| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
DavidInsabella 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 26 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 317
|
 Posted: August 03 2005 at 11:11 |
 Sean Trane wrote:
Sabbath never allowing music to progress...... outside of metal . Listen to their debut and Paranoid and tell me that again.......
|
Gladly. I find Black Sabbath to be one of the most overrated rock groups of all time.
Anyway, I had a thought, even if there was a proto prog section, Court of the Crimson King was released in the same year as Zeppelin's first album, and a year before Sabbath's. This means that not only did these two begin after prog had already begun, but they also failed to progress beyond King Crimson and Gentle Giant (just to name a couple) who were already there.
Proto punk is a category for VU and The Stooges and so on, bands that were around before punk that inspired it. Well how could these two be concidered proto prog if they were neither around before, nor very influential to the first waves of prog?
|
Life seemed to him merely like a gallery of how to be.
|
 |
Sean Trane
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk
Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Online
Points: 20251
|
Posted: August 03 2005 at 10:42 |
Pardon me!
Sabbath never allowing music to progress...... outside of metal. Listen to their debut and Paranoid and tell me that again.......
Zep is harder to put in prog but No Quarter , Kashmir , Achille's Last Stand , Song Remains The Same and a few more.
Purple's first three albums are the typical albums that would fit perfectly in the proto-prog genre. This could also include the awful Concerto album, and go up to the end of Mk II line-up.
Agreed all three are barely prog but they were essential side-partner to prog rock.
To add them in the PA may be a bit too much. I think a side drawer with them (and Uriah Heep - they were not any more prog than the afore-mentinned three) and another drawer for Queen , Roxy Music and 10 CC as side issues.
But I do support the proto-prog thing, though! Proto-prog is an accepted term for pre ITCOTCK prog. It would include most psych-prog of the late 60's and some more obscure early 70's prog such as Gracious , Indian Summer etc.... Hell should the Beatles ever be included it should be in Proto Prog.
But I do not believe every albums of the groups in those three drawers should be shown or even less reviewed - not much point to showing Please Meet The Beatles, uh? Start with Rubber Soul. For Sabbath , stop at Sabotage . Purple ? at the end of Mk II. Queen: stop at Jazz
For those groups we could find someone to write a text , discuss the albums show a few covers etc..... but simply not accessible to reviewing , rating. Just an editorial thing!
|
|
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
|
|
DavidInsabella
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 26 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 317
|
Posted: August 03 2005 at 10:25 |
Gorloche wrote:
This is music, this is organic. It is a spectrum, then a wheel, then a web, going from most simple to most complex. |
Simplicity and complexity are some of the least important factors.
|
Life seemed to him merely like a gallery of how to be.
|
|
Fitzcarraldo
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 30 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1835
|
Posted: August 03 2005 at 10:19 |
Bilek wrote:
nothing wrong with "proto-prog" or "prog-related" section IMHO, this way we can see which bands influenced the development of rock music, and their relations with the prog bands of their time. For instance, the very disdained Black Sabbath featured Master Wakeman in their Bloody Sabbath album, which, along with Vol 4, Sabotage etc. is one of the "forefathers" of prog-metal genre... Not to mention the Sabbath-Zeppelin influence over many prog-metal bands. (DT covered some Zeppelin tracks every now and then)
I believe "prog related" section should be (if it should) a distinctly seperate section, for instance, where everyone cannot review the albums, or if they could, the reviews wouldn't appear on the home page. It is also important to have their "prog related" albums only, in case Beatles was included in such sub-section (and it definitely needs to be included btw), their albums from "please please me" up to (and including or excluding)"help" would make no sense to the progger (though several beatles pieces from this period was covered by many prog bands every now and then!)... BUT; "Rubber Soul" is a turning point, which IMHO every progger (except prog-metalheads: they are a different story ) should have an idea about. Not to mention the groundbreaking Sgt. Pepper album.
lastly: kicking bands out of the site will do no good, I think you will end up blotting out Genesis one day!
|
A very reasoned post, if I may say so.
|
|
chopper
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 13 2005
Location: Essex, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 20030
|
Posted: August 03 2005 at 08:24 |
I agree with maani. There are no "rules" about which band is prog and which isn't and we can argue this until the bovines return to their domiciles.
To avoid this site becoming too large (and too much work for the people who run it), new additions should be discussed by the collaborators and only added on a majority vote.
|
|
Bilek
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: July 05 2005
Location: Turkey
Status: Offline
Points: 1484
|
Posted: August 03 2005 at 07:54 |
nothing wrong with "proto-prog" or "prog-related" section IMHO, this way we can see which bands influenced the development of rock music, and their relations with the prog bands of their time. For instance, the very disdained Black Sabbath featured Master Wakeman in their Bloody Sabbath album, which, along with Vol 4, Sabotage etc. is one of the "forefathers" of prog-metal genre... Not to mention the Sabbath-Zeppelin influence over many prog-metal bands. (DT covered some Zeppelin tracks every now and then)
I believe "prog related" section should be (if it should) a distinctly seperate section, for instance, where everyone cannot review the albums, or if they could, the reviews wouldn't appear on the home page. It is also important to have their "prog related" albums only, in case Beatles was included in such sub-section (and it definitely needs to be included btw), their albums from "please please me" up to (and including or excluding)"help" would make no sense to the progger (though several beatles pieces from this period was covered by many prog bands every now and then!)... BUT; "Rubber Soul" is a turning point, which IMHO every progger (except prog-metalheads: they are a different story) should have an idea about. Not to mention the groundbreaking Sgt. Pepper album.
lastly: kicking bands out of the site will do no good, I think you will end up blotting out Genesis one day!
|
|
Listen to Turkish psych/prog; you won't regret:
Baris Manco,Erkin Koray,Cem Karaca,Mogollar,3 Hürel,Selda,Edip Akbayram,Fikret Kizilok,Ersen (and Dadaslar) (but stick with the '70's, and 'early 80's!)
|
|
Dragon Phoenix
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 31 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 1475
|
Posted: August 03 2005 at 07:54 |
maani wrote:
With over 8,500 titles by over 1,700 bands, this site can hardly be considered "exclusive." Yet it has always been regarded as the most "prog" of prog sites for the very reason that it has - until recently - refused to include groups simply because (i) many other sites include them, or (ii) a few zealots batter down the doors to get them in. The minute the site started permitting every Tom, Dick and Harry to add bands and albums, situations like the one with Queen were inevitable.
Max and Rony need to act quickly to reverse this process - including putting all current member-added groups on hold - and go back to the original process, which was either (i) Max and Rony making the decisions in their sole discretion, or (ii) having all potential new bands discussed by the collaborators group and seeing what the consensus was, and making the decision based on that.
End of story.
|
I second the 
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21206
|
Posted: August 03 2005 at 07:51 |
TheProgtologist wrote:
I'm still trying to get over the statement that Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath did nothing for the progression of music.They are as influential to the progression of rock as The Beatles,The Stones,The Who,Hendrix,etc. |
That statement is wrong - but that doesn't mean that it makes sense to include them as prog bands. Even if there were a sub-genre "proto-prog", and another one for bands like Queen ("progressive-pop"), it would still be hard to separate the reviews and ratings. Those bands would be labeled "non-prog" or "not-quite-prog-but-still" or whatever, but they would still mix with the other bands. And if - for example - Led Zeppelin IV was added, it would get very high ratings, and enter the top 100 list, and THAT would cause damage to the reputation of this website. Although people tend to overrate the importance of that list, it does say something about the nature of this website AND it's visitors.
|
|
|
|
Dick Heath
Special Collaborator
Jazz-Rock Specialist
Joined: April 19 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 12813
|
Posted: August 03 2005 at 07:02 |
maani wrote:
The minute the site started permitting every Tom, Dick and Harry to add bands and albums, situations like the one with Queen were inevitable. |
You getting at me??????????????????
|
|
Minstrel X
Forum Groupie
Joined: July 23 2004
Location: Mexico
Status: Offline
Points: 54
|
Posted: August 02 2005 at 22:11 |
Gorloche wrote:
. If the Spice Girls suddenly started to create complicated tritonal musical harmonies on top of avant-jazz music but dealt with the same lyrical content, they would be prog.
|
That made me think, are there lyrical boundaries in Prog??
|
|
Minstrel X: Burning down the gallery
|
|
Guests
Forum Guest Group
|
Posted: August 02 2005 at 22:00 |
Gorloche wrote:
To be completely honest, there is no line seperating Yes from Spice Girls.
|
I try to find an "emotion", fitting this comment, but find it impossible
|
|
Guests
Forum Guest Group
|
Posted: August 02 2005 at 21:58 |
Led Zeppelin did more to the progres of rock, then most bands 
|
|
Gorloche
Forum Newbie
Joined: July 30 2005
Location: Virginia, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 34
|
Posted: August 02 2005 at 21:55 |
|
To be completely honest, there is no line seperating Yes from Spice
Girls. This is music, this is organic. It is a spectrum, then a wheel,
then a web, going from most simple to most complex. They are very far
apart, but there is no line seperating them. If the Spice Girls
suddenly started to create complicated tritonal musical harmonies on
top of avant-jazz music but dealt with the same lyrical content, they
would be prog. Upon reading that, it seems as though they are far away.
But, in all fairness, they are great vocalists and do have complicated
tritonal harmonies with each other. It jsut becomes an issue then with
the background music, and that is entirely based on producer discretion.
Do not take that as me saying that I like them, for that is not so.
|
|
DavidInsabella
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 26 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 317
|
Posted: August 02 2005 at 21:28 |
maani wrote:
With over 8,500 titles by over 1,700 bands, this site can hardly be considered "exclusive." Yet it has always been regarded as the most "prog" of prog sites for the very reason that it has - until recently - refused to include groups simply because (i) many other sites include them, or (ii) a few zealots batter down the doors to get them in. The minute the site started permitting every Tom, Dick and Harry to add bands and albums, situations like the one with Queen were inevitable.
Max and Rony need to act quickly to reverse this process - including putting all current member-added groups on hold - and go back to the original process, which was either (i) Max and Rony making the decisions in their sole discretion, or (ii) having all potential new bands discussed by the collaborators group and seeing what the consensus was, and making the decision based on that.
End of story. |
|
Life seemed to him merely like a gallery of how to be.
|
|
maani
Special Collaborator
Founding Moderator
Joined: January 30 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2632
|
Posted: August 02 2005 at 21:22 |
With over 8,500 titles by over 1,700 bands, this site can hardly be considered "exclusive." Yet it has always been regarded as the most "prog" of prog sites for the very reason that it has - until recently - refused to include groups simply because (i) many other sites include them, or (ii) a few zealots batter down the doors to get them in. The minute the site started permitting every Tom, Dick and Harry to add bands and albums, situations like the one with Queen were inevitable.
Max and Rony need to act quickly to reverse this process - including putting all current member-added groups on hold - and go back to the original process, which was either (i) Max and Rony making the decisions in their sole discretion, or (ii) having all potential new bands discussed by the collaborators group and seeing what the consensus was, and making the decision based on that.
End of story.
|
|
AtomHeartMother
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 18 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 229
|
Posted: August 02 2005 at 21:11 |
el böthy wrote:
how can you break ground if you limit prog to "shoulds"?
|
Because there must be a line somewhere to seperate Yes from the Spice Girls. If there were not defining point to decide what is and what isn't prog then anything could technically be added here and many members here, including me, would feel offended if somone who is clearly not prog were added to this site that is supposed to get us away from the mainstream music. Many people here are offended with Queen,
and from what I've heard about how they should not be here, I am totally confused about how they did get here in the first place and why they still are here, there are more people here saying they should go than saying they should stay. We must decide what to do with bands like Queen who don't belong here but don't count as mainstream.
I think only bands that everyone can agree is prog should be here, if the majority think they should not be here, then it will serve them better to not be here because they will please more people, and the ones who do want Queen here are the minority IMO.
If you remove Queen you will get much more satisfaction and if you only add what about 90% of us can agree is prog, then that also will be better for everyone.
I say there should be a poll to see if they stay or not, if they are voted to go then they should be taken to a sub-section of the archives, not neccessarily gone for good, but off this part of the archives atleast, it seems most of us can agree with that, that they should not be on this part.
Edited by AtomHeartMother
|
|
|
|
el böthy
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 27 2005
Location: Argentina
Status: Offline
Points: 6336
|
Posted: August 02 2005 at 20:36 |
Too say what prog rock is or should be is very stupid...I think this music cant be discrived easy...its actually pretty hard !!! So, why say how prog shoul be...One of the elements that make prog what it is is to NOT do what the rest does...to break new ground...how can you break ground if you limit prog to "shoulds"?
Still...Queen should not be here!!!!
|
|
DavidInsabella
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 26 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 317
|
Posted: August 02 2005 at 20:27 |
Gorloche wrote:
The idea with the proto-prog section in my eyes is not to show which bands are or are not prog but instead act to serve as a leaping stone to introduce people into prog. If people stumble upon this site with no idea of what prog is, it amy be overwhelming. However, if they see that bands they like influenced or were influenced by prog, they may be more likely to stop and take a listen. It's not about us. It's about preserving prog for posterity. |
Then would it be effective to explain that those bands influenced or were influenced by prog in the "What is prog" part of the site? I mean, someone new to prog would most likely go there anyway.
|
Life seemed to him merely like a gallery of how to be.
|
|
Gorloche
Forum Newbie
Joined: July 30 2005
Location: Virginia, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 34
|
Posted: August 02 2005 at 20:25 |
|
The idea with the proto-prog section in my eyes is not to show which
bands are or are not prog but instead act to serve as a leaping stone
to introduce people into prog. If people stumble upon this site with no
idea of what prog is, it amy be overwhelming. However, if they see that
bands they like influenced or were influenced by prog, they may be more
likely to stop and take a listen. It's not about us. It's about
preserving prog for posterity.
|
|
DavidInsabella
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 26 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 317
|
Posted: August 02 2005 at 20:22 |
|
Sure, they're responsible for setting new styles in popular music to come, but that's not what progressive rock is.
|
Life seemed to him merely like a gallery of how to be.
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
A "proto-prog" section seems pointless.
