Progressive Influences

There has been a great deal of debate at times about different groups, particularly from the 70s and even 60s who, it has been argued by some, should be part of progarchives. Some of these bands are Queen, Deep Purple, Led Zepplin and even The Beatles.

There is, in most stream posts, a concensus that there was progressive output to varying degrees by the abovementioned, as well as others and that their non inclusion is to some, a paradox when other bands such as Styx and Supertramp (for example) are here. Most however, agree that they do not belong on the site because their progressive output was sporadic at best.

Yet there is also a recognition, I believe by many people, that the influences of some of these bands, who dont quite 'make the grade', is something to be recognised as part of a more infuential group of musicians on the progrock movement and its development over the years. Another group from the late 70s onwards is Metallica, whose influence on the progmetal genre is heavy indeed.

IMO, the addition of an archive for 'bands who have influenced the history of prog you won't find on this archive' with an introductory message telling of the influence of these bands and their connection to prog and maybe why they didn't quite make it, would IMO provide a better overall viewpoint.

A list of bands could be submitted and discussed (make the cutoff point - 1980 if u like) even some controversial ones who are currently listed but maybe aren't exactly 'pedigree' in THE progarchive.

This site, I do believe, prides itself on its pedigree as a progressive rock site and attracts some veritable walking encyclopedias on the subject, such as Dick Heath, to name but one of a number of venerable members. I am staggered by their knowledge of the subject.

It is an invaluable learning experience to read the posts of forum members who know what they are talking about, especially for us who have been around for a long or short time but have not for one reason or another, dedicated ourselves to the subject to such an extent. I do not believe myself to be a progsnob at all because I just don't know enough to be one in the first place, but I do know quality when I see it and its not about snobbery, it is about maintaining a pedigree in something wether it be making fine furniture, carpet, wine or cheese.

If the nominal bands can be kept away from the truly accepted ones and given an access point of their own for interest sake, wouldn't this be a way of maintaining the integrity of the genre while still recognising and respecting the roots and influences and also adding more discussion/talking points and accessible information related to the music we like listening to,
(and arguing about)

If you read this, thanks for taking the time. Please respond with your thoughts if any.

GoldenSpiral wrote: It is certainly an interesting idea. I get tired of people constantly trying to get their favorite semi-progressive bands accepted as actual prog.  Some folks on this site seem to have a certain fear of liking non-prog bands, so they want to make sure all their favorites are prog.  Well, some of them are just simply not prog, but many did have important influences both on and from the prog genre.  I like this idea because this site is a resource for finding new music that you might like.  We come here to learn about music and get listening advice from (somewhat) like-minded individuals.  So, if there are other bands that are popular amongst people with similar listening tastes (i.e. everyone on this site; i mean, would we all be here if we didnt have a lot in common musically?), perhaps they should be included in their own section for reference so people could appreciate them as well and learn about them. The point is, we all like a lot of the same music and want to learn about more, so expanding the database (as long as it is kept organized) should not only be acceptable, but should be a goal.

Thanks for the positive comments. As a reference point and a means of separation for tenuous appointments, I think it can only add to the quality and scope of the site. As you say, we all like a lot of the same music and it should help with a better understanding and appreciation of progrock.


Edited by barbs

Good idea, Dave! I took time to read your suggestion, and to my shame, I thought of a similar idea but did not come up with...
I'll tell my additional suggestions anyway:

The "non-prog", or "prog-related" section might include only proggy albums (not the band's whole catalogue) and be reviewed by site admins, or at least by progarchives collaborators. I also think it might be helpful to provide opportunity for the rest to suggest bands or albums to include in that section.

or, a very distinct sub-genre entitled "proto-prog", "close-to-prog", or whatever you might suggest, might be included, with some of the bands-artists I mentioned below, and reviewers review them as usual, but knowing it is not definitely prog. (reviews might be excluded from the front page, or a distinct sign could be placed on the album descriptions etc.)

I also believe it is about time to include two new subgenres, heavy prog and pomp-prog (at least the first one), both are mentioned in the history of prog section and does not appear as seperate genres. That's why Uriah Heep is listed under symphonic, to which it has absolutely no connection, apart from Salisbury of course (and even in that, on the title track only). Given that UH was first under prog-metal genre, its removal from this to that is simply ridiculous!!! Other bands in these genres are often filed under art-rock category, and causes confusion with bands like Procol Harum, Supertramp, Moody Blues, Saga, A.Parsons Pr. etc, which are either more poppy, or "proto-prog". (I'm talking about those who have no idea of a particular band is like, and try to figure out what it may be like from its genre... You can have an absolute idea of a band when, for instance, it is filed under "prog-metal", or "Krautrock" category, but not in Art-Rock...). Since Electronic is also included as a genre (otherwise TD and Kraftwerk could well fit into Krautrock category...), I think it is also necessary to discriminate harder oriented or "pompous" bands from mainstream art-rock acts...

I am insistent on my idea to get Deep Purple and Jon Lord here, not just because "constantly trying to get my favorite semi-progressive band accepted as actual prog", as Golden Spiral suggests, and I don't have "a certain fear of liking non-prog bands, so want to make sure all my favorites are prog", either. As an example, I can say I like Led Zep, Black Sabbath, Metallica, Iron Maiden, Alice Cooper etc, and despite all of these bands' prog tendencies, I don't try to get them into archives (though in a poll for metallica my vote would be pro...). These bands (along with The Doors, The Who, Beatles etc.) would be perfect samples for the section barbs suggested in the first place...
(I certainly agree with Golden Spiral anyway, isn't it those guys who had Radiohead placed here in the first place?!?!?)

My claims and some other pros and cons for DP (and Jon Lord) are in http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8895&a mp;PN=1
please have a look...

keep on proggin'

FragileDT wrote: I love the idea also. I think it would be great to have bands such as Queen and Zeppelin on this site, with reviewed albums and have the prog fans put their input in these influential bands. It definitely would be a great idea.