Breaking news: PROG-RELATED IS NOT PROG

An aside: What is Prog can be so much in the ear of the behearer.  Some Prog-Related bands could well be described as quasi-Prog (rather than not Prog) and some albums of bands in Prog Related could be easily described as Prog by many (I used Alan Parsons Project's first two albums as an example the last time this came up).

I'll have to look at the definition again, but it's not likely to fit all bands for all people.  There's a level of subjectivity when determining the prog quotient of a band or album (not an exact science).  Nomenclature is the bane of the archivist.

But that aside aside, yes, some people don't seem to understand the major differences between the categories Prog Related and Prog.  While there are bands that we may disagree on as being Prog and Prog Related (not always a clear differentiation in the ear of the behearer), the aims of the related category is fairly clear.

Got to rush, I would have suggestions for revision:

Progressive rock is not a separate universe in music, it’s a genre among many others, a voice in the chorus and as part of a biggest scenario has points of contact with other musical genres. Prog Related is the category that groups bands and artists that: - Without being 100% Prog, received clear MUSICAL influence of this genre, OR - Are widely accepted as MUSICALLY influential to the development of Progressive Rock by the community, OR - Blend characteristics of Progressive Rock with mainstream elements creating a final product that despite not being part of the genre is evident that are close to Prog. We specify the word MUSICAL because simple performance of a determined instrument in a Prog or mainstream band is not justification enough to include an artist, no matter how virtuoso he/she may be, Prog Archives has to evaluate their compositional work because the music is what determines the characteristics of a band or an artist. Prog Related bands are not considered part of the genre but they have contributed in some form in the development of Progressive Rock, the inclusion of a band is exceptional and only after verifying that it’s a contribution for the better understanding of Prog among the members and visitors instead of a source of confusion for the community.

"Without being 100% Prog, received clear MUSICAL influence of this genre..."

Well, which bands/artists are 100% percent Prog.  Should Genesis be in Prog Related then? Even on their highest rated Prog album, I would say it has crossover music -- poppy. If they are say 90% Prog should they be excluded?  That's limiting and confusing.

"Are widely accepted as MUSICALLY influential to the development of Progressive Rock by the community"

I'd thought that was more Proto-Prog as used here (but this hasn't the same temporal limitations)..

"- Blend characteristics of Progressive Rock with mainstream elements creating a final product that despite not being part of the genre is evident that are close to Prog."

Kind of cross-over then (not that it neceassirly fits the category here).  But Prog as a genre is hard to define, I think of it as  a movement.  A big part of Prog is combining genres, and I think Prog has always had mainstream elements (and in fact many bands in prog have had mainstream acceptance).  Some Prog is less mainstream than others.

That's done spur of the moment while taking care of a young child on one shoulder, but it can be confusing... especially considering the eclecticness of progressive music (and of many bands listed under Prog and Prog Related).

:in shock:

How about having Non Prog in brackets, so it will read

listen people ...I've suggested renaming prog related ..and was rejected . There was....'not enough support for it'  Collaboration is nice... when people collaborate and participate.  The thread was in the general area.. we had but a handful of our collabs and a few posters share their thoughts. 

The reason some don't... they feel that things get discussed to death..and simple commen sense solutions... simply don't get implemented and so they don't bother.  They are smarter than me...I still try to get change here implemented.   

Edited by micky - October 05 2007 at 19:13

I say we call the category "Prog Lite." 

And what about you remembered this was meant as a serious discussion?

The idea is not to inflate the related category... in fact, it'll be better to deflate the category (same valid to proto, if and when possible).

I have the best idea EVER. Just take the "prog" word out of the genre... and voila...... RELATED.

 

The RELATED genre.... man! Nobody will complain ever again! And the remain is explicit, informative enough to be a good genre name!

Edited by The T - October 06 2007 at 19:20

The T wrote: I have the best idea EVER. Just take the "prog" word out of the genre... and voila...... RELATED.   The RELATED genre.... man! Nobody will complain ever again! And the remain is explicit, informative enough to be a good genre name!

Ghost Rider wrote: And what about you remembered this was meant as a serious discussion?

Seriously now, I have yet to come up with a rational explanation for the fact that so many people around (not lacking intelligence or good faith) seem to miss the whole point of this category, each from his own perspective, while I have also grown tired of correcting this error. I thought some sarcasm would do, sorry