A question about prog-related

Vompatti wrote: Quinino wrote: SteveG wrote: One word: Sussudio. A brilliant pop song, and actually quite complex underneath when you really listen to it, that bass line alone is worthy of the eclectic crossover prog label.

It's not prog or prog related or even good. Good night.

In the '70s almost every working musician was in some way connected to or related to prog.  

I think it would depend on the music. I know prog related refers to the artists in a big way, but if the music does not have any prog tendencies, then I would doubt calling it prog related.   

Prog-related can mean what Friede means, and it can refer to music itself which has a prog relation. It can also refer specifically to a "sub-genre" at Prog Archives. Prog can be in the ear of the be-hearer and so can Prog Related in the musical sense.

When I say or think prog-related, I'm not generally referring to the Prog-Related category in PA which operates under its own set of guidelines. To me it is about the music (synonyms might be quasi-prog, prog umbrella music, proggy music, "possibly prog", "prog to some"....). For instance, I consider Ennio Morricone to be a prog-related artist for lots of his 60s and 70s music (prog for some of it). As a modern one, I consider Matt Berry to be a prog-related artist for his music (prog for some of it). The Wicker Man soundtrack is prog folk related to me, Mandingo is JRF related to me etc.

In the Prog Related category, I think that there is a fair amount of Prog-proper music. Even without the reviews, I wouldn't want to see those gone. I wish we had focused more on albums rather than artists (instead of thinking of an act as prog, think of the music or an album as Prog, prog related, or neither) -- I'm not keen on the whole discography policy and that has meant that so-called prog albums are not represented in the database because of concerns about other albums by the artists).

With the PR category, the more of the PR criteria that an act ticks -- according to the category page -- the stronger the argument for inclusion and the more worthy of placement, but my bias tends to give the qualities of the music itself primary importance while also considering the other factors (if not rock, is it progressive music, and how does it relate to specific categories in PA? Can knowing the music give listeners a wider picture of the prog umbrella?)

I wish you guys would google progressive music and look up under Wikipedia...  Progressive music has various time signatures.  Not just one like pop music. 

A couple of things:

1) To get into prog related these days (and in the past 5 years or so) the artist needs to have influenced the prog scene on a large scale. Somehow put their mark on the genre yet without being fully fledged prog because....

2) Prog related is not prog.

3) The sub used to be a dumping ground for members' fave bands (and everyone could add bands as they saw fit) and indeed acts that sounded "sorta proggy". Which is THE main reasons we have so many 'is X band really prog?' or different varieties where everything gets mumbled up in these muddy and extremely complex discussion filled to the brim with 'if Tori Amos is here then why not Sade?'.

4) Solo Phil Collins is not in any way influential to any part of the prog scene as far as I know...which is why he isn't here.

5) Many of us, including myself, would prefer scrapping the whole sub and be done with it as it generally seems to yield more inane, often heated and frustrating genre bending discussions rather than pull people in from afar - sneakily getting them into pork via the backdoor. It doesn't really work that way though.
But erasing an entire sub also means deleting the many fine reviews it holds and that would be a real shame imo.


Edited by Guldbamsen - October 05 2017 at 12:08

Vompatti wrote: From the official definition: "3) Members of important progressive rock bands - Although most of the recorded solo output of artists like Greg Lake and David Gilmour falls more in a mainstream rock style, their contributions to progressive rock in their respective bands insures them a place in our prog-related genre." So why isn't Phil Collins here exactly?

Quinino wrote: SteveG wrote: One word: Sussudio.

BaldFriede wrote: Quinino wrote: ^ Good question, but I can't see how to exclude solo artists from this debate, it's all about the same global criteria and how it should be applied, no? There is a slight difference: You may have noted that I talked about line-up. A solo artist's line-up of an album does not necessarily consist mostly of prog musicians. And that's what the question is about.

OK, but on the other hand the driving force behind the solo album is the artist (composer/performer/producer?) member of the original prog band
So my argument stands - though I understand it was not your initial idea to be so comprehensive in your question

In the end what should count is the music but exceptions already exist and IMO rightly so - it's better to risk being over-inclusive than to exclude the borderline cases in the name of some "purity" conception.

Interestingly Japan are under prog-related, but Rain Tree Crow (exact same lineup, no more proggy) are under Crossover Prog, and I'm assuming both are here mostly because of a few of David Sylvian's solo albums.