Should ProgArchives turn into ProgMusicAr - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

chamberry

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 24 2005
Location: Puerto Rico
Status: Offline
Points: 9008

Posted: June 24 2007 at 18:56

Erik, why did you mentioned Tool? They are a prog band and are added under a prog genre here in PA.

EDIT:
And from what I've heard there's already Progressive Punk artists and Progressive Trance artists here in ProgArchives. Look for Cardiacs and Anubian Lights.

Edited by chamberry - June 24 2007 at 19:13

1800iareyay View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

Joined: November 18 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2492

Posted: June 24 2007 at 20:07

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

1800iareyay wrote:

Why does this discussion never cease? Ever since I joined purists complain about the very existence of the prog-related genre. Why does it bother you so much?

Nobody complains about the existence of Prog Related, some of us disagree withe the ABUSE of Prog Related, if a band is really related with Prog add them but if it's not clear or influenced everybody else, it's not a Prog Related band, it's an influential band in Rock as The Who, The Rolling Stones, The Animals, etc, which don't belong here.

You say purist as a bad word, well it's not, I'm one of them and I'm proud of it. If Prog has survived more popular genres like Punk, New Age or Disco is because the fans are faithful to the sound, Prog has managed to keep the identity almost intact, the day we start to accept everything as Prog Related, that identity will be lost.

Now DT is getting blamed for being too popular here. That's is so f&^%ing stupid. Yes, Dream Theater garners more attention thatn, say, Amon Duul. Them's the breaks. Are you suggesting we throw out the kings of progressive metal just because you're sick of seeing them?

Nobody is against Dream Theater or Prog Metal (Well, maybe a few), they are Prog and they deserve to be here, but you are pretty new, several weeks before Octavarium was added, we had at least 50 reviews giving Octavarium 5 stars, and the lamest thing is that people was rating a LaBrie album that was rounding the net.

Now that's really fuc*ing stupid.

Bands like Zeppelin and The Who have had profound impact on prog becuase they have had profound impact on music in general.

Let me tell you a secret....Prog Archives is not suposed to be a general music site, it's a Progressive Rock site, we should care about bands that influenced PROG, that are related to PROG, that are almost PROG, not bands that influenced everybody.

In that case lets add Chuck Berry, Little Richard and Elvis Presley, they had impact in all Rock, but then we would have to change the name to Non Prog Archives.

Don't laugh, it's exactly the same argument you're giving.

The Who were the first to incorporate the idea of theater into rock. That's quite a big part of progressive music.

Yes???? Are you sure??? When????

Not even the first Rock Opera, "Then an Alley" was released by Tito Schipa, Jr. in 1967 who adapted 18 Bob Dylan's songs to an Opera and stage format.

Theatrics? The Who were never specially theatrical on stage, Arthur Brown, The Bonzo Dog Band and even David Bowie were doing theatrics before The Who.

BTW: One element does not make a band Prog or Prog Related, there's theatric in almost every Rock genre.

Stop focusing on bands you think taint the perceived perfect prog blood of the site and just have fun. That's why the site exists.

Yes, we're here to have fun but focussing in PROGRESSIVE ROCK, the huge majority of members joines Prog Archives because WE LOVE PROG, if not we would be members of a general Rock site.

This is PROG ARCHIVES, created to be a PROG resource, there are a lot of general Rock sites that you can join to dedicate to all the genres, but this is not one.

Iván

I didn't mean purist as a bad thing, and I realize that's how it sounds, so apolgies. I couldn't agree more with the criticisms of DT albums being reviewed before release (Systematic Chaos befell the same fate as Octavarium). I've suggested the admins not allow reviews pre-release date because of it.

When it comes to Led Zeppelin, I believe their sound progressed quite a lot from blatantly stealing Detla blues songs into fusing rock and folk (they certainly weren't the first to do that), and IMO they were the first to truly fuse Indian music with rock (George Harrison's experimentations were merely Indian music, it wasn't rock. Still good though). I know my statement is open-ended, but I'm sick of hearing about Zeppelin's inclusion. No, 50s guitarists don't belong here simply because you cannot DIRECTLY link them to prog. I believe you can with Zeppelin, what with inventive string arrangements and world music incorporation.

"Then an Alley" may be the first operatic use of rock, but I really don't think a unique covers album constitutes a landmark. Zappa introduced concept albums but The WHo took it to the nexzt level with Tommy. To me, Tommy is the first rock record you have to listen to in its entirety. Up to that point, albums could be listened to out of sequence with no consequence.

Yes, ProgArchives is a prog site. That should go without saying. Of course I don't want every band with the slightest ties to prog to be added. Then we'd end up with the Talking Heads, Black Sabbath, and a host of wonderful bands who nevertheless have no business here. I'm just sick of people taking offense when bands like the Who or Zeppelin or the Doors are considered and act like the admins have flipped. So Iván, I apologize for leaving my statements over-simplified, and I'm sure you'll still disagree with at least some of what I just said, but the point I was trying to make is these threads need to stop popping up every time someone is considered for prog-related or proto-prog. I know I'm new, but I don't want to include every band that I like, just the ones I feel truly have direct ties to the genre I love.

1800iareyay View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

Joined: November 18 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2492

Posted: June 24 2007 at 20:12

erik neuteboom wrote:

Ivan, you sound like a progrock missionary with your wish to us collaborators to add as much as possible genuine progrock bands but you seem to underestimate the fact that since the inclusion of bands like The Beatles, The Doors, Talk Talk, JM Jarre, Iron Maiden, Blue Oyster Cult, Tool and Magnum, Prog Archives cannot stop the increasing demand for more non-prog bands. You should prepare yourself for that and be aware that this is no longer an exclusive progrock site, it has turned into a prog music site.

About The Bee Gees: their very early work is way more progressive and interesting than many non-prog bands on this site so watch out for cynical remarks, it would be great if Prog Archives offers a possibility to add only the progressive work of the early The Bee Gees, they were part of the progressive rock movement in the late Sixties/early Seventies

I don't see how adding non prog bands (as you deem them), means that the site should be renamed ProgMusicArchives. Doesn't that title imply that the site is as progressive as before? To me, it suggests that the current site deals with progressiveneess in all realms (i.e. visual art, etc.), and that "now we just focus on music." If what you say is true, it should be renamed MusicArchives, or RockArchives.

Regarding the Bee Gees, I think that debate would make the venomous squabbles that surrounded the Doors, Maiden, and Zeppelin look tame in comparison

erik neuteboom View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

Joined: July 27 2005
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 7659

Posted: June 24 2007 at 20:32

I have the opinion that the name Prog Archives with the subtitle The Ultimate Source For Progressive Rock (in the PA logo) is confusing, it suggests that the focus in on progressive rock while the reality is that many progressive bands (in categories like folk and electronic) lack the elements rock and lots of non progrock bands with some progressive ideas have been added. So in fact we are more moving towards the music in Bradley Smith his wonderful book The Billboard Guide To Progressive Music. That's my idea behind my post.

TheProgtologist View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: May 23 2005
Location: Baltimore,Md US
Status: Offline
Points: 27802

Posted: June 24 2007 at 20:40

chamberry wrote:

Erik, why did you mentioned Tool? They are a prog band and are added under a prog genre here in PA.

Exactly,this prog "snobbery" and elitism is getting OLD.

I guess some people aren't interested in music expanding,growing and changing,but just like listening to the same recycled stuff.....over and over again.How very BORING.

Well.......................to each his own.

cuncuna

Forum Senior Member

Joined: March 29 2005
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 4318

Posted: June 24 2007 at 20:43

¡Beware of the Bee!

1800iareyay View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

Joined: November 18 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2492

Posted: June 24 2007 at 20:48

^ now who can argue with that?

erik neuteboom View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

Joined: July 27 2005
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 7659

Posted: June 24 2007 at 20:52

Because Tool was added to this site I have listened to their music but to me it sounds as interesting guitar rock, quite heavy, no more or less. I am more impressed by The Stranglers, The Tubes and Journey looking at progressive elements.

Edited by erik neuteboom - June 24 2007 at 20:53

thellama73 View Drop Down

Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368

Posted: June 24 2007 at 20:57

I like music.

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: June 24 2007 at 21:26

1800iareyay wrote:

I didn't mean purist as a bad thing, and I realize that's how it sounds, so apolgies. I couldn't agree more with the criticisms of DT albums being reviewed before release (Systematic Chaos befell the same fate as Octavarium). I've suggested the admins not allow reviews pre-release date because of it.

Sorry for the blue font and the parragraph replies, but I discovered it's the best way to check poin by point.

I agree with you, I had Dreamer by Anton Roolart (sent by the artist) before it's official release, but for a matter of principles I waited till the day of the officoial release to add him and review the album.

I believe the albums should be added the official release date, not before, unless you can justify how you had access to the album.

Led Zeppelin is not a great problem for me, I believe they had some Prog moments and I see bno strong reason to avoid their addition in Prog Archives as Prog Related.

But please Rsainbow? Blue Oyster Cult? Super Furry Animals? They are already here and nothing can be done, but some people use them as an excuse to add other less Prog artists.

We should admit it was a mistake, but we will try to avoid more similar inclusions.

I don't believe The Wjo pioneered theatrics or concept albums,. take a look at Arthur Brown dancing with a candlestick on his head proclaiming himself The God of Hell Fire and Carl Palmer playing the drums with masks or the Vaudeville acts by Vivian Stanshall and The Bonzo Dog Band.

But even if they were the first, it's not enough, ODESSA by the Bee Gees was released months before Toimmy and was both more popular (Not that I care for popularity) and conceptual album.

Both have been suggested and are in the waiting list, being evaluated, I believe they have no business here.

I'm just sick of people taking offense when bands like the Who or Zeppelin or the Doors are considered and act like the admins have flipped.

I supported The Doors, any 100% Psychedelic band has a place here, I don't believe The Who should be considered related to nothing,. they are the N° 1 band of Classic Rock IMHO and they don't deserve to be lumped in a generic and secondary sub-genre, and I'm talking as a hardcore fan of The Who.

I never wrote anything about Led Zeppelin, I have my doubts, but they have some Proggy stuff and could be considered Prog Related.

So Iván, I apologize for leaving my statements over-simplified, and I'm sure you'll still disagree with at least some of what I just said, but the point I was trying to make is these threads need to stop popping up every time someone is considered for prog-related or proto-prog. I know I'm new, but I don't want to include every band that I like, just the ones I feel truly have direct ties to the genre I love.

Apologies taken but not required, and remember I have nothing against Prog Related and I believe Proto Prog is a very important sub-genre, it's the link between Psyche and Progressive Rock, the problem is with SOME additions.

Thanks for the good reply.

Iván

1800iareyay View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

Joined: November 18 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2492

Posted: June 25 2007 at 11:09

^ Blue Oyster Cult is here? Yeah, I'd have to agree with your sentiments there. Rainbow would belong if we counted power metal as prog metal (thankfully the admins don't), but I still reviewed their albums. I thought Black Sabbath and Talking Heads had already been voted down.

micky

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46838

Posted: June 25 2007 at 11:15

1800iareyay wrote:

^ Blue Oyster Cult is here?

for the same reason Ivan mentions that Zeppelin is here.... they have proggy material and could be... and were ...determined to be Prog Related.

erik neuteboom View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

Joined: July 27 2005
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 7659

Posted: June 25 2007 at 11:25

Ivan, why you keep on saying that The Doors are a pure psychedelic band? In my opinion their music was more than that, no obvious psychedelic overtones but very varied, a blend of psychedelia, classical, blues, rock, jazz and some folk. Eclectic proto-prog would fit as a new category !

About Prog-related bands, the term 'proggy stuff' turns out to be a very subjective one looking at the band addition during the recent years so I expect some heavy/emotional/subjective debates about possible new additions of Prog-related bands.

By the way, I wanted to write a review about a Kitaro album, he is not on this site, I don't hope is rejected

Alucard

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 10 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 3888

Posted: June 25 2007 at 11:33

darkshade wrote:

what im still baffled about is why Miles Davis, Herbie Hancock, Tony Williams Lifetime, and John Scofield arent on this site under Jazz Rock/Fusion?

Tony Williams Lifetime has just been added by Micky, Larry Corryell will be added soon and John Scofield & Herbie Hancock are on the waiting list ( as lots of other JR.f artists/bands BTW) and will be added. Miles Davis is complicated because of the "integrale discography policy", his discography is huge and only a small (so important part 1969-1975) is actually JR.

Edited by Alucard - June 25 2007 at 11:34

Tadpoles keep screaming in my ear
"Hey there! Rotter's Club!
Explain the meaning of this song and share it"

micky

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46838

Posted: June 25 2007 at 11:41

hahahha.... Erik...I think Ivan is off the mark. They are not, as he said, a pure psychedelic band. However I do agree with him in the final conclusion that the Doors didn't belong here. Not in PP. The Doors stretched the notion of PP ..a bit .... a great deal actually. Prog didn't originate in the US... the influences that went into what became Prog were EUROPEAN in origin. That could have been a nice debate.... but with the way the addition was handled.... it didn't happen hahahha.

erik neuteboom View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

Joined: July 27 2005
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 7659

Posted: June 25 2007 at 12:06

The opposite opinions about The Doors are one of the biggest prooves that it's so much about subjective views on this site. I have always wondered why there was/is so much opposition against a The Doors addition because they really played progressive rock, a very dynamic, varied and adventurous blend of styles, not just rock and blues as the cynical remarks were often about. How sad that Jim Morrison turned out to have a severe personality disorder, this was a blow to the development of The Doors after their awesome eponymous debut album.

Edited by erik neuteboom - June 25 2007 at 12:07

micky

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46838

Posted: June 25 2007 at 12:12

erik neuteboom wrote:

The opposite opinions about The Doors are one of the biggest prooves that it's so much about subjective views on this site. I have always wondered why there was/is so much opposition against a The Doors addition becuase they really played progressive rock, a very dynamic, varied and adventurous blend of styles, not just rock and blues as the cynical remarks were often about. How sad that Jim Morrison turned out to have a severe personality disorder, this was a blow to the development of The Doors after their awesome eponymous debut album.

I'm all for the subjective views on this site Erik... I just think there was a lot of opposition since many didn't didn't consider them prog of any sort. The site didn't burn down for the addition though hhhahah. It takes many views to make the site go around.. but you had to know that the Doors were not going to be a popular addtion.

I agree it was a blow... but I think their best work wasn't the debut but Strange Days. I loved his poetry... I bought both of those both that were released in the early 90's I think it was (maybe earlier). The Doors could have really been something.. I agree.

thellama73 View Drop Down

Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368

Posted: June 25 2007 at 12:15

Not that my opinion matters, but I personally don't think we should go adding a bunch of jazz artists like Herbie Hancock and Miles Davis, for the same reason that we shouldn't add classical composers like Philip Glass and Beethoven. It's just a different genre of music entirely.

micky

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46838

Posted: June 25 2007 at 12:21

thellama73 wrote:

Not that my opinion matters, but I personally don't think we should go adding a bunch of jazz artists like Herbie Hancock and Miles Davis, for the same reason that we shouldn't add classical composers like Philip Glass and Beethoven. It's just a different genre of music entirely.

of course it matters hahhaa.... but there are no jazz additions here.... the genre is Jazz-Rock... and it's additions are obviously handled very carefully. Only today was it's pioneering act added.. LOL

vingaton

Forum Newbie

Joined: March 09 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 31

Posted: June 25 2007 at 15:40

progismylife wrote:

Peter wrote:

Originally posted by <FONT color=#ff0000>vingaton</FONT>

vingaton wrote:

russellk said

"So, personally, no need to change anything. I am enjoying the way the site is developing."

Here here! well put! Wish I had said it!

Just for the record, and because I see this error here so often, the expression is spelled "hear, hear," as in "listen to this person," not "here here" as in "at this location" -- which would make no sense.

Great thread, BTW -- carry on!

Here, Here! Clap

I want to see beyond that tree
And defy the force of gravity