Triumph?! Are you kidding me?!?

freebird wrote: I would think B.O.C. would be a better addition to Prog related.

freebird wrote: Tony R wrote: Useful_Idiot wrote: I suppose the fact that they pretty much sound exactly like Rush was enough to get them a nod under prog related.  I wouldn't have supported it either had it been my decision, but oh well. Retrovertigo added them as Art Rock,someone changed them to Prog-Related.() So,they only qualify as prog-related.They arent Prog and we arent saying they are.Prog-related why not? If it draws non-prog initiates to the forum it's a good thing isnt it? Triumph to Dream Theater to Porcupine Tree to Pink Floyd. Three simple steps and another Classic Prog Band gets new fans.....   UI,apart from the odd very early track-Blinding Light Show-musically they are nothing like Rush.       Triumph does seem a little bit of a stretch....  I would think B.O.C. would be a better addition to Prog related.

Let's just say that they slipped in under the net...

Edited by Tony R

Triumph's not prog, just a great hard rock trio. Everything they did up through Thunder Seven is good...IF you're into hard rock. Otherwise, don't worry about 'em.

 

surfdaddy wrote: Add: Twisted Sister, Scorpions, and Poison while youre at it.

and delete all references to surfing....?

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........ Ok,Ok.......... so tell me: how do we undo 25 years of damage where Prog Rock was pushed to the wastelends and isolated from public perception by the Media? Do you believe that Prog Rock's heritage will just endure without any tinkering? Prog-Related is just an advertising tool-a way of drawing "potential" Prog Rock fans who have not been exposed to our genre.Serously,you dont think that someone who lands on our front page and sees reviews for Rush and Yes is going to know that certain other bands he likes could be a stepping-stone to liking these bands? 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! If a miracle happened and Yes apppeared on the front cover of Rolling Stone,we would be punching the air in delight,surely.We wouldnt accuse Yes (or Prog Rock) of selling out-we would consider the implications.

This is true. When I first ended up on this site, I did a search for Zeppelin, and didn't find them. "What bullsh*t" I thought and clicked the little x.

Tony R wrote: Triumph's Prog(-Related) "epic" "The Blinding Light Show" is now available on the Streaming Media Player on their band page: http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive_rock_discography_BAN D.asp?band_id=2023 Give it a listen and you will see why they have been included..... ..........."Just A Game" is available too as well as "Ordinary Man" these two tracks point to the opposite point of view,,,,

Tony, ever the diplomat, and I respect that.  I listened to "The Blinding Light Show", and it does indeed showcase some of the better traits of Triumph's music, namely the excellent guitar work and solid drums.  But this was one track off their first album more than thirty years ago, and they have done so much since then to cancel its effects.

And honestly, that song is not "why they have been included".  In fact, I believe your earlier explanations included -

"I do believe the inclusion of Triumph as Art Rock was very silly,though.I'm not even sure they should have been added as prog-related,they're more Van Halen than Rush.There appears to be nothing I can do about this now,but hopefully this is a blip."

and

"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."

So, unless convinced otherwise, I will continue my (admittedly passive) attempts to have them removed.

All in good humor though. 

Triumph was a great hard rock band; best albums are Rock 'n' Roll Machine, Just A Game, Allied Forces, Never Surrender and Thunder Seven, which did have a few songs tied thematically together (I just had to put that in there for all the Triumph haters, haha). No, Triumph wasn't a prog band; Triumph was a hard rock trio that took its cues from Dust, Trapeze and other bands that came before them. RELAX, people! And why not pick up the great Live At The US Fest DVD, so you can experience just what a talent the band had in Rik Emmett, vocally and especially on electric lead guitar. He's a lefty who learned to play right, IYKWIM; he's up there with EVH, Blackmore, Page and all those guys. A little respect may be due.  

Putting on my asbestos suit...

Yeah, putting Triumph on a prog. rock site is ridiculous, and rather funny too.  Hey, they ain't prog. rock.

FILE UNDER "HARD ROCK / POWER-POP"

Well... I used to like some (few) Triumph's albums... I never considered them neither prog, proto-prog, near-prog... nor whatever. But, I see similarities between (some) Triumph music and Rush music... in the sense that both of them took elements from Led Zeppelin... THAT is all. So, if there are some similarities in their music to a progressive group, do we have to consider them as any prog or proto-prog... (or whatever) and... do they deserve to be be added in this site?. I think NOT. Don't get me wrong, I used to "like" Triumph... and consider their music "entertaining", direct, and funny... but, but... I think they do not have enough elements to be called "progressive" or near it... because they were not even a group which push the boundaries of music to anywhere, and they did not explore and experiment... or even join some element to be called prog... They just laid on Rush's and Led Zeppelin's arguments and stay in that confortable place without going beyond anywhere.

I know it's difficult to stand what may be prog-related or not, based on one or two songs (lperhaps I went too far)... I say so because... I see some Progressive elements in Triumph music, but are they enough to be called a "prog-related" band?. Besides, I don't see the point of naming lots of bands as "prog-related". Doing so, I think we are going nowhere.

Edited by Crimsoner

Tony R wrote: 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.

Tony,

I do understand your points, which to be fair you made right up front back when this thread begain.  I'm content in the simple acknowledgement that the admission of Triumph was "the worst abuse of that system" .