Wish They Weren't Here
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: Proto-Prog and Prog-Related Lounge
Forum Description: Discuss bands and albums classified as Proto-Prog and Prog-Related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=79510
Printed Date: December 19 2024 at 05:22
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Wish They Weren't Here
Posted By: KarmaMan
Subject: Wish They Weren't Here
Date Posted: July 05 2011 at 19:20
|
You know, many of the so called 'prog related' Artists.
It can be galling to read clueless reviews and ratings by some Italian prog fanof Albums that have little or no 'prog' content yet you'd rather listen to them then 90+ % of the generic stuff on this site, make that 99.9% of Italian prog.
I know it goes with the territory of having them included in the first place but people like Bowie and Kate Bush I'd love to see removed for starters, they deserve better. I'd rather see a listing of recommended 'proggish' albums by non 'progressive' artists.
 |
Replies:
Posted By: Mushroom Sword
Date Posted: July 05 2011 at 19:25
|
Radiohead. ------------- 
"I gazed into the eyes of the madman and I saw, and I saw,and I saw myself. |
Posted By: -Radioswim-
Date Posted: July 05 2011 at 19:28
huh? Are you implying they are not progressive? ------------- 
Dust in the Kitchen |
Mushroom Sword wrote:Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: July 05 2011 at 19:32
Being an alternative rock band that makes an IDM record does not a progressive band make. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: July 05 2011 at 20:19
|
Boo hoo.
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: TheGazzardian
Date Posted: July 05 2011 at 20:34
Why so negative?  Just listen to what you like, because it's here doesn't mean you have to listen.
|
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: July 05 2011 at 20:42
|
Nightwish is the only addition I find highly questionable and not surprisingly even the PM team more or less excuses itself from defending it. The rest may be CONTROVERSIAL, but there's at least some artsiness/progginess/innovation or what have you in all the names mentioned above or other favourite punching bags like Metallica. If you really want to get into what is 'objectively' prog rock - if at all, such can be established with a semblance of a consensus - the database would drastically shrink and what would be the point of that? EDIT: The idea of listing just the prog albums of generally non prog artists (or for that matter the prog albums of artists who went pop
 ) is a good one but thought to be infeasible. Further, I don't think it would make the slightest difference to those reviews which you seem to allude to. |
Posted By: dreadpirateroberts
Date Posted: July 05 2011 at 20:55
That's a good point, I'd hate to see the Archives shrink. I like a lot of musical styles and when I'm not in the mood for something which might be called 'straight prog' (if such a thing exists) I come here and investigate all the related artists/genres. ------------- We are men of action. Lies do not become us. http://www.jazzmusicarchives.com/" rel="nofollow - JazzMusicArchives. |
Posted By: Junges
Date Posted: July 05 2011 at 22:05
| A lot of power metal bands, a lot of folk bands and Radiohead. |
Posted By: JesusisLord
Date Posted: July 05 2011 at 22:22
|
What is Prog anyway ? ------------- And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. Phillipians 2:11 |
Posted By: KingCrimson250
Date Posted: July 05 2011 at 22:27
|
I find myself more taking issue with non-prog output by prog artists. For example, Miles Davis is quite possibly the most important single figure of the Fusion movement. And Kind of Blue is one of the greatest albums ever made. But as it stands now, Kind of Blue is ranked as the third best jazz/rock album and the 32nd greatest progressive rock album of all time. Which just seems weird. It also seems a little unfair to submit albums like We Can't Dance and IT to the ravages of prog fans. I guess it's our chance to make up for all the rave reviews in the mainstream media, but you've got to admit that had the exact same songs been written and performed by someone other than Genesis, they wouldn't be on here. I don't know. This post isn't really constructive because I haven't got any better ideas and the current system seems to be better than drawing an arbitrary line as to which of a band's discography to admit and which to remove. I'm just ranting, I suppose. |
Posted By: Progosopher
Date Posted: July 06 2011 at 01:27
While there are a large number or artists I am surprised to see here, most of them are listed under categories like prog related and proto prog. As part of the purpose of this site is to represent artists who have produced prog and related music, I understand the rationale for including complete discographies. And yes, it does get weird with some of those mentioned above. The important thing, of course, is to make your own judgments and conclusions on individual albums and artists. I have those I favor and those I dislike. I will not name them now, but when the spirit moves me to write a review, my views will be my own and they will be expressed, positive or negative, or as is usually the case, some mixture between the two. This is a mighty diverse community, and even though I may disagree with some views and tastes, I am glad to see them expressed - it helps me clarify and understand why I like something or not. We are united in our appreciation for Prog (To all who ask what is it, remember that this site explains its criteria and perspectives.) as we are diverse in what aspects of it we appreciate the most.  ------------- The world of sound is certainly capable of infinite variety and, were our sense developed, of infinite extensions. -- George Santayana, "The Sense of Beauty" |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: July 06 2011 at 01:45
Actually the current system admits the entire discography. But where the artist is not already widely accepted as prog, they seem to demand a certain amount of prog (i.e. more than one album) to include in the database.
|
Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: July 06 2011 at 01:51
| Queen and Led Zeppelin |
Posted By: irrelevant
Date Posted: July 06 2011 at 02:12
 Wait. You are kiddin' right? ------------- https://gabebuller.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow - New album! http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=7385" rel="nofollow - http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=7385 |
Posted By: DavetheSlave
Date Posted: July 06 2011 at 03:31
|
In my own collection I've categorised albums very similarly to what they are here on PA but also a little differently. I love Black Sabbath and Deep Purple but to no extent would I put them under my prog folder. They sleep very happily under my Hard Rock category. Metallica exists (although I don't know why I still have any of their work) in my Metal section as does Iron Maiden.
Nightwish, Within Temptation rest firmly under my own prog section because I firmly believe that they are progressive in nature - many here don't agree with that but it's my own belief. Kamelot kind of confuses me though as I don't agree that they are progressive.
Why John Miles isn't here, when his "Music" is one of the real prog classics, I don't understand.
Why Stratovarius isn't here I understand even less.
I do agree that Bowie should be represented here, Kate Bush? - No.
However, it's all about taste and ones own personal interpretation of music. Without that personal interpretation we wouldn't have a vastly interesting and enjoyable world.
------------- I'm a normal psychopath |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: July 06 2011 at 04:37
|
What's the beef with Italian prog in the OP??
I don't have any major objections to the listings in the archives. There are times when I feel that if artist A is listed here, then artist B should be too, but generally I think the categories are well defined, and their listings mostly appropriate. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: July 06 2011 at 05:17
|
I don't know/care much about RPI, unless it's to start a fight with people about it being a real subgenre ;-), but I saw someone post here (it may have been Raff? I'm too lazy to try to find it with the search because it was a long time ago and she's not here to object to my misattribution anyway) that bands known in Italy primarily as pure AOR are included in RPI, but people on PA don't object like we do to some of the controversial additions because we've never heard of them. I guess he's referring to people giving good reviews to those AOR albums. ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: July 06 2011 at 06:33
|
To the original poster: "No musical genre exists in a vacuum. Not all of the bands that have been a part of the history and development of progressive rock are necessarily progressive rock bands themselves. This is why progarchives has included a genre called prog-related, so we could include all the bands that complete the history of progressive rock, whether or not they were considered full-fledged progressive rock bands themselves." If you people don't see the prog in Radiohead, David Bowie, and/or Kate Bush, etc. that is just your own shortsightedness. They're here and they're not going away. No well known controversial artist has been added without a vigorous debate. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: July 06 2011 at 06:45
 I'd heard about this before in some rather half-spoken words, but never cared to check it out either... the same can be said about many borderline inclusions in every genre though, not specifically with RPI. ------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword |
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: July 06 2011 at 06:58
|
The RPI team is not currently adding any non-prog material to the sub, although there may be some questionable bands placed before we came along. We know there are some bands placed by "Proglucky" that would probably not make it through today's team. For the OP to suggest that 99% of RPI bands are somehow not legit doesn't deserve comment. |
Posted By: ProgBob
Date Posted: July 06 2011 at 07:05
|
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. ------------- Bob |
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: July 06 2011 at 07:59
Althopugh IU've had issue about RPI being a stand-alone genre (still not completely settled in my mind), I can only agree with my friend Jim's assessment...
 Not worth a reply.I think no genre can claimto be 100% free of borderline inclusions. ------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword |
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: July 06 2011 at 09:16
Pretty much the bottom line right here. |
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: July 06 2011 at 09:49
I hope you're right Bob, and apologize if I misread his post. Seemed like he was singling us out for suckage. Bottom line, we do our best to make the right call, but nobody's perfect. If people disagree with a band we added, or a band any team added, they have the right to that opinion. I'm just not interested in arguing about placements anymore. You simply cannot please everyone, you have to move ahead with what the consensus of the team is.
|
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: July 06 2011 at 10:47
|
At the risk of stating the bleedin obvious....not even say, Crimson, Yes or ELP during the so-called early 70's 'golden years' were 100% Prog, 100% of the time ------------- 
|
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: July 06 2011 at 10:48
|
Any artist I don't like. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Tapfret
Date Posted: July 06 2011 at 12:10
|
The site should consist of only Yes and Genesis. And they should be limited Close to the Edge and Foxtrot. Seriously though: Radiohead, Bjork, Metallica, Journey, 90% of electronic-prog. Metallica is the one that is the real sour grapes for me. Not because of the addition per se, but because of the spurious literary slight-of-hand used by certain people who will go nameless to make them out to be a prog-metal while simultaneously writing reviews of landmark prog-metal innovators decrying them as non-prog. Opinions are opinions, and we are all entitled/subject to them. But propaganda is just obnoxious. And there was a 950 page thread about it, so please stop before you start with the arguments about why they should be here. ------------- https://www.last.fm/user/Tapfret" rel="nofollow">  https://bandcamp.com/tapfret" rel="nofollow - Bandcamp |
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: July 06 2011 at 12:23
Best post. How about a "hide" button for certain bands? Once you've clicked it, you don't see them in the database anymore, their reviews don't show up when you read the homepage, and (as an extra-option) all posts mentioning them in the prog lounges get automatically hidden for you.  |
Posted By: Nightfly
Date Posted: July 06 2011 at 13:11
Are you suggesting that 99.9% of Italian prog shouldn't be here?
 I'm at a loss on how to resond to that. |
Posted By: npjnpj
Date Posted: July 06 2011 at 13:16
|
Personally I don't mind any band on here. I enjoy reading the reviews and the sl*g.offs can be just as interesting (and quite often much more amusing) as the worships. Possibly my onw lazy definition of Prog helps here: To me Prog is just about everything that leaves the die-hard Brittney Spears and Donna Summer enthusiast completely befuddled. That's good enough for me: It's Prog (related). Generally, every album on here is and has been an enrichment, and if some people argue that an album isn't Prog while others protest this, to me it just means that there's something there that some of us for some reason just don't hear (quite often I'm one of those :-) ) while others do. Or perhaps their own peronal definition is substantially different. |
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: July 06 2011 at 13:32
|
The problem, as ever, is with the very vague, amorphous, changing, subjective nature of the term "prog." It's a lousy way to classify music.  (It only works on an individual by individual basis -- no two people seem to be able to fully agree on its parameters.)------------- "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. |
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: July 06 2011 at 14:42
| Personally, I think the prog related section is what sets this site apart from others. Finnforest (above) and the OP are right in highlighting the misunderstanding the category can sometimes cause, but I think its presence here does far more good than harm. |
Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: July 06 2011 at 14:50
Nope. See no reason for them to be here. Both are mighty and massively important bands that had bugger all to do with prog (imo)
|
Posted By: avantgrind
Date Posted: July 06 2011 at 15:54
|
Today Is The Day should be included, imo.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Warthur
Date Posted: July 06 2011 at 15:54
|
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.
|
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: July 06 2011 at 15:57
| The prog-Zeppelin compilation CD I made is much more progressive (prog if you prefer) than a crapload of albums on PA (albums that reside in proper prog cateories). Just sayin'. |
Posted By: ProgBob
Date Posted: July 06 2011 at 16:13
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. ------------- Bob |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: July 06 2011 at 21:57
So the suggestion that Metallica are prog metal is obnoxious propaganda while the media propoganda that passes off DT as prog metal (and NOT Sabotage-era Sabbath or early Metallica) is not? Wow! I really don't get why metalheads are so touchy about this. Ain't no rule that only odd time or licks obviously derived from Al Di Meola or Odyssey makes you prog. And no, this is not argument for why Metallica deserves to be here but to your suggestion that it is propaganda because it's not hard to guess who you are targeting here.
|
Posted By: Tapfret
Date Posted: July 06 2011 at 22:25
|
^So which part of that had anything to do with what I said? DT? Al DiMeola? lulwut? ------------- https://www.last.fm/user/Tapfret" rel="nofollow"> https://bandcamp.com/tapfret" rel="nofollow - Bandcamp |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: July 06 2011 at 22:46
Come now, what does "writing reviews of landmark prog metal innovators decrying them as non-prog" imply here if not DT? Just because you didn't name names here doesn't mean the implication is not very obvious. At the very most, you'd have been talking about maybe Opeth, but let's not get into points of detail here.
|
Posted By: Tapfret
Date Posted: July 07 2011 at 00:16
|
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.
------------- https://www.last.fm/user/Tapfret" rel="nofollow"> https://bandcamp.com/tapfret" rel="nofollow - Bandcamp |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: July 07 2011 at 00:24
Right, you covered yourself ab initio by not naming names, so I can't probe deeper anyway and since my point, being that not everybody thinks the only valid epoch of prog metal or prog in a metal context is the one that is popularly understood, has been made, I will drop this.
|
Posted By: DavetheSlave
Date Posted: July 07 2011 at 05:18
|
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.
Why Malmsteen and Stratovarius are not here yet why Queen, Kamelot, Metallica etc are here will always be a problem for some. It's ok to reject a band like Strat but don't do that and then allow fanboys to review Queen or Metallica or some such non prog, never will be and never has been band here.
John Miles's track "Music (was my first love) is one of the prog classic tracks and it aint here - yet I can happily find reference to Queen's Radio Gaga.
Kamelot will always have a place in my cd rack but they are not prog to my ears, Magnum is a band which I absolutely adore but they aren't prog to my ears other than very vaguely so on some tracks. Stratovarius is a band which I like to listen to now and then and I will argue the prog argument on their behalf until I turn blue and have to have an oxygen mask fitted.
Journey - I love Journey's music - prog? - never.
Anyway rant over
 Don't all queue up now to beat on me
 ------------- I'm a normal psychopath |
Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: July 07 2011 at 05:58
-------------  
|
Posted By: DavetheSlave
Date Posted: July 07 2011 at 06:20
|
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.
I was dared once to suggest Korn, which I did, just to add a bit of humor (it worked) lol. I would definately not seriously suggest them although their one album "Issues" makes for potential valid debate. ------------- I'm a normal psychopath |
Posted By: KarmaMan
Date Posted: July 07 2011 at 07:42
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.
Just expressing a wish, not a demand. Sorry about picking on Italian prog, just a knee jerk reaction to some of the prog related ratings I'd read. Didn't know whether to laugh or cry, to be honest. The upshot for me I suppose is that I can't take the overall concensus on this site as any kind of recommendation. All I can do is take the time to get to know the taste of particular reviewers.
Diamond Dogs 3.36 (I couldn't believe it
 )Unhalfbricking 3.48 (Stll recovering from this one)
Moonmadness 4.36 (I play guitar a bit, this is the kind of noodling you play and think no one would be interested in. It aspires to be second rate - and thats at best.)
 |
Posted By: dreadpirateroberts
Date Posted: July 07 2011 at 07:49
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. ------------- We are men of action. Lies do not become us. http://www.jazzmusicarchives.com/" rel="nofollow - JazzMusicArchives. |
Posted By: KarmaMan
Date Posted: July 07 2011 at 08:44
And would subsequently be subjected to hopelessly skewed views on the artistic merits of said artists/genres.
|
Posted By: dreadpirateroberts
Date Posted: July 07 2011 at 08:57
|
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. ------------- We are men of action. Lies do not become us. http://www.jazzmusicarchives.com/" rel="nofollow - JazzMusicArchives. |
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: July 07 2011 at 09:52
|
Tapfret, I love the "backside" of the album in your sig! Ha! ------------- "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. |
Posted By: Tapfret
Date Posted: July 08 2011 at 00:45
Thanks. It is my understanding that the original cover art was submitted with this on the back but was rejected by EMI. ------------- https://www.last.fm/user/Tapfret" rel="nofollow"> https://bandcamp.com/tapfret" rel="nofollow - Bandcamp |
Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: July 08 2011 at 01:52
what a pity. Its absolute genius
 |
Posted By: earlyprog
Date Posted: July 08 2011 at 04:30
| Always struggle to find the prog in bands like Jefferson Airplane, Queen, Led Zeppelin, Metallica (edit: and David Bowie). Can only hope their addition to the site attract people otherwise unknown to prog. If they are here the reasoning behind it should be clear. It's seems that sooner or later every band in my record collection will end up in PA, just because I happen to have it. PA has turned out like this anyway.... so when will Elton John be added? |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: July 08 2011 at 04:47
Well, I am certainly not able to foresee a day when Aerosmith, Motorhead, AC DC, Slipknot or, on the pop front, Carpenters,Celine Dion etc would be added to the progarchives. The point being that there would always be a clear line between basic, rudimentary rock or pop music on the one hand and sophisticated rock on the other. Drawing a line within the sophisticated rock basket as to what does and does not constitute prog is very subjective. And as long as the policy of not deleting bands once added continues, the push will always be towards inclusiveness rather than exclusiveness. And yeah, given the current profile of bands added to different genres in the database, I cannot see a clear and strict demarcation between prog and non-prog (within sophisticated rock) so I personally have no problem with LZ or Metallica's presence. I am not saying you shouldn't, this is just my way of looking at it and we know progheads on the subject of what is prog are like economists - simply can't agree with each other.
|
Posted By: dreadpirateroberts
Date Posted: July 08 2011 at 07:43
|
Aren't our labels for things so very, very precious? It's interesting that many music fans treat genres as 'uncontested spaces' and spend significant effort contracting and delineating them. But I'd argue that all genres are hybrid and therefore we should accept that certain albums may fit into more than one genre.  ------------- We are men of action. Lies do not become us. http://www.jazzmusicarchives.com/" rel="nofollow - JazzMusicArchives. |
Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: July 08 2011 at 15:52
Nowadays there is very little in my collection that isn't here. Most bands like the ones you mention are only here because a lot of people like them. If Queen or LZ had never been that popular then they wouldn't be here imo.
|
Posted By: Earendil
Date Posted: July 08 2011 at 16:23
| I immensely prefer that the "prog-related" requirements (and even crossover prog) are more open rather than restrictive. |
Posted By: Earendil
Date Posted: July 08 2011 at 16:25
I agree, but that is one of the purposes of prog-related. Bands who have greatly influenced prog artists.
|
Posted By: KarmaMan
Date Posted: July 08 2011 at 17:52
I look forward (do I?) to Dylans inclusion.
|
Posted By: Earendil
Date Posted: July 09 2011 at 00:52
I think that there would be mutiny if he was included
|
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: July 09 2011 at 04:44
| Dylan was suggested already, the answer was "nay". |
Posted By: KarmaMan
Date Posted: July 09 2011 at 05:03
The team obviously realise there's a problem when inclusions are on hold and they declare they won't remove an Artist once included (the implication being that some acts shouldn't really be here). Some accuse others of entertaining too narrow an idea of what progressive means. I know there are many here see who 'prog' as a particular style of music, born in a particular era - they don't actually mean progressive at all. Many prog acts are actually regressive. Dylan in the mid 60's was wholly progressive, but obviously not 'prog'. See what a mess it can all become.
Anyway like I said, boot all the non-'prog' stuff then add certain albums - you know it makes sense.
|
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: July 09 2011 at 06:10
| ^^^ That is more to do with the misleading nature of the label. Progressive is just too qualitative a word to give the right impression about the music it refers to. I think art rock is a much better word...of course, it is much wider in its scope but I don't really see the problem with that. I don't see why Gentle Giant and Queen cannot both be on the same database, one being more complex and sophisticated than the other doesn't necessarily make it a wholly different type of music. But we are not dealing in semantics here but realities. The reality is that the label progressive has stuck and been widely misused and it's here to stay, for better or worse. |
Posted By: KarmaMan
Date Posted: July 09 2011 at 06:52
I'll check that out, if it's still available.
|
Posted By: KarmaMan
Date Posted: July 09 2011 at 08:03
As I suspected, given the Artists already included, the naysayers utterly failed to give compelling reasons for Dylans exclusion.
So it's a legacy thing, mistakes that the team won't erase but don't wish to compound.
Anyway. Thanks for the replies.
|
Posted By: dreadpirateroberts
Date Posted: July 09 2011 at 09:24
I'm interested to hear what reasons you see for including Bob, yourself. And I thought Ivan had some good points, so 'utterly failed' might be a bit much. ------------- We are men of action. Lies do not become us. http://www.jazzmusicarchives.com/" rel="nofollow - JazzMusicArchives. |
Posted By: avantgrind
Date Posted: July 12 2011 at 09:01
|
the hordes of scenester bands
-------------
|
Posted By: ghost_of_morphy
Date Posted: July 15 2011 at 14:48
------------- 
|
Posted By: The Truth
Date Posted: July 15 2011 at 15:11
|
I started the Dylan suggestion and while I still consider the meat of his work proto-prog I can understand his exclusion from the site. He undoubtedly influenced the prog rock scene but his influence is so deep it'd be like including classical composers as well.
------------- http://blindpoetrecords.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow">  
|
Posted By: avantgrind
Date Posted: July 15 2011 at 15:14
 -------------
|