Black Sabbath??

Philéas wrote: WaywardSon wrote:   Who me?! I´m not saying they are prog, I´m saying they have influenced a lot of Prog Metal bands. According to the definition of Proto Prog they should be here. Your arguments are a bit vague. It was a question, not an argument. Anyway, as far as I know, we have no Proto-Prog Metal category on the site, and Sabbath released their debut in 1970, and surely didn't influence their Prog contemporaries, so they don't fit into Proto-Prog.

If Black Sabbath were ever to be considered as Proto-Prog, you'd have to add the "Metal" bit to the end, or it wouldn't make any sense, since their relation to classic Prog is time period alone (obviously and necessarily discounting the Rick Wakeman involvement, which doesn't add up to Prog Rock).


    

WaywardSon wrote:   Who me?! I´m not saying they are prog, I´m saying they have influenced a lot of Prog Metal bands. According to the definition of Proto Prog they should be here. Your arguments are a bit vague.

It was a question, not an argument. Anyway, as far as I know, we have no Proto-Prog Metal category on the site, and Sabbath released their debut in 1970, and surely didn't influence their Prog contemporaries, so they don't fit into Proto-Prog.


Edited by Philéas - October 21 2006 at 17:34

Do you even listen to Prog? Your idea of what makes a band Prog seems very vague.


Edited by Philéas - October 21 2006 at 16:09

Angelo wrote: Lol, it's tomorrow already now. And I'm still here.... And because I forgot to mention it: I do like Black Sabbath, and I do appreciate (older) Dream Theater - but liking or appreciation do not determine addition to the site.

I agree. Sabbath are one of my favourite bands aswell. But it's important to realise that all music one likes isn't Prog just because some of it is, and to realise that Prog isn't some sort of medal of honour for music.

Angelo wrote: Wow - a reaction within 4 minutes, even after 23:00.... Y'r right about Teaflax, haven't seen him for a while.

Me neither, I miss him in situations like this. As for my fast reaction, it's Friday, so I don't have to worry about getting up in time tomorrow.


Edited by Philéas - October 20 2006 at 17:30

Angelo wrote: I try as hard as I can to avoid participating in these discussions, but you trigger a reaction here: Doesn't your example imply that As I am is regressive, rather than making Sabbath progressive?

You are absolutely correct Angelo. And even if that would've made Sabbath somewhat Prog, it wouldn't have been enough to include them. 70's Hard Rock is 70's Hard Rock and nothing else, and it doesn't belong on this site. I wonder where Teaflax has gone... We need someone to tell people what's Prog and what's not...


Edited by Philéas - October 20 2006 at 17:19

I think  a lot of their riffs (and doom and gloom type imagery) are incorporated in a lot of recent prog metal.

proghairfunk wrote: So I know that Black Sabbath has been repeatedly denyed by PA and as much as i think they should be on PA this is not another annoying plea for them to be added.  I'd just like to know the reason they are not considered Proto-prog, as you won't be able to find a band in the entire Progressive Metal genre who doesn't owe them a debt of gratitude.

As long as we don't have a Proto-Prog Metal category, I see no reason whatsoever to include them. To have the Proto-Prog category is bad enough, to fill it with bands which don't even fit in there would reduce the site's credibility even more.

So I know that Black Sabbath has been repeatedly denyed by PA and as much as i think they should be on PA this is not another annoying plea for them to be added.  I'd just like to know the reason they are not considered Proto-prog, as you won't be able to find a band in the entire Progressive Metal genre who doesn't owe them a debt of gratitude.