Proto/Related ... only for 70s?

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Discuss!

No!

I just think that it is too difficult to judge which band can be accepted and which can't if we allow any band from any genre. For example, how do I explain somebody that a band like Katatonia is not prog related? Especially with their current album they moved very close to Opeth and Tool, and although they are still not prog, they certainly are related to the genre in more than one way.

Example: Recently the prog metal team cleared Nevermore for the addition as prog related. Although there is a consensus among most collabs that inclusions don't work on a "band X is here, band Y is similar -> band Y must be included" basis, accepting Nevermore would of course trigger many requests to add bands like Iron Maiden, Metallica etc. ... with good reason. These are not really similar to Nevermore, but one could certainly argue that they aren't less progressive (if you compare their most progressive albums).

Edited by MikeEnRegalia

MikeEnRegalia wrote: I think that with all the recent discussions about prog related modern bands from genres like Experimental (Alternative) Rock or Metal, a thought occurred to me: Wouldn't it be best to limit the prog-related/proto-prog categories to "original" bands from the 60s/70s?

Don't think so. Proto-prog is everything (ideas, instruments, styles, production) that adds to the development of progressive rock. For instance, Radiohead is proto-prog because they have influenced prog (e.g. Pineapple Thief, Marillion) but never themselves were/are prog except perhaps for a few songs - just like The Beatles are proto-prog because their idea of the concept album, their layered production on Sgt. Pepper, their use of eastern instruments became ingredients of prog. Who knows, a new instrument might even be developed (cf. the mellotron) that will become another trademark of prog and why shouldn't the band that introduced that instrument be labelled proto-prog (cf. Moody Blues). On the other hand, we may by definition limit proto-prog to the bands/music say pre-Court of the Crimson King. Subsequent non-prog bands/music that added to the development of prog could be defined as "prog-influential".

If I've understood the definition of proto-prog correctly, then I think it's obvious that only bands that started before the 70s should be listed under proto-prog. For the prog-related category, all time periods should be considered, but it's probably a good idea not to include every band that is in some way prog-related.

ivansfr0st wrote: Who exactly made the decision to remove Katatonia from the archives after they had been accepted? It's kind of strange.

I don't know - I only saw it this morning.

ivansfr0st wrote: Moreover, I don't understand how Black Sabbath are NOT as worthy to be on the archives as, say, Deep Purple. Beginning with Sabbath Bloody Sabbath they released 4 proggy albums in a row. I know that most of their albums are hard rock/traditional heavy metal, but can't the same be said about Deep Purple as well?  -- Ivan

Deep Purple are not here because of the 70s albums like Machine Head or in Rock or the later albums, but because of the psychedelic stuff from the 60s and their collaboration with a symphonic orchestra. I agree that the early Black Sabbath albums are somewhat proggish, but not enough IMO.

Fitzcarraldo wrote: By definition the 'proto-' prefix should not be used to classify artists later than, say, 1967 or 1968. However, the tag 'Prog related', which I believe is used by Prog Archives to refer to artists who produced music that is similar to Progressive Rock to a lesser or greater extent, could therefore be used for any artist later than 1967 or 1968.   proto- prefix 1. first in time, earliest protolithic protomartyr 2. original, ancestral protostar Proto-Norse 3. first in a series, having the least amount of a particular element or radical protactinium [From Greek prôtos ; ultimately related to pro (see pro2)]

Agree!

"Proto prog" means only early prog.

"Prog related" does not depend on any period.

terramystic wrote: [QUOTE=Fitzcarraldo] "Proto prog" means only early prog. "Prog related" does not depend on any period.

No, proto-prog is not early prog as such. The Beatles is proto-prog but not prog - not even a single song may be categorized as prog (well, perhaps A Day In The Life). Nonetheless they influenced the early prog music. The Nice is not a prog band, but they did have individual songs (not entire albums) that were prog - hence they are also proto-prog. The first full-blown prog album was In The Court Of The Crimson King, therefore King Crimson is prog, not proto-prog.

Moreover, "prog related" is NOT prog because only very few segments of individual songs may be categorized as prog.

earlyprog wrote: No, proto-prog is not early prog as such. The Beatles is proto-prog but not prog - not even a single song may be categorized as prog (well, perhaps A Day In The Life). Nonetheless they influenced the early prog music. The Nice is not a prog band, but they did have individual songs (not entire albums) that were prog - hence they are also proto-prog. The first full-blown prog album was In The Court Of The Crimson King, therefore King Crimson is prog, not proto-prog. Moreover, "prog related" is NOT prog because only very few segments of individual songs may be categorized as prog.

W.r.t. THE NICE, to me they were playing progressive rock and Progressive Rock from their first album. Even if one were to put "The Thoughts Of Emerlist Davejack" into the proto- category, to me "Ars Longa Vita Brevis" takes the band firmly into Progressive Rock territory. If "Five Bridges Suite" is not Progressive Rock, then I don't know what is.

 

Edited by Fitzcarraldo

Proto only 60´s and 70´s

Related all time...Muse, Stream of Passion are "new" bands