Reforming the PA database in democratic manner

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.

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

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

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

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!

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

 

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: 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

Thanks again mates, and especially Moris ... he has opened the floodgate in the thread.

Moris 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.

Dunno the detail of the others though, I think we can reconsider and reconstruct the concept and position in PA as for case 1 & 7 (especially Prog-Related is currently the Dark Continent for me...) .

But if we think on a local level, there must be artists which were influential on their local scene, only we know nothing about them. There are hundreds of countries in the world - some of them won't have any, some of them might have up to five bands. I know nothing about artists that were influential (and dabbling in prog) in Spain, Mexico, Hungary, Switzerland, Australia etc. Following that reasoning, prog-related might embrace at least 200 or more bands in the future.

Quite well said ... and for example in Japan we have exactly five or six pretty influential bands (as previously mentioned) - Les Rallizes Denudes, Apryl Fool, Jacks, The Happenings Four, Taj-Mahal Travellers, and The Folk Crusaders (Acid Folk) ... suggest that only Japanese progressive freaks can understand how influential upon younger bands these outfits have been, so that we (Japanese) should raise a cry for appreciation of them, and Proto / Related (Admin) Team should listen to our voice sincerely?

Anyway, as to pre-1969 as-it-is-said progressive  rock, Eetu's spoken for me well:

Eetu wrote: case 7, I agree with you. I think this is mostly due my personal insight to the vague, dramatic, and difficultly defined concept of term "progressive rock". I personally consider many pre-1969 records as full progressive music (the first Floyd records for example). These are most often psychedelic & folk styled records, not "symphonic prog". For me the artistic and impressionistic approach implemented to the tonal expression of rock music, expanding it away from non-expressive commercial rock, this is something assicating with the term discussed.

There may be certain cases where genre teams find a band that doesn't match the definition, and they can discuss possible moves with the other team and/or Admin.  But they are best handled individually by the teams, I don't believe these kinds of changes/additions/deletions are best addressed at the hands of a discussion thread in the main forum.  Just my opinion.    

Edited by Finnforest - March 23 2011 at 22:18