Now before I kick this off on my tangent, which I will do, let me first say I love the Beatles very much. They were a great band and Lord Paul and John Lennon are indeed an incomparable song writing force. While I generally disregard their very early stuff as boyband pop rubbish, you could see the fellows mature with each suceeding lp. Help was where it actually started getting interesting, even though it was still pop.

       From that stage forward, the Beatles propelled their music forward, always experimenting and maturing with every great lp. Indeed , they seem to keep up with the times and were always at the fore front when style and tastes in popular  music were evolving. However, they were never the 1st to change. They just had enough good sense to realize when change was needed. Well that, and their own maturing tastes in music as well.

     Bob Dylan and the Byrds preceded the Beatles Rubber Soul when it came to folk rock. Pink Floyd and the whole underground psychedelic scene was alive for a good year before the Beatles showed up on the scene with Sargeant Peppers. Now I realize that Revolver was released in 66, but I believe it was late 66 compared to the beginning of 66 for the psychedelic underground. I have read that the Beatles even attended these affairs, but whether or not that is true has never been confirmed.

     So the Beatles have always had the good sense to change with the times. Also, lets not forget that George Martin had a strong influence on their experimental side of things. If it were not for him, you probably would have seen more lps like Let It Be( a good standard rock lp) rather than Sargeant Peppers. Also, only a hand full of songs are truly psychedelic, or progressive. I would say most of their music on any lp is still pop, with the possible exception of Sgt Peppers.

    Now if you are saying that they were progressive...i.e...innovative and experimental...fine, but the Beatles are NOT prog. I feel so strongly about that that I have decided to come out of my self exile to state that as such. Quite simply they do not belong here as well as a bunch of other eye brow raising proto-prog and prog related material that has been recently added here. This was the last straw straw for me  so I decided to speak up. Normally I really don't give a rat's ass who you add here but now I feel the integrity of this site has been undermined.

    Pretty much now, you guys may as well add in any act you like..The Doors, Steely Dan, Journey, LEd Zeppelin or UFO...I'm sure it is only a matter of time now. Soon the archives will be flooded full of pop bands that have had some progressive infuences and the weight of the crappy material will send the archives crashing down like a house of cards. It is time we we drew a line in the sand and save the archives integrity. Inclusive isn't always a good thing...I vote for more strict rules and a better sense of exclusiveness.

You callaborators really screwed this one up.

This was months coming and had been decided by mailto:m@X - m@X back in September.

SD

One thread, already

And this was a very well thought out one, too, look out for more and less polite

Phil wrote: Excuse me while I laugh myself silly!!!!!!!!! ps don't get me wrong - I like these bands (well I'm a bit so-so about ELO....), its just that they aren't progressive!!!!

Nobody says that the Beatles are a prog rock band. But of course they made some progressive albums ... you may laugh all you want, but I'm sure that most prog rock artists would agree with us (collabs) here.

Phil wrote: gdub411 wrote:        Now before I kick this off on my tangent, which I will do, let me first say I love the Beatles very much. They were a great band and Lord Paul and John Lennon are indeed an incomparable song writing force. While I generally disregard their very early stuff as boyband pop rubbish, you could see the fellows mature with each suceeding lp. Help was where it actually started getting interesting, even though it was still pop.        From that stage forward, the Beatles propelled their music forward, always experimenting and maturing with every great lp. Indeed , they seem to keep up with the times and were always at the fore front when style and tastes in popular  music were evolving. However, they were never the 1st to change. They just had enough good sense to realize when change was needed. Well that, and their own maturing tastes in music as well.      Bob Dylan and the Byrds preceded the Beatles Rubber Soul when it came to folk rock. Pink Floyd and the whole underground psychedelic scene was alive for a good year before the Beatles showed up on the scene with Sargeant Peppers. Now I realize that Revolver was released in 66, but I believe it was late 66 compared to the beginning of 66 for the psychedelic underground. I have read that the Beatles even attended these affairs, but whether or not that is true has never been confirmed.      So the Beatles have always had the good sense to change with the times. Also, lets not forget that George Martin had a strong influence on their experimental side of things. If it were not for him, you probably would have seen more lps like Let It Be( a good standard rock lp) rather than Sargeant Peppers. Also, only a hand full of songs are truly psychedelic, or progressive. I would say most of their music on any lp is still pop, with the possible exception of Sgt Peppers.     Now if you are saying that they were progressive...i.e...innovative and experimental...fine, but the Beatles are NOT prog. I feel so strongly about that that I have decided to come out of my self exile to state that as such. Quite simply they do not belong here as well as a bunch of other eye brow raising proto-prog and prog related material that has been recently added here. This was the last straw straw for me  so I decided to speak up. Normally I really don't give a rat's ass who you add here but now I feel the integrity of this site has been undermined.     Pretty much now, you guys may as well add in any act you like..The Doors, Steely Dan, Journey, LEd Zeppelin or UFO...I'm sure it is only a matter of time now. Soon the archives will be flooded full of pop bands that have had some progressive infuences and the weight of the crappy material will send the archives crashing down like a house of cards. It is time we we drew a line in the sand and save the archives integrity. Inclusive isn't always a good thing...I vote for more strict rules and a better sense of exclusiveness. You callaborators really screwed this one up.   I have to agree with you. This is abolute b*ll*cks. I just made a post on the Deep Purple thread about how a martian could come down to earth, look at PA to find out about prog music, and hey, he gets to listen to Deep Purple, ELO, and Supertramp! Well now he can listen to "Love Me Do" as well!!

 Right, that does it. I suspected you earthlings had been cheating me with regard to this 'progressive rock' thing all along. Next time I'm coming back with an armada.

Snow Dog wrote: We're just following orders sir!

Yep...this came down from on high,from the people that founded and run this site.

They wanted the Beatles added,so they got added.

Deal with it.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Nobody says that the Beatles are a prog rock band. But of course they made some progressive albums. I'm sure that most prog rock artists would agree with us (collabs) here.

Well we all know the Beatles were an innovative band that helped moved the trend, but I argue that some of that innovativeness came from just having a good sense of where the public music tastes were going in the 60's. The Beatles didn't invent folk rock or even pychedelia. They just popularized it.

TheProgtologist wrote: And gdub....I thought you left???????????????????????

As I stated above....this outraged so much, that I felt a need to return and voice my opinions. I can still not post and keep an eye on my favorite music site.  I just want the archives to remain the best prog site there is.

Cheers Progtologist.

It is getting more and more difficult to fathom the difficulty that even well-respected long-term members are having grasping the idea of Proto-Prog and Prog-Related.

We intend to be the NUMBER ONE Prog Rock reference resource on the internet. That means that we will chronicle the development of Prog Rock from its roots upwards and thus include bands that were both important in its development and were musically progressive.We get dozens of threads which start "who were the first Prog band" or "which bands influenced Prog bands the most". Now the archive will show the answers to these questions and more.

I do not care if any other Prog Rock site includes them or not. We are Prog Archives and we need to be leaders not followers.

Imagine a site about Human Evolution not including apes.....

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ But on their later albums they made some songs that weren't about popularity at all. The whole White Album could even be called a very early manifestation of "Proto-RIO". We can only speculate on how progressive their albums would have gotten in the 70s if they had not split the band.

I love the White Album and can agree with you with some of the material on there. But much of it is still just pop.

Back In the USSR, While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Don't Pass Me By, Birthday, Everyboby's Got Something to Hide Except for Me and My Monkey and of course the infamous Ob La Di, Ob La Da off the top of my head. Don't make me bust out the entire lp and break it down for you, because I will if I have to. Speaking of I Will....pop.

Tony R wrote: It is getting more and more difficult to fathom the difficulty that even well-respected long-term members are having grasping the idea of Proto-Prog and Prog-Related. We intend to be the NUMBER ONE Prog Rock reference resource on the internet. That means that we will chronicle the development of Prog Rock from its roots upwards and thus include bands that were both important in its development and were musically progressive.We get dozens of threads which start "who were the first Prog band" or "which bands influenced Prog bands the most". Now the archive will show the answers to these questions and more. I do not care if any other Prog Rock site includes them or not. We are Prog Archives and we need to be leaders not followers. Imagine a site about Human Evolution not including apes.....

Oh I read this song and dance before from you Tony. This is your standard answer whenever this comes up. Max has programmed the Tony R program quite well even though its responses are quite repetative.

I say we add Jerry Rafferty, and Steve Miller, and a Flock of Seagulls next(please don't.)

I would just like to add my opinion into the fray here:

Look, if you're going to add the Beatles and the Doors et al., then change the name of the website. Clearly, the focus of the website has moved out and beyond progressive rock.

John Gargo wrote: So is this finally the right time to petition David Bowie to be added into the archives.  I'd argue that he has just as much a right, even more so given his collaborations with Fripp and Eno, to be added.

His solo work,especially his earlier stuff,is pure glam rock.I don't see anything progressive about it. 

John Gargo wrote: So is this finally the right time to petition David Bowie to be added into the archives.  I'd argue that he has just as much a right, even more so given his collaborations with Fripp and Eno, to be added.

This is exactly what I was worried about as well another one's comment about changing the sites name to something other than the word Progressive. It is slipping away from us and the floodgates of mediocre bands are about to come crashing in. We need to dam with flood before this site is totally ruined.

John Gargo wrote: So is this finally the right time to petition David Bowie to be added into the archives.  I'd argue that he has just as much a right, even more so given his collaborations with Fripp and Eno, to be added.

He has already been rejected.

bluetailfly wrote: I would just like to add my opinion into the fray here: Look, if you're going to add the Beatles and the Doors et al., then change the name of the website. Clearly, the focus of the website has moved out and beyond progressive rock.

Please read my post.

This isnt Rocket Science you know!

gdub411 wrote: John Gargo wrote: So is this finally the right time to petition David Bowie to be added into the archives.  I'd argue that he has just as much a right, even more so given his collaborations with Fripp and Eno, to be added. This is exactly what I was worried about as well another one's comment about changing the sites name to something other than the word Progressive. It is slipping away from us and the floodgates of mediocre bands are about to come crashing in. We need to dam with flood before this site is totally ruined.

Please re-read my post.

This is obviously proving too difficult to grasp.

If you created a site to documentThe History Of The Second World War would you only deal with events from 1st Sept 1939 until the Japanese surrender or does one also include the causes?

*where's the emoticon for "tearing one's hair out in frustration" when you need it..?

gdub411 wrote: John Gargo wrote: So is this finally the right time to petition David Bowie to be added into the archives.  I'd argue that he has just as much a right, even more so given his collaborations with Fripp and Eno, to be added. This is exactly what I was worried about as well another one's comment about changing the sites name to something other than the word Progressive. It is slipping away from us and the floodgates of mediocre bands are about to come crashing in. We need to dam with flood before this site is totally ruined.

I'd hardly call the Beatles mediochre.

And they're Prog-Related/Proto-Prog - there was no Prog Rock before them and they're largely responsible for helping to bring it about.

ALL pop/rock music is related to the Beatles. They're welcome at every party.

Certif1ed wrote: gdub411 wrote: John Gargo wrote: So is this finally the right time to petition David Bowie to be added into the archives.  I'd argue that he has just as much a right, even more so given his collaborations with Fripp and Eno, to be added. This is exactly what I was worried about as well another one's comment about changing the sites name to something other than the word Progressive. It is slipping away from us and the floodgates of mediocre bands are about to come crashing in. We need to dam with flood before this site is totally ruined. I'd hardly call the Beatles mediochre. And they're Prog-Related/Proto-Prog - there was no Prog Rock before them and they're largely responsible for helping to bring it about. ALL pop/rock music is related to the Beatles. They're welcome at every party.

If you read my original post, neither do I.

Yeah, things are getting way out of hand with this "everybody is progressive" kick.  Come on, The Beatles are NOT prog.  They were very innovative, original, and influential.  They started lots of trends in music and were very experimental in their latter days.  But that does NOT make them progressive!!

The other/similar thread about Deep Purple not being progressive also is relevant.  I like that band a lot, and have most of their albums, but they also were never truly progressive.  Even their early stuff isn't progressive.  It may sound unique by today's standards, but that was just how some rock music sounded back then.  It's more about nostalgia than progressiveness.

Before long, we're going to see bands like Aerosmith, and ZZ Top, and Nirvana showing up here.  Yeah dude, they're progressive.  NOT!

Flip_Stone wrote: Yeah, things are getting way out of hand with this "everybody is progressive" kick.  Come on, The Beatles are NOT prog.  They were very innovative, original, and influential.  They started lots of trends in music and were very experimental in their latter days.  But that does NOT make them progressive!! The other/similar thread about Deep Purple not being progressive also is relevant.  I like that band a lot, and have most of their albums, but they also were never truly progressive.  Even their early stuff isn't progressive.  It may sound unique by today's standards, but that was just how some rock music sounded back then.  It's more about nostalgia than progressiveness. Before long, we're going to see bands like Aerosmith, and ZZ Top, and Nirvana showing up here.  Yeah dude, they're progressive.  NOT!

Other things DO make the Beatles progressive - you're oversimplifying everything - including Deep Purple.

Flip_Stone wrote: Yeah, things are getting way out of hand with this "everybody is progressive" kick.  Come on, The Beatles are NOT prog.  They were very innovative, original, and influential.  They started lots of trends in music and were very experimental in their latter days.  But that does NOT make them progressive!! The other/similar thread about Deep Purple not being progressive also is relevant.  I like that band a lot, and have most of their albums, but they also were never truly progressive.  Even their early stuff isn't progressive.  It may sound unique by today's standards, but that was just how some rock music sounded back then.  It's more about nostalgia than progressiveness. Before long, we're going to see bands like Aerosmith, and ZZ Top, and Nirvana showing up here.  Yeah dude, they're progressive.  NOT!

Actually, in a sense of propelling music in a different direction they were progressive, but they are NOT prog. Marillion and Arena aren't progressive but ARE prog. There is the  difference.

Tony...is this a progressive history site or a site where we can find lots of information about progressive rock bands.? Wouldn't we be including all of the rock pioneers then, such as Elvis and Buddy Holly? How far back in history do we go? Perhaps we should include great classical and jazz musicians. Do we not draw a line somewhere?

Flip_Stone wrote: Yeah, things are getting way out of hand with this "everybody is progressive" kick.  Come on, The Beatles are NOT prog.  They were very innovative, original, and influential.  They started lots of trends in music and were very experimental in their latter days.  But that does NOT make them progressive!! The other/similar thread about Deep Purple not being progressive also is relevant.  I like that band a lot, and have most of their albums, but they also were never truly progressive.  Even their early stuff isn't progressive.  It may sound unique by today's standards, but that was just how some rock music sounded back then.  It's more about nostalgia than progressiveness. Before long, we're going to see bands like Aerosmith, and ZZ Top, and Nirvana showing up here.  Yeah dude, they're progressive.  NOT!

Please read my other posts.In fact read the whole thread!!

They havent been added as a Progressive Rock band!

Tony R wrote: Flip_Stone wrote: Yeah, things are getting way out of hand with this "everybody is progressive" kick.  Come on, The Beatles are NOT prog.  They were very innovative, original, and influential.  They started lots of trends in music and were very experimental in their latter days.  But that does NOT make them progressive!! The other/similar thread about Deep Purple not being progressive also is relevant.  I like that band a lot, and have most of their albums, but they also were never truly progressive.  Even their early stuff isn't progressive.  It may sound unique by today's standards, but that was just how some rock music sounded back then.  It's more about nostalgia than progressiveness. Before long, we're going to see bands like Aerosmith, and ZZ Top, and Nirvana showing up here.  Yeah dude, they're progressive.  NOT! Please read my other posts.In fact read the whole thread!! They havent been added as a Progressive Rock band!

Since there is a proto-prog category, The Beatles have to be in it.

Greg W wrote: Tony...is this a progressive history site or a site where we can find lots of information about progressive rock bands.? Wouldn't we be including all of the rock pioneers then, such as Elvis and Buddy Holly? How far back in history do we go? Perhaps we should include great classical and jazz musicians. Do we not draw a line somewhere?

You've answered your own question:Wouldn't we be including all of the rock pioneers then

These "rock pioneers" are not directly relevant.

This is getting silly.We want to be #1 and a one-stop reference resource.

Manunkind wrote: Tony R wrote: Flip_Stone wrote: Yeah, things are getting way out of hand with this "everybody is progressive" kick.  Come on, The Beatles are NOT prog.  They were very innovative, original, and influential.  They started lots of trends in music and were very experimental in their latter days.  But that does NOT make them progressive!! The other/similar thread about Deep Purple not being progressive also is relevant.  I like that band a lot, and have most of their albums, but they also were never truly progressive.  Even their early stuff isn't progressive.  It may sound unique by today's standards, but that was just how some rock music sounded back then.  It's more about nostalgia than progressiveness. Before long, we're going to see bands like Aerosmith, and ZZ Top, and Nirvana showing up here.  Yeah dude, they're progressive.  NOT! Please read my other posts.In fact read the whole thread!! They havent been added as a Progressive Rock band! Since there is a proto-prog category, The Beatles have to be in it.

Well wouldn't Mozart be considered for the proto prog catagory? Proto Prog and Prog Related just flat out need to be removed. There is no need for those so called sub genres to be included. Those catagories are too broad and therefore offer no merit.

I see no problem with it, since they are added as proto prog... They definitely did have a huge influence on prog, as they did on all other major rock genres, really. Proto prog is for bands that influenced prog, and were not (by modern standards) "prog".

And keep in mind, that during their times, they were the most progressive thing ever!

The Miracle wrote: I see no problem with it, since they are added as proto prog... They definitely did have a huge influence on prog, as they did on all other major rock genres, really. Proto prog is for bands that influenced prog, and were not (by modern standards) "prog". And keep in mind, that during their times, they were the most progressive thing ever!

Progressive yes. Prog no. Get rid of Proto Prog and Prog Related is what I say.

Greg W wrote: Manunkind wrote: Tony R wrote: Flip_Stone wrote: Yeah, things are getting way out of hand with this "everybody is progressive" kick.  Come on, The Beatles are NOT prog.  They were very innovative, original, and influential.  They started lots of trends in music and were very experimental in their latter days.  But that does NOT make them progressive!! The other/similar thread about Deep Purple not being progressive also is relevant.  I like that band a lot, and have most of their albums, but they also were never truly progressive.  Even their early stuff isn't progressive.  It may sound unique by today's standards, but that was just how some rock music sounded back then.  It's more about nostalgia than progressiveness. Before long, we're going to see bands like Aerosmith, and ZZ Top, and Nirvana showing up here.  Yeah dude, they're progressive.  NOT! Please read my other posts.In fact read the whole thread!! They havent been added as a Progressive Rock band! Since there is a proto-prog category, The Beatles have to be in it. Well wouldn't Mozart be considered for the proto prog catagory? Proto Prog and Prog Related just flat out need to be removed. There is no need for those so called sub genres to be included. Those catagories are too broad and therefore offer no merit.

I'm inclined to agree with you. 'Proto-prog' and 'prog-related' bands could be mentioned in articles devoted to the history of prog, but should not be fully included. However, since the categories have been given regular 'sub-genre' status, The Beatles have to be in. And no, you couldn't go back as far as Mozart, you'd have to stop on the moment of the birth of rock and roll at the earliest. 

Phil wrote: Excuse me while I laugh myself silly!!!!!!!!! ps don't get me wrong - I like these bands (well I'm a bit so-so about ELO....), its just that they aren't progressive!!!!

Nobody says that the Beatles are a prog rock band. But of course they made some progressive albums ... you may laugh all you want, but I'm sure that most prog rock artists would agree with us (collabs) here.

[/QUOTE]

Now that the Beatles are here, they will quickly run to the top of the album list.  Isn't that what they always did.   But I think that it is important and a noted change that people are coming to realize that the Beatles are proto-prog and what we call proto-prog actually starts much earlier than scholars like Macan have led us to believe. I love the Beatles like everyone or most do, but I have often gotten in trouble for saying that in the final laundry, the Beatles will not come out looking any better than many of the contemporararies.

What The Bealtes were able to do is craft a pop song, over and over again, that consisted of multiple hooks, as in She Loves You or Can't Buy Me Love. That's pretty powerful stuff but The Brill Building songwriters did the same thing and more sophisticated.  (I might just feel that way 'cause i'm a NYer.)  But there integrated songwriting on Abbey Road was certainly a harbinger of things to come.

Do people realize that it is Mariah Carey who has been outselling the Beatles over the last twenty years?

wow...why is this such a big deal.

for this site to be deemed complete we haev to have the roots of the genre evident and they are beginning to be with the proto/prog-related subgenres. i'm sorry if you don't agree just don't worry about it and move on with your life--after all extending the archives isn't going to hurt it in any way--you'll stil have your conventional prog waiting for you here.

the only thing i'm moderately worried about by adding such a hugely popular band to the site is the fact that reviews for their albums will clog the home page for awhile--other than that the add was a fine add whether you agree or not. i think it's been stated on the thread that they were not added as a progressive rock band, but merely a band that is prog-related or proto-prog...a band that influenced prog enough to be deemed a spot in the archives. if you have a problem with it then just don't pay attention to it--you're few picky picks are still here waiting for you to shut up about the beatles being added and go back to them.

When I suddenly discovered this site, it was like finding hidden treasure for me. Lots of very interesting bands I have never heard of, entertaining discussions on the forums about commonly little known stuff. I was offered by this site a lot of information about very obscure but extremely talented bands and musicians. I thought that the purpose of this site is to tell those who is interested to hear something more about hidden treasures of progressive music. When a friend was asking me about some unknown band, I would tell him or her to check ProgArchives, as the probability is high that the band is listed there if they are playing good music but not very popular or heard of on about every corner. 

This site was bearing some elitist features, very much to my likings, and I could find here a lot of interesting info that I could not find anywhere else.

Now IMO site is changing it's direction and tries to cover each and every possible rock/jazz and pop groups of all ages and origines. It is flooded by huge number of all sorts of metal bands, hard & heavy, AOR and rock'n'roll, country and folk, electronics and EMO, dancing music and pop, jazz, avant-guarde, chanson, world/ethnic music - anything and everything - you name it, plus still very good portion of prog.

This site is getting huge and growing by the day, but "huge" is not always (maybe never)synonymous to "great", and I personally is rapidly loosing interest in this site. (Yes, I realise, this is MY problem)

Don't get me wrong, Queen where my favourite band when I was 14-15 years old, I was fanatical about Deep Purple, Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin in my late teens, in my 20's I was Heavy Metal fan. Beatles to me were always one of very important bands in development and world-wide recognition of rock music in general, and to me their music is not bad - just uninteresting. I still listen to the music of above bands occasionally, and I like what I hear. I firmly believe that in every musical genre there are great musician capable to produce masterpieces, but this was not about this site to list all of them here. 

This site probably will become biggest encyclopedia of music in the world, and it's name will be changed to something more appropriate in this respect, and I wish all good luck to the founders of the site and to collabs in achieving this goal, but this will never be same ProgArchives it used to be for me.

To me it's like once a small and cozy club, where intelligent people were gathering to consume some rare, expensive, highest quality drinks and to exchange their opinions and impressions they got from it, this club suddenly turned into a huge drunk parlour crowded by people consuming vodka by wine glasses and trying to shout down each other in stupid debate as to who can drink more. 

Sad, isn't it?

I cant believe how closed minded some of the people here are, The Beatles had a direct influence on the progression of Pink Floyd, Yes, Genesis and just about every other prog band of the early 70's. Without The Beatles half of the bands that we idolise here wouldn't have developed as fast as they did, some may not have developed at all to what we now consider prog rock. The Beatles are the single most important band to the development of prog, to not include them in Proto-prog would be stupid.

And for the benefit of those that do not seem to want to take it in:

Proto-prog/Prog-related are not Prog rock!

These bands, IMO, should be those that showed either strong progressive tendencies on many of their records or had direct influence on the beginning of prog rock in the case of Proto-prog. I also believe that a close watch should be kept on these 2 categories to prevent silly additions but at the moment I haven't seen any additions that I would take issue with.

Tony Fisher wrote: gdub411 wrote: I say we add Jerry Rafferty, and Steve Miller, and a Flock of Seagulls next(please don't.)   Gerry Rafferty's album Sleepwalking is a prog album by any criterion you can judge it by. Plus it's almost perfect as well.

I agree somewhat? I like Jerry Rafferty. I am not algotether sure if most of his material is progressive, however.

Which brings me to the historic issue again. Does this mean we include the Zombies because Rod Argent would later go on to form The Argent Band or Todd Rungren for his work with Utupia?

does anybody realize that people are being ridiculous about this?

the fact is that the beatles were loads better and more influential to prog than all of the bands you guys are using to make points (David Bowie, Jerry Rafferty, A Flock of Seagulls, etc)

the beatles are here to stay and they belong here at least as a prog influence (which is all they are). whether or not you agree is not a reason to bleed all over the forums.

the only thing i would suggets is to possibly not let proto-prog/prog related albums clog up the top 100 list by eliminating them from teh competition possibly. but i don't really pay attention to the top 100 list so it wouldn't bother me--i just am not looking foward to reading the numerous beatles hate threads and "WHAT? Beatles beats Genesis!?!?!" threads that are bound to be posted if and when this occurs...

eugene wrote: When I suddenly discovered this site, it was like finding hidden treasure for me. Lots of very interesting bands I have never heard of, entertaining discussions on the forums about commonly little known stuff. I was offered by this site a lot of information about very obscure but extremely talented bands and musicians. I thought that the purpose of this site is to tell those who is interested to hear something more about hidden treasures of progressive music. When a friend was asking me about some unknown band, I would tell him or her to check ProgArchives, as the probability is high that the band is listed there if they are playing good music but not very popular or heard of on about every corner.  This site was bearing some elitist features, very much to my likings, and I could find here a lot of interesting info that I could not find anywhere else. Now IMO site is changing it's direction and tries to cover each and every possible rock/jazz and pop groups of all ages and origines. It is flooded by huge number of all sorts of metal bands, hard & heavy, AOR and rock'n'roll, country and folk, electronics and EMO, dancing music and pop, jazz, avant-guarde, chanson, world/ethnic music - anything and everything - you name it, plus still very good portion of prog. This site is getting huge and growing by the day, but "huge" is not always (maybe never)synonymous to "great", and I personally is rapidly loosing interest in this site. (Yes, I realise, this is MY problem) Don't get me wrong, Queen where my favourite band when I was 14-15 years old, I was fanatical about Deep Purple, Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin in my late teens, in my 20's I was Heavy Metal fan. Beatles to me were always one of very important bands in development and world-wide recognition of rock music in general, and to me their music is not bad - just uninteresting. I still listen to the music of above bands occasionally, and I like what I hear. I firmly believe that in every musical genre there are great musician capable to produce masterpieces, but this was not about this site to list all of them here.  This site probably will become biggest encyclopedia of music in the world, and it's name will be changed to something more appropriate in this respect, and I wish all good luck to the founders of the site and to collabs in achieving this goal, but this will never be same ProgArchives it used to be for me. To me it's like once a small and cozy club, where intelligent people were gathering to consume some rare, expensive, highest quality drinks and to exchange their opinions and impressions they got from it, this club suddenly turned into a huge drunk parlour crowded by people consuming vodka by wine glasses and trying to shout down each other in stupid debate as to who can drink more.  Sad, isn't it?

I agree. This is an elitist site who welcomes people with only the most mature music in rock history. By including Prog Related and Proto Prog, we have essentially invited the unruly commoners to pillage our fair site with their stupidity and ignorance.

Greg W wrote: The Miracle wrote: I see no problem with it, since they are added as proto prog... They definitely did have a huge influence on prog, as they did on all other major rock genres, really. Proto prog is for bands that influenced prog, and were not (by modern standards) "prog". And keep in mind, that during their times, they were the most progressive thing ever! Progressive yes. Prog no. Get rid of Proto Prog and Prog Related is what I say.

I absolutely agree about "prog related", but proto prog is IMO a good idea... No one says those bands are prog by the definition, but they did have an influence on it more than others. It's more of a historical sub genre showing the roots of it. While "prog related" means that any band can be here (if a is here, than so should b, etc....)  But proto prog is much more limited.

king volta wrote: does anybody realize that people are being ridiculous about this? the fact is that the beatles were loads better and more influential to prog than all of the bands you guys are using to make points (David Bowie, Jerry Rafferty, A Flock of Seagulls, etc) the beatles are here to stay and they belong here at least as a prog influence (which is all they are). whether or not you agree is not a reason to bleed all over the forums. the only thing i would suggets is to possibly not let proto-prog/prog related albums clog up the top 100 list by eliminating them from teh competition possibly. but i don't really pay attention to the top 100 list so it wouldn't bother me--i just am not looking foward to reading the numerous beatles hate threads and "WHAT? Beatles beats Genesis!?!?!" threads that are bound to be posted if and when this occurs...

  Not only that, But I fear now the battle won't be Close to the Edge or SEBTP anymore. Give it a few weeks and the Beatles will assault the Top 100 list with their non prog lps.

sleeper wrote: IProto-prog/Prog-related are not Prog rock!

....and therefore do not belong on our fair site. Everything else you wrote is pointless.

BebieM wrote: Proto-prog albums should not count for the top100 list then. Even though we might not care too much about the list, it'd still be wrong, the beatles never made a great truly prog album. And it's misleading people that are new to prog.

i will say that when i arrived at this site for the first time, teh top 100 was where i started looking for prog. i don't think it'd be wrong if things like "The White Album" (which IS a masterpiece adn the most "progressive" album by nature that the Beatles ever produced) were up there--it'd just be misleading to newcomers which is why i think maybe pro=related/proto=prog should maybe be disqualified for a spot in the top 100--but i mean the top 250, 500--i think they could be allowed in there. Really  I wouldn't wory at all if the beatles plagued the top 100 because i mean things like jethro tull, genesis, yes, pink floyd, van der graff, rush, etc would still be up there--newcomers would see the bands they haven't heard of and hopefully look there before what they've heard...

i dunno though--i think proto-prog is a good idea and helps this site in terms of completion, i'm just not sure how far proto=prog should develop in terms of with the rest of the site...i'm really not looking foward to the plague of beatles hate threads coming on...

Greg W wrote: eugene wrote: When I suddenly discovered this site, it was like finding hidden treasure for me. Lots of very interesting bands I have never heard of, entertaining discussions on the forums about commonly little known stuff. I was offered by this site a lot of information about very obscure but extremely talented bands and musicians. I thought that the purpose of this site is to tell those who is interested to hear something more about hidden treasures of progressive music. When a friend was asking me about some unknown band, I would tell him or her to check ProgArchives, as the probability is high that the band is listed there if they are playing good music but not very popular or heard of on about every corner.  This site was bearing some elitist features, very much to my likings, and I could find here a lot of interesting info that I could not find anywhere else. Now IMO site is changing it's direction and tries to cover each and every possible rock/jazz and pop groups of all ages and origines. It is flooded by huge number of all sorts of metal bands, hard & heavy, AOR and rock'n'roll, country and folk, electronics and EMO, dancing music and pop, jazz, avant-guarde, chanson, world/ethnic music - anything and everything - you name it, plus still very good portion of prog. This site is getting huge and growing by the day, but "huge" is not always (maybe never)synonymous to "great", and I personally is rapidly loosing interest in this site. (Yes, I realise, this is MY problem) Don't get me wrong, Queen where my favourite band when I was 14-15 years old, I was fanatical about Deep Purple, Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin in my late teens, in my 20's I was Heavy Metal fan. Beatles to me were always one of very important bands in development and world-wide recognition of rock music in general, and to me their music is not bad - just uninteresting. I still listen to the music of above bands occasionally, and I like what I hear. I firmly believe that in every musical genre there are great musician capable to produce masterpieces, but this was not about this site to list all of them here.  This site probably will become biggest encyclopedia of music in the world, and it's name will be changed to something more appropriate in this respect, and I wish all good luck to the founders of the site and to collabs in achieving this goal, but this will never be same ProgArchives it used to be for me. To me it's like once a small and cozy club, where intelligent people were gathering to consume some rare, expensive, highest quality drinks and to exchange their opinions and impressions they got from it, this club suddenly turned into a huge drunk parlour crowded by people consuming vodka by wine glasses and trying to shout down each other in stupid debate as to who can drink more.  Sad, isn't it?     I agree. This is an elitist site who welcomes people with only the most mature music in rock history. By including Prog Related and Proto Prog, we have essentially invited the unruly commoners to pillage our fair site with their stupidity and ignorance.

That is the most elitist,snobbish comment I have read yet.

Greg W wrote: sleeper wrote: IProto-prog/Prog-related are not Prog rock! ....and therefore do not belong on our fair site. Everything else you wrote is pointless.

so your saying that despite the fact that the beatles were probably the most important influence on the development of prog they dont belong here, well it looks like the people that own this site dont agree with you.

TheProgtologist wrote: Greg W wrote: eugene wrote: When I suddenly discovered this site, it was like finding hidden treasure for me. Lots of very interesting bands I have never heard of, entertaining discussions on the forums about commonly little known stuff. I was offered by this site a lot of information about very obscure but extremely talented bands and musicians. I thought that the purpose of this site is to tell those who is interested to hear something more about hidden treasures of progressive music. When a friend was asking me about some unknown band, I would tell him or her to check ProgArchives, as the probability is high that the band is listed there if they are playing good music but not very popular or heard of on about every corner.  This site was bearing some elitist features, very much to my likings, and I could find here a lot of interesting info that I could not find anywhere else. Now IMO site is changing it's direction and tries to cover each and every possible rock/jazz and pop groups of all ages and origines. It is flooded by huge number of all sorts of metal bands, hard & heavy, AOR and rock'n'roll, country and folk, electronics and EMO, dancing music and pop, jazz, avant-guarde, chanson, world/ethnic music - anything and everything - you name it, plus still very good portion of prog. This site is getting huge and growing by the day, but "huge" is not always (maybe never)synonymous to "great", and I personally is rapidly loosing interest in this site. (Yes, I realise, this is MY problem) Don't get me wrong, Queen where my favourite band when I was 14-15 years old, I was fanatical about Deep Purple, Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin in my late teens, in my 20's I was Heavy Metal fan. Beatles to me were always one of very important bands in development and world-wide recognition of rock music in general, and to me their music is not bad - just uninteresting. I still listen to the music of above bands occasionally, and I like what I hear. I firmly believe that in every musical genre there are great musician capable to produce masterpieces, but this was not about this site to list all of them here.  This site probably will become biggest encyclopedia of music in the world, and it's name will be changed to something more appropriate in this respect, and I wish all good luck to the founders of the site and to collabs in achieving this goal, but this will never be same ProgArchives it used to be for me. To me it's like once a small and cozy club, where intelligent people were gathering to consume some rare, expensive, highest quality drinks and to exchange their opinions and impressions they got from it, this club suddenly turned into a huge drunk parlour crowded by people consuming vodka by wine glasses and trying to shout down each other in stupid debate as to who can drink more.  Sad, isn't it?     I agree. This is an elitist site who welcomes people with only the most mature music in rock history. By including Prog Related and Proto Prog, we have essentially invited the unruly commoners to pillage our fair site with their stupidity and ignorance. That is the most elitist,snobbish comment I have read yet.

Yes...when it comes to music I am an elitist and whether you admit it or not...so are you. That is why we are all here...isn't it?

Greg W wrote: sleeper wrote: IProto-prog/Prog-related are not Prog rock! ....and therefore do not belong on our fair site. Everything else you wrote is pointless.

This is Roni and M@x's site.What they want,they get.They wanted this.

It's that simple.

sleeper wrote: Greg W wrote: sleeper wrote: IProto-prog/Prog-related are not Prog rock! ....and therefore do not belong on our fair site. Everything else you wrote is pointless. so your saying that despite the fact that the beatles were probably the most important influence on the development of prog they dont belong here, well it looks like the people that own this site dont agree with you.

As I said at the top of this thread. The Beatles were innovative and indeed porgressive. I love the Beatles. They are not PROG however. I thought I articulated myself quite well with the thread opening. i just didn't rattle off a stupid statement without backing it up.

Prog Related and Proto Prog have to go.

Greg W wrote: TheProgtologist wrote: Greg W wrote: eugene wrote: When I suddenly discovered this site, it was like finding hidden treasure for me. Lots of very interesting bands I have never heard of, entertaining discussions on the forums about commonly little known stuff. I was offered by this site a lot of information about very obscure but extremely talented bands and musicians. I thought that the purpose of this site is to tell those who is interested to hear something more about hidden treasures of progressive music. When a friend was asking me about some unknown band, I would tell him or her to check ProgArchives, as the probability is high that the band is listed there if they are playing good music but not very popular or heard of on about every corner.  This site was bearing some elitist features, very much to my likings, and I could find here a lot of interesting info that I could not find anywhere else. Now IMO site is changing it's direction and tries to cover each and every possible rock/jazz and pop groups of all ages and origines. It is flooded by huge number of all sorts of metal bands, hard & heavy, AOR and rock'n'roll, country and folk, electronics and EMO, dancing music and pop, jazz, avant-guarde, chanson, world/ethnic music - anything and everything - you name it, plus still very good portion of prog. This site is getting huge and growing by the day, but "huge" is not always (maybe never)synonymous to "great", and I personally is rapidly loosing interest in this site. (Yes, I realise, this is MY problem) Don't get me wrong, Queen where my favourite band when I was 14-15 years old, I was fanatical about Deep Purple, Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin in my late teens, in my 20's I was Heavy Metal fan. Beatles to me were always one of very important bands in development and world-wide recognition of rock music in general, and to me their music is not bad - just uninteresting. I still listen to the music of above bands occasionally, and I like what I hear. I firmly believe that in every musical genre there are great musician capable to produce masterpieces, but this was not about this site to list all of them here.  This site probably will become biggest encyclopedia of music in the world, and it's name will be changed to something more appropriate in this respect, and I wish all good luck to the founders of the site and to collabs in achieving this goal, but this will never be same ProgArchives it used to be for me. To me it's like once a small and cozy club, where intelligent people were gathering to consume some rare, expensive, highest quality drinks and to exchange their opinions and impressions they got from it, this club suddenly turned into a huge drunk parlour crowded by people consuming vodka by wine glasses and trying to shout down each other in stupid debate as to who can drink more.  Sad, isn't it?     I agree. This is an elitist site who welcomes people with only the most mature music in rock history. By including Prog Related and Proto Prog, we have essentially invited the unruly commoners to pillage our fair site with their stupidity and ignorance. That is the most elitist,snobbish comment I have read yet. Yes...when it comes to music I am an elitist and whether you admit it or not...so are you. That is why we are all here...isn't it?

I think we are all elitists (I know I am) but to that extent? I look to prog because its were the cream of the crop has gone but to ignore one band because "its not prog" is stupid and bigoted.

Yes I am also aware that you like The Beatles and you have stated that they were progressive in the true sence of the word but so were Yes, Genesis, Floyd, Tull, etc etc. We know that prog NOW has a complete felling to it so that bands that arnt doing something completely new ae still prog because it feels that way. Besides if your saying that Proto-prog should go do you include The Nice, Moody Blue's and others in that as well? 

TheProgtologist wrote: Greg W wrote: sleeper wrote: IProto-prog/Prog-related are not Prog rock! ....and therefore do not belong on our fair site. Everything else you wrote is pointless. This is Roni and M@x's site.What they want,they get.They wanted this. It's that simple.

Yes...it seems they have done a fine job at plunging this once great site into mediocrity.

Congratuations mailto:M@x - M@x and Roni.

TheProgtologist wrote: Greg W wrote: eugene wrote: When I suddenly discovered this site, it was like finding hidden treasure for me. Lots of very interesting bands I have never heard of, entertaining discussions on the forums about commonly little known stuff. I was offered by this site a lot of information about very obscure but extremely talented bands and musicians. I thought that the purpose of this site is to tell those who is interested to hear something more about hidden treasures of progressive music. When a friend was asking me about some unknown band, I would tell him or her to check ProgArchives, as the probability is high that the band is listed there if they are playing good music but not very popular or heard of on about every corner.  This site was bearing some elitist features, very much to my likings, and I could find here a lot of interesting info that I could not find anywhere else. Now IMO site is changing it's direction and tries to cover each and every possible rock/jazz and pop groups of all ages and origines. It is flooded by huge number of all sorts of metal bands, hard & heavy, AOR and rock'n'roll, country and folk, electronics and EMO, dancing music and pop, jazz, avant-guarde, chanson, world/ethnic music - anything and everything - you name it, plus still very good portion of prog. This site is getting huge and growing by the day, but "huge" is not always (maybe never)synonymous to "great", and I personally is rapidly loosing interest in this site. (Yes, I realise, this is MY problem) Don't get me wrong, Queen where my favourite band when I was 14-15 years old, I was fanatical about Deep Purple, Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin in my late teens, in my 20's I was Heavy Metal fan. Beatles to me were always one of very important bands in development and world-wide recognition of rock music in general, and to me their music is not bad - just uninteresting. I still listen to the music of above bands occasionally, and I like what I hear. I firmly believe that in every musical genre there are great musician capable to produce masterpieces, but this was not about this site to list all of them here.  This site probably will become biggest encyclopedia of music in the world, and it's name will be changed to something more appropriate in this respect, and I wish all good luck to the founders of the site and to collabs in achieving this goal, but this will never be same ProgArchives it used to be for me. To me it's like once a small and cozy club, where intelligent people were gathering to consume some rare, expensive, highest quality drinks and to exchange their opinions and impressions they got from it, this club suddenly turned into a huge drunk parlour crowded by people consuming vodka by wine glasses and trying to shout down each other in stupid debate as to who can drink more.  Sad, isn't it?     I agree. This is an elitist site who welcomes people with only the most mature music in rock history. By including Prog Related and Proto Prog, we have essentially invited the unruly commoners to pillage our fair site with their stupidity and ignorance. That is the most elitist,snobbish comment I have read yet.

Probably also one of the most ironic ones.

eugene wrote: This site is getting huge and growing by the day, but "huge" is not always (maybe never)synonymous to "great", and I personally is rapidly loosing interest in this site. (Yes, I realise, this is MY problem)

Yes, that is indeed your problem - and your loss. Why can't you just ignore the Beatles? Adding the Beatles does not mean that other artists are dropped out of the database. Two days ago I bought a Guapo album, and at the same time I don't take any offense by this addition - not at all.

Manunkind wrote: TheProgtologist wrote: Greg W wrote: eugene wrote: When I suddenly discovered this site, it was like finding hidden treasure for me. Lots of very interesting bands I have never heard of, entertaining discussions on the forums about commonly little known stuff. I was offered by this site a lot of information about very obscure but extremely talented bands and musicians. I thought that the purpose of this site is to tell those who is interested to hear something more about hidden treasures of progressive music. When a friend was asking me about some unknown band, I would tell him or her to check ProgArchives, as the probability is high that the band is listed there if they are playing good music but not very popular or heard of on about every corner.  This site was bearing some elitist features, very much to my likings, and I could find here a lot of interesting info that I could not find anywhere else. Now IMO site is changing it's direction and tries to cover each and every possible rock/jazz and pop groups of all ages and origines. It is flooded by huge number of all sorts of metal bands, hard & heavy, AOR and rock'n'roll, country and folk, electronics and EMO, dancing music and pop, jazz, avant-guarde, chanson, world/ethnic music - anything and everything - you name it, plus still very good portion of prog. This site is getting huge and growing by the day, but "huge" is not always (maybe never)synonymous to "great", and I personally is rapidly loosing interest in this site. (Yes, I realise, this is MY problem) Don't get me wrong, Queen where my favourite band when I was 14-15 years old, I was fanatical about Deep Purple, Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin in my late teens, in my 20's I was Heavy Metal fan. Beatles to me were always one of very important bands in development and world-wide recognition of rock music in general, and to me their music is not bad - just uninteresting. I still listen to the music of above bands occasionally, and I like what I hear. I firmly believe that in every musical genre there are great musician capable to produce masterpieces, but this was not about this site to list all of them here.  This site probably will become biggest encyclopedia of music in the world, and it's name will be changed to something more appropriate in this respect, and I wish all good luck to the founders of the site and to collabs in achieving this goal, but this will never be same ProgArchives it used to be for me. To me it's like once a small and cozy club, where intelligent people were gathering to consume some rare, expensive, highest quality drinks and to exchange their opinions and impressions they got from it, this club suddenly turned into a huge drunk parlour crowded by people consuming vodka by wine glasses and trying to shout down each other in stupid debate as to who can drink more.  Sad, isn't it?     I agree. This is an elitist site who welcomes people with only the most mature music in rock history. By including Prog Related and Proto Prog, we have essentially invited the unruly commoners to pillage our fair site with their stupidity and ignorance. That is the most elitist,snobbish comment I have read yet. Probably also one of the most ironic ones.

I don't think he (Greg W) was joking.

sleeper wrote: Greg W wrote: TheProgtologist wrote: Greg W wrote: eugene wrote: When I suddenly discovered this site, it was like finding hidden treasure for me. Lots of very interesting bands I have never heard of, entertaining discussions on the forums about commonly little known stuff. I was offered by this site a lot of information about very obscure but extremely talented bands and musicians. I thought that the purpose of this site is to tell those who is interested to hear something more about hidden treasures of progressive music. When a friend was asking me about some unknown band, I would tell him or her to check ProgArchives, as the probability is high that the band is listed there if they are playing good music but not very popular or heard of on about every corner.  This site was bearing some elitist features, very much to my likings, and I could find here a lot of interesting info that I could not find anywhere else. Now IMO site is changing it's direction and tries to cover each and every possible rock/jazz and pop groups of all ages and origines. It is flooded by huge number of all sorts of metal bands, hard & heavy, AOR and rock'n'roll, country and folk, electronics and EMO, dancing music and pop, jazz, avant-guarde, chanson, world/ethnic music - anything and everything - you name it, plus still very good portion of prog. This site is getting huge and growing by the day, but "huge" is not always (maybe never)synonymous to "great", and I personally is rapidly loosing interest in this site. (Yes, I realise, this is MY problem) Don't get me wrong, Queen where my favourite band when I was 14-15 years old, I was fanatical about Deep Purple, Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin in my late teens, in my 20's I was Heavy Metal fan. Beatles to me were always one of very important bands in development and world-wide recognition of rock music in general, and to me their music is not bad - just uninteresting. I still listen to the music of above bands occasionally, and I like what I hear. I firmly believe that in every musical genre there are great musician capable to produce masterpieces, but this was not about this site to list all of them here.  This site probably will become biggest encyclopedia of music in the world, and it's name will be changed to something more appropriate in this respect, and I wish all good luck to the founders of the site and to collabs in achieving this goal, but this will never be same ProgArchives it used to be for me. To me it's like once a small and cozy club, where intelligent people were gathering to consume some rare, expensive, highest quality drinks and to exchange their opinions and impressions they got from it, this club suddenly turned into a huge drunk parlour crowded by people consuming vodka by wine glasses and trying to shout down each other in stupid debate as to who can drink more.  Sad, isn't it?     I agree. This is an elitist site who welcomes people with only the most mature music in rock history. By including Prog Related and Proto Prog, we have essentially invited the unruly commoners to pillage our fair site with their stupidity and ignorance. That is the most elitist,snobbish comment I have read yet. Yes...when it comes to music I am an elitist and whether you admit it or not...so are you. That is why we are all here...isn't it? I think we are all elitists (I know I am) but to that extent? I look to prog because its were the cream of the crop has gone but to ignore one band because "its not prog" is stupid and bigoted.

in your own musical world...yes..like what you want. I once again love the Beatles as well as many other non prog acts. In my personal life I do not ignore and exclude good music just because they are not prog.

Here...on the PROGrock Archives we need to be more exclusive, however.

I think we should finish this debate, there here and that's not going to change, you can either embrace them, ignore them or leave in disgust, your choice. 

BTW Greg, you should check my edited post.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Manunkind wrote: TheProgtologist wrote: Greg W wrote: eugene wrote: When I suddenly discovered this site, it was like finding hidden treasure for me. Lots of very interesting bands I have never heard of, entertaining discussions on the forums about commonly little known stuff. I was offered by this site a lot of information about very obscure but extremely talented bands and musicians. I thought that the purpose of this site is to tell those who is interested to hear something more about hidden treasures of progressive music. When a friend was asking me about some unknown band, I would tell him or her to check ProgArchives, as the probability is high that the band is listed there if they are playing good music but not very popular or heard of on about every corner.  This site was bearing some elitist features, very much to my likings, and I could find here a lot of interesting info that I could not find anywhere else. Now IMO site is changing it's direction and tries to cover each and every possible rock/jazz and pop groups of all ages and origines. It is flooded by huge number of all sorts of metal bands, hard & heavy, AOR and rock'n'roll, country and folk, electronics and EMO, dancing music and pop, jazz, avant-guarde, chanson, world/ethnic music - anything and everything - you name it, plus still very good portion of prog. This site is getting huge and growing by the day, but "huge" is not always (maybe never)synonymous to "great", and I personally is rapidly loosing interest in this site. (Yes, I realise, this is MY problem) Don't get me wrong, Queen where my favourite band when I was 14-15 years old, I was fanatical about Deep Purple, Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin in my late teens, in my 20's I was Heavy Metal fan. Beatles to me were always one of very important bands in development and world-wide recognition of rock music in general, and to me their music is not bad - just uninteresting. I still listen to the music of above bands occasionally, and I like what I hear. I firmly believe that in every musical genre there are great musician capable to produce masterpieces, but this was not about this site to list all of them here.  This site probably will become biggest encyclopedia of music in the world, and it's name will be changed to something more appropriate in this respect, and I wish all good luck to the founders of the site and to collabs in achieving this goal, but this will never be same ProgArchives it used to be for me. To me it's like once a small and cozy club, where intelligent people were gathering to consume some rare, expensive, highest quality drinks and to exchange their opinions and impressions they got from it, this club suddenly turned into a huge drunk parlour crowded by people consuming vodka by wine glasses and trying to shout down each other in stupid debate as to who can drink more.  Sad, isn't it?     I agree. This is an elitist site who welcomes people with only the most mature music in rock history. By including Prog Related and Proto Prog, we have essentially invited the unruly commoners to pillage our fair site with their stupidity and ignorance. That is the most elitist,snobbish comment I have read yet. Probably also one of the most ironic ones. I don't think he (Greg W) was joking.

I don't really think so either, but I am still hoping he was ironic, since the way that statement of his was written makes it almost impossible to take seriously. "Most mature music in rock history", "unruly commoners", "pillaging" etc.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ But on their later albums they made some songs that weren't about popularity at all. The whole White Album could even be called a very early manifestation of "Proto-RIO". We can only speculate on how progressive their albums would have gotten in the 70s if they had not split the band.

If not popularity, I have to ask  why did each copy of the "white Album" had an individual number stamped on it, especially when the numbers were well into 6 figures for the first pressing?

Come on you have a certain amount of evidence in what McCartney, Lennon and Harrison (sued successfully for stealing a Ronette's tune; even the presence of Derek & The Dominoes on the Apple Jams doesn't help), turn out separately when Apple Corps crumbled in disarray.

But you'll have to work much harder with the RIO connection. So intrigued to read Victorian and Edwardian musical hall (e.g. Bungalow Bill  - you did write The Whole, MER!!), was a source of RIO. Revolution No 9, was inspired by Stockhausen. And so on.

I suppose we can live with the Beatles here - but I feel the validity of this site as a repository of things truly  Progressive,  dropped in credit rating yet again. Next the Rolling Stones, Kinks, Who, Small Faces who many could make a less unconvincing case for their inclusion here.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Manunkind wrote: TheProgtologist wrote: Greg W wrote: eugene wrote: When I suddenly discovered this site, it was like finding hidden treasure for me. Lots of very interesting bands I have never heard of, entertaining discussions on the forums about commonly little known stuff. I was offered by this site a lot of information about very obscure but extremely talented bands and musicians. I thought that the purpose of this site is to tell those who is interested to hear something more about hidden treasures of progressive music. When a friend was asking me about some unknown band, I would tell him or her to check ProgArchives, as the probability is high that the band is listed there if they are playing good music but not very popular or heard of on about every corner.  This site was bearing some elitist features, very much to my likings, and I could find here a lot of interesting info that I could not find anywhere else. Now IMO site is changing it's direction and tries to cover each and every possible rock/jazz and pop groups of all ages and origines. It is flooded by huge number of all sorts of metal bands, hard & heavy, AOR and rock'n'roll, country and folk, electronics and EMO, dancing music and pop, jazz, avant-guarde, chanson, world/ethnic music - anything and everything - you name it, plus still very good portion of prog. This site is getting huge and growing by the day, but "huge" is not always (maybe never)synonymous to "great", and I personally is rapidly loosing interest in this site. (Yes, I realise, this is MY problem) Don't get me wrong, Queen where my favourite band when I was 14-15 years old, I was fanatical about Deep Purple, Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin in my late teens, in my 20's I was Heavy Metal fan. Beatles to me were always one of very important bands in development and world-wide recognition of rock music in general, and to me their music is not bad - just uninteresting. I still listen to the music of above bands occasionally, and I like what I hear. I firmly believe that in every musical genre there are great musician capable to produce masterpieces, but this was not about this site to list all of them here.  This site probably will become biggest encyclopedia of music in the world, and it's name will be changed to something more appropriate in this respect, and I wish all good luck to the founders of the site and to collabs in achieving this goal, but this will never be same ProgArchives it used to be for me. To me it's like once a small and cozy club, where intelligent people were gathering to consume some rare, expensive, highest quality drinks and to exchange their opinions and impressions they got from it, this club suddenly turned into a huge drunk parlour crowded by people consuming vodka by wine glasses and trying to shout down each other in stupid debate as to who can drink more.  Sad, isn't it?     I agree. This is an elitist site who welcomes people with only the most mature music in rock history. By including Prog Related and Proto Prog, we have essentially invited the unruly commoners to pillage our fair site with their stupidity and ignorance. That is the most elitist,snobbish comment I have read yet. Probably also one of the most ironic ones. I don't think he (Greg W) was joking.

I wasn't joking. It goes with the territory. Tell me how many times you hear a song on the radio and think it is absolute rubbish? What is worse is when witnessing someone who is enjoying the stupidity that is playing on the radio or a dance club. Tell me you just aren't a tad nauseated by the whole experience? We are all music elitists. We demand better, and there is nothing wrong with admitting you have better tastes in music than the masses. Trust me, they won't agree with you, but we know better.

Greg W wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: Manunkind wrote: TheProgtologist wrote: Greg W wrote: eugene wrote: When I suddenly discovered this site, it was like finding hidden treasure for me. Lots of very interesting bands I have never heard of, entertaining discussions on the forums about commonly little known stuff. I was offered by this site a lot of information about very obscure but extremely talented bands and musicians. I thought that the purpose of this site is to tell those who is interested to hear something more about hidden treasures of progressive music. When a friend was asking me about some unknown band, I would tell him or her to check ProgArchives, as the probability is high that the band is listed there if they are playing good music but not very popular or heard of on about every corner.  This site was bearing some elitist features, very much to my likings, and I could find here a lot of interesting info that I could not find anywhere else. Now IMO site is changing it's direction and tries to cover each and every possible rock/jazz and pop groups of all ages and origines. It is flooded by huge number of all sorts of metal bands, hard & heavy, AOR and rock'n'roll, country and folk, electronics and EMO, dancing music and pop, jazz, avant-guarde, chanson, world/ethnic music - anything and everything - you name it, plus still very good portion of prog. This site is getting huge and growing by the day, but "huge" is not always (maybe never)synonymous to "great", and I personally is rapidly loosing interest in this site. (Yes, I realise, this is MY problem) Don't get me wrong, Queen where my favourite band when I was 14-15 years old, I was fanatical about Deep Purple, Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin in my late teens, in my 20's I was Heavy Metal fan. Beatles to me were always one of very important bands in development and world-wide recognition of rock music in general, and to me their music is not bad - just uninteresting. I still listen to the music of above bands occasionally, and I like what I hear. I firmly believe that in every musical genre there are great musician capable to produce masterpieces, but this was not about this site to list all of them here.  This site probably will become biggest encyclopedia of music in the world, and it's name will be changed to something more appropriate in this respect, and I wish all good luck to the founders of the site and to collabs in achieving this goal, but this will never be same ProgArchives it used to be for me. To me it's like once a small and cozy club, where intelligent people were gathering to consume some rare, expensive, highest quality drinks and to exchange their opinions and impressions they got from it, this club suddenly turned into a huge drunk parlour crowded by people consuming vodka by wine glasses and trying to shout down each other in stupid debate as to who can drink more.  Sad, isn't it?     I agree. This is an elitist site who welcomes people with only the most mature music in rock history. By including Prog Related and Proto Prog, we have essentially invited the unruly commoners to pillage our fair site with their stupidity and ignorance. That is the most elitist,snobbish comment I have read yet. Probably also one of the most ironic ones. I don't think he (Greg W) was joking. I wasn't joking. It goes with the territory. Tell me how many times you hear a song on the radio and think it is absolute rubbish? What is worse is when witnessing someone who is enjoying the stupidity that is playing on the radio or a dance club. Tell me you just aren't a tad nauseated by the whole experience? We are all music elitists. We demand better, and there is nothing wrong with admitting you have better tastes in music than the masses. Trust me, they won't agree with you, but we know better.

I enjoy music by people like Cecil Taylor, Ornette Coleman, Gyorgi Ligeti, Iannis Xenakis etc. Damn, how noble I am because of this, Jesus and Buddha don't dare untie my shoelaces.

But that is beside the point.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ please don't use the word "we" - we don't have much in common.

but of course...i forgot what an enlightened open minded person you are. Please forgive my ignorance and please enlighten me some more with your wisdom.

Manunkind wrote: Greg W wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: Manunkind wrote: TheProgtologist wrote: Greg W wrote: eugene wrote: When I suddenly discovered this site, it was like finding hidden treasure for me. Lots of very interesting bands I have never heard of, entertaining discussions on the forums about commonly little known stuff. I was offered by this site a lot of information about very obscure but extremely talented bands and musicians. I thought that the purpose of this site is to tell those who is interested to hear something more about hidden treasures of progressive music. When a friend was asking me about some unknown band, I would tell him or her to check ProgArchives, as the probability is high that the band is listed there if they are playing good music but not very popular or heard of on about every corner.  This site was bearing some elitist features, very much to my likings, and I could find here a lot of interesting info that I could not find anywhere else. Now IMO site is changing it's direction and tries to cover each and every possible rock/jazz and pop groups of all ages and origines. It is flooded by huge number of all sorts of metal bands, hard & heavy, AOR and rock'n'roll, country and folk, electronics and EMO, dancing music and pop, jazz, avant-guarde, chanson, world/ethnic music - anything and everything - you name it, plus still very good portion of prog. This site is getting huge and growing by the day, but "huge" is not always (maybe never)synonymous to "great", and I personally is rapidly loosing interest in this site. (Yes, I realise, this is MY problem) Don't get me wrong, Queen where my favourite band when I was 14-15 years old, I was fanatical about Deep Purple, Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin in my late teens, in my 20's I was Heavy Metal fan. Beatles to me were always one of very important bands in development and world-wide recognition of rock music in general, and to me their music is not bad - just uninteresting. I still listen to the music of above bands occasionally, and I like what I hear. I firmly believe that in every musical genre there are great musician capable to produce masterpieces, but this was not about this site to list all of them here.  This site probably will become biggest encyclopedia of music in the world, and it's name will be changed to something more appropriate in this respect, and I wish all good luck to the founders of the site and to collabs in achieving this goal, but this will never be same ProgArchives it used to be for me. To me it's like once a small and cozy club, where intelligent people were gathering to consume some rare, expensive, highest quality drinks and to exchange their opinions and impressions they got from it, this club suddenly turned into a huge drunk parlour crowded by people consuming vodka by wine glasses and trying to shout down each other in stupid debate as to who can drink more.  Sad, isn't it?     I agree. This is an elitist site who welcomes people with only the most mature music in rock history. By including Prog Related and Proto Prog, we have essentially invited the unruly commoners to pillage our fair site with their stupidity and ignorance. That is the most elitist,snobbish comment I have read yet. Probably also one of the most ironic ones. I don't think he (Greg W) was joking. I wasn't joking. It goes with the territory. Tell me how many times you hear a song on the radio and think it is absolute rubbish? What is worse is when witnessing someone who is enjoying the stupidity that is playing on the radio or a dance club. Tell me you just aren't a tad nauseated by the whole experience? We are all music elitists. We demand better, and there is nothing wrong with admitting you have better tastes in music than the masses. Trust me, they won't agree with you, but we know better. I enjoy music by people like Cecil Taylor, Ornette Coleman, Gyorgi Ligeti, Iannis Xenakis etc. Damn, how noble I am because of this, Jesus and Buddha don't dare untie my shoelaces. But that is beside the point.

...and I like Carly Simon and many of the singer/songwriters, but here we must keep a closed mind and stick our noses up in the air towards allowing such music in.

Greg W wrote: ...and I like Carly Simon and many of the singer/songwriters, but here we must keep a closed mind and stick our noses up in the air towards allowing such music in.

You go ahead and keep a closed mind, if you think that this is a good thing for a prog music fan.

One thought-please,we do not want to see any Beatles protest reviews on the front page.

I neednt remind people here of how the front page is sacrosanct and our reviews need to be of the highest standard possible.

Greg W wrote: Manunkind wrote: Greg W wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: Manunkind wrote: TheProgtologist wrote: Greg W wrote: eugene wrote: When I suddenly discovered this site, it was like finding hidden treasure for me. Lots of very interesting bands I have never heard of, entertaining discussions on the forums about commonly little known stuff. I was offered by this site a lot of information about very obscure but extremely talented bands and musicians. I thought that the purpose of this site is to tell those who is interested to hear something more about hidden treasures of progressive music. When a friend was asking me about some unknown band, I would tell him or her to check ProgArchives, as the probability is high that the band is listed there if they are playing good music but not very popular or heard of on about every corner.  This site was bearing some elitist features, very much to my likings, and I could find here a lot of interesting info that I could not find anywhere else. Now IMO site is changing it's direction and tries to cover each and every possible rock/jazz and pop groups of all ages and origines. It is flooded by huge number of all sorts of metal bands, hard & heavy, AOR and rock'n'roll, country and folk, electronics and EMO, dancing music and pop, jazz, avant-guarde, chanson, world/ethnic music - anything and everything - you name it, plus still very good portion of prog. This site is getting huge and growing by the day, but "huge" is not always (maybe never)synonymous to "great", and I personally is rapidly loosing interest in this site. (Yes, I realise, this is MY problem) Don't get me wrong, Queen where my favourite band when I was 14-15 years old, I was fanatical about Deep Purple, Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin in my late teens, in my 20's I was Heavy Metal fan. Beatles to me were always one of very important bands in development and world-wide recognition of rock music in general, and to me their music is not bad - just uninteresting. I still listen to the music of above bands occasionally, and I like what I hear. I firmly believe that in every musical genre there are great musician capable to produce masterpieces, but this was not about this site to list all of them here.  This site probably will become biggest encyclopedia of music in the world, and it's name will be changed to something more appropriate in this respect, and I wish all good luck to the founders of the site and to collabs in achieving this goal, but this will never be same ProgArchives it used to be for me. To me it's like once a small and cozy club, where intelligent people were gathering to consume some rare, expensive, highest quality drinks and to exchange their opinions and impressions they got from it, this club suddenly turned into a huge drunk parlour crowded by people consuming vodka by wine glasses and trying to shout down each other in stupid debate as to who can drink more.  Sad, isn't it?     I agree. This is an elitist site who welcomes people with only the most mature music in rock history. By including Prog Related and Proto Prog, we have essentially invited the unruly commoners to pillage our fair site with their stupidity and ignorance. That is the most elitist,snobbish comment I have read yet. Probably also one of the most ironic ones. I don't think he (Greg W) was joking. I wasn't joking. It goes with the territory. Tell me how many times you hear a song on the radio and think it is absolute rubbish? What is worse is when witnessing someone who is enjoying the stupidity that is playing on the radio or a dance club. Tell me you just aren't a tad nauseated by the whole experience? We are all music elitists. We demand better, and there is nothing wrong with admitting you have better tastes in music than the masses. Trust me, they won't agree with you, but we know better. I enjoy music by people like Cecil Taylor, Ornette Coleman, Gyorgi Ligeti, Iannis Xenakis etc. Damn, how noble I am because of this, Jesus and Buddha don't dare untie my shoelaces. But that is beside the point. ...and I like Carly Simon and many of the singer/songwriters, but here we must keep a closed mind and stick our noses up in the air...

... so that we can sniff the butts of more elevated artists, such as the people I've mentioned. There is some truth to what you say, but I have no intention of changing my opinions and tastes together with the monicker I go under and the image I'm associated with every time I log into PA.

Actually... Maybe the site needs to emphasize including individual ALBUM entries --- not so much entire BAND catalogs.

Here are some examples:

QUADROPHENIA by The Who ... has a variety of prog elements ... and therefore qualifies as "Progressive" (and I personally would recommend it to any Progressive ROCK fan).

IT'S HARD by The Who ... IS NOT progressive and doesn't get listed.

THE GRAND ILLUSION by Styx, considered by many to be pop/prog ... does have many classic prog elements ... and so it qualifies as "Progressive".

CORNERSTONE by Styx ... not prog.

ABBEY ROAD by the Beatles... like it or not -- it does have some obvious prog elements ... so it stays.

A HARD DAY'S NIGHT ... nope ... it goes.

Then... Maybe set up an online survey system (through the forum) for any new Album Requests that are considered "borderline"... and let the majority decide what makes the cut.

Just a suggestion... or the basic idea behind a suggestion ... or maybe more of a premise to consider.   Whatever.   Quadrophenia should be in.

sleeper wrote: I think we are all elitists (I know I am) but to that extent? I look to prog because its were the cream of the crop has gone but to ignore one band because "its not prog" is stupid and bigoted.

I'd like to think that I am not an elitist at all. Sure - in our own mind we all judge music, separating the good from the bad. But that is not the point. An elitist/snob claims that his judgement is more valid than that of others. Those who agree are part of a group of enlightened geniuses, the others are stupid morons.

I am not like that.

Tony R wrote: One thought-please,we do not want to see any Beatles protest reviews on the front page. I neednt remind people here of how the front page is sacrosanct and our reviews need to be of the highest standard possible.

I would never do such a thing and agree with Tony on this. No Beatles are not prog reviews. If I were to write a review on the Beatles, it would probably be a good review...at least 3 stars with the caution that they are proto-prog.

sleeper wrote: Greg W wrote: TheProgtologist wrote: Greg W wrote: eugene wrote: When I suddenly discovered this site, it was like finding hidden treasure for me. Lots of very interesting bands I have never heard of, entertaining discussions on the forums about commonly little known stuff. I was offered by this site a lot of information about very obscure but extremely talented bands and musicians. I thought that the purpose of this site is to tell those who is interested to hear something more about hidden treasures of progressive music. When a friend was asking me about some unknown band, I would tell him or her to check ProgArchives, as the probability is high that the band is listed there if they are playing good music but not very popular or heard of on about every corner.  This site was bearing some elitist features, very much to my likings, and I could find here a lot of interesting info that I could not find anywhere else. Now IMO site is changing it's direction and tries to cover each and every possible rock/jazz and pop groups of all ages and origines. It is flooded by huge number of all sorts of metal bands, hard & heavy, AOR and rock'n'roll, country and folk, electronics and EMO, dancing music and pop, jazz, avant-guarde, chanson, world/ethnic music - anything and everything - you name it, plus still very good portion of prog. This site is getting huge and growing by the day, but "huge" is not always (maybe never)synonymous to "great", and I personally is rapidly loosing interest in this site. (Yes, I realise, this is MY problem) Don't get me wrong, Queen where my favourite band when I was 14-15 years old, I was fanatical about Deep Purple, Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin in my late teens, in my 20's I was Heavy Metal fan. Beatles to me were always one of very important bands in development and world-wide recognition of rock music in general, and to me their music is not bad - just uninteresting. I still listen to the music of above bands occasionally, and I like what I hear. I firmly believe that in every musical genre there are great musician capable to produce masterpieces, but this was not about this site to list all of them here.  This site probably will become biggest encyclopedia of music in the world, and it's name will be changed to something more appropriate in this respect, and I wish all good luck to the founders of the site and to collabs in achieving this goal, but this will never be same ProgArchives it used to be for me. To me it's like once a small and cozy club, where intelligent people were gathering to consume some rare, expensive, highest quality drinks and to exchange their opinions and impressions they got from it, this club suddenly turned into a huge drunk parlour crowded by people consuming vodka by wine glasses and trying to shout down each other in stupid debate as to who can drink more.  Sad, isn't it?     I agree. This is an elitist site who welcomes people with only the most mature music in rock history. By including Prog Related and Proto Prog, we have essentially invited the unruly commoners to pillage our fair site with their stupidity and ignorance. That is the most elitist,snobbish comment I have read yet. Yes...when it comes to music I am an elitist and whether you admit it or not...so are you. That is why we are all here...isn't it? I think we are all elitists (I know I am) but to that extent? I look to prog because its were the cream of the crop has gone but to ignore one band because "its not prog" is stupid and bigoted. Yes I am also aware that you like The Beatles and you have stated that they were progressive in the true sence of the word but so were Yes, Genesis, Floyd, Tull, etc etc. We know that prog NOW has a complete felling to it so that bands that arnt doing something completely new ae still prog because it feels that way. Besides if your saying that Proto-prog should go do you include The Nice, Moody Blue's and others in that as well?

The Moody Blues....not sure? Borderline really. I would probably supplant them in a different catagory, perhaps Space/Psychedelia or Art Rock.

The Nice..I haven't heard them.

The Nice are definitely Proto-Prog.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: sleeper wrote: I think we are all elitists (I know I am) but to that extent? I look to prog because its were the cream of the crop has gone but to ignore one band because "its not prog" is stupid and bigoted. I'd like to think that I am not an elitist at all. Sure - in our own mind we all judge music, separating the good from the bad. But that is not the point. An elitist/snob claims that his judgement is more valid than that of others. Those who agree are part of a group of enlightened geniuses, the others are stupid morons. I am not like that.

In real life I would hope not, but are you altogether sure you are being honest to yourself about your music tastes as opposed to other peoples. I know many intelligent people with bad music tastes. Rejoice, you are one of the enlightened ones? Seriously!!

If you thought I was calling people stupid or moronic then I apologize. I just thinkthe common person's taste in music is stupid and moronic.

Manunkind wrote: Greg W wrote: Manunkind wrote: Greg W wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: Manunkind wrote: TheProgtologist wrote: Greg W wrote: eugene wrote: When I suddenly discovered this site, it was like finding hidden treasure for me. Lots of very interesting bands I have never heard of, entertaining discussions on the forums about commonly little known stuff. I was offered by this site a lot of information about very obscure but extremely talented bands and musicians. I thought that the purpose of this site is to tell those who is interested to hear something more about hidden treasures of progressive music. When a friend was asking me about some unknown band, I would tell him or her to check ProgArchives, as the probability is high that the band is listed there if they are playing good music but not very popular or heard of on about every corner.  This site was bearing some elitist features, very much to my likings, and I could find here a lot of interesting info that I could not find anywhere else. Now IMO site is changing it's direction and tries to cover each and every possible rock/jazz and pop groups of all ages and origines. It is flooded by huge number of all sorts of metal bands, hard & heavy, AOR and rock'n'roll, country and folk, electronics and EMO, dancing music and pop, jazz, avant-guarde, chanson, world/ethnic music - anything and everything - you name it, plus still very good portion of prog. This site is getting huge and growing by the day, but "huge" is not always (maybe never)synonymous to "great", and I personally is rapidly loosing interest in this site. (Yes, I realise, this is MY problem) Don't get me wrong, Queen where my favourite band when I was 14-15 years old, I was fanatical about Deep Purple, Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin in my late teens, in my 20's I was Heavy Metal fan. Beatles to me were always one of very important bands in development and world-wide recognition of rock music in general, and to me their music is not bad - just uninteresting. I still listen to the music of above bands occasionally, and I like what I hear. I firmly believe that in every musical genre there are great musician capable to produce masterpieces, but this was not about this site to list all of them here.  This site probably will become biggest encyclopedia of music in the world, and it's name will be changed to something more appropriate in this respect, and I wish all good luck to the founders of the site and to collabs in achieving this goal, but this will never be same ProgArchives it used to be for me. To me it's like once a small and cozy club, where intelligent people were gathering to consume some rare, expensive, highest quality drinks and to exchange their opinions and impressions they got from it, this club suddenly turned into a huge drunk parlour crowded by people consuming vodka by wine glasses and trying to shout down each other in stupid debate as to who can drink more.  Sad, isn't it?     I agree. This is an elitist site who welcomes people with only the most mature music in rock history. By including Prog Related and Proto Prog, we have essentially invited the unruly commoners to pillage our fair site with their stupidity and ignorance. That is the most elitist,snobbish comment I have read yet. Probably also one of the most ironic ones. I don't think he (Greg W) was joking. I wasn't joking. It goes with the territory. Tell me how many times you hear a song on the radio and think it is absolute rubbish? What is worse is when witnessing someone who is enjoying the stupidity that is playing on the radio or a dance club. Tell me you just aren't a tad nauseated by the whole experience? We are all music elitists. We demand better, and there is nothing wrong with admitting you have better tastes in music than the masses. Trust me, they won't agree with you, but we know better. I enjoy music by people like Cecil Taylor, Ornette Coleman, Gyorgi Ligeti, Iannis Xenakis etc. Damn, how noble I am because of this, Jesus and Buddha don't dare untie my shoelaces. But that is beside the point. ...and I like Carly Simon and many of the singer/songwriters, but here we must keep a closed mind and stick our noses up in the air... ... so that we can sniff the butts of more elevated artists, such as the people I've mentioned. There is some truth to what you say, but I have no intention of changing my opinions and tastes together with the monicker I go under and the image I'm associated with every time I log into PA.

No one is asking you to. But, when I log into here I expect to read about Prog Rock...not the Beatles, Queen, Deep Purple and such....

altaeria wrote:   Actually... Maybe the site needs to emphasize including individual ALBUM entries --- not so much entire BAND catalogs. Here are some examples: QUADROPHENIA by The Who ... has a variety of prog elements ... and therefore qualifies as "Progressive" (and I personally would recommend it to any Progressive ROCK fan). IT'S HARD by The Who ... IS NOT progressive and doesn't get listed.   THE GRAND ILLUSION by Styx, considered by many to be pop/prog ... does have many classic prog elements ... and so it qualifies as "Progressive". CORNERSTONE by Styx ... not prog.   ABBEY ROAD by the Beatles... like it or not -- it does have some obvious prog elements ... so it stays. A HARD DAY'S NIGHT ... nope ... it goes.   Then... Maybe set up an online survey system (through the forum) for any new Album Requests that are considered "borderline"... and let the majority decide what makes the cut.   Just a suggestion... or the basic idea behind a suggestion ... or maybe more of a premise to consider.   Whatever.   Quadrophenia should be in.

Not a bad suggestion.

I wonder why THE BEATLES addition upsets many site visitors.

Tons of Marillion, Yes and Dream Theater clones are progressive, while THE BEATLES, who changed the face of music like no one before and after them, are not progressive enough to be mentioned on this site. I refuse to understand such logic!

Heptade wrote: It appears that via the proto-prog and prog-related categories, the people who run things here are being clear that they want to expand the horizons of the site beyond the hardcore genres of prog. They run the place, so be it...but it will lead to the front page being clogged with endless reviews from Beatles fanatics, of whom there are a lot. Even more than Genesis and Yes freaks. If I see another Close to the Edge review, I"m gonna barf!

Itis my belief we stick to the so-called hard core stuff. There is enough arguments already about some of them being prog or not.

As far as that goes...I usually side on the side of inclusive.

NotAProghead wrote: I wonder why THE BEATLES addition upsets many site visitors. Tons of Marillion, Yes and Dream Theater clones are progressive, while THE BEATLES, who changed the face of music like no one before and after them, are not progressive enough to be mentioned on this site. I refuse to understand such logic!

They play prog music, but aren't necessarily progressive.

NotAProghead wrote: I wonder why THE BEATLES addition upsets many site visitors. Tons of Marillion, Yes and Dream Theater clones are progressive, while THE BEATLES, who changed the face of music like no one before and after them, are not progressive enough to be mentioned on this site. I refuse to understand such logic!

Once again...i agree they changed music and were progressive. They are not Prog. There is a difference between the two.