Most contested inclusion in ProgArchives

WaywardSon wrote: I agree with The Progtologist on this. I would also go as far as to suggest Malmsteen in Prog Related (Just for his output in the early ´80s)

Heavyfreight wrote: There are many bands discussed here that are nothing to do with prog in my opinion but I won't lose any sleep over them.    I guess that there are many younger music enthusiasts who, whilst they enjoy what I and many of my age would call real prog (Yes, VDGG, Genesis, etc) would still like to include their contemporary bands, most of which aren't prog in the original sense.   Similarly there will always be bands on the verge of prog which you personally really enjoy; therefore you may campaign to get them included in the forum.  Then you get to the business that one man's prog is another man's art rock and who are we to argue?   Let's just enjoy the music and comment on the bands that we like, not sl*g off the bands that we don't.   Iron Maiden 'though???????

There are many bands discussed here that are nothing to do with prog in my opinion but I won't lose any sleep over them. 

I don't really get into a lather about these inclusions. There are some acts, without wishing to flare an argument, like Led Zeppelin, Fairport Convention, Triumph (especially them) that I wouldn't personally have ever considered even related to prog, really, but that's just a personal opinion. And anyway these acts are in 'prog related' category which is clearly expressed as being merely bands considered adjacent to prog rather than being it, so to speak. At the end of the day, you DON'T have to review those albums or even look at their pages.

Edited by salmacis - January 30 2007 at 15:43

Atavachron wrote: The Force is with him, you see...

Which side?

I would suggest wrt the time between suggestion and inclusion, Wishbone Ash - for whom I was soliciting addition soon after I joined PA in April 2004. And the most contested must be The Who. The additions of Radiohead, Queen, LZ, Black Sabbath, Beatles, Gerry & The Pacemakers () , although contentious were otherwise comparatively smooth.

Sabbath is in the same family as Zep and Purple because of their roots in Heavy Blues. The difference appears to be that the vast majority of their output was always HB based metal, whereas the other two progressed past that family.

I see your point, but answer my question.... Prog, being a manifestation of rock, would've never existed without Elvis Presley... Is that reason enough to include him in PA?

The inclusion of surprising bands isn't made without lots of thought, they don`t just include any band just for the hell of it. The term proto prog is often the reason why certain bands get added and I think that's a good thing  I never use to but I do now , because progs umbrella needs to get bigger  when the reality of where prog got its DNA  starts to influence new prog bands (already has) it will make for a bigger melting pot of raw creativity  and that is a very good thing !   

sinkadotentree wrote: I'd love to see BLACK SABBATH included and applaud the inclusion of LED ZEPPELIN and THE BEATLES.

As far as the general topic of the thread, it's hard to add much to a discussion that has gone on and on in countless threads. Personally I have no problem with the Proto and Related sections, as long as people understand that no one is saying those bands are actually prog!

Unfortunately, that concept seems to be lost on a lot of people, and it's not entirely their fault. It IS confusing to come to a site called "ProgArchives" and see reviews for the Beatles, Maiden, etc. on the front page. I'm not saying things should change, I just see how people can get mixed up about it.

As far as the quote above, I totally agree about Sabbath. It just doesn't make sense to me to include Zeppelin/Purple/Maiden and somehow leave Sabbath out. I know, the "if X why not Y" argument is one of the most hated arguments on this site. In this case, however, I'm just curious to hear the justification for not including Sabbath.