Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: March 08 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2755
Topic: Boston??? Posted: November 11 2007 at 13:50
Every once in a great while I think of a band that I just assume is included here only to find out that they are not. In the past, those bands have included:
The Who (later included as proto-prog)
Todd Rundgren (not included, but apparently could be if somebody was willing to step up and do a bit of work on it.)
So today I noticed that Boston isn't on here.
Ok, I'm not claiming that they are symphonic prog or anything. If they were eventually included I think that prog related (or just maybe crossover prog) would be their home.
I'd base their inclusion on the strength of their first two albums (especially the second one.)
Boston has claimed that they were striving for a sound that mixed the styles of Yes and Led Zeppelin. I doubt that you could conclude that they were entirely successful in this, but for those of you who can remember back that far, the Boston sound was extremely innovative at the time and aped a few laters by countless bands (including other prog related bands listed here, most notably Asia.)
So would you think that they deserving of inclusion as prog related?
Joined: July 29 2005
Location: None
Status: Offline
Points: 24429
Posted: November 11 2007 at 13:57
Boston have been suggested various times, but people don't seem to agree about their inclusion. Remember that here we have to add a band's whole discography, and that would include "More Than a Feeling" too. However, you do have a point, and a strong one... If the Admins are listening, they might discuss the inclusion of the band in Prog-Related. As to Xover, I am not sure the team would agree.
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: February 21 2004
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 15585
Posted: November 11 2007 at 15:55
Personally, I'd favour them (strange that until I voted there were no Yes votes). I believe a number of their tracks and albums have a relationship with Prog. "Third stage" for example is a complete concept album with some well structured songs.
The problem with this sort of poll is that even though they are being proposed for prog related, many will vote NO on the basis they are not prog.
With my Admin team hat on, just to clarify the Admin team don't instigate additions to Prog related, we provide decisions when someone comes to us with a definite proposal to add a band.
Joined: January 29 2007
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 1264
Posted: November 11 2007 at 16:07
That thing of the majority's disagreement when it comes to add a band is a known issue, isn't it? And Ghost Rider said: Remember that here we have to add a band's whole discography, and that would include "More Than a Feeling" too. And when they added Radiohead, didn't they think that implied to add "Creep" also? So, that's definately not the point.
As for their progressiveness........ I'd give 'em a chance in prog-related, since that "sub-genre" isn't prog but has some influences (as far as I'm concerned). "Foreplay" is an excellent hard prog tune IMO..... then, is that enough to include them? The answer isn't mine,,,, it's for the teams who are on that.
Joined: October 01 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 545
Posted: November 11 2007 at 16:11
I say No. Once Boston are In, that will open the door for the likes of Journey, Toto and Phil Collins, which will lead to the likes of Chris DeBurgh and Barry White. Before you know it we will be crawling around on our hands and knees flinging our own s**t at our PC monitors.
Would you like to watch TV, or get between the sheets, or contemplate the silent freeway, would you like something to eat?
Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
Posted: November 11 2007 at 16:16
cynthiasmallet wrote:
I say No. Once Boston are In, that will open the door for the likes of Journey, Toto and Phil Collins, which will lead to the likes of Chris DeBurgh and Barry White. Before you know it we will be crawling around on our hands and knees flinging our own s**t at our PC monitors.
That was priceless!
Actually, of that list, I would say De Burgh belongs there more than any of the others. His early stuff was downright proggy in many ways, even now he manages to throw out the occasional proggy gem.
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Online
Points: 35871
Posted: November 11 2007 at 16:32
I think that Boston would fit PR well, but am inclined to vote no as I tend to think that if a band ain't Prog enough to be seriously considered for a real Prog category, then it ain't proggy enough for this site. And I can't think of Boston as more than Prog-Related (even if I consider it to be definitely suitable for Prog Related due to some albums/ songs) unlike some bands in PR which I consider to have true Prog albums and some which are borderline Prog/Prog Related cases (which may fit Crossover, or may be considered for "stronger" Prog categories -- sorry can't think of a better way to put it now).
Joined: October 01 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 545
Posted: November 11 2007 at 18:49
Having listened more closely to their works, i retract the s**t flinging comment from earlier this evening. However, I still don't think that they are proggy enough.
Would you like to watch TV, or get between the sheets, or contemplate the silent freeway, would you like something to eat?
Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
Posted: November 11 2007 at 18:54
cynthiasmallet wrote:
Having listened more closely to their works, i retract the s**t flinging comment from earlier this evening. However, I still don't think that they are proggy enough.
Oh but that was the best post in this thread so far. You can't retract.
I've never been much of a Boston fan, but at the same time, can see that they took a lot of their influence from some of the heavier prog bands, so prog-related is probably a good place for them. They are definitely not prog though, xover or otherwise.
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46833
Posted: November 11 2007 at 18:58
The Doctor wrote:
I've never been much of a Boston fan, but at the same time, can
see that they took a lot of their influence from some of the heavier
prog bands, so prog-related is probably a good place for them.
They are definitely not prog though, xover or otherwise.
exactly .. though there will still be people that say they should be here because they aren't prog
If they don't want these bands suggested.. they should have the damn
Prog RELATED category.. but since they do... they should be
there.
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
Posted: November 11 2007 at 19:04
Easy Livin wrote:
The problem with this sort of poll is that even though they are being proposed for prog related, many will vote NO on the basis they are not prog.
Not accurate Bob, it has been done before
Poll Question: Boston are they prog related and should they be added ?
Poll Choice
Votes
Poll Statistics
11
[26.83%]
30
[73.17%]
The question here is clear it's askd if they are PROG RELATED, and 73% of the members voted NO. please Bob, we know how to read, i don't believe they are related in no way with Prog.
I believe the opinion of the members is clear,. Boston is no}tven Prog Related, the polls are clearly written, they mention Prog related, nopt Prog, so why must we assume people don't know what they are voting for?
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - November 11 2007 at 21:55
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46833
Posted: November 11 2007 at 19:14
^ it's a good thing then we still have members here ...and an admin
team that actually evaluate groups fairly without just hearing a name
and a label and voting based on that hahahhah. How many groups
have failed such polls Ivan.. only to be voted in by a panel of
objective people... the admins. Those polls are worthless ...
always have been. We had people that wanted ELO not in PA's at
all... why... because they thought of the group as a disco group.
Enough said on the polls. Obviously the admins have never put
this up to a vote. They should.. if only to have the definitive
word on this.. so they aren't suggested yet again.
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
Joined: February 24 2006
Location: Elkhorn, WI
Status: Offline
Points: 7910
Posted: November 11 2007 at 19:23
I fear we would be loosening it up a little too much if we allow Boston in. Personally, I like the band, but just because they have a big sound doesn't really make them prog.
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46833
Posted: November 11 2007 at 19:29
E-Dub wrote:
I fear we would be loosening it up a little too much if we
allow Boston in. Personally, I like the band, but just because they
have a big sound doesn't really make them prog.
I voted no.
E
that door has been flung wide open Eric... lets face it....
PR additions are 'if x then y'.. because they are not .. and can not be
judged individually. Simply because you are not talking about
adding a group IF they prog.. or rejecting a band because they are not
prog. That is black and white has has nothing to do with any
other group. PR is different... you are talking shades of
prog.. and once the benchmark is established.. especially with well
known groups... you either appear to be playing favorites.. or
just doing a shoddy job if you pick and choose who is added or
not. You have to ask... is Boston as Prog Related as some
addtions ...if they are ...they should be here.. simple as that. IF not.. they shouldn't be.
For what it's worth.. there were those who warned about the door being
thrown open.. but the site is to be inclusive.. so that is what we have
here.
Edited by micky - November 11 2007 at 19:30
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
Joined: January 29 2007
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 1264
Posted: November 11 2007 at 19:54
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
They are the icons of AOR, that disqualifies them, it's just better POP than the average but nothing more, no way they should be added.
Iván
That label of AOR is such a nonsense when it comes to add a band like Boston; they were responsible to resurface Classic Rock...... yep, classic rock more than "Pop" they are certainly (oh, neo-classic rock if you wish ).
So I'd dare to say Boston is progger than Deep Purple, for example.... but only due to their protagonism on AOR scene, they shouldn't be added?
I'm not promoting their addition; I don't even care about it..... I just love them. But there are points beyond their addition that need to be discussed IMO.
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
Posted: November 11 2007 at 20:23
sircosick wrote:
Thanks for the arguments Sircosick.
That label of AOR is such a nonsense when it comes to add a band like Boston; they were responsible to resurface Classic Rock...... yep, classic rock more than "Pop" they are certainly (oh, neo-classic rock if you wish ).
This is not a CLASSIC ROCK site, this is a PROGRESSIVE ROCK site.
And BTW: AOR sound of the late 70's is not a nonsense, it'ts Rock blended with POP, they are not or never were a Classic Rock band,. they are an AOR band.
But forget the AOR label if you want, your words clearly state that Boston is a Rock band, not a Proggressive Rock band, if you want more, let them be a Classic Rock band....We shouldn't add all Classic Rock bands, if not, why is not here Bruce Springsteen,
This is a Prog site and should be kept in the possible like that, Boston influenced nobody in Prog, and of they ever did it was less than evicent.
So I'd dare to say Boston is progger than Deep Purple, for example.... but only due to their protagonism on AOR scene, they shouldn't be added?
That's your opinion, but 73% of the members in annother poll fpr rog Related specifically.
Poll Question: Boston are they prog related and should they be added ?
Poll Choice
Votes
Poll Statistics
11
[26.83%]
30
[73.17%]
And with the time, the percentage against their inclusion is similar but higher:
Poll Question: Should Boston be given a spot in prog related?
Poll Choice
Votes
Poll Statistics
4
[22.22%]
14
[77.78%]
So after some time, a higher perecentage of members (almost 8 of each 10) is against their inclusion in Prog Related, asked specifically, not Prog, nothing ambiguous, the question is clear and Prog Related is clearly mentioned, so no confusion can be argued.
I'm not promoting their addition; I don't even care about it..... I just love them. But there are points beyond their addition that need to be discussed IMO.
Again, even if they are a Classic Rock band, they shouldn't be here, this is not a Classic Rock site, and despite what Mickly said, the Adms have stated that the "if X why not Y" argument is flawed.
Iván
BTW: Micky, the labels are not stupid, they describe characteristics, due to your long fight, you managed to add three new labels (Crossover, Eclectic and Heavy Prog) that didn't existed before.
Boston is AOR and/or Arena Rock THAT'S A FACT, nothing more, nothing less, no relation with Prog...What would come next...Europe?
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - November 11 2007 at 22:01
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.355 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Boston???
Topic Options
cynthiasmallet wrote:
That was priceless!
[26.83%]
