Why is Richard Wright prog related?

I suggest you read the definition of Prog-related once more. It clearly states that the solo works of certain musicians who are known as members of prog bands may be included in Prog Related.

As for the Genesis remark: I hope it gets ignored... although either way this thread won't live long.

He was supposed to be taken over by Crossover, if I remember well... 

micky wrote: before this goes any further....   Wright has been approved to be moved to Xover by the team.  However that is not a guarantee that the admins will let it go.. in this particular case..  don't remember if this was submitted to the admins or not...  we had a batch that we never got an answer back on... might have been in that.. might not have been... lost track... and faith in that particular avenue anyway... CCVP - while we strive to be as accurate as possible.. there are different teams with different ways of judging.. and once a group becomes 'property' of a particular category... it can be brain surgery to get it moved.  Most of the time it isn't worth f**king with... it is enough they are here.. the listener can make up their own minds.

Fair enough micky, politics may suck a lot and i can imagine its hard to convince some people to do certain things. But still it would be nice to straight up his category because this site is used by a lot of people as a "safe" place to search for info.

PS: i put safe in quotes because this is the internet and almost none information in the internet is 100% safe.

micky wrote: cool.. thanks   Yes....the politics suck.. but we work with it.. and around it when we can..

you mean use thugs?

For what it's worth, I agree with CCVP that Wright is better suited to a Prog Category (Xover).  As for the Genesis remark, that's an analogy that is often made, but I wonder if there was a misunderstanding and it was thought that the initial post was implying that Wright shouldn't be in the archives at all.  Phil Collins is an example of one who was not allowed in.

This thread has lived up to ten posts so far; that's longer than some of mine.
Incidentally, Wright was added in 2004, and the place was quite different back then with different parameters, teams, and fewer categories.  He was originally added to the "Progressive Rock" category, and I believe that was before there was a Prog Related category, and I don't know why it was decided that it should be placed in Prog Related when changes were made.

See here: http://web.archive.org/web/20040710185706/www.progarchives.com/Progressive_rock_discography_LIST.asp?letter=W

I understood you.  I found your post clear.  Interestingly, in 2004 when there was no Related category, and Wright was listed as "Progressive Rock", Zee was not included in the discography (it may have been added later that year), so perhaps that is why.  I'm not sure why things were placed where they were in the shuffle.  Side-note: Looking through that time, I see that Alan Parsons Project was in the Art Rock subcategory (now in Related).

Note: Before Prog Related, David Gilmour was listed in "Progressive Rock", as was Roger Waters, Jon Anderson, Mike Rutherford, Rick Wakeman, Anthony Phillips (plus, Frank Zappa, Neal Morse etc.) http://web.archive.org/web/20040810164720/www.progarchives.com/Progressive_rock_discography_LIST.asp?style=2

I wonder how much distinction was placed when putting those solo-project names from big Prog bands in Prog Related.

Atkingani wrote: Angelo referred to an original guideline that allowed members of prog bands to be checked for inclusion in the prog-related section if they didn't fit a real genre.

the thing is...  new categories exist where they didn't before when an artist was  originally added.  ..and the teams do not have freedom to move them at the moment.  The admin team guards the site with PR additions..but once in.. if a team thinks they fit a sub... shouldn't the genre be allowed to have them? Where they fit best.. and where their music might be best described and found for those exploring a certain branch of prog.

let me be blunt.. if a genre team evals a group that is presently in PR...  and think it fits... who are anyone.. including the admin team to say it DOESN"T fit.. they moderate the forum.. and are not in charge of additions.. that duty was given to the various genre teams....  the admins aren't genre team members... and usually are not of that particular team and as personal experience has shown.. often have little knowledge.. or understanding of what the various teams are doing within their teams.  If you are an SC.. and a genre team member.. you have been trusted by the site owner to make good calls for the site.


it is as if the band had never been added in the first place.. if a team believes a band belong in their sub.. that band is added.. whether they are a new band.. and should be for one that either erroniously.. or through developments within the site..  later belongs to a category where it might not have before.

CCVP wrote: ya, another interesting case is Alan Parsons. Still don't know why the hell he is in prog related. I think that he would fit better in the progressive electronic session, though it have been some time since i last listened my father's APP LPs . . .

Definitely not in prog electro...

As for a move in Xover, I know it sounds favorable to some, in my view he could stay in Related, only one album is of a progressive rich value (almost reminding me of Jon Anderson's case, with Olias...), otherwise I never saw AP as a full-fledged prog (rock) artist.

Not sure what the purpose or intent of that Rant was Micky. As Guigo says, we have always been open to proposals to move bands out of PR and into a prog category. Suggesting we "often have little knowledge.. or understanding"  is derogatory to us in the same way as you would be the first to complain if someone said it about you. Let's keep it friendly eh?