A "proto-prog" section seems pointless.

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.

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.

el böthy wrote: how can you break ground if you limit prog to "shoulds"?

Because there must be a line somewhere to seperate Yes from the Spice Girls. If there were not defining point to decide what is and what isn't prog then anything could technically be added here and many members here, including me, would feel offended if  somone who is clearly not prog were added to this site that is supposed to get us away from the mainstream music. Many people here are offended with Queen,
and from what I've heard about how they should not be here, I am totally confused about how they did get here in the first place and why they still are here, there are more people here saying they should go than saying they should stay. We must decide what to do with bands like Queen who don't belong here but don't count as mainstream.

I think only bands that everyone can agree is prog should be here, if the majority think they should not be here, then it will serve them better to not be here because they will please more people, and the ones who do want Queen here are the minority IMO.
If you remove Queen you will get much more satisfaction and if you only add what about 90% of us can agree is prog, then that also will be better for everyone.

I say there should be a poll to see if they stay or not, if they are voted to go then they should be taken to a sub-section of the archives, not neccessarily gone for good, but off this part of the archives atleast, it seems most of us can agree with that, that they should not be on this part.

Led Zeppelin did more to the progres of rock, then most bands

Gorloche wrote: . If the Spice Girls suddenly started to create complicated tritonal musical harmonies on top of avant-jazz music but dealt with the same lyrical content, they would be prog.

That made me think, are there lyrical boundaries in Prog??

TheProgtologist wrote: I'm still trying to get over the statement that Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath did nothing for the progression of music.They are as influential to the progression of rock as The Beatles,The Stones,The Who,Hendrix,etc.

That statement is wrong - but that doesn't mean that it makes sense to include them as prog bands. Even if there were a sub-genre "proto-prog", and another one for bands like Queen ("progressive-pop"), it would still be hard to separate the reviews and ratings. Those bands would be labeled "non-prog" or "not-quite-prog-but-still" or whatever, but they would still mix with the other bands. And if - for example - Led Zeppelin IV was added, it would get very high ratings, and enter the top 100 list, and THAT would cause damage to the reputation of this website. Although people tend to overrate the importance of that list, it does say something about the nature of this website AND it's visitors.  

nothing wrong with "proto-prog" or "prog-related" section IMHO, this way we can see which bands influenced the development of rock music, and their relations with the prog bands of their time. For instance, the very disdained Black Sabbath featured Master Wakeman in their Bloody Sabbath album, which, along with Vol 4, Sabotage etc. is one of the "forefathers" of prog-metal genre... Not to mention the Sabbath-Zeppelin influence over many prog-metal bands. (DT covered some Zeppelin tracks every now and then)

I believe "prog related" section should be (if it should) a distinctly seperate section, for instance, where everyone cannot review the albums, or if they could, the reviews wouldn't appear on the home page. It is also important to have their "prog related" albums only, in case Beatles was included in such sub-section (and it definitely needs to be included btw), their albums from "please please me" up to (and including or excluding)"help" would make no sense to the progger (though several beatles pieces from this period was covered by many prog bands every now and then!)... BUT; "Rubber Soul" is a turning point, which IMHO every progger (except prog-metalheads: they are a different story) should have an idea about. Not to mention the groundbreaking Sgt. Pepper album.

lastly: kicking bands out of the site will do no good, I think you will end up blotting out Genesis one day!