| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Littlewashu5 
Forum Groupie
Joined: March 26 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 84
|
 Posted: February 16 2006 at 12:57 |
|
Personally, if the Collaborators want to have fun with sub-genres, I've got one they could create:
Alt-Prog
Bands like Porcupine Tree, Dredg, Oceansize, RPWL, Coheed and Cambria, Mars Volta, Radiohead, Pure Reason Revolution, Mute Math, Secret Machines, Amplifier, Mercury Rev, Muse, Anathema, The Gathering, Flaming Lips, etc.
These bands owe just as much to the 90's Alternative/indie scene as they do 70's progressive. I just listed more bands who play this style than there are in some of the sub-genres already acknowledged in this site (Post-rock and Zeuhl come to mind). And wether or not some 50 year old with every Gabriel-era Genesis album on vinyl wants to admit it, the bands I just listed are the modern representatives of the style and probably will be for the next 15 or 20 years. It's also the fastest growing "sub-genre" in Prog as opposed to say a sub-genre in stasis like the aforementioned Zeuhl or a completely dead genre which has lost all meaning like Post-rock
Speaking of modern Prog representation, I think the Progressive Metal section needs some re-organization. Not in the sense that any bands need to be removed, but in the fact that it's the most vague and all-reaching sub-genre of Prog. Both Fates Warning and Between the Buried and Me are listed as Progressive Metal. What do these two bands have in common? Aside from sharing a rather distant set of common ancestors, nothing I remember at one point the Collabs were talking about dividing Prog metal into different sections. I think the idea evantually fell through. But of all the conrtoversial decisions to come along the pipeline of this site, I thought dividing Prog metal into multiple sections was not only one of the smartest, but one of the most vital in understanding one of this sites largest and most-popular sub-genres.......
Edited by Littlewashu5
|
 |
Littlewashu5
Forum Groupie
Joined: March 26 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 84
|
Posted: February 16 2006 at 12:58 |
 Snow Dog wrote:
Flip_Stone wrote:
There ought to be some kind of vote where every member of this site says whether or not The Beatles belong here. That might be the only fair way to solve this stupid matter.
|
Sorry...you must be under the impression that we run some sort of democracy here. We don't. The decision is FINAL! |
Yeah.. LET'S HAVE THIS WEBISTE BE GOVERNED BY MOB RULE! (which is what pure Democracy is) And didn't we already have a vote to decide if Coheed and Cambria were Prog? If I recall the Purists ended up losing that one.......
Edited by Littlewashu5
|
|
sleeper
Prog Reviewer
Joined: October 09 2005
Location: Entropia
Status: Offline
Points: 16449
|
Posted: February 16 2006 at 12:59 |
Is this thread still going?
I dont get why everyone is so worked up about it and makeing stupid coments about the Rolling Stone etc getting added. Shall we PLEASE leave it here and either ignore there inclusion or embrace it. There are 2276 other bands to talk about on this site.
|
Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005
|
|
Prog-Brazil
Prog Reviewer
Joined: January 07 2005
Location: Brazil
Status: Offline
Points: 596
|
Posted: February 16 2006 at 13:18 |
|
I'm waiting for The Who In PA now...
|
|
Let the sunshine in
|
|
Drew
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 20 2005
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 12600
|
Posted: February 16 2006 at 14:12 |
|
^or The Stones- or Led
|
|
|
|
Catholic Flame
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 17 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 295
|
Posted: February 16 2006 at 14:37 |
|
No other band could invoke this much emotion one way or another than The Beatles.
|
|
“Great things are not accomplished by those who yield to trends and fads and popular opinion.”
~Jack Kerouac
|
|
chopper
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 13 2005
Location: Essex, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 20030
|
Posted: February 16 2006 at 15:15 |
sleeper wrote:
Is this thread still going?
I dont get why everyone is so worked up about it and makeing stupid coments about the Rolling Stone etc getting added. Shall we PLEASE leave it here and either ignore there inclusion or embrace it. There are 2276 other bands to talk about on this site. |
Hear hear.
|
|
altaeria
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 05 2004
Location: Philadelphia
Status: Offline
Points: 178
|
Posted: February 16 2006 at 15:30 |
ooh ooh -- I got another idea for this!!
How about each album review gets both of these:
(1) a STAR RATING of 1 to 5 for overall quality (like we already have)
(2) a PROG-OMETER rating of 1 to 5 for overall "prog" feel.
Granted, it's still very subjective -- but, heck, it'll be a little more FUN ... and, over time, it just might help to properly balance out the general "prog status" (if you will) of each album.
example:
1 prog-ometer star = basically Pop with little-to-no progressive elements (Genesis Invisible Touch)
2 prog-ometer stars = Pop or Hard Rock (etc) with extensive Prog moments (Yes 90125)
3 prog-ometer stars = Prog in an easy-to-label sense... mostly derivative (Starcastle first album)
4 prog-ometer stars = Original, truly progressive... but not completely groundbreaking (UK Danger Money)
5 prog-ometer stars = Wow...where did THAT come from?! (Close to the Edge, Tarkus, Inner Mounting Flame)
If you're a true prog fan... you should also be able to distinguish "personal taste" vs. "appreciation".
You may score King Crimson's LIZARD as 5 on the prog-ometer (recognition of the effort), but only 3 on the overall quality score (which tends to be based on personal enjoyment).
Does this make any sense?
C'mom... It'll be FUN, dagnabbit!!
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: February 16 2006 at 16:40 |
chopper wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
Certifiable wrote:
]
Snow Dog wrote:
| I see that many consider Sgt Pepper to be a concept album......it isn't. | | |
Er... yes it is!
The entire thing is one huge concept/package, including the rumours that surrounded it.
|
We'll have to disagree on this one then.
|
Sorry, Snow Dog is correct here. Sgt Pepper was originally conceived as being a concert by a Beatles "alter-ego" band, hence it starts off with sounds of an orchestra warming up and the title track flows straight into "With a little help from my friends". After that, as Lennon has said, they got fed up with the idea and it became an normal album of songs. There is a half-hearted attempt to complete the concept with the reprise of the title track but there is no continuing theme linking the songs.
|
As you say, it started out as a concept album in the musical sense, even though the full concept was never fully realised - as you also point out.
"With a Little Help From My Friends" is arguably sung by Billy Shears, who we are introduced to at the end of the first track. But it's by no means a "normal album of songs" - there's too much variety, even compared to "Revolver" for that.
That doesn't mean it's not a concept album though - I tried to indicate that the concept is also in the packaging (with the cut-outs) and the rumours (Paul Is Dead - the flowers on the front allegedly spell Paul?).
The songs were all conceptualised and written slowly and carefully in the studio - something the Beatles had never had the luxury to do before - and the tracks all run into each other, something the guys built on with the medlies on "Abbey Road".
The Beatles presented themselves with this radical new image - the colourful uniforms and 'taches, as if they were enacting this alter-ego - that's a concept.
Musically, we're given music that strays very far from the standard rock format - here is a concept for you - the concept that Rock music doesn't have to be 100% rock.
The whole concept of Sgt Pepper was taken up by so many bands - the Stones and Zappa both poked fun at it, while "Good Morning" pokes fun at the Beach Boys (the animal noises = "Pet Sounds  ) - and how many times has that cover been imitated?
The whole album is a mess of concepts, some followed-through, some not. It's still a concept album - or more accurately, an album of concepts - a work of art of sorts. 
|
|
Lord Qwerty
Forum Groupie
Joined: February 07 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 82
|
Posted: February 16 2006 at 16:51 |
Lord Qwerty just noticed the Beatles were now on progarchives. He was about to ask if anyone else had noticed, then he saw this rather long thread that only started the other day (?!) and thought better of it.
Oh, and Lord Qwerty likes the Beatles very much.
|
|
Lord Qwerty is remarkably pretentious.
|
|
Legoman
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 21 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 306
|
Posted: February 16 2006 at 17:37 |
Greg W wrote:
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
Legoman wrote:
But the point is that almost every band that is
here had at least some progressive intent behind every album they
produced. (And don't break out Pink Floyds Dance Songs alumb out
on me...) Hahaha. Anyway... the Beatles didn't.
|
No progressive intent behind the White Album? Come on.
|
Actually everything I have ever read was that The Beatles were
getting out of the clouds and going back to the basics after the
critics had basted their Magical Mystery Tour effort as a bad
intent to create another Sgt Pepper. On that record they were having a
great deal of difficulty getting along and each artist brought in their
own seperate ideas to the mix. They were too fragmented at the time to
have intents of progressiveness on that one. Hell , the term wasn't
even invented. Do me a favor. Go and listen to In The Court of the
Crimson King and the White Album back to back and tell me how
progressive the White Album sounds then. I bet it sounds pretty
simplistic. |
Definately a good point... I think simplicity is something that hasn't
been over-viewed a whole lot. The Beatles, instrumentally anyway,
were a simplistic band. How can stuff like this even be IN the
same genre as such great albums like In The Court and Snow Goose?
P.S. - Lord Qwerty. You are the biggest dork ever. Hahaha.
Edited by Legoman
|
|
moonlapse
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 15 2005
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 464
|
Posted: February 16 2006 at 20:27 |
John Gargo wrote:
I am of the opinion that the site should be inclusive rather than exclusive. Now with that out of the way...
I think people need to relax... this is a website meant for your
personal entertainment. The very fabric of progressive rock will
not tear due to the addition of The Beatles in this site. Take a
look at this statistic...
2,277
That's the number of bands in the database. I'm sure there are
others here that you wouldn't consider prog as well, but the vast
majority of them are. Some people don't think bands like
Supertramp should be included... Well OK, then don't visit that section
of the forum. Hell, I've heard people argue that Kansas shouldn't
be here as well, and others who say that prog metal is rubbish and
shouldn't be here either.
Bottom line - everyone has their own definitons of prog rock and
they will obviously be different than this site. It reflects the
opinion of the founding members. You don't agree with it?
Well then go start your own website and pay the hosting fees. All
of you people who are saying stuff like "RIP PROG ARCHIVES" are real
dicks in my eyes... The owners of this site are providing you with this
archive and this is the thanks you give them? A site with this
much traffic cannot be very cheap to maintain, not to mention the
effort that goes into building and moderating it.
ProgLucky and m@X , I feel sorry for you
guys. Then again, you probably would have guessed that you
would be eventually be dealing with such thankless dicks when
starting a progressive rock website. Keep up the good work. |
Yeah, so what you are saying is the site should be inclusive...and only include those who agree with the owners. Haha
Ok so there's 2,277 bands in the archives. So let's add Linkin
Park too - hey that collaboration with Jay-Z was something else!
I mean what's another band, when there's so many to choose from?
While the owners have the right to make the decisions, it doesn't mean that all their decisions are right.
I'm sure most of us appreciate the work they put into this site.
But that doesn't mean we have to agree with everything they do. I
mean, the site is what it is due in part to this forum and the people
who post reviews, who have no other connection to the site other than
being a member. So, shouldn't they be allowed to voice an opinion?
I guess you'd rather have us lie, and say we agree, or say nothing (which is pretty much akin to lying).
And, I guess you've never criticized your local professional sports
team's owner or GM for trading away that 1st round draft choice for a
washed up veteran to make the playoffs? Hey, you don't like the
trade? Go somewhere else! Move to another city!
Better yet, buy your own sports team, and pay those high
salaries! A sports franchise is pretty expensive to maintain, not
to mention all the effort that goes into to running it. And this
is the thanks they get for trying to improve the team!!!
Give me a break!
|
|
marktheshark
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 24 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1695
|
Posted: February 16 2006 at 23:07 |
|
As a foremost Beatlemaniac (progger 2nd, sorry!) I've seen these threads come and go here for almost a year since been to this site, even started a few myself.
It's no doubt that the Beatles progressed music in general. Whether it be R&R or POP. When they introduced the 4th chord at the end of She Loves You, George Martin said "Boys, you can't do that (no pun intended), that's jazz!", and they just asked "Why not?" And that's where it all started.
Rules were mean't to be broken was the calling card for these 4 guys. But most of what they had in their heads was confined to their heads. I only thank God for George Martin. A man of technical experience to translate their ideas and bring their ideas to fruition. But keep in mind, their ideas were their ideas. George was just as much dependent on them as they were on him.
I personally feel The Beatles belong to almost every contemporary music genre archive (except jazz). One of my employees told me that his son is big into Hip-Hop and there's a site that even acknowledges the Beatles' Come Together as an early Hip-Hop influence! In fact, I think that song has been covered by a few Hip-Hoppers. Go figure!
Progressive? Yes! Defined Prog? No, but started the whole idea to progress R&R!
Edited by marktheshark
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21206
|
Posted: February 17 2006 at 03:01 |
|
^ that's a good way of putting it - "they started the whole idea to progress". Of course they weren't the first or the only ones with that idea, but they were part of the "progressive movement".
|
|
|
|
Olympus
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 18 2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 545
|
Posted: February 17 2006 at 03:34 |
bluetailfly wrote:
I would just like to add my opinion into the fray here:
Look, if you're going to add the Beatles and the Doors et al., then change the name of the website. Clearly, the focus of the website has moved out and beyond progressive rock.
|
He is right.
|
|
"Let's get the hell away from this Eerie-ass piece of work so we can get on with the rest of our eerie-ass day"
|
|
chopper
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 13 2005
Location: Essex, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 20030
|
Posted: February 17 2006 at 08:08 |
Certif1ed wrote:
chopper wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
Certifiable wrote:
]
Snow Dog wrote:
| I see that many consider Sgt Pepper to be a concept album......it isn't. | | |
Er... yes it is!
The entire thing is one huge concept/package, including the rumours that surrounded it.
|
We'll have to disagree on this one then.
|
Sorry, Snow Dog is correct here. Sgt Pepper was originally conceived as being a concert by a Beatles "alter-ego" band, hence it starts off with sounds of an orchestra warming up and the title track flows straight into "With a little help from my friends". After that, as Lennon has said, they got fed up with the idea and it became an normal album of songs. There is a half-hearted attempt to complete the concept with the reprise of the title track but there is no continuing theme linking the songs.
|
As you say, it started out as a concept album in the musical sense, even though the full concept was never fully realised - as you also point out.
"With a Little Help From My Friends" is arguably sung by Billy Shears, who we are introduced to at the end of the first track. But it's by no means a "normal album of songs" - there's too much variety, even compared to "Revolver" for that.
That doesn't mean it's not a concept album though - I tried to indicate that the concept is also in the packaging (with the cut-outs) and the rumours (Paul Is Dead - the flowers on the front allegedly spell Paul?).
The songs were all conceptualised and written slowly and carefully in the studio - something the Beatles had never had the luxury to do before - and the tracks all run into each other, something the guys built on with the medlies on "Abbey Road".
The Beatles presented themselves with this radical new image - the colourful uniforms and 'taches, as if they were enacting this alter-ego - that's a concept.
Musically, we're given music that strays very far from the standard rock format - here is a concept for you - the concept that Rock music doesn't have to be 100% rock.
The whole concept of Sgt Pepper was taken up by so many bands - the Stones and Zappa both poked fun at it, while "Good Morning" pokes fun at the Beach Boys (the animal noises = "Pet Sounds ) - and how many times has that cover been imitated?
The whole album is a mess of concepts, some followed-through, some not. It's still a concept album - or more accurately, an album of concepts - a work of art of sorts.
|
I agree there is a kind of "concept" of sorts behind it (the alter-ego band). What I meant by a "normal album of songs" is that it's not what I normally think of as a concept album along the lines of Snow, Olias, Lamb Lies Down etc where all the tracks make up a story or continuing theme.
I don't agree that "the tracks all run into each other". Some do, some don't.
It's still a work of genius (although I think Revolver is better).
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: February 17 2006 at 09:00 |
^Proto-concept album then... 
I agree - I much prefer Revolver, which I think is a proto-Pepper in many ways. But there's definitely an odd kind of flow about Pepper which suggests that the tracks run into each other even where they technically don't.
This is a proto-post 
|
|
John Gargo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 26 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 450
|
Posted: February 17 2006 at 09:48 |
moonlapse wrote:
Yeah, so what you are saying is the site should be inclusive...and only include those who agree with the owners. Haha |
Actually, YES, that is what I'm saying. Want to have more input? Why not offer to share the hosting costs for the site then? Oh, you're not in any rush to do so I see... how surprising.
| Ok so there's 2,277 bands in the archives. So let's add Linkin Park too - hey that collaboration with Jay-Z was something else! I mean what's another band, when there's so many to choose from? |
Absurd examples... the true sign of someone who has nothing to say.
| While the owners have the right to make the decisions, it doesn't mean that all their decisions are right. |
This is your opinion... there is no "right" or "wrong" when it comes to such an issue... it all comes down to personal taste.
| I'm sure most of us appreciate the work they put into this site. But that doesn't mean we have to agree with everything they do. I mean, the site is what it is due in part to this forum and the people who post reviews, who have no other connection to the site other than being a member. So, shouldn't they be allowed to voice an opinion? |
I was specifically referring to people who said stuff like "RIP Prog Archives" or 'This site is a joke." I wonder why they're still posting here if they think that.
| I guess you'd rather have us lie, and say we agree, or say nothing (which is pretty much akin to lying). |
Nothing wrong with politely expressing your opinion... I saw very few people politely disagree in this thread. I saw a lot or pompous ridicule and insults.
| And, I guess you've never criticized your local professional sports team's owner or GM for trading away that 1st round draft choice for a washed up veteran to make the playoffs? Hey, you don't like the trade? Go somewhere else! Move to another city! Better yet, buy your own sports team, and pay those high salaries! A sports franchise is pretty expensive to maintain, not to mention all the effort that goes into to running it. And this is the thanks they get for trying to improve the team!!! |
Again, a silly example... It's easier to visit another site than it is to move to another city. Stupid argument? Yeah, well so was your analogy.
| Give me a break! |
I apologize if the inclusion of the Beatles into a website is enough of an act to drive you into hysterics. I actually don't agree with adding The Beatles to Prog Archives, but it is not my call to make, and it certainly isn't the end of the world. Relax!!
|
|
moonlapse
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 15 2005
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 464
|
Posted: February 17 2006 at 10:57 |
John Gargo wrote:
Actually, YES, that is what I'm saying. Want to
have more input? Why not offer to share the hosting costs for the
site then? Oh, you're not in any rush to do so I see... how
surprising.
Absurd examples... the true sign of someone who has nothing to say.
This is your opinion... there is no "right" or "wrong" when it comes to such an issue... it all comes down to personal taste.
I was specifically referring to people who said stuff like "RIP Prog
Archives" or 'This site is a joke." I wonder why they're still
posting here if they think that.
Again, a silly example... It's
easier to visit another site than it is to move to another city.
Stupid argument? Yeah, well so was your analogy.
I apologize if the inclusion of the Beatles into a website is enough
of an act to drive you into hysterics. I actually don't
agree with adding The Beatles to Prog Archives, but it is not my call
to make, and it certainly isn't the end of the world. Relax!! |
Haha - nobody's in hysterics. LOL.
My post isn't the end of the world either, so relax buddy. And
maybe those who posted RIP did leave - they just wanted a final say,
who knows.
You say there's no right or wrong, it all comes down to personal taste
- then you call my Linkin Park example absurd. By your
definition, if I say Linkin Park is prog, then it is, right?
And just because I have an opinion, means I have to start working for
the forum? Yeah right. You've never criticized the
president of your country either without going into politics.
Sure. And I guess you'll call this another absurd example,
without explaining why.
Also, explain why my sports team analogy is silly? Instead of
just calling it a stupid argument, back up what you are saying.
You talk about politely disagreeing, and then you go and call my
arguments stupid and absurd - without explaining why. Hmmm maybe
that's the true sign of someone who has nothing to say?
Edited by moonlapse
|
|
John Gargo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 26 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 450
|
Posted: February 17 2006 at 12:06 |
I've said all I needed to say. You know, we both actually agree that The Beatles shouldn't be in the archive. All I was really saying is that people should have been more polite when disagreeing with the people who own the website. It's like a big 'f**k You' to those who offer us this great resource, one that I visit every day and have learned so much from. Just sticking up for them is all...
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
The Beatles. Here. Why?
