Sonata Arctica?

dtguitarfan wrote: Alright, so here's the question though - this site, as well as MMA, don't handle a particular situation well: when an artist doesn't fit neatly into one category but fits many molds.  Not criticizing anything, just stating a fact.  So, how do the voters handle this situation?  Are they thinking "at least 50% of their music must fit the prog category" or are they thinking "as long as one of the categories they fit into is prog, they're on the site"?

Jonas has it - one album at least has to be 100% Prog. 50:50 bands have no place here. It is that simple.

Edited by Dean - May 20 2012 at 03:43

I think MMA handles that well.  Not only are artists sorted into subgenres by album, but it's pretty simple to throw a blurb in the bio along the lines of "So And So are a progressive acid electro-death blues band from Madeuptown, Alaska"

And IIRC PA's policy is that at least one album has to be overridingly progressive


Edited by Triceratopsoil - May 19 2012 at 22:32

Dean wrote: so simple that even Lars Ulrich could do it

I lol'd

ive tried but came not very far

on Sonata Arctica i find it fair to try to suggest them when similar sounding bands have come in on the story tha the inclusion of those happend when PA was a bit more liberal or the control was less tight to who could add bands and the desissions were not always discussed,
like the old Nightwish debate, or Epica (are they inn), they are epic band with symphonic structure to metal and operatic and thematic music which is sort of similar to progressive metal, or symphonic neo prog, but more weight on theatric and strong vocalism and fast riffage, less technical, (even if it is pretty good musicians) and who can't deny Dragonforce as a technical band,

has it happend that bands have been added by one team member as he thought it was prog without telling the other members, of the team,

I speak now as a collab of MMA so im just curious couse when i find a band i know is doom metal i add them and later discuss it with team mebers if it is correct i doo nothing. If it is another genre i change what genre it belongs to, re-fassion the BIO and woalla, so far i have added mostly correct (I have a sixt sence for stoner/doom metal, and im in sludge team but seems to find most doom metal)


Edited by aginor - May 19 2012 at 18:06

sorry



Edited by aginor - May 19 2012 at 17:53

dtguitarfan wrote: I'm not trying to insult anyone, I'm merely pointing out that the thread that was posted above really didn't even make an argument at all

Yeah, that's the same thing that caused Boris to not be here despite the fact that Flood is without question a post-metal album

Easy Livin wrote: "it sounds like you had a guy who didn't know much about music technically speaking talking to people who didn't know the band very well"  " I've seen less progressive bands on this site."   "Please, listen to the songs I posted without bias against Progressive Metal "   None of these quotes are persuasive arguments, indeed all they are likely to lead to is entrenchment. If I can offer some candid advice, constructive argument will always work better than suggestions of incompetence and the adopting of a superiority complex.   We have to respect the integrity of our teams when it comes to assessing bands. We now have a site dedicated to metal of all types, and I'm sure the band in question will be added there if they are not already.   On the question of the default period for the search engine, I can understand the request for this to be changed. Remember however that every search uses server resource. Searching all the threads every time will undoubtedly slow the site down. The majority of searches are probably looking for relatively recent threads, so the default is probably set about right. Perhaps it could be made clearer though that the period of the search can be changed. Best discussed in the Help us improve the site section though.

I'm not trying to insult anyone, I'm merely pointing out that the thread that was posted above really didn't even make an argument at all, in the sense that no musical characteristics were pointed out, and no specific songs were pointed out.  And I recognize that a good portion of this band's collection can't be classified as Progressive.  However, the songs I posted above are definitely progressive as they demonstrate characteristics such as compound time signature changes, and a song structure that progresses.  So I'm trying to point out that, hey, you've got bands on here like Angra and Nightwish, and I'd say some of the same things about them (most of their catalog would be classified as Power Metal but if you point to certain songs you can say "that's a Progressive Metal song"), so I'm posing the question: why not Sonata Arctica?  And I'm trying to get someone on the team to specifically address the songs I posted since it looks like no one ever pointed out a specific song at all.  I'm sorry if the tone came off as derogatory - it was not intended to, but as is the case often with printed media it's hard to read tone.


Edited by dtguitarfan - May 19 2012 at 11:02

"it sounds like you had a guy who didn't know much about music technically speaking talking to people who didn't know the band very well" 

" I've seen less progressive bands on this site."

Dean wrote: Marty McFly wrote: PLEASE, CAN SOMEBODY WITH SUPERUSER PRIVILEGES CHANGE DEFAULT SEARCH TO "ALL TIME" ? Nothing we can do about it - ask Max.

dtguitarfan wrote: Please, listen to the songs I posted without bias against Progressive Metal and tell me how those particular songs do not qualify. It seems to me, from the thread you posted a link to, that no evidence was ever presented when the admins were asked to consider them. I am presenting, as it were, "exhibit a."

Once again Geoff, you are making assumptions about things you evidently no little about.