A "proto-prog" section seems pointless.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: DavidInsabella wrote: Why add groups such as Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath who did nothing for the progression of music. Led Zeppelin was just a blues influenced band and although Black Sabbath were influential to heavy metal, they did next to nothing in terms of innovative playing. And Queen in this category makes no sence at all since they were around after the prog movement began. If we start a "proto-prog" section and add all of these groups to the site, what's to stop us from adding Elvis Presley, Buddy Holly, Roy Orbison and so on, then looking back even further to thier influences. Stop taking artists you think are good and finding some loophole into classifying them as prog! Soon prog could be concidered such a broad term that it would be almost impossible not to concider any band with even the slightest unique touch part of the genre. Common sense can stop us - and will. Adding a band that is slightly less prog than other bands which are currently listed doesn't mean that other slightly less progressive bands can now included.

Yes, but on another thread there was a suggestion to add a subgenre to the site called "proto prog," and include artists like Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath who had some hand in inspiring what would become progressive rock. I wrote this thread opposing that because I think it's foolish.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: In case of Queen, it's not a question of them being slightly more or less progressive than other bands. Some people think they are progressive (and that Queen II is a prog masterpiece), some others think that they are not prog at all and that Queen II is just a good album. Adding Queen has no implications on other bands anyway, because Queen are not comparable to any other band out there ... only if you take away the elements that cause them to be considered prog by some people.

Yes, but on the same thread it was suggested that Queen be included in the proto prog category, which wouldn't make much sence at all.

Why add groups such as Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath who did nothing for the progression of music. Led Zeppelin was just a blues influenced band and although Black Sabbath were influential to heavy metal, they did next to nothing in terms of innovative playing. And Queen in this category makes no sence at all since they were around after the prog movement began.

If we start a "proto-prog" section and add all of these groups to the site, what's to stop us from adding Elvis Presley, Buddy Holly, Roy Orbison and so on, then looking back even further to thier influences.

Stop taking artists you think are good and finding some loophole into classifying them as prog! Soon prog could be concidered such a broad term that it would be almost impossible not to concider any band with even the slightest unique touch part of the genre.