Most contested inclusion in ProgArchives

I am sometimes surprised at some groups inclusion in ProgArchives, and am looking at seeing what others think. Personally, I find a it BIG Stretch in saying Uriah Heep is Prog, no matter if you call it proto-prog, prog related ... whatever. I love much of their early stuff, especially until David Byron's departure, but apart from the long song on Salisbury, they are a pretty straightforward 70s hard rock group. Same with Deep Purple, once you take out the Philharmonic album & Child in Time, they are the epitome of their era's music. Ditto Led Zeppelin - I've racked my brains & gone through all their albums, Kashmir is about the only thing that is Prog, & only because of its' "eastern" tempos & lyrics. The rest of their material was a mix of rock, blues, pop, heavy, some folk. Black sabbath, well Ozzy as a prog head ??? The Beatles as Proto - Prog, no question because of their musical adventures & leadership in exploring music.
But to use the dreaded abbreviation, IMHO, it's like the definition is vague enough, with enough sub-genres to allow just about any musician except for those whose output was very limited to the more basic rock genres - Ac/DC - hard rock, Sex Pistols - punk, Shania Twain - new country, George Jones - Old country, Dave Brubeck west coast jazz,  Frank yankovic - polka. Get my idea ... And the final nail in the coffin is the obscure masterworks. May Blitz - competently played generic blues/jammy late 60s rock; Kin Ping Meh, which I tried to get through at least a few albums & submit reviews to improve my changes to jump up in this site's reviewer standings by reviewing groups with no reviews yet - 16 songs, & all I could see was, obscurity is sometimed deserved.
\So away I go to await the tidal wave /<) or dribble :> from my fellow deep thinking progheads.


Edited by pantacruelgruel - January 29 2007 at 21:58

Nothing will be said here that hasn't been said before.All the arguments and debates have raged,over and over again.

Edited by TheProgtologist - January 29 2007 at 23:38

The Force is with him, you see...

I can't but endorse what Jody said. The sooner forum members get into their heads that this is not their website (or even the Collaborators'), the better - I hate to be so blunt, but there are dozens of prog sites of every description on the Web, and I don't see why some people have to torture themselves by visiting a site whose policy they don't approve of.

Secondly, I suggest you check other major prog websites (Sea of Tranquillity, ProgressiveEars, ProgGnosis, to name but a few) to realise that they are far more inclusive than ours.

Last but not least... I think CamelAppeal just nailed the issue on the head. Proto-Prog and Prog-Related DON'T mean prog - it's as simple as that. The definitions are clear enough even to people who are not native speakers of English (I'm not either):

sinkadotentree wrote: I'd love to see BLACK SABBATH included and applaud the inclusion of LED ZEPPELIN and THE BEATLES.

As far as the general topic of the thread, it's hard to add much to a discussion that has gone on and on in countless threads. Personally I have no problem with the Proto and Related sections, as long as people understand that no one is saying those bands are actually prog!

Unfortunately, that concept seems to be lost on a lot of people, and it's not entirely their fault. It IS confusing to come to a site called "ProgArchives" and see reviews for the Beatles, Maiden, etc. on the front page. I'm not saying things should change, I just see how people can get mixed up about it.

As far as the quote above, I totally agree about Sabbath. It just doesn't make sense to me to include Zeppelin/Purple/Maiden and somehow leave Sabbath out. I know, the "if X why not Y" argument is one of the most hated arguments on this site. In this case, however, I'm just curious to hear the justification for not including Sabbath.

The inclusion of surprising bands isn't made without lots of thought, they don`t just include any band just for the hell of it. The term proto prog is often the reason why certain bands get added and I think that's a good thing  I never use to but I do now , because progs umbrella needs to get bigger  when the reality of where prog got its DNA  starts to influence new prog bands (already has) it will make for a bigger melting pot of raw creativity  and that is a very good thing !   

I see your point, but answer my question.... Prog, being a manifestation of rock, would've never existed without Elvis Presley... Is that reason enough to include him in PA?

Sabbath is in the same family as Zep and Purple because of their roots in Heavy Blues. The difference appears to be that the vast majority of their output was always HB based metal, whereas the other two progressed past that family.

I would suggest wrt the time between suggestion and inclusion, Wishbone Ash - for whom I was soliciting addition soon after I joined PA in April 2004. And the most contested must be The Who. The additions of Radiohead, Queen, LZ, Black Sabbath, Beatles, Gerry & The Pacemakers () , although contentious were otherwise comparatively smooth.

Atavachron wrote: The Force is with him, you see...

Which side?