Breaking news: PROG-RELATED IS NOT PROG

I understand the definition I think its adaquiate, I think some people just overreact, because there might be a band in a genre they don't like included, eg Iron Maiden.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Breaking News: PEOPLE DON'T READ DEFINITIONS! It sucks, but that's the way it is.

So, why do we write them?

I've always been in favour of the PP and PR categories, but now I wish it were possible to scrap them altogether. If there is no way to get people to understand that they are not considered prog, the atmosphere of the forums will get worse and worse... Sorry to sound discouraged, but the constant spectacle of people at each other's throats is really starting to get to me.

Ghost Rider wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: Breaking News: PEOPLE DON'T READ DEFINITIONS! It sucks, but that's the way it is. So, why do we write them? I've always been in favour of the PP and PR categories, but now I wish it were possible to scrap them altogether. If there is no way to get people to understand that they are not considered prog, the atmosphere of the forums will get worse and worse... Sorry to sound discouraged, but the constant spectacle of people at each other's throats is really starting to get to me.

Of course definitions are helpful, and I have the highest respect for those who write them. But the underlying problem is simply that non-prog bands are listed on a prog website. People see a Led Zeppelin review on a website which is called "progarchives.com" ... that confuses them so much that they start to complain without reading genre definitions first.

You probably know the saying "the customer's always right". It's even more true with websites ... I learned it the hard way with my own website. If you have a confusing concept people will not understand it no matter how many well written explanations there are. The *only* way to really solve the problem is to change the concept. As far as the "prog-related problem" is concerned I would say that these bands, albums and reviews need to be visually different from the prog bands, albums and reviews - maybe with a big "sticker" saying "non-prog" attached to them.

Sure, it's not prog, so it shouldn't be here.

Visitor13 wrote: Sure, it's not prog, so it shouldn't be here.

That's your opinion. The site owners think that some selected non-prog bands *should* be there, and that's the source of the problem. Maybe they should rename the website ... but "prog-and-some-selected-non-prog-archives.com" is kind of long, so that isn't a viable option.

Tony R wrote: I am actually warming to a variation of YUKORIN's idea. "Related" ....works... "Related Bands" works too...

  may not help... but it doesn't hurt to try.  It's not we are inventing the wheel here in changing the name.

It's got my support, too 

Ricochet wrote: well, sure, as a name it will cool down something from...the "something" that creates so much diversion. but, technically, it will still be "related to prog". Will that douse the "misunderstanding" that the bands in related aren't prog?

Edited by The Doctor - October 07 2007 at 10:36

The Doctor wrote: Ricochet wrote: well, sure, as a name it will cool down something from...the "something" that creates so much diversion. but, technically, it will still be "related to prog". Will that douse the "misunderstanding" that the bands in related aren't prog?   Actually, I agree with the poster who said that the phrase "while not 100% prog" may be misleading.  When I read that, I think "not 100% prog, so how much prog is it? 50%, 75%, 98%?"  The definition does not say that prog-related bands are NOT prog, it says they are not completely prog.  That definition could apply to Genesis, Yes, Tull and any number of other 70's classic prog bands.

I agree... I read that defintion... and it wasn't too good... I know someone..I think it was  Ivan was going to rewrite it.  Maybe he'll come up with a better one than that.   Whoever does needs to make sure they take Xover into account.  Because some of those groups in PR are being being moved to full prog subgenres down the road.  Not to mention I strongly support moving bands that DID fully prog albums out of PR.. and classify them per their prog albums.. this is a prog site you know. Not a general music site.  The listener here.. in theory...  cares only for the prog.  Take Styx...  being in PR says nothing about their prog output... should someone check it out...  what do they sound like.  Heavy prog.. .symphonic prog... . bahh..... 

Ricochet wrote: The Doctor wrote: Ricochet wrote: well, sure, as a name it will cool down something from...the "something" that creates so much diversion. but, technically, it will still be "related to prog". Will that douse the "misunderstanding" that the bands in related aren't prog?   Actually, I agree with the poster who said that the phrase "while not 100% prog" may be misleading.  When I read that, I think "not 100% prog, so how much prog is it? 50%, 75%, 98%?"  The definition does not say that prog-related bands are NOT prog, it says they are not completely prog.  That definition could apply to Genesis, Yes, Tull and any number of other 70's classic prog bands.  True thing, till your last proposition (which, again, has to do with the most popular of grunts we get in these discussions: of course Genesis and Yes are prog, they influenced or mastered the damn genre they're in!!!). I think we agree that "Related" must be a genre of NON-progressive bands. Therefore, those "not 100% prog" definitions should disappear. Instead, "not 100% prog" could be Xover, but only meaning "lesser progressive bands" or "prog combined with mainstream".