Judas Priest for Prog Related!

The Miracle wrote: You know, I really don't care as much as to argue any further. Who has the final say in prog related inclusions anyway? Maybe that team should just vote and get it over with. rogerthat wrote: And nobody would also come to prog archives to research info on LZ or Queen. Or Nightwish for that matter.   I completely agree that prog related is not a good idea but if it's going to be part of the database, let's have some consistency.   I'm mainly concerned about this consistency argument, which is is basically an endless 'If A is here, so should B' kinda argument. Using thtat logic we'll have a lot of influential artists here that we probably shouldn't be here. Like Manowar, who has a surprisingly strong case for PR: they made a concept album (Gods of War), wrote a 28-minute epic suite (Achilles, Agony and Ecstasy in Eight Parts), made a 9-minute ambient instrumental (Today Is a Good Day to Die), covered a classical composition (Sting of the Bumblebee), made a song with orchestra and choir (The Crown and the Ring), constantly tell epic stories in heir lyrics, and surely have had some influence on prog metal, especially the power side of it. Do we really want them here though? I actually like them() but hellllllllllllll no. I just wanna make sure bands are considered on an individual basis rater than added for the sake of fairness. Two wrongs don't make a right...

My dear sir, there is simply no comparison between JP and Manowar in terms of influence on metal and I believe you'd well know it.  If you would like to make arguments for arguments sake, I am getting off.  The point is, JP is one of the five or so most influential metal bands and therefore in an entirely different category from a band like Manowar.  If you have prog metal on a prog rock database, a band like JP should be there in the PR category, it's a no brainer to me.  That they are not here is the wrong, it's not a question of one more wrong to compound an earlier - I do believe Sabbath and Maiden have a legitimate place in a database of which prog metal is an important subset.

No way to be featuring here in PA, what the ...... JP is a pure heavy metal band.Not that I don't like them, not at all, they are a legend, but not here

Finnforest wrote: I appreciate Olav's point, but I don't think that should be the primary consideration for admissions.  Our evaluations should be based solely on the music and how it relates to our genre definitions, not how others view the site, or wide open considerations as to the site's "direction."  My two cents.

I think an argument is being made that the interpretation of the genre definitions change over time as new bands are added. PA members and contributors at the end of 2011 are considering how the music of a band relates to the definitions by a standard that has been shaped by who is currently in the PA and this may result in someone coming to a different conclusion on a band than they would have in 2008. Even if it may not be the intent, the way that the definitions are viewed and applied against a specific artist's output is not static, but dynamic and changing as PA grows and adds new artists.

That said, I don't think I'd bet the farm on the admins entertaining a re-evaluation of a band for PR with no significant new material (since the consensus seems to be that Nostradamus should not be the basis of an argument for re-eval).

^ However, we have a policy of respecting previous team's decisions. If there is re-evaluation, unanimous vote must be achieved. OK, we all team members know this mantra.

The bad thing about this is that (as FunkyM said), in the same genre, but with different people in team, they COULD vote differently.

For example band that was evaluated in 2008, 2 NO votes and 1 YES vote. If it was evaluated now and it received 2 YES votes and 1 NO, it would still be rejected, because previous incarnation of team rejected it. However, if the same band was never evaluated, it would still got 2 YES votes and 1 NO vote and it would be accepted to PA database.

The same music, but different people. If the band/artist was never suggested before, it would be here, because new team would vote to accept it.

This is one of these weird situation, when you apply certain rules of PA.

Edited by Marty McFly - November 07 2011 at 12:23

b_olariu wrote: No way to be featuring here in PA, what the ...... JP is a pure heavy metal band.Not that I don't like them, not at all, they are a legend, but not here

SouthSideoftheSky wrote: b_olariu wrote: No way to be featuring here in PA, what the ...... JP is a pure heavy metal band.Not that I don't like them, not at all, they are a legend, but not here It is true that Judas Priest is a "pure" Heavy Metal band and not a Prog band. But that does not disqualify them from the Prog Related category! If Judas Priest was a Prog band, I would suggest them not for Prog Related but for one of the "genuine" Prog categories. Prog Related is, after all, a category for non-Prog bands (that still bear some relation to Prog by either being influenced by Prog or having some influence on Prog or by having some other relevant relation to Prog). Black Sabbath and Iron Maiden too are Heavy Metal bands, not Prog bands, but they are related to Prog in some way or another, which makes them ideal for the Prog Related category. Indeed, it is exactly for bands like these (and I think Judas Priest too belongs to this group of bands) that the Prog Related category exists.  I wonder why this point is so hard to get across to people. I have noticed that whenever some band is suggested for Prog Related, people always complain that they are not a Prog band and therefore should be rejected. That attitude would indeed be appropriate for any other category (except Proto-Prog) for which being Prog is a necessary condition for inclusion, but when it comes to Prog Related this is not so. Being "a pure Heavy Metal band" does indeed disqualify a band from any of the "genuine" Prog categories, but not from Prog Related! This is why I would certainly not support adding Judas Priest to Prog Metal or any other category except the only one where they would fit in - namely, Prog Related.

Edited by Snow Dog - November 07 2011 at 13:41

Snow Dog wrote:  Being "a pure Heavy Metal band" would disqualify them from Prog Related too. Unless there was some other good reason to include them.

Not all of the bands that have been a part of the history and development of progressive rock are necessarily progressive rock bands themselves. This is why progarchives has included a genre called prog-related, so we could include all the bands that complete the history of progressive rock, whether or not they were considered full-fledged progressive rock bands themselves.

Putting it like this does not exclude a Heavy Metal band as long as it has some relevant relation to Prog, right? The "other good reasons" to include Judas Priest are the same or very similar to those for which Black Sabbath, Iron Maiden and several other bands were already included. 

SouthSideoftheSky wrote: Snow Dog wrote:  Being "a pure Heavy Metal band" would disqualify them from Prog Related too. Unless there was some other good reason to include them.  Well, I am pretty sure that by calling Judas Priest "a pure Heavy Metal band", b_olario meant that they are not Prog or not progressive enough or some such thing. But according to the official criteria of Prog Related a band need not be a Prog band in order to fit into Prog Related (indeed, if it was it would be suitable for a "real" subgenre of Prog):     Not all of the bands that have been a part of the history and development of progressive rock are necessarily progressive rock bands themselves. This is why progarchives has included a genre called prog-related, so we could include all the bands that complete the history of progressive rock, whether or not they were considered full-fledged progressive rock bands themselves. Putting it like this does not exclude a Heavy Metal band as long as it has some relevant relation to Prog, right? The "other good reasons" to include Judas Priest are the same or very similar to those for which Black Sabbath, Iron Maiden and several other bands were already included.

Oops, isn't this the abortion thread then?


Let's make lists now, this JP abortion is getting too painful.
Here's my attempt at a ranking of prog-relatedness of non-prog metal bands:

Iron Maiden > Metallica > Judas Priest > Led Zeppelin > ...     ...  > Blue Oyster Cult > Black Sabbath




Edited by Bonnek - November 07 2011 at 15:16

rushfan4 wrote: If Judas Priest were some obscure 70's band instead of Judas Priest, and they had only released Rocka Rolla and Sad Wings of Destiny, then they would probably get consideration for a category like crossover or heavy prog; maybe even enough to be added, after all they would be obscure, probably unknown by most and therefore not controversial.  The reason a plain vanilla metal band would not be included in Crossover or Heavy Prog is because they might be considered a plain vanilla metal band (not because they're obscure or not controversial) On the flipside, if Judas Priest were some obscure 90's metal band instead of Judas Priest and they had only released Painkiller and/or Nostradamus they would probably get consideration for prog metal, or maybe again heavy prog. If a suggestor were to select the right couple of songs to provide as samples to the evaluation team they could probably get added to the database. It should be self evident that 'cherry picking' albums would lead to all manner of PA anomalies in support of your argument e.g. If ELP had ONLY released Love Beach what category would they fit?