our problems. Couple of comments here. My understanding of how things work is that if a band or artist has ONE thoroughgoing prog album then for the purposes of this archive they need to be categorised as a type of prog. It doesn't matter if their subsequent twenty albums were pure pop. Is my understanding correct? Example: DRAGON, the New Zealand band, put out two pure prog albums in the early 70s. I have them. They should be in the archives, and not as prog-related either, despite the fact they abandoned prog and became a rather successful pop band ('April Sun In Cuba', 'Are You Old Enough'). Had they stopped after their first two albums no one would dispute their inclusion here. As for Crossover, my understanding is that Crossover Prog artists are 'predominantly progressive with elements of popular music'. This does make things difficult for those deciding who should be included, as there are those members for whom any whiff of 'pop' is anathema and will be upset by such inclusions. I'm looking forward to working with the Crossover team, and I don't feel PA's credibility is threatened by what we do. I get what you're saying, Clarke2001, and your suggestion might defuse a few arguments, but I don't see how shifting Crossover acts to prog-related would aid us in our aim of being the most comprehensive prog resource on the internet.

Yes and to add to Russell's comments people need to stop " dumbing down" crossover. It is a credible genre whether some people perceive otherwise. Prog Related has it's place too. Those that helped form it did a good job. Understand that lines get blurred......