Should Metallica be in the forum?

Hmmm, and as I read a bit here and there; and see the debate here - I start too ponder if this debate here may just be an element in a much bigger picture - a discussion going on in bits and pieces in many threads here.

The issue at hand being if this site should be a focal point for all progressive music, or if it should have it's main focus in the classic genres that was popular in the 70's only - and the styles directly evolved from those.

There's a dividing line there - with one side with a desire to focus on psychedelic, heavy and symphonic and the styles and bands evolved from those - another side with a focus on the development of the other styles here (in particular prog metal - as that is the style currently enjoying most commercial popularity it seems). And also a third minority that wants to expand the site beyond the styles of music currently listed to include additional genres of progressive music.

Hopefully the admins have an ongoing debate about this issue, if not they should start one I'd think. Whatever development of the site that may or may not come, it needs to be guided and planned. Right now my gut feeling is that the development is more chaotic now...or has been for some time...which is the cause for the somewhat edgy debates on these issues.

Personally I have a feeling that some general guidelines - perhaps even a strategy - for the development of the site either needs to be made...or if made needs to get well known. For starters, to avoid the big debates with heated opinions and people threatening to leave and never come back (which will be regarded as hurtful or provocative depending on point of view), but also so that the active people here who wants to work at pushing the boundaries know where the limitations are fixed at current - so that they won't kick off unneeded big debates.

As I guess a few admins are still following this thread - there's a few suggestions above. I hope they make sense to you (there's always the danger of my thoughts being comprehensible only to me *chuckles*).

Happy 600th post, everyone! 

Windhawk wrote: Hmmm, and as I read a bit here and there; and see the debate here - I start too ponder if this debate here may just be an element in a much bigger picture - a discussion going on in bits and pieces in many threads here. The issue at hand being if this site should be a focal point for all progressive music, or if it should have it's main focus in the classic genres that was popular in the 70's only - and the styles directly evolved from those. There's a dividing line there - with one side with a desire to focus on psychedelic, heavy and symphonic and the styles and bands evolved from those - another side with a focus on the development of the other styles here (in particular prog metal - as that is the style currently enjoying most commercial popularity it seems). And also a third minority that wants to expand the site beyond the styles of music currently listed to include additional genres of progressive music. Hopefully the admins have an ongoing debate about this issue, if not they should start one I'd think. Whatever development of the site that may or may not come, it needs to be guided and planned. Right now my gut feeling is that the development is more chaotic now...or has been for some time...which is the cause for the somewhat edgy debates on these issues. Personally I have a feeling that some general guidelines - perhaps even a strategy - for the development of the site either needs to be made...or if made needs to get well known. For starters, to avoid the big debates with heated opinions and people threatening to leave and never come back (which will be regarded as hurtful or provocative depending on point of view), but also so that the active people here who wants to work at pushing the boundaries know where the limitations are fixed at current - so that they won't kick off unneeded big debates. As I guess a few admins are still following this thread - there's a few suggestions above. I hope they make sense to you (there's always the danger of my thoughts being comprehensible only to me *chuckles*).

Indeed - the age old discussion about prog vs. progressive. Or prog style vs. progressive approach, as I chose to call it ... it doesn't really matter, but if you're talking about two separate aspects you need to invent some terms to refer to them.

This may actually be the very reason why we're debating prog-related vs. prog for Metallica here. As I see it, what metallica were doing on their first albums could be seen as progressive approach ... I still think that it's not beyond 5/10 if seen on an album level, but I can see how others might differ. Prog style however is the problem ... you have a *small* number of odd signatures and some quirky riffing here and there, and instrumental like Anesthesia, Call of Cthulu and Orion, but that's about it. Of course you could argue that there are many bands listed as prog with even less prog style, but those make up for that by being much more experimental/avant-garde, post or whatever. The point is: All that Metallica have to offer is the pure progressive approach, which is difficult to identify for non-musicians. So if they were to be added as fully fledged prog, it would be very difficult to explain people why they were added. They would have a hard time understanding why Metallica get added and Megadeth don't.

I don't want to mention my website in every post - but it just so happens that I'm adressing this problem (prog vs. progressive) there. *If* this website wants to be more inclusive in the direction of "progressive music", at some point this problem would have to be addressed ... if you're that inclusive you have to give the visitors some information about the bands, for example whether they're prog in a strict sense or not. Otherwise you would - given the fact that this website has become an authority on prog - distort the meaning of the word "prog".

I believe the definitions of Proto-Prog and Prog-Related should stay un-touched.

Atavachron wrote: I'm as yet undecided about this prospect, though I think Ivan's concern is valid.  Whatever the consensus is on expanding or changing ProtoProg, let's remember this site is in the best position to make such bold establishments, has done so, and is at this point I believe the leader in Prog canon.  This influence should be responsibly wielded and used carefully.  But make no mistake: we are contributing to, sometimes writing, the history of Prog Rock.

When a person on the home page clicks on a category such as Prog Metal, would there be a way to segregate bands into 2 lists under separate headings?  For example, currently there is a table which lists Progressive Metal Bands/Artists List.  Would it be possible to have a second table/list under prog metal that listed either proto metal bands or prog metal related bands?  If this were possible, then maybe it could make the proto-prog and prog-related categories a bit more useful by attempting to explain what genre a proto or related band is most closely associated with.  I know that is easier said than done.  It might work well for some bands but not for all.  But in a way that would give each of the genre teams a chance to  work with the admins on what proto and related bands associated with their genres are included on the site.  And it would also allow each team to treat these categories in the manner that they feel is best.  If the prog electronic team feels the above mentioned artists should be included and the admin team agree with that then they could choose to either include them or exclude them based on that genre team's goals and if the prog metal or crossover teams have different goals in presenting their genres than they can be more or less inclusive based on their goals.  Same would apply to any team.  I can certainly understand the symphonic team preferring to refer to the classical artists within the definition rather than including the artists on the site, but on the other hand I could see how including some of these classical artists as influences on symphonic prog could be beneficial in the overall presentation of symphonic prog as well.  We already know Ivan's thoughts on this so it is a moot point but that is an option that should be available to his team if they so chose to explore it or present it in that way.

Edited by rushfan4 - September 21 2008 at 10:00

that would make a lot of sense Scott I read your idea correctly...  but I think the thing we have to keep in mind is the old 'keep it simple stupid'  M@X doesn't have the time to do this I'm sure.. and that is the overiding concern.. a restructuring like that.. even though it would make the most sense.. probably would not be time effficient.. M@X is a busy man with family and chasing the almighty dollar hahahha.

As a non-software developer/code writer, it seems like something that would be fairly easy for M@x to implement.  The time consuming part would be for someone to go through the proto-prog and related bands and decide which genre or genres (if possible) to connect them with.  In the grand scheme of things there really aren't that many bands in those categories at this time so it wouldn't be as difficult as individually tagging all albums or songs. 

Dean wrote: I believe the definitions of Proto-Prog and Prog-Related should stay un-touched. PP should be reserved for bands that led to the development of Progressive Rock in the early 70s (the 1969 deadline is not written in stone and the 'genre' can extend into the 70s as is already noted in the PP definition). Here the generic term "Progressive Rock" encompasses all the bands of the 1970s that we now sub-categorise into sub-genres - none of which existed in the 1970s with the text-book-like definitions we now use, terms like symphonic and electronic were only adjectives applied to Progressive Rock bands for descriptive purposes.   The bands listed in PP had a direct or indirect influence on every genre that followed, including Post-Rock, Progressive Metal and Electronic Prog, in the same way that 70s Prog bands also influenced all that followed. Expanding Proto-Prog to cover all subsequent sub-genres specifically would dilute it's purpose and make it a sub-division of Prog Related. PP should remain as documentation of the roots of the original movement, not an all-encompassing record of every band that influenced a Progressive band.   In the definition for Prog Related we clearly state:   - Are widely accepted as MUSICALLY influential to the development of Progressive Rock by the community.   which should be justification enough to fit Metallica, Celtic Frost or even Stockhausen or Philip Glass - or any other artist that was influential to the development of any later sub-genre not covered by Proto Prog. However, if some people do not accept that Progressive Metal is a sub-genre of Progressive Rock then we should alter the wording of the PR definition to make it fit.   Of course that does imply there is a difference between the "Progressive Rock" of PP and the "Progressive Rock" of PR, and to my mind there is when you take the terms in context (in fact when read in context then I believe the distinction is obvious). Maybe we can clarify that point better by using the term "Progressive Music" in the Prog-Related definition.   Prog-Related is in itself sub-divided into three sub-sub categories: "Influenced By Prog", "Influenced On Prog" and the more contentious "Related To Prog" (or nearly-prog, or almost-prog ) [there is a 4th - "Solo works by Prog Artists that aren't actually Prog"]. Perhaps it would be clearer if we tagged each band in PR accordingly in the Bio's to make that distinction.

This is my birthday post
well at least the meaning of proto is Proto= before, so i second the Dean's opinion.

Besides that i and surprised that the "maybe" Metallica addition could provoque questioning by our SC and Collabs, the entire purpose of the site!