SR V: To boldly go where no room has gone before

MovingPictures07 wrote: But then what's the whole point of this site? If we can't prove that Yes are prog and System of a Down aren't, then why is Yes here and SOAD isn't?

I have to leave, but I take issue with your use of the word "proof".  We cannot "prove" Yes are prog - by using a shared set of metrics as to what roughly constitutes progressive rock, we achieve a consensus as to what is prog and what is not.  Your example of System of a Down even - they were suggested for inclusion here!  There is someone who thinks they fit the bill for prog rock - are they objectively wrong?

If determining prog was completely objective and could be proven, we would just apply a formula - we wouldn't need genre teams listening and giving their opinion.  And speaking of genre teams, how do you account for mixed yes/no votes on artist inclusions if the prog quotient can be precisely quantified and assessed objectively?

Later

*munch munch munch*

James wrote: birdwithteeth11 wrote: And yet this isn't the first time you've said similar things and gotten a similar response. Some would call that trolling. Most wouldn't though. It's human nature to say something is sh*t or something is amazing without giving any reason.

Since when?

James wrote: MovingPictures07 wrote: James wrote: Ricochet wrote: James wrote: And how a non-prog album can be best prog album of 2008 on P.A. makes me moist. We don't wanna know about that process. It's quite simple. A bunch of relatively clueless n00bs vote for something that's popular and not-prog because they cannot listen to anything that actually is prog and better. Objective elitism ftl I'm sorry, but these are facts: 1. Porcupine Tree is prog. It isn't the most prog thing you'll find, but it's just as prog as other artists which are clearly progressive. 2. Nothing you like is objectively better than what anyone else likes. You come across like that alot, and that's where people misunderstand you. David. This. Alex clearly mentions Objectivism. My post was referring to this post.

Tell me where you see the word "Objectivism" and I'll tell you that I have a secret third eye that can pierce the sun's rays and turn them into water.

TGM: Orb wrote: Gentlemen James finds presenting his opinions as facts entertaining. I'm pretty sure that's why he does it. I'm fairly confident he doesn't necessarily believe they're absolute facts. He does it on far more serious issues. Don't take it too seriously when he does. Alex takes things too seriously sometimes, and responds to things which weren't really looking for a response sometimes. That's not really a reason to provoke him. Everyone calm down, and let's talk about something worth talking about which we haven't talked about before. Edit: and sorry about mild rant mode, but is anyone getting anything out of this discussion about not a lot. (subject FOABP - not a prog album, really, according to my personal definition, but then I can't remember enough of it to say accurately whether long song was just a long song or a prog one)

Alright. There's no point in continuing it.

MovingPictures07 wrote: James wrote: MovingPictures07 wrote: James wrote: Ricochet wrote: James wrote: And how a non-prog album can be best prog album of 2008 on P.A. makes me moist. We don't wanna know about that process. It's quite simple. A bunch of relatively clueless n00bs vote for something that's popular and not-prog because they cannot listen to anything that actually is prog and better. Objective elitism ftl I'm sorry, but these are facts: 1. Porcupine Tree is prog. It isn't the most prog thing you'll find, but it's just as prog as other artists which are clearly progressive. 2. Nothing you like is objectively better than what anyone else likes. You come across like that alot, and that's where people misunderstand you. David. This. Alex clearly mentions Objectivism. My post was referring to this post. Tell me where you see the word "Objectivism" and I'll tell you that I have a secret third eye that can pierce the sun's rays and turn them into water.

I've never read Rand.

I meant Objective just like you.  I just got confused.

Ricochet wrote: birdwithteeth11 wrote: Ricochet wrote: *munch munch munch* Alright, I'm done. And thank you, Rico. Well, what else could I have said. I went to brush my teeth. I come back, and two new pages, full of heated sudden debates, shock my eyes. And I need to go back to brush my teeth, after I munched popcorn reading the two pages.

you needed this:



Edited by KoS - May 13 2009 at 16:26

James wrote: MovingPictures07 wrote: James wrote: MovingPictures07 wrote: James wrote: Ricochet wrote: James wrote: And how a non-prog album can be best prog album of 2008 on P.A. makes me moist. We don't wanna know about that process. It's quite simple. A bunch of relatively clueless n00bs vote for something that's popular and not-prog because they cannot listen to anything that actually is prog and better. Objective elitism ftl I'm sorry, but these are facts: 1. Porcupine Tree is prog. It isn't the most prog thing you'll find, but it's just as prog as other artists which are clearly progressive. 2. Nothing you like is objectively better than what anyone else likes. You come across like that alot, and that's where people misunderstand you. David. This. Alex clearly mentions Objectivism. My post was referring to this post. Tell me where you see the word "Objectivism" and I'll tell you that I have a secret third eye that can pierce the sun's rays and turn them into water. I've never read Rand. I meant Objective just like you.  I just got confused.

Alright. That's cool.

James wrote: Padraic wrote: MovingPictures07 wrote: But then what's the whole point of this site? If we can't prove that Yes are prog and System of a Down aren't, then why is Yes here and SOAD isn't? I have to leave, but I take issue with your use of the word "proof".  We cannot "prove" Yes are prog - by using a shared set of metrics as to what roughly constitutes progressive rock, we achieve a consensus as to what is prog and what is not.  Your example of System of a Down even - they were suggested for inclusion here!  There is someone who thinks they fit the bill for prog rock - are they objectively wrong? If determining prog was completely objective and could be proven, we would just apply a formula - we wouldn't need genre teams listening and giving their opinion.  And speaking of genre teams, how do you account for mixed yes/no votes on artist inclusions if the prog quotient can be precisely quantified and assessed objectively? Later My thoughts as well.

From my previous post in response to Pat's earlier ones:

"Okay, I understand where you're coming from more now. I see your point; and I agree that they're not the most progressive band ever.

They do fit the general guidelines for what prog is though, and since there are no degrees of progginess (and since that's subjective), all the bands that clearly meet those guidelines are added to the site. (The more subjective cases are more like the example I just used in response to James)

And I do understand your frustration in the fact that they're held as "the greatest thing in prog". I also agree with you there: they're not and there certainly are plenty of other fresh pieces of music out there which appear all the time. I just think saying they're not prog is a bit extreme."

Edited by MovingPictures07 - May 13 2009 at 16:27

birdwithteeth11 wrote: I don't disagree, Rob. But Alex has responded to James saying things like this before, and it kind of annoys me when someone does that to a friend of mine.

We're all friends here, David.

I never meant to start a debate.  Alex could have ignored my comment but he chose not to.  I never attacked him or meant to upset him.