A "proto-prog" section seems pointless.

Bilek wrote: 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!

A very reasoned post, if I may say so.

 

Pardon me!

Sabbath never allowing music to progress...... outside of metal. Listen to their debut and Paranoid and tell me that again.......

Zep is harder to put in prog but No Quarter , Kashmir , Achille's Last Stand , Song Remains The Same and a few more.

Purple's first three albums are the typical albums that would fit perfectly in the proto-prog genre. This could also include the awful Concerto album, and go up to the end of Mk II line-up.

Agreed all three are barely prog but they were essential side-partner to prog rock.

To add them in the PA may be a bit too much. I think a side drawer with them (and Uriah Heep - they were not any more prog than the afore-mentinned three) and  another drawer for Queen , Roxy Music and 10 CC as side issues.

But I do support the proto-prog thing, though! Proto-prog is an accepted term for pre ITCOTCK prog. It would include most psych-prog of the late 60's and some more obscure early 70's prog such as Gracious , Indian Summer etc.... Hell should the Beatles ever be included it should be in Proto Prog.

But I do not believe every albums of the groups in those three drawers should be shown  or even less reviewed  - not much point to showing Please Meet The Beatles, uh? Start with Rubber Soul. For Sabbath , stop at Sabotage . Purple ? at the end of Mk II. Queen: stop at Jazz

 

 

For those groups we could find someone to write a text , discuss the albums show a few covers etc..... but simply not accessible to reviewing , rating. Just an editorial thing!

Sean Trane wrote: Pardon me! Sabbath never allowing music to progress...... outside of metal. Listen to their debut and Paranoid and tell me that again....... Zep is harder to put in prog but No Quarter , Kashmir , Achille's Last Stand , Song Remains The Same and a few more. Purple's first three albums are the typical albums that would fit perfectly in the proto-prog genre. This could also include the awful Concerto album, and go up to the end of Mk II line-up. Agreed all three are barely prog but they were essential side-partner to prog rock. To add them in the PA may be a bit too much. I think a side drawer with them (and Uriah Heep - they were not any more prog than the afore-mentinned three) and  another drawer for Queen , Roxy Music and 10 CC as side issues. But I do support the proto-prog thing, though! Proto-prog is an accepted term for pre ITCOTCK prog. It would include most psych-prog of the late 60's and some more obscure early 70's prog such as Gracious , Indian Summer etc.... Hell should the Beatles ever be included it should be in Proto Prog. But I do not believe every albums of the groups in those three drawers should be shown  or even less reviewed  - not much point to showing Please Meet The Beatles, uh? Start with Rubber Soul. For Sabbath , stop at Sabotage . Purple ? at the end of Mk II. Queen: stop at Jazz     For those groups we could find someone to write a text , discuss the albums show a few covers etc..... but simply not accessible to reviewing , rating. Just an editorial thing!

It's good to see people uniting on common sense!
With a few exceptions I would agree with this post.
For instance, I've been struggling hard for including Deep Purple, on the basis that Uriah Heep is here. I believe there are basically no differences between these two. Anyway, let's not go into the "this is here, so that must be here too" discussion again...

The points I disagree is the strict limitations. DP's proggish period seems to end at the end of MkII, but Burn is an album that should definitely be considered. The same for BS, Never Say Die! is not less progressive than Sabotage! Zep is as mentioned, a bluesy hard rock band with a few proggy songs (maybe with an additional somehow proggy album, 4th)
Besides, there are excellent comebacks of the mentioned bands... Where will you put Queen's Innuendo, for instance? And how about Deep Purple's Purpendicular, Live at the Olympia and the Royal Albert Hall (with the perfect remake of Concerto) albums, which features the respected prog guitarist Steve Morse?!?!? (well, even morse could not save Bananas! I think it was Lord who gave the band's prog characteristics!)

Anyway, it's good to hear "progressive" ideas like that!

Now comes the question: where do we start?

DavidInsabella wrote: Sean Trane wrote: Sabbath never allowing music to progress...... outside of metal. Listen to their debut and Paranoid and tell me that again....... Gladly. I find Black Sabbath to be one of the most overrated rock groups of all time. Anyway, I had a thought, even if there was a proto prog section, Court of the Crimson King was released in the same year as Zeppelin's first album, and a year before Sabbath's. This means that not only did these two begin after prog had already begun, but they also failed to progress beyond King Crimson and Gentle Giant (just to name a couple) who were already there. Proto punk is a category for VU and The Stooges and so on, bands that were around before punk that inspired it. Well how could these two be concidered proto prog if they were neither around before, nor very influential to the first waves of prog?

I think you got it wrong. We (at least I personally) are not saying "let's make a "proto-prog" section and squeeze everything we like over there!". As I said above, there might be more than one section, or just a "prog-related" section, where we can honour "proggy" albums of the aforementioned bands & the like...

Of course neither sabbath nor zeppelin is proto-prog. Deep Purple is hardly proto-prog, just for the sake of their debut, even that itself is already influenced by other proto-prog things, such as sgt. pepper (it includes Help, for God's sake!). Actually these three are known as the holy trinity of hard rock. Yet, there might still be a way to relate these bands (at least for their proggy songs' sake, which are already mentioned), either in a seperate drawer, or in an editorial section whatsoever...

lastly: if you still think Sabbath did not progress outside of metal, leave aside the first two albums (when it comes to first two albums even Yes may not make it out of the well!) and give a heed to Master of Reality, Vol.4 and Bloody Sabbath (I repeat: Wakeman contribution!) albums...

"...having all potential new bands discussed by the collaborators group and seeing what the consensus was, and making the decision based on that." (Maani)

This sounds logical. Hypothetical suggestion: Information of bands and albums added by user should not go directly to the archives, but to a some kind of datapool, where you could see what has been offered and rejected. Collaborators would then process the offers as they manage. This would ofcourse take lots of job and time from collaborators...

It would be a good idea, to have only SOME proggiest albums from some bands, like "Concerto for group and orchestra" from DEEP PURPLE, but not their hardrock albums.

[/QUOTE]

 

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

[/QUOTE]

No

Bilek wrote: DavidInsabella wrote: Sean Trane wrote: Sabbath never allowing music to progress...... outside of metal. Listen to their debut and Paranoid and tell me that again....... Gladly. I find Black Sabbath to be one of the most overrated rock groups of all time. Anyway, I had a thought, even if there was a proto prog section, Court of the Crimson King was released in the same year as Zeppelin's first album, and a year before Sabbath's. This means that not only did these two begin after prog had already begun, but they also failed to progress beyond King Crimson and Gentle Giant (just to name a couple) who were already there. Proto punk is a category for VU and The Stooges and so on, bands that were around before punk that inspired it. Well how could these two be concidered proto prog if they were neither around before, nor very influential to the first waves of prog? I think you got it wrong. We (at least I personally) are not saying "let's make a "proto-prog" section and squeeze everything we like over there!". As I said above, there might be more than one section, or just a "prog-related" section, where we can honour "proggy" albums of the aforementioned bands & the like... Of course neither sabbath nor zeppelin is proto-prog. Deep Purple is hardly proto-prog, just for the sake of their debut, even that itself is already influenced by other proto-prog things, such as sgt. pepper (it includes Help, for God's sake!). Actually these three are known as the holy trinity of hard rock. Yet, there might still be a way to relate these bands (at least for their proggy songs' sake, which are already mentioned), either in a seperate drawer, or in an editorial section whatsoever... lastly: if you still think Sabbath did not progress outside of metal, leave aside the first two albums (when it comes to first two albums even Yes may not make it out of the well!) and give a heed to Master of Reality, Vol.4 and Bloody Sabbath (I repeat: Wakeman contribution!) albums...

I still say any information like that can be put in the "What is prog" section. Why make a separate section that doesn't even appear on the main site?

And I still can't stand Black Sabbath. I find them boring and uncreative.

DavidInsabella wrote: Logos wrote: DavidInsabella wrote:  Gladly. I find Black Sabbath to be one of the most overrated rock groups of all time This is A STUPID AND IGNORANT COMMENT . Sorry, but that it is. Black Sabbath created METAL . It's not about whether you like them or not, I don't give a f**k , but the band is NOT over-rated, it CAN NOT be. How could I be ignorant? I've heard the material and I don't like it. If anything you're all close minded to be blindly following the crowd by insulting anyone with the guts to go againt the grain.

I take it that you don't listen to anything metal oriented or any metal progressive rock because if you did you would respect the role Black Sabbath had in helping form what we know as metal now.  If you do listen to metal-influenced music and still don't acknowledge them, THEN you are ignorant.  And if you don't listen to metal-influenced music well then you're ignorant as well.  Sorry man any way you slice it

Sure you can, just please don't go around saying the band that invented metal music is over-rated.

Logos wrote: Sure you can, just please don't go around saying the band that invented metal music is over-rated.

No. I'll say it again, Black Sabbath is overrated.

It's called an opinion, and people can share it if they want to. I would think people on this forum already knew that.