PROCOL HARUM AIN’T PROG ROCK!!!

>>Reply from Joran:  Evanescence!? They're not only NOT PROG, they are also a VERY BORING ROCK BAND! I prefer a smaller website, that doesn't include evanescence, please!<<

Yea, I know what you mean.  It seems difficult to use the ProGGnosis site of some 3600 reviews and 11700 CDs without the band Evanescence somehow appearing on the screen.   I am going to try using the ProGGnosis database search function and see what happens when I don't type Evanescence into the search box.  I'll let you know if that works....

Regards,
DBSilver / ProGGnosis.com

Since we were mentioned by name in this thread - let me share with you that at ProGGnosis.com we have defined a category - Prog Related to help us with dealing with artists that have a single prog release (Daryl Hall-Sacred Songs, Cat Stevens- Foreigner, Grateful Dead-Terripen Station for example) or artists that have genetic links to prog (such as the Tommy Shaw solo works).

We get things wrong - of course!  And - our stuff is a work in progress not a completed database.  Who could know so much music and keep it all in mind when researching, categorizing and discussing it all?

How can it possibly offend someone IF Deep Purple or Black Sabbath or Wishbone Ash or Procol Harum were listed?  Serious matters are offensive... Deep Purple in a prog web site is not.  The important thing is to try to ensure that whatever is added to the prog site is categorized and described somehow - so that the listing can be useful to the reader.

I flat out disagree with the specific premise that Procol Harem is not a progressive band.   Web sites such as ProGGnosis (and I assume but do not wish to speak for ProgArchives) intend to enlighten and to include this band does enlighten.  I personnally would not categorize Wishbone Ash as a progressive band - but this band headlined 2003's ProgDays at Storybook Farms with other undesputably progressive bands!

Marcelo wrote "Progarchives is the best , but the largest database about prog music, I think, is Proggnosis.com."  Well the first is subjective and I would not dream of arguing that point here   but as to the second point - Denis's Quebec site - ProgLands.com currently lists about 2500 more CDs than ProGGnosis.com - so on this forum only - i will concede to us 2nd place on both counts.

Finally - since this is in some ways a genre discussion - Let me tell you that at ProGGnosis we have posted the first 2 of our ProGGnosis Guides.  These are genre/sub-genre/style listings for Prog Metal and Prog Related.  I think there is nothing like this on the net.  We hope by August to be able to render and describe additional guides.  Of course we welcome advice, opinions and assistance so check out the two we do have functioning - Prog-Metal and Prog Related.

Regards,
DBSilver / ProGGnosis.com

Jim Garten wrote: richardh wrote: and have played and recorded a live album with an orchestra So has Barry Manilow........

So I expect Manilow to be included as well then!

landberkdoten wrote: Yeah man, it's all about logging on to sites and compare what they have to say... you got that one right!

sarcasm?

maani wrote: I have posited on other threads that "prog" developed from what I call "progressive sensibilities," which were either "conscious" or not.  If a band "stumbled upon" progressive sensibilities "by accident" (i.e., without conscious intent), then I would personally not include them on the site.  However, if a band applied progressive sensibilities in a conscious manner - even if those sensibilities did not appear in every composition on every album - then I would include them, with that caveat (i.e., that they wrote some prog songs, but were not a "prog band" as such).  If a band applied progressive sensibilities as a primary (or exclusive) approach to composition, then I would label that band a "prog band."

So does this mean we're due to get the Beatles and Deep Purple in the archives?

Marcelo wrote: Prog boundaries are extremely open, and I like to see in a prog site as bands as possible, doesn't matter about how much of proggy elements they have. Love it or hate it, this is another topic, and each one is wrong and right at the same time about the personal points of view.

Yeah, I would have to concur with Marcelo. Sometimes it's quite complex to define what's prog or what isn't, and that's determined from the very specific point of view of each and one of us. And in that line, considering how extense prog boundaries could be, there's also gotta be a diversity, huh?

(Por cierto Marcelo, ¿tu sabes cuándo es que ATEMPO visitará nuevamente tierras aztecas?  Mariela González vino acompañada de NEXUS al Baja Prog, más no sé si lo hará con su nueva banda...)

Hoping all of this performance concerning whether "who's wrong or who's right" is water under the bridge, I'd love to get back on track to what really matters in here and that's "PROCOL HARUM: "prog rock or not". So let's have it then!

Land:

Stormcrow's basic assertion is that within your initial post on this thread, you state only your opinion - that you do not like PH and do not consider them prog - but give no "specifics" as to why you don't consider them prog.

The "official" definition of "prog" (as posted on this site) is: "A style that combines rock, classical, psychedelic and literary elements...typically featuring [long] songs with shifting time signatures and evolving musical themes."  You can choose to disagree with this definition if you wish: even I consider it "imperfect" at best, but nevertheless a good start.

However, using that as the site's definition (since that is what visitors and new members will see), can you provide some specific reasons why PH does not fit in here?

Personally, I agree with many of the members who have posted here, that there are any number of bands on the site for whom the appelation "prog rock" may be at best a misnomer, and at worst totally incorrect.  As Peter notes (and I agree), there is a great deal of "rock-jazz fusion" (and some "prog-metal") that I would not necessarily have included on the site had I been its developer.  In this regard, if PH is an "irritant," it is a minor one.

As for providing "correct information" to visitors and new members, as Peter points out, since even the definition of "prog" is "up for grabs," the best we can do is provide a broad "overview" of prog in all its various stages.  As others have pointed out, if everyone who ever wrote a "prog" song - even by accident - were included on the site, the list would be unwieldy.

I have posited on other threads that "prog" developed from what I call "progressive sensibilities," which were either "conscious" or not.  If a band "stumbled upon" progressive sensibilities "by accident" (i.e., without conscious intent), then I would personally not include them on the site.  However, if a band applied progressive sensibilities in a conscious manner - even if those sensibilities did not appear in every composition on every album - then I would include them, with that caveat (i.e., that they wrote some prog songs, but were not a "prog band" as such).  If a band applied progressive sensibilities as a primary (or exclusive) approach to composition, then I would label that band a "prog band."

PH seems to fit in the middle category: a band that applied progressive sensibilities - sometimes consciously, perhaps sometimes not - on some of their songs, but not as a primary or exclusive approach.  In this regard, I would agree with you that PH is not a "prog band" in the same way that, say, Pink Floyd, Genesis, Yes, Gentle Giant, King Crimson et al are "prog bands."

Ultimately, I think it was Stormcrow who brought up the concept of "importance" vis-a-vis prog.  This is, to me, a critical point.  Although PH may in fact have influenced other bands (some of whom are in the "prog" category), I would agree with you (if this is your point) that PH is not an important (i.e., seminal or perhaps even influential) band within prog.  Having said that, I do not believe that the site is "misleading" anyone by including PH.  I would agree, however, that these types of distinctions - and they are important ones - are probably not made clear enough as a matter of course, and this leads to (reasonable) concerns such as yours.

I applaud the tenacity with which you hold your opinion.  However, I do ask that you try to refrain from personal attack or sarcastic inferences; they undermine your arguments, and create unnecessary tension.  Thanks.

Peace.

I put no words in your mouth, landberkdoten.  I dare you to do nothing.  I haven't as yet mocked you.  It was my full intention to raise the level from your original tone, which quite frankly I found mildly offensive.  There has been no argument because you have yet to state anything besides your apparent hatred for a band.  I can not and won't attempt to argue with you about your feelings. 

I simply asked you to defend what was clearly a post meant to be provocative, showing more attitude than knowledge yet stating certain things as supposed fact, that didn't seem defensible to me at the time.  Since you won't make a cogent defense, I have to assume you can not.

Being rude to me, which you have been repeatedly, and calling me a fool, stubborn and absurd isn't defending your point at all.  It's simply an attempt to divert the discussion in hopes that I will be rude to you in turn.  I'll refrain from calling you names though you won't give me the same consideration.  I don't want to divert the topic because I'm still curious how you could come to feel as you do.

I'm trying very hard to respect the intelligence of other people reading these posts.  Which is why I'm refusing to join you in name calling.

I've made no particular effort, landberkdoten, to try to make you look bad.  So far you haven't seemed to need any help.

So, in hopes that you'll relent and actually try to discuss the subject, I remain.

undynamically - 'Crow