| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
rogerthat 
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
 Topic: Most Controversial/Persistant Nominees?
Posted: February 26 2011 at 00:42 |
 FunkyM wrote:
Sure, I'm aware that people have all sorts of definitions of what is and isn't prog. But I don't recall anyone suggesting the site must reevaluate a band every time there's a forum post. How frequently are the presence of Genesis, Yes, Floyd, etc. brought into question by members of their respective genre teams when people bring them up? I'm going to guess it's not that often.
But hey, you're the ones who make the decisions. I don't want to argue with ya. Do what you think is best. 
|
I agree. A few people like resurrection might question whether Genesis is prog but the Gabriel as well as four man Genesis years are generally widely accepted as prog. So, even though people have their own definitions of what is and what is not prog, there clearly is no issue with some bands which are widely accepted whereas some bands are clearly rather borderline. It's a bit too reductive to presume that what applies to borderline bands will necessarily spread to a Genesis or Yes. Further, Genesis and Yes are among the first movers of prog as a whole, so suggesting they are not and, hypothetically, that Nightwish is (and I don't believe anyone is going to do that) is just ridiculously revisionist and lacking in historical perspective. Prog started with those bands among others, it's not up for people to question whether they are prog or not by their own yardsticks.
|
 |
FunkyM
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 12 2010
Location: Funkytown
Status: Offline
Points: 134
|
Posted: February 26 2011 at 00:21 |
Sure, I'm aware that people have all sorts of definitions of what is and isn't prog. But I don't recall anyone suggesting the site must reevaluate a band every time there's a forum post. How frequently are the presence of Genesis, Yes, Floyd, etc. brought into question by members of their respective genre teams when people bring them up? I'm going to guess it's not that often. But hey, you're the ones who make the decisions. I don't want to argue with ya. Do what you think is best.
|
|
The Truth
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 19 2009
Location: Kansas
Status: Offline
Points: 21795
|
Posted: February 25 2011 at 23:40 |
WalterDigsTunes wrote:
The constant suggestion of new bands is perplexing. |
lulz
And someone mentioned The Velvet Underground as proto! I concur!
|
|
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: February 25 2011 at 23:29 |
Bonnek wrote:
^ Not sure if I would follow the same reasoning.
The ratings for those bands might indicate that they sit well with Prog Metal fans, but it doesn't make them Prog.
To give a non-metal example, I think The Stooges might be quite appreciated amongst Kraut fans and the rocking proggers but it wouldn't make them a sensible addition.
On a remark a few posts above, liking the bands or not has nothing ado with it (I quite like Kamelot), but the fact that they are here makes it hard to argue for me why we wouldn't allow Power Metal band XYZ.
|
I concur. In my general experience, and not just here but in discussing with musicians and listeners, prog metal people evaluate whether a band qualifies as prog metal or not in relation to metal and not the whole rock music umbrella. That imo works fine at say metal-archives where prog metal is a metal genre, but not here where it is a prog genre. Even though it is unintentional, it almost seems discriminatory to use a different yardstick for one sub. In a nutshell, what is prog metal for a metal database need not necessarily be prog metal as a prog rock sub genre on PA and if we say that it is, then even that jazz rock/fusion music which is not considered prog enough for PA would have a strong case, a lot of 60s psychedelic rock bands would have a strong case too. I am sure people are going to question that but if you do can you really convincingly argue for why Nightwish is undoubtedly prog rock on a website where Radiohead being prog has been accepted grudgingly and reluctantly. Now, if you think Nightwish is more prog than Radiohead, I rest my case.  It is easier to make a case for why Nightwish, at least at the time of the release of Oceanborn, was a little out of the norm in the metal scene but, if we look at it that way, what about Sabbath, Purple, Rainbow, Iron Maiden or Metallica's defining contributions to metal, all of which is slotted in prog related and not prog metal? What about Judas Priest's 70s albums, which aren't even on PA? If the argument is that they are not prog rock, it is not very difficult to argue against Nightwish that way either.
It is not necessary to delete them from the archives but at least the PM team's position on Nightwish has to be clarified and the idea that maybe they are prog enough for Prog Related but not Prog Metal could be considered. I feel that with Nightwish's presence in the archives, the case for rejecting say Stratovarius becomes much more difficult and flimsy (not that I personally want power metal in the prog metal sub, no). It is not logical to say Nightwish was accepted by a different set of collabs and nothing can be done about it now. If it's on the PM database, it has to be considered while evaluating new suggestions. I obviously don't mean ONLY the band being somewhat like Nightwish is justification enough. It should be consistent with the cross-section of bands in that sub but PM team members frequently go, "Don't bring up Nightwish". I don't think that makes sense.
|
|
Hawkwise
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 31 2008
Location: Ontairo
Status: Offline
Points: 4119
|
Posted: February 25 2011 at 13:46 |
THE SENSATIONAL ALEX HARVEY BAND !!! about time they where here god damn it 
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: February 25 2011 at 13:44 |
FunkyM wrote:
I don't think there's any evidence that there'd be an impetus to reevaluate non-controversial legacy bands, but point taken.
|
It has been questioned in the past on this forum whether Pink Floyd is prog. That makes them ( and Genesis, Yes, Tangerine Dream, Mike Oldfield, Jethro Tull, Dream Theater, etc., etc.) controversial in someone's estimation.
|
|
What?
|
|
FunkyM
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 12 2010
Location: Funkytown
Status: Offline
Points: 134
|
Posted: February 25 2011 at 13:40 |
I don't think there's any evidence that there'd be an impetus to reevaluate non-controversial legacy bands, but point taken.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: February 25 2011 at 13:16 |
FunkyM wrote:
Yeah, but this isn't a case of inconsistent approvals by the genre teams. These are bands that are on the site that were apparently never evaluated at all. That would seem to be exactly the opposite of what you describe above - rather than being on PA through a collaborative effort, these legacy bands are here because somebody added them before the rules were established.
Like I said, I have no problem with Nightwish (for example) being on PA. But I agree that having them listed under prog-metal will imply to those visiting the site that they meet the site's criteria for prog-metal and imply that prog-metal team considers them prog-metal.
If genre team members are saying that some bands are only in the PA because they never had to be evaluated, then I'm just suggesting that maybe they should be evaluated so people can settle the debate, that's all. If there's more important stuff to worry about, that's cool.
|
No, if we do that for some legacy bands that some people think shouldn't be here then we have to do that for all bands added before the genre teams were established; and since the genre teams change as people come and go then would would have to do that everytime there is a team change. That is impractical and wrong. There was nothing inherrantly wrong with the pre-team system, those collaborators who added artists in those days were SCs, and therefore entrusted to add those artists - it was still a collaborative effort.
|
|
What?
|
|
FunkyM
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 12 2010
Location: Funkytown
Status: Offline
Points: 134
|
Posted: February 25 2011 at 13:00 |
Dean wrote:
FunkyM wrote:
valravennz wrote:
FunkyM wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
I have always disagreed with the site's stance on this matter. Once a band is in, it is a solid indication of its being prog, no ifs, no buts. Whatever be the reasoning behind it, if a band is later not believed to be prog or large sections of collabs don't think it is and it still happens to be on the database, it is quite frankly a ridiculous situation. If, when a band is being suggested, the presence of some bands from ostensibly the same sub genre cannot be used as an argument in their favour, then whether a band in the database should really be here should also be up for re-evaluation because to reject the "X-Y argument" is to tacitly accept that there is room for doubt over whether even the bands already included in the database are really prog at all. Further, since the website seems to believe prog can only described through indicators and not defined in exact words, the fact that some bands have been voted as prog by the website previously is a sound argument for a fresh suggestion if strong similarities between the suggested band and the bands already present in the database can be demonstrated. Yeah, I know what the site's policy is and that I have to accept it, blah blah, but I still have to say that it doesn't make sense at all and lacks consistency and logic.
|
I agree. I get that the idea is to evaluate a band based on its own merits, not by a comparison to another band, but when there's an artist that obviously comes from the same sub-genre with similar influences, a similar approach to composition, a similar style of playing, etc... and then they're rejected while the other artist is already in, well, it kind of feels like an elephant in the room. Especially if they're bands that the admins and genre teams didn't approve and likely wouldn't approve if they were suggested today.
IMO the best way to solve the issue of these "legacy" bands is to just put them up for evaluation and delete the ones that don't get approved, but that's up to the admins and teams, of course.
|
^^ Far too simplistic an idea to have them evaluated and then deleted. I personally object strongly to any such suggestion. Previous posters obviously dislike prog metal - oh sorry - some flavours of prog metal such as symphonic prog metal. Well - there are many of us out here in netland that like the admissions they way they are. Symphonic prog metal is an important part of the prog metal genre and imo, should be acknowledged as such  |
But why? I think a lot of those bands should remain (and hey, if it were up to me I'd have Within Temptation here too), but I'm afraid I don't see why these bands/albums should be exempt from the same evaluation process every other band goes through to gain a spot on PA. Just liking them and them being here before the rules were in place doesn't seem like a good enough reason, IMO.
If the admins/collabs have more important stuff to deal with though, I'm happy to leave them be.
|
The site is never going to be consistent because it is a collaboration, not only of the owner, 2 support Admins, 6 "ordinary" Admins, 86 SCs and 27 Collabs and 134 Prog Reviewer, but of all the 100s of members who suggest artists to add - each with their own interpretation of what "prog" is and what our admissions policy should be. Where those members are involved in, or have been involved in, the admissions evaluations, each applies their own criteria based upon personal predilection, understanding and interpretation derived from whatever guidance is provided by the sub-genre definitions, site policies and the numerous essays listed in the PA's Prog Rock Guides - and of course from personal experience and knowledge. Since it is impossible to get a consensus from each of the 256 collaborators/reviewers for every single band suggested we have to accept that compromise is the only viable approach in this collaboration, and that compromise will result in inconsistency over time.
It could only ever be consistent if all the additions were down to one person, (and I'm sure there are many people would would love that power, but few [if any] who could carry the responsibility). |
Yeah, but this isn't a case of inconsistent approvals by the genre teams. These are bands that are on the site that were apparently never evaluated at all. That would seem to be exactly the opposite of what you describe above - rather than being on PA through a collaborative effort, these legacy bands are here because somebody added them before the rules were established. Like I said, I have no problem with Nightwish (for example) being on PA. But I agree that having them listed under prog-metal will imply to those visiting the site that they meet the site's criteria for prog-metal and imply that prog-metal team considers them prog-metal. If genre team members are saying that some bands are only in the PA because they never had to be evaluated, then I'm just suggesting that maybe they should be evaluated so people can settle the debate, that's all. If there's more important stuff to worry about, that's cool.
Edited by FunkyM - February 25 2011 at 13:02
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: February 25 2011 at 08:45 |
FunkyM wrote:
valravennz wrote:
FunkyM wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
I have always disagreed with the site's stance on this matter. Once a band is in, it is a solid indication of its being prog, no ifs, no buts. Whatever be the reasoning behind it, if a band is later not believed to be prog or large sections of collabs don't think it is and it still happens to be on the database, it is quite frankly a ridiculous situation. If, when a band is being suggested, the presence of some bands from ostensibly the same sub genre cannot be used as an argument in their favour, then whether a band in the database should really be here should also be up for re-evaluation because to reject the "X-Y argument" is to tacitly accept that there is room for doubt over whether even the bands already included in the database are really prog at all. Further, since the website seems to believe prog can only described through indicators and not defined in exact words, the fact that some bands have been voted as prog by the website previously is a sound argument for a fresh suggestion if strong similarities between the suggested band and the bands already present in the database can be demonstrated. Yeah, I know what the site's policy is and that I have to accept it, blah blah, but I still have to say that it doesn't make sense at all and lacks consistency and logic.
|
I agree. I get that the idea is to evaluate a band based on its own merits, not by a comparison to another band, but when there's an artist that obviously comes from the same sub-genre with similar influences, a similar approach to composition, a similar style of playing, etc... and then they're rejected while the other artist is already in, well, it kind of feels like an elephant in the room. Especially if they're bands that the admins and genre teams didn't approve and likely wouldn't approve if they were suggested today.
IMO the best way to solve the issue of these "legacy" bands is to just put them up for evaluation and delete the ones that don't get approved, but that's up to the admins and teams, of course.
|
^^ Far too simplistic an idea to have them evaluated and then deleted. I personally object strongly to any such suggestion. Previous posters obviously dislike prog metal - oh sorry - some flavours of prog metal such as symphonic prog metal. Well - there are many of us out here in netland that like the admissions they way they are. Symphonic prog metal is an important part of the prog metal genre and imo, should be acknowledged as such |
But why? I think a lot of those bands should remain (and hey, if it were up to me I'd have Within Temptation here too), but I'm afraid I don't see why these bands/albums should be exempt from the same evaluation process every other band goes through to gain a spot on PA. Just liking them and them being here before the rules were in place doesn't seem like a good enough reason, IMO.
If the admins/collabs have more important stuff to deal with though, I'm happy to leave them be.
|
The site is never going to be consistent because it is a collaboration, not only of the owner, 2 support Admins, 6 "ordinary" Admins, 86 SCs and 27 Collabs and 134 Prog Reviewer, but of all the 100s of members who suggest artists to add - each with their own interpretation of what "prog" is and what our admissions policy should be. Where those members are involved in, or have been involved in, the admissions evaluations, each applies their own criteria based upon personal predilection, understanding and interpretation derived from whatever guidance is provided by the sub-genre definitions, site policies and the numerous essays listed in the PA's Prog Rock Guides - and of course from personal experience and knowledge. Since it is impossible to get a consensus from each of the 256 collaborators/reviewers for every single band suggested we have to accept that compromise is the only viable approach in this collaboration, and that compromise will result in inconsistency over time.
It could only ever be consistent if all the additions were down to one person, (and I'm sure there are many people would would love that power, but few [if any] who could carry the responsibility).
|
|
What?
|
|
FunkyM
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 12 2010
Location: Funkytown
Status: Offline
Points: 134
|
Posted: February 25 2011 at 08:19 |
valravennz wrote:
FunkyM wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
I have always disagreed with the site's stance on this matter. Once a band is in, it is a solid indication of its being prog, no ifs, no buts. Whatever be the reasoning behind it, if a band is later not believed to be prog or large sections of collabs don't think it is and it still happens to be on the database, it is quite frankly a ridiculous situation. If, when a band is being suggested, the presence of some bands from ostensibly the same sub genre cannot be used as an argument in their favour, then whether a band in the database should really be here should also be up for re-evaluation because to reject the "X-Y argument" is to tacitly accept that there is room for doubt over whether even the bands already included in the database are really prog at all. Further, since the website seems to believe prog can only described
through indicators and not defined in exact words, the fact that some
bands have been voted as prog by the website previously is a sound
argument for a fresh suggestion if strong similarities between the
suggested band and the bands already present in the database can be
demonstrated. Yeah, I know what the site's policy is and that I have to
accept it, blah blah, but I still have to say that it doesn't make
sense at all and lacks consistency and logic.
|
I agree. I get that the idea is to evaluate a band based on its own merits, not by a comparison to another band, but when there's an artist that obviously comes from the same sub-genre with similar influences, a similar approach to composition, a similar style of playing, etc... and then they're rejected while the other artist is already in, well, it kind of feels like an elephant in the room. Especially if they're bands that the admins and genre teams didn't approve and likely wouldn't approve if they were suggested today.
IMO the best way to solve the issue of these "legacy" bands is to just put them up for evaluation and delete the ones that don't get approved, but that's up to the admins and teams, of course.
|
^^ Far too simplistic an idea to have them evaluated and then deleted. I personally object strongly to any such suggestion. Previous posters obviously dislike prog metal - oh sorry - some flavours of prog metal such as symphonic prog metal. Well - there are many of us out here in netland that like the admissions they way they are. Symphonic prog metal is an important part of the prog metal genre and imo, should be acknowledged as such |
But why? I think a lot of those bands should remain (and hey, if it were up to me I'd have Within Temptation here too), but I'm afraid I don't see why these bands/albums should be exempt from the same evaluation process every other band goes through to
gain a spot on PA. Just liking them and them being here before the rules were in place doesn't seem like a good enough reason, IMO. If the admins/collabs have more important stuff to deal with though, I'm happy to leave them be.
Edited by FunkyM - February 25 2011 at 08:21
|
|
Bonnek
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 01 2009
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Points: 4515
|
Posted: February 25 2011 at 08:15 |
|
^ Aha, I see your logic now.
I guess I have the impression that people rather rate in accordance to how much they like an album and not how prog it is. It's probably a mix of both...
In support of your theory, over the last month, the PMT added about 40 bands and one of the most recognizably Prog of them (Wolfspring) just got its second review in a week, while much of the other bands have not been reviewed at all.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: February 25 2011 at 07:06 |
Bonnek wrote:
^ Not sure if I would follow the same reasoning.
The ratings for those bands might indicate that they sit well with Prog Metal fans, but it doesn't make them Prog.
To give a non-metal example, I think The Stooges might be quite appreciated amongst Kraut fans and the rocking proggers but it wouldn't make them a sensible addition.
On a remark a few posts above, liking the bands or not has nothing ado with it (I quite like Kamelot), but the fact that they are here makes it hard to argue for me why we wouldn't allow Power Metal band XYZ.
|
Human nature has a lot to do with how an album is rated, and liking an album is often enough to gain it a few high ratings regardless of whether it is Prog or not, however I suspect that the majority "vote" would rate dependant upon its Prog quotient - and bear in mind I am refering to average ratings, not indivual opinion. So while Raw Power is a highly regarded album, I doubt it would achieve 4 or 5-star status on a Prog site.
The average ratings for each of the After Forever album is a case in point, where our ratings differ wildly from those on AllMusic or RYM (both sites give a fairly consistent 3.5 rating for all their albums, we don't).
|
|
What?
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: February 25 2011 at 06:55 |
In the mystical Venn diagram between Power Metal, Symphonic Metal and Progressive Metal there will be intersections between sub-genres where some artists can exist and others do not. Pure Symphonic Metal (should a thing ever exist) can never be pure Progressive Metal (should a thing etc. etc) but some Symphonic Metal can be indistinguishable from some Progressive Metal.
|
|
What?
|
|
Bonnek
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 01 2009
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Points: 4515
|
Posted: February 25 2011 at 06:49 |
|
^ Not sure if I would follow the same reasoning.
The ratings for those bands might indicate that they sit well with Prog Metal fans, but it doesn't make them Prog.
To give a non-metal example, I think The Stooges might be quite appreciated amongst Kraut fans and the rocking proggers but it wouldn't make them a sensible addition.
On a remark a few posts above, liking the bands or not has nothing ado with it (I quite like Kamelot), but the fact that they are here makes it hard to argue for me why we wouldn't allow Power Metal band XYZ.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: February 25 2011 at 06:18 |
Henry Plainview wrote:
Bonnek wrote:
For the record, I was only voicing my own opinion and I have no idea if there would be a consensus about this or what the admin team thinks of those headaches...
I think I'll put this up for discussion some time but right now we have more urgent matters, frustrating as the situation may be. |
I'm just basing my perception on the opinions of you, T, Caio, HughesJB4, and what rushfan said in the Apocalyptica. I don't know either if everyone agrees, but even if you could marshal all the prog metal forces together, you probably wouldn't get anywhere. As far as I can tell it's nearly impossible to get anything deleted.
|
Given virtually infinte time almost everything will be nearly deleted. 
It's not easy to get bands deleted, but it's not difficult either. Admins cannot delete bands, only M@X has that power and a few bands have been deleted over the years. One notable case of course was My Dying Bride, who were re-added 4 years later.
And that's the nub of the matter - there is no consensus even amoungst the collabs and we have to find the underlying trend behind the he-who-shouts-loudest. All the contentious legacy bands have their albums reviewed and rated - most of those bands have 3 and 4-star averaging albums (if not all - too lazy busy to check, but certainly the three prog metal bands mentioned here have 4-star averaging albums in their discographies). While that isn't proof positive, it is an indication that this is not a clear-cut case for deletion - while people are giving 5-star ratings to albums as Essential: a masterpiece of progressive rock music, (which statistically at least 50% of the people must be to achive a 4-star averaging album), then the vast majority who reviewed/rated the album (ie gave 3,4 & 5 stars) believe the album to be progressive rock/metal. The case for deletion has to be pretty conclusive to override that opinion, and that is the "impossible" in your statement.
|
|
What?
|
|
Henry Plainview
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 26 2008
Location: Declined
Status: Offline
Points: 16715
|
Posted: February 25 2011 at 03:46 |
Bonnek wrote:
For the record, I was only voicing my own opinion and I have no idea if there would be a consensus about this or what the admin team thinks of those headaches...
I think I'll put this up for discussion some time but right now we have more urgent matters, frustrating as the situation may be. |
I'm just basing my perception on the opinions of you, T, Caio, HughesJB4, and what rushfan said in the Apocalyptica. I don't know either if everyone agrees, but even if you could marshal all the prog metal forces together, you probably wouldn't get anywhere. As far as I can tell it's nearly impossible to get anything deleted.
valravennz wrote:
^^ Far too simplistic an idea to have them evaluated and then deleted. I personally object strongly to any such suggestion. Previous posters obviously dislike prog metal - oh sorry - some flavours of prog metal such as symphonic prog metal. Well - there are many of us out here in netland that like the admissions they way they are. Symphonic prog metal is an important part of the prog metal genre and imo, should be acknowledged as such |
It's the prog metal collabs who think "symphonic metal" is not prog metal, not I. I don't like prog metal, and I don't listen to it, so I am basing my statements off of the opinions of people who do.
|
|
if you own a sodastream i hate you
|
|
valravennz
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: March 20 2005
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 2546
|
Posted: February 25 2011 at 03:11 |
FunkyM wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
I have always disagreed with the site's stance on this matter. Once a band is in, it is a solid indication of its being prog, no ifs, no buts. Whatever be the reasoning behind it, if a band is later not believed to be prog or large sections of collabs don't think it is and it still happens to be on the database, it is quite frankly a ridiculous situation. If, when a band is being suggested, the presence of some bands from ostensibly the same sub genre cannot be used as an argument in their favour, then whether a band in the database should really be here should also be up for re-evaluation because to reject the "X-Y argument" is to tacitly accept that there is room for doubt over whether even the bands already included in the database are really prog at all. Further, since the website seems to believe prog can only described
through indicators and not defined in exact words, the fact that some
bands have been voted as prog by the website previously is a sound
argument for a fresh suggestion if strong similarities between the
suggested band and the bands already present in the database can be
demonstrated. Yeah, I know what the site's policy is and that I have to
accept it, blah blah, but I still have to say that it doesn't make
sense at all and lacks consistency and logic.
|
I agree. I get that the idea is to evaluate a band based on its own merits, not by a comparison to another band, but when there's an artist that obviously comes from the same sub-genre with similar influences, a similar approach to composition, a similar style of playing, etc... and then they're rejected while the other artist is already in, well, it kind of feels like an elephant in the room. Especially if they're bands that the admins and genre teams didn't approve and likely wouldn't approve if they were suggested today.
IMO the best way to solve the issue of these "legacy" bands is to just put them up for evaluation and delete the ones that don't get approved, but that's up to the admins and teams, of course.
|
^^ Far too simplistic an idea to have them evaluated and then deleted. I personally object strongly to any such suggestion. Previous posters obviously dislike prog metal - oh sorry - some flavours of prog metal such as symphonic prog metal. Well - there are many of us out here in netland that like the admissions they way they are. Symphonic prog metal is an important part of the prog metal genre and imo, should be acknowledged as such |
"Music is the Wine that fills the cup of Silence"
- Robert Fripp
|
|
FunkyM
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 12 2010
Location: Funkytown
Status: Offline
Points: 134
|
Posted: February 23 2011 at 13:09 |
rogerthat wrote:
I have always disagreed with the site's stance on this matter. Once a band is in, it is a solid indication of its being prog, no ifs, no buts. Whatever be the reasoning behind it, if a band is later not believed to be prog or large sections of collabs don't think it is and it still happens to be on the database, it is quite frankly a ridiculous situation. If, when a band is being suggested, the presence of some bands from ostensibly the same sub genre cannot be used as an argument in their favour, then whether a band in the database should really be here should also be up for re-evaluation because to reject the "X-Y argument" is to tacitly accept that there is room for doubt over whether even the bands already included in the database are really prog at all. Further, since the website seems to believe prog can only described
through indicators and not defined in exact words, the fact that some
bands have been voted as prog by the website previously is a sound
argument for a fresh suggestion if strong similarities between the
suggested band and the bands already present in the database can be
demonstrated. Yeah, I know what the site's policy is and that I have to
accept it, blah blah, but I still have to say that it doesn't make
sense at all and lacks consistency and logic.
|
I agree. I get that the idea is to evaluate a band based on its own merits, not by a comparison to another band, but when there's an artist that obviously comes from the same sub-genre with similar influences, a similar approach to composition, a similar style of playing, etc... and then they're rejected while the other artist is already in, well, it kind of feels like an elephant in the room. Especially if they're bands that the admins and genre teams didn't approve and likely wouldn't approve if they were suggested today. IMO the best way to solve the issue of these "legacy" bands is to just put them up for evaluation and delete the ones that don't get approved, but that's up to the admins and teams, of course.
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: February 23 2011 at 11:06 |
I have always disagreed with the site's stance on this matter. Once a band is in, it is a solid indication of its being prog, no ifs, no buts. Whatever be the reasoning behind it, if a band is later not believed to be prog or large sections of collabs don't think it is and it still happens to be on the database, it is quite frankly a ridiculous situation. If, when a band is being suggested, the presence of some bands from ostensibly the same sub genre cannot be used as an argument in their favour, then whether a band in the database should really be here should also be up for re-evaluation because to reject the "X-Y argument" is to tacitly accept that there is room for doubt over whether even the bands already included in the database are really prog at all. Further, since the website seems to believe prog can only described through indicators and not defined in exact words, the fact that some bands have been voted as prog by the website previously is a sound argument for a fresh suggestion if strong similarities between the suggested band and the bands already present in the database can be demonstrated. Yeah, I know what the site's policy is and that I have to accept it, blah blah, but I still have to say that it doesn't make sense at all and lacks consistency and logic.
Edited by rogerthat - February 23 2011 at 11:08
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Most Controversial/Persistant Nominees?
