Triumph?! Are you kidding me?!?

There was a short period of time,which ended about 3 months ago,when Max allowed anyone to add bands to the Archive.Triumph was,thankfully,probably the worst abuse of that system which has now been changed.

As it stands only Special Collaborators can add bands to the archive now.Whilst the system isnt fool-proof (there has been one addition recently that has caused consternation-ELO) Spec Collabs are required to consider a number of points:

1.If the band/artist has been in existence for a long time,why hasnt it already been included?
2.If the band/artist is very famous and familiar to our members,why hasn't it already been included?
3.Is there documentary evidence that the band has been linked to,influenced by or been considered an influence on, Prog Rock?
4.Do the band consider themselves to be Prog Rock?
5.Would there inclusion on the site cause surprise or uproar?

If there is any doubt then the inclusion should be referred to a relevant "genre specialist" that we have nominated in the Collabs Zone.Basically all "doubtfuls" should be vetted and agreed by a second party to prevent bad additions.

Hope this clarifies the situation.

Sean Trane wrote: It seems a lot of people are hung up on their later career which was not prog, but if you listen to their first three albums, there are a few prog tracks. Listen to Kohoutek (a 7 min affair divided in sub-sections ) . the next two or three albums were correct hard rock with the odd prog moments. Once they started doing MTV videos, they became..........;

I can make a couple of very minor tweaks to your comment, and now guess who you're describing ?  And they weren't quite as chauvinistic as Triumph either.

I guess this one just kind of annoys me because it smacks of revisionist history for those like me who remember Triumph "back in the day" and know what kind of a band they really were, and what kind of fan base they had - and it wasn't the same guys who bought Yes and Jethro Tull albums..

The Blinding Light show!

That was prog!

okay:

many bands have a few prog elements, and triumph, toto, gamma, simple minds,planet P project, the fixx, yanni, enya, iron maiden and art of noise  belong to this category.

the issue is to determine the point of entry in the prog related section...

have those bands a sufficient level of "progressiveness" to be included here? it is very hard to answer.

we definitely must proceed by comparison.

actually, everything is a matter of personal opinion.

for instance, i do not see why people find barclay james harvest so symphonic progressive: to me, it should go into the prog related section, in the best case. do not get me wrong: i like BJH!

i must admit triumph is REALLY borderline, REALLY!

and NO, triumph has NOTHING to do with rush: triumph has something to do with JOURNEY!

recall than many unexcptected bands can be VERY progressive, like April Wine with their JAW-DROPPING cover of Crimson' 21st century schizoid man, or the inpressive second part of shooting stars' last chance!

Edited by greenback

Yeah I'd say that Triumph are perhaps the one band here (though I also doubt ELO and Kate Bush but many do seem to back those two) that I think you're really pushing it to call them anything to do with prog. They made the odd track that verges upon it, but their albums are pretty basic heavy rock for the most part of what I've heard from them. Good band, but not a prog one imo.

I sugest to add the glorious Grand Funk Railroad to the prog-related category. They could mix the hard rock fury with prog sensibility (Closer to Home/I'm your captain, Loneliness).

Kidding. I'm a great hard rock fan, but this is a prog site, that atracts people interested in prog rock. Sometimes the visitor can have a wrong perception about the seriousness of PA when he saw Styx and Triumph in the band's list. Almost every rock band from the sixties/seventies can be listed as prog related.

I've got a great idea! How about some of the nay-sayers try listening to Triumph before blasting it. The whole second side of Thunder Seven , thinking back to my cassette days, deserves some prog consideration. They are not prog per say but I also think that what is prog is in the eye of the beholder.

Tony R wrote: TheProgtologist wrote: bluetailfly wrote: TheProgtologist wrote: Triumph......the BS just doesn't stop piling up. This proto prog/prog related classification is a load of crap.Almost any band could be added under prog related.I think it is watering down the best prog rock resource on the net,and don't really like it. Whoa, dude, you don't have to sugar-coat it. Just tell us what you really think... And I was holding back........ If sopmeone's searching for Triumph on a search engine and is lead to their page on Prog Archives and is told;"If you like Triumph you might also like to try Rush and Dream Theater" then surely we have achieved something!

Your intentions are good, but really, how many people do you think are going to be searching for Triumph? It would make sense to add more current bands that people might actually be looking for rather than this kind of thing. What about Coheed and Cambria, for example? I don't like them, but their inclusion would no doubt bring a ton of people to the site and introduce them to prog, but for some reason Triumph has been added instead. It doesn't make any sense to me...

This was on a different thread, but I see now that it belongs here (edited somewhat):

ClemofNazareth Senior Member Joined: August 17 2005 Location: United States Online Status: Online Posts: 341

Posted: January 07 2006 at 07:38 | IP Logged Tony R wrote: ClemofNazareth wrote: I personally would be willing to trade Triumph's spot for Rainbow. I'd trade Triumph's spot for Abba,and I used to like Triumph..... Don't start me on about Triumph being on the archive.... Rainbow should be here under Prog-Related.Not sure they've anything to do with Prog-Metal,except maybe thematically. Here's a few more Triumph gems that clearly make the case for their presence here <not!>.  These guys are nothing more than walking hard-ons, as near as I can tell.  And most of these lines wouldn't even work in a singles bar... "When you turn on your love light you burn me, but it's alright 'cause I'm hooked on you." "Are we victims of circumstance when our destinies collide?" "The shivers in your fingers tell no lies, I know I drive you crazy" "I can't keep givin' you it all, not if you're gonna' tease me" "I've always wondered what it would be like, just you and me baby" "Take me, I'm yours for just one night" "Let me come and lay down beside you, open up your heart" "If only everybody wished the same things that I do, there would be hope for me and you" "I know how to treat a lady who knows how to treat her man" ""Don't hold me up girl, don't waste my precious time - won't you lay it on the line"

Triumph is not as bad as most of you make it to be8

They were quite inventive for a while (until allied forces ) and have a few prog tracks most notably the three part The City. But I was a little taken aback at first about their inclusion, but seeing some completely absurd inclusions of late , Triumph has a case.

I mean Legendary Pink dot , Super Furry animals , Mercury Rev...............

But let's play it inclusive than exclusive! They are in to entice eventual Triumph fans to take notice of prog!