Proto/Related ... only for 70s?

Mike, will Katatonia ever come back to the archives?

 -- Ivan

Mike I like the idea of a Proto Prog Metal genre I would recommend that.

It would make more sense to narrow the Progressive Metal genre, like Nightwish some say "Nightwish are not Prog2, even an old a one time friend said "Nightwish can't be considered Prog because of the Keyboard", so maybe a Prog Metal Releted Genre can be introduced to make that more specific.

Here some suggestions I thought of:

Proto Prog Metal - as Mike says bands like Metallica, Megadeth etc, the first bands that pioneered this genre.

Proto Prog Rock: I like the Proto Prog genre as it is but if they changed it could be this, but I think it's OK as it is now (Proto Prog).

Prog Related needs more clarification so sub Prog Related genres are needed IMO, but it least we know with this genre it's not true Prog in a sense.

Here is some suggestions for that:

Prog Art Rock Related

Prog Metel Related

Prog AOR/Pop Related

Alternative Prog Related??

Progressive Tendencies - bands that are not Prog at all, little bit related to Prog but Prog/Progressive elements are composed. (but I think this genre would not work, but unsure!!)

any views on these topics??

This is a very subjective criteria, but I am not opposed to it

but those hundreds of possibilities of entries would certainly dilute the content of the database

I would say that if proto-prog is a necessary evil (given the date resrictions) , the prog-related or proto-progmetal (do ypu think that we could apply this proto prefix  to RIO or Cantyerbury then?) shopuld be limited in numbers

the problem is that we always think that since X and Y are in , why not Z?

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ And that's exactly the problem. Either we take it literally and ahve to accept many non-prog bands in order to be consistent ... or we restrict the inclusion to Proto-Classic-Prog-Rock and Prog-Related from the 70s (1st wave of prog rock). Or something completely different ...

I could sense youcoming out with that, and I agree partly with that, but a line shopuld be drawn somewhere or else soon or later, the Bee Gees and Slade will be in the Archives

Got a solution?

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ I meant that if we take "Proto" literally, also metal bands of the 80s could be accepted as "Proto-Prog-Metal", just like 60s Psychedelic Rock bands can be accepted as "Proto-Prog-Rock". Examples for Proto-Prog-Metal: Diamond Head Metallica (Master of Puppets/... And Justice For All) Megadeth (Peace Sells/Rust in Peace) But these would be difficult additions, and that's why I asked the question whether we want to allow this or not. The consequence of taking Proto-Prog/Prog-Related literally would be that we would have to accept a lot more bands than we currently do.

I amost headed in that direction , but thought I'd let you come in expressing this idea

Yes I think that wa could talk about proto-progmetal in a way and this could head backto Blue Cheer, High tide  and Zeppelin or Sabbath as far back into history

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Sean Trane wrote: I think the idea about proto prog is quite clear: it should concern groups that were around before the 70's , and I chose to include two spanish bands from 70 and 71 in proto-prog because their sound was typical psych/prog in a way that no other possible solution was correct. But most psych groups of the era should have accessibility to that category>>> after all we included Iron Butterfly which has very few elements of prog (>>> see my reviews) What about the newer genres like Neo-Prog or Prog Metal?

Not sure I follow your drift regarding my comments on proto prog, but I'll give it a shot

neo-prog clearly states a period (such as proto-prog does too) as well as a style of music and it is clearly about 80's and later groups>> therefore there should be a time limit as for the debut of this era

Although I am certainly no expert (and I couldbe wrong about this) Progmetal starts IMHO opinion with Queensryche's Operation Mindcrime which has 88 as a release year, I think. Therefore, I think no groups that did metal albums before should be included in progmetal >> Imust say I have not checked up on this whether this is the case on this site

Of course exceptions are to be made if a band started out as a plain metal group in the 80's and veered prog-metal in the 90's

Hope i answered the way you were hoping for

Sean Trane wrote: I think the idea about proto prog is quite clear: it should concern groups that were around before the 70's , and I chose to include two spanish bands from 70 and 71 in proto-prog because their sound was typical psych/prog in a way that no other possible solution was correct. But most psych groups of the era should have accessibility to that category>>> after all we included Iron Butterfly which has very few elements of prog (>>> see my reviews)

What about the newer genres like Neo-Prog or Prog Metal?

Perhaps -- so I chose the 1st option.

Still, I find these categories to be even more vague than "prog" itself, and potentially so broad (especially "prog related") as to be almost meaningless. If we can't even agree on "prog," how in the heck can we decide what influenced it (beyond the generic "rock," and, of course jazz, classical and psychedelic), or what is "related" to it?

I don't see for a second how on earth 'proto prog' can include 70s bands, as by then it was a fully fledged genre and didn't have a foot in the psychedelic camp. I'd cut off 'proto prog' at around 1969, when the first wave of prog bands like King Crimson etc. were starting to emerge.

As for prog related, I think this could really be from all decades to be honest.