Forum Home Forum Home > Other music related lounges > Proto-Prog and Prog-Related Lounge
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Breaking news: PROG-RELATED IS NOT PROG
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedBreaking news: PROG-RELATED IS NOT PROG

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 6>
Author
Message
Cheesecakemouse View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 1751
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 06 2007 at 20:38
I understand the definition I think its adaquiate, I think some people just overreact, because there might be a band in a genre they don't like included, eg Iron Maiden.
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21206
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 07 2007 at 04:36
Breaking News: PEOPLE DON'T READ DEFINITIONS!

It sucks, but that's the way it is.
Back to Top
Raff View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: July 29 2005
Location: None
Status: Offline
Points: 24429
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 07 2007 at 04:49
Originally posted by MikeEnRegalia MikeEnRegalia wrote:

Breaking News: PEOPLE DON'T READ DEFINITIONS!

It sucks, but that's the way it is.


So, why do we write them?Confused

I've always been in favour of the PP and PR categories, but now I wish it were possible to scrap them altogether. If there is no way to get people to understand that they are not considered prog, the atmosphere of the forums will get worse and worse... Sorry to sound discouraged, but the constant spectacle of people at each other's throats is really starting to get to me.
Back to Top
Mandrakeroot View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member

Italian Prog Specialist

Joined: March 01 2006
Location: San Foca, Friûl
Status: Offline
Points: 5851
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 07 2007 at 04:55
For me PP It would have to be a sub genre of the prog (or something of fellow) and in the top 50 I see well the presence of PP albums.
 
I agree for PR.  It isn't Prog (even if includes 100% Prog albums) and isn't just to blend these album with those Prog.
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21206
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 07 2007 at 06:20
Originally posted by Ghost Rider Ghost Rider wrote:

Originally posted by MikeEnRegalia MikeEnRegalia wrote:

Breaking News: PEOPLE DON'T READ DEFINITIONS!

It sucks, but that's the way it is.


So, why do we write them?Confused

I've always been in favour of the PP and PR categories, but now I wish it were possible to scrap them altogether. If there is no way to get people to understand that they are not considered prog, the atmosphere of the forums will get worse and worse... Sorry to sound discouraged, but the constant spectacle of people at each other's throats is really starting to get to me.


Of course definitions are helpful, and I have the highest respect for those who write them. But the underlying problem is simply that non-prog bands are listed on a prog website. People see a Led Zeppelin review on a website which is called "progarchives.com" ... that confuses them so much that they start to complain without reading genre definitions first.

You probably know the saying "the customer's always right". It's even more true with websites ... I learned it the hard way with my own website. If you have a confusing concept people will not understand it no matter how many well written explanations there are. The *only* way to really solve the problem is to change the concept. As far as the "prog-related problem" is concerned I would say that these bands, albums and reviews need to be visually different from the prog bands, albums and reviews - maybe with a big "sticker" saying "non-prog" attached to them.
Back to Top
Time Signature View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: July 20 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 362
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 07 2007 at 06:40
"Prog", "prog-related".... it makes little difference to me. To me it's a continuum kinda thing, so I don't really care about this problem, but I do see Mike's points.
This user has left the PA fora, but will occasionally post reviews so as to support artists.
Back to Top
Visitor13 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: February 02 2005
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 4702
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 07 2007 at 06:42
Sure, it's not prog, so it shouldn't be here.
Back to Top
Velkan View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie
Avatar

Joined: October 05 2007
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 12
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 07 2007 at 07:18
Personally, I read "Without being 100% Prog" as "while being close to that mark" and I don't think that that's what it's supposed to mean. Why not simply "Without being Prog, received clear MUSICAL influence of this genre"?
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21206
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 07 2007 at 08:08
Originally posted by Visitor13 Visitor13 wrote:

Sure, it's not prog, so it shouldn't be here.


That's your opinion. The site owners think that some selected non-prog bands *should* be there, and that's the source of the problem. Maybe they should rename the website ... but "prog-and-some-selected-non-prog-archives.com" is kind of long, so that isn't a viable option.Wink
Back to Top
Tony R View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: July 16 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 11979
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 07 2007 at 08:26
I am actually warming to a variation of YUKORIN's idea.

"Related" ....works...

"Related Bands" works too...
Back to Top
micky View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46833
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 07 2007 at 09:42
Originally posted by Tony R Tony R wrote:

I am actually warming to a variation of YUKORIN's idea.

"Related" ....works...

"Related Bands" works too...


Clap  may not help... but it doesn't hurt to try.  It's not we are inventing the wheel here in changing the name.
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
Back to Top
Visitor13 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: February 02 2005
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 4702
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 07 2007 at 10:13
Originally posted by micky micky wrote:


Originally posted by Tony R Tony R wrote:

I am actually warming to a variation of YUKORIN's idea. "Related" ....works..."Related Bands" works too...


Clap  may not help... but it doesn't hurt to try.  It's not we are inventing the wheel here in changing the name.


I think it'll help a lot. With that annoying four letter word out, people will take less (negative) notice of the category.
Back to Top
andu View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 27 2006
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 3089
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 07 2007 at 10:24
It's got my support, too Smile
Back to Top
Ricochet View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 27 2005
Location: Nauru
Status: Offline
Points: 46301
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 07 2007 at 10:29
well, sure, as a name it will cool down something from...the "something" that creates so much diversion.

but, technically, it will still be "related to prog". Wink Will that douse the "misunderstanding" that the bands in related aren't prog?
Back to Top
The Doctor View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 07 2007 at 10:33
Originally posted by Ricochet Ricochet wrote:

well, sure, as a name it will cool down something from...the "something" that creates so much diversion.

but, technically, it will still be "related to prog". Wink Will that douse the "misunderstanding" that the bands in related aren't prog?
 
Actually, I agree with the poster who said that the phrase "while not 100% prog" may be misleading.  When I read that, I think "not 100% prog, so how much prog is it? 50%, 75%, 98%?"  The definition does not say that prog-related bands are NOT prog, it says they are not completely prog.  That definition could apply to Genesis, Yes, Tull and any number of other 70's classic prog bands.  Wink


Edited by The Doctor - October 07 2007 at 10:36
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
Back to Top
Raff View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: July 29 2005
Location: None
Status: Offline
Points: 24429
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 07 2007 at 10:41
I think The Doc has a point here, though I personally don't care about quantifying any act's 'prog quotient'. However, I think we're forgetting the real issue here, which is what so often leads to fights among forum members: everyone's notion of prog is different. Those people who suggest the inclusion of bands others think outrageous are very much in good faith, because those acts sound prog to them for some reason or the other. And there is no real way to prove them wrong, because in the arts everything can be seen subjectively - unless we resort to labelling or to the 'historical' factor.
Back to Top
micky View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46833
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 07 2007 at 10:42
Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

Originally posted by Ricochet Ricochet wrote:

well, sure, as a name it will cool down something from...the "something" that creates so much diversion.

but, technically, it will still be "related to prog". Wink Will that douse the "misunderstanding" that the bands in related aren't prog?
 
Actually, I agree with the poster who said that the phrase "while not 100% prog" may be misleading.  When I read that, I think "not 100% prog, so how much prog is it? 50%, 75%, 98%?"  The definition does not say that prog-related bands are NOT prog, it says they are not completely prog.  That definition could apply to Genesis, Yes, Tull and any number of other 70's classic prog bands.  Wink


I agree... I read that defintion... and it wasn't too good... I know someone..I think it was  Ivan was going to rewrite it.  Maybe he'll come up with a better one than that.   Whoever does needs to make sure they take Xover into account.  Because some of those groups in PR are being being moved to full prog subgenres down the road.  Not to mention I strongly support moving bands that DID fully prog albums out of PR.. and classify them per their prog albums.. this is a prog site you know. Not a general music site.  The listener here.. in theory...  cares only for the prog.  Take Styx...  being in PR says nothing about their prog output... should someone check it out...  what do they sound like.  Heavy prog.. .symphonic prog... . bahh..... 
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
Back to Top
Ricochet View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 27 2005
Location: Nauru
Status: Offline
Points: 46301
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 07 2007 at 10:43
Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

Originally posted by Ricochet Ricochet wrote:

well, sure, as a name it will cool down something from...the "something" that creates so much diversion.

but, technically, it will still be "related to prog". Wink Will that douse the "misunderstanding" that the bands in related aren't prog?
 
Actually, I agree with the poster who said that the phrase "while not 100% prog" may be misleading.  When I read that, I think "not 100% prog, so how much prog is it? 50%, 75%, 98%?"  The definition does not say that prog-related bands are NOT prog, it says they are not completely prog.  That definition could apply to Genesis, Yes, Tull and any number of other 70's classic prog bands.  Wink


True thing, till your last proposition (which, again, has to do with the most popular of grunts we get in these discussions: of course Genesis and Yes are prog, they influenced or mastered the damn genre they're in!!!). Wink

I think we agree that "Related" must be a genre of NON-progressive bands. Therefore, those "not 100% prog" definitions should disappear.

Instead, "not 100% prog" could be Xover, but only meaning "lesser progressive bands" or "prog combined with mainstream".


Edited by Ricochet - October 07 2007 at 10:44
Back to Top
The Doctor View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 07 2007 at 10:52
Originally posted by Ricochet Ricochet wrote:

Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

Originally posted by Ricochet Ricochet wrote:

well, sure, as a name it will cool down something from...the "something" that creates so much diversion.

but, technically, it will still be "related to prog". Wink Will that douse the "misunderstanding" that the bands in related aren't prog?
 
Actually, I agree with the poster who said that the phrase "while not 100% prog" may be misleading.  When I read that, I think "not 100% prog, so how much prog is it? 50%, 75%, 98%?"  The definition does not say that prog-related bands are NOT prog, it says they are not completely prog.  That definition could apply to Genesis, Yes, Tull and any number of other 70's classic prog bands.  Wink


True thing, till your last proposition (which, again, has to do with the most popular of grunts we get in these discussions: of course Genesis and Yes are prog, they influenced or mastered the damn genre they're in!!!). Wink

I think we agree that "Related" must be a genre of NON-progressive bands. Therefore, those "not 100% prog" definitions should disappear.

Instead, "not 100% prog" could be Xover, but only meaning "lesser progressive bands" or "prog combined with mainstream".
 
I simply meant that when you take into account albums such as We Can't Dance, Big Generator, Under Wraps, etc., not 100% of those bands' output were prog.  In other words, the definition of "not 100%" could be taken to mean that not 100% of their output was prog.   Of course, I agree with you that Genesis, Yes and Tull are prog.  I was not implying otherwise.  I was simply trying to point out the weakness of the "not 100%" statement. 
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
Back to Top
Shakespeare View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: July 18 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 7744
Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 07 2007 at 11:04
Originally posted by Ghost Rider Ghost Rider wrote:

Why do we always have to see people overreact every time a band is suggested for addition in PROG-RELATED, as if someone had said they were as prog as, say, Genesis, Yes or King Crimson?

I'm one of these people who sometimes overreacts. The reason is that this is in fact a prog rock website, and if these prog related bands were not at all prog, they would not be here. The other point I have brought up before is that an enormous amount of bands exercised a style of music similar to prog, or the odd complex time metre, but generally, were not at all prog. If we added all of these bands to the archives, they would likely outnumber the prog we have here, and thenceforth we'd be known as "The rock archives (with some prog, too)." I have no problem with some bands being added, just not too many. But the famous questions stands: "Where does it end?" I'd prefer it to end sooner than later.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 6>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.172 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.