Proto/Related ... only for 70s?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Polls
Forum Description: Create polls on topics related to progressive music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=21181
Printed Date: February 22 2025 at 12:49
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Proto/Related ... only for 70s?
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Subject: Proto/Related ... only for 70s?
Date Posted: April 03 2006 at 07:34
|
I think that with all the recent discussions about prog related modern bands from genres like Experimental (Alternative) Rock or Metal, a thought occurred to me: Wouldn't it be best to limit the prog-related/proto-prog categories to "original" bands from the 60s/70s? Discuss! ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to: 
|
Replies:
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: April 03 2006 at 07:36
No! ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow"> 
|
MikeEnRegalia wrote:Posted By: Chipiron
Date Posted: April 03 2006 at 07:46
I don't know why... Proto prog, maybe, but can't a group be related to prog if they're born in the last 40 years?  ------------- [IMG]http://www.belderrain.es/GIFs/tora.gif"> |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 03 2006 at 07:51
|
I just think that it is too difficult to judge which band can be accepted and which can't if we allow any band from any genre. For example, how do I explain somebody that a band like Katatonia is not prog related? Especially with their current album they moved very close to Opeth and Tool, and although they are still not prog, they certainly are related to the genre in more than one way. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: erlenst
Date Posted: April 03 2006 at 07:59
| Protoprog, OF COURSE. But I can't see any reason why prog-related applies only for bands from the 60/70's .. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 03 2006 at 08:11
|
Example: Recently the prog metal team cleared Nevermore for the addition as prog related. Although there is a consensus among most collabs that inclusions don't work on a "band X is here, band Y is similar -> band Y must be included" basis, accepting Nevermore would of course trigger many requests to add bands like Iron Maiden, Metallica etc. ... with good reason. These are not really similar to Nevermore, but one could certainly argue that they aren't less progressive (if you compare their most progressive albums). ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: Fitzcarraldo
Date Posted: April 03 2006 at 08:41
|
By definition the 'proto-' prefix should not be used to classify artists later than, say, 1967 or 1968. However, the tag 'Prog related', which I believe is used by Prog Archives to refer to artists who produced music that is similar to Progressive Rock to a lesser or greater extent, could therefore be used for any artist later than 1967 or 1968.
proto- prefix
------------- http://www.progarchives.com/Collaborators.asp?id=326" rel="nofollow - Read reviews by Fitzcarraldo |
Posted By: earlyprog
Date Posted: April 03 2006 at 08:42
Don't think so. Proto-prog is everything (ideas, instruments, styles, production) that adds to the development of progressive rock. For instance, Radiohead is proto-prog because they have influenced prog (e.g. Pineapple Thief, Marillion) but never themselves were/are prog except perhaps for a few songs - just like The Beatles are proto-prog because their idea of the concept album, their layered production on Sgt. Pepper, their use of eastern instruments became ingredients of prog. Who knows, a new instrument might even be developed (cf. the mellotron) that will become another trademark of prog and why shouldn't the band that introduced that instrument be labelled proto-prog (cf. Moody Blues). On the other hand, we may by definition limit proto-prog to the bands/music say pre-Court of the Crimson King. Subsequent non-prog bands/music that added to the development of prog could be defined as "prog-influential". |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 03 2006 at 09:06
|
^all valid arguments ... but if you think it through, you end up with either a very inclusive website (much more than right now), or a more or less irrational website (a bit like now) where some prog related bands are accepted, some others not (for various reasons). ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: April 03 2006 at 09:58
| If I've understood the definition of proto-prog correctly, then I think it's obvious that only bands that started before the 70s should be listed under proto-prog. For the prog-related category, all time periods should be considered, but it's probably a good idea not to include every band that is in some way prog-related. |
Posted By: Trickster F.
Date Posted: April 03 2006 at 10:15
|
Who exactly made the decision to remove Katatonia from the archives after they had been accepted? It's kind of strange. Moreover, I don't understand how Black Sabbath are NOT as worthy to be on the archives as, say, Deep Purple. Beginning with Sabbath Bloody Sabbath they released 4 proggy albums in a row. I know that most of their albums are hard rock/traditional heavy metal, but can't the same be said about Deep Purple as well? -- Ivan ------------- sig |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 03 2006 at 10:22
I don't know - I only saw it this morning.
Deep Purple are not here because of the 70s albums like Machine Head or in Rock or the later albums, but because of the psychedelic stuff from the 60s and their collaboration with a symphonic orchestra. I agree that the early Black Sabbath albums are somewhat proggish, but not enough IMO. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: ANDREW
Date Posted: April 03 2006 at 10:28
|
Posted By: terramystic
Date Posted: April 03 2006 at 10:29
Agree!  "Proto prog" means only early prog. "Prog related" does not depend on any period. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 03 2006 at 10:32
^ I don't mind at all - I just see that it creates problems. Maybe I should add Nevermore and see what happens? ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: earlyprog
Date Posted: April 03 2006 at 10:43
|
No, proto-prog is not early prog as such. The Beatles is proto-prog but not prog - not even a single song may be categorized as prog (well, perhaps A Day In The Life). Nonetheless they influenced the early prog music. The Nice is not a prog band, but they did have individual songs (not entire albums) that were prog - hence they are also proto-prog. The first full-blown prog album was In The Court Of The Crimson King, therefore King Crimson is prog, not proto-prog. Moreover, "prog related" is NOT prog because only very few segments of individual songs may be categorized as prog. |
Posted By: Trickster F.
Date Posted: April 03 2006 at 11:04
Really? It has been like that for a long time. http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=19394&KW=ivansfr0st - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=19394& amp;KW=ivansfr0st - I posted a thread about it a long time ago... -- Ivan ------------- sig |
Posted By: Fitzcarraldo
Date Posted: April 03 2006 at 11:08
W.r.t. THE NICE, to me they were playing progressive rock and Progressive Rock from their first album. Even if one were to put "The Thoughts Of Emerlist Davejack" into the proto- category, to me "Ars Longa Vita Brevis" takes the band firmly into Progressive Rock territory. If "Five Bridges Suite" is not Progressive Rock, then I don't know what is.
------------- http://www.progarchives.com/Collaborators.asp?id=326" rel="nofollow - Read reviews by Fitzcarraldo |
Posted By: earlyprog
Date Posted: April 03 2006 at 11:15
How high a percentage of an album (pre-70's) needs to be prog before it is no longer proto-prog? There are still non-prog fillers on the Nice's albums but large parts of their albums were definitely prog. But still, only parts. I therefore agree with labeling The Nice as proto-prog. |
Posted By: memowakeman
Date Posted: April 03 2006 at 11:27
|
Proto only 60´s and 70´s Related all time...Muse, Stream of Passion are "new" bands ------------- Follow me on twitter @memowakeman |
Posted By: Dick Heath
Date Posted: April 03 2006 at 17:25
|
Prog-related could be any time
since the 60's. And if people care to simply check what the Oxford
English Dictionary states what "proto" means (to summarised a lot of
technical details: "the first" or "primitive"), then we restrict
yourselves to music of the 60's (no, the 70's don't come into it). As
ever, it is debatable whether ITCOCK was the first - I'm still waiting for somebody to give definitive release dates by Island Records of Renaissance's eponymous LP and Krimson's first, which I remember were close together. Then the debate is whether Moody Blues Days of Future Past is the first (and perhaps because it is considered by some the first proto-prog. Nice (especially after their first British psychedelic album Thoughts of Emerlist Davjack)
were called prog music/prog rock from the earliest days and I
can't see a reason why viewed from the 21st century we should call them
proto-prog - we are not here to change history. Touch
I've always declared as having produced one the most obvious original
American prog albums - and when it is sampled for the first
progressive music album Wowie Zowie, (as is Nights In White Satin)
what the f*** are we pissing about with their pigeonholing some 40
years later. More effort should made to research these things and not
wild arse guess without due acknowlwedgment to the past. Some suggestions of proto-prog groups: Electric Prunes (if only for Mass) The Doors (The End is a seminal prog track) Great Society Country Joe & The Fish Jefferson Airplane The Beatles for only some of their later albums (e.g. Revolver onwards) Spirit's classic album 12 Dreams of Dr Sardonicus released 1970 or 71 - is not proto-prog becasue it post dates the 60's , but prog related. Deep Purple and (if some want) Black Sabbath are prog related. |
Posted By: Dick Heath
Date Posted: April 03 2006 at 17:38
|
ITKOCK (Island Records) cat no ILPS 9111 Renaissance: ILPS 9114 Catalogue numbers are too close together, to make a sensible guess of the first to be released by Island |
Posted By: White Queen
Date Posted: April 03 2006 at 17:48
|
[/QUOTE]
Deep Purple are not here because of the 70s albums like Machine Head or in Rock or the later albums, but because of the psychedelic stuff from the 60s and their collaboration with a symphonic orchestra. [/QUOTE]Metallica also worked with an orchestra, and if they come here, I'm leaving. ...so did Meat Loaf and Elton John (I think) |
Posted By: Garion81
Date Posted: April 04 2006 at 13:04
|
To be honest when we debated the definition of these categories a long time ago it seems to me Proto-Prog was defined a time period between 1965-69. I do think it is a restrictive category to that time line. Here is what the collaborators agreed on: Rock Bands in existence prior to 1969 that influenced the development of progressive rock. The late 60's was a predominately experimental period for music. These bands were moving in a stream that eventually led to prog. The influence could have come from new sophisticated forms of writing and playing music, recording techniques, new instruments and vocal harmonies to name a few. Some of these bands became progressive rock bands themselves others did not So really I understand Dick Heaths arguments but under this definition The Nice and The Moody Blues could fit in this label comfortably because of the last sentence. If and when the site gets to the point of labeling albums instead of bands then we can be more specific. I also think if you are going to debate these things you should start with the definition that is already listed in the archives. By all means if there is a better way to say it or if it needs redefining go for it but at least start with what is the standard.
------------- 
"What are you going to do when that damn thing rusts?" |
Posted By: salmacis
Date Posted: April 04 2006 at 15:32
|
I don't see for a second how on earth 'proto prog' can include 70s bands, as by then it was a fully fledged genre and didn't have a foot in the psychedelic camp. I'd cut off 'proto prog' at around 1969, when the first wave of prog bands like King Crimson etc. were starting to emerge. As for prog related, I think this could really be from all decades to be honest. |
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: April 04 2006 at 17:56
|
------------- "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. |
Perhaps -- so I chose the 1st option.
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: April 04 2006 at 17:59
|
------------- "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. |
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: April 04 2006 at 18:00
|
Damn! Hit the "quote" instead of the "edit" button again! Carry on....
------------- "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. |
Posted By: terramystic
Date Posted: April 04 2006 at 18:33
Not in my book. "Proto" as the name tells isn't something different. It's just indicating that the genre at the time isn't fully mature yet. It's in infancy, childhood, early stage... So it is an essential part of prog not something different or separated e.g. ELP is a next natural stage of Nice, if you see what I mean. |
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: April 06 2006 at 05:34
|
I think the idea about proto prog is quite clear: it should concern groups that were around before the 70's , and I chose to include two spanish bands from 70 and 71 in proto-prog because their sound was typical psych/prog in a way that no other possible solution was correct. But most psych groups of the era should have accessibility to that category>>> after all we included Iron Butterfly which has very few elements of prog (>>> see my reviews) As for prog-related, I have not seen why this should be reserved to 70's groups ------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword |
as well and 80's, 90's groups are welcome in the category: BUT one should wait until the group has a few albums out before including it in prog related>>> the reason is that if a band has only two albums and should be included, than it is obviously that they are at least worthy of art rockPosted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 06 2006 at 05:52
What about the newer genres like Neo-Prog or Prog Metal?
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: Trickster F.
Date Posted: April 06 2006 at 12:59
|
Mike, will Katatonia ever come back to the archives? -- Ivan |
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: April 07 2006 at 05:34
Not sure I follow your drift regarding my comments on proto prog, but I'll give it a shot neo-prog clearly states a period (such as proto-prog does too) as well as a style of music and it is clearly about 80's and later groups>> therefore there should be a time limit as for the debut of this era Although I am certainly no expert (and I couldbe wrong about this) Progmetal starts IMHO opinion with Queensryche's Operation Mindcrime which has 88 as a release year, I think. Therefore, I think no groups that did metal albums before should be included in progmetal >> Imust say I have not checked up on this whether this is the case on this site Of course exceptions are to be made if a band started out as a plain metal group in the 80's and veered prog-metal in the 90's Hope i answered the way you were hoping for ------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 07 2006 at 05:40
|
^ I meant that if we take "Proto" literally, also metal bands of the 80s could be accepted as "Proto-Prog-Metal", just like 60s Psychedelic Rock bands can be accepted as "Proto-Prog-Rock". Examples for Proto-Prog-Metal:
But these would be difficult additions, and that's why I asked the question whether we want to allow this or not. The consequence of taking Proto-Prog/Prog-Related literally would be that we would have to accept a lot more bands than we currently do. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: April 07 2006 at 05:45
I amost headed in that direction , but thought I'd let you come in expressing this idea Yes I think that wa could talk about proto-progmetal in a way and this could head backto Blue Cheer, High tide and Zeppelin or Sabbath as far back into history ------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 07 2006 at 05:49
^ And that's exactly the problem. Either we take it literally and ahve to accept many non-prog bands in order to be consistent ... or we restrict the inclusion to Proto-Classic-Prog-Rock and Prog-Related from the 70s (1st wave of prog rock). Or something completely different ...  ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: April 07 2006 at 05:59
|
I could sense youcoming out with that, and I agree partly with that, but a line shopuld be drawn somewhere or else soon or later, the Bee Gees and Slade will be in the Archives Got a solution? ------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 07 2006 at 06:05
|
^ try to limit the proto-prog/prog-related category to classic bands ... maybe also some from the 80s which are related to neo-prog, or proto-prog-metal. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: April 07 2006 at 06:22
|
This is a very subjective criteria, but I am not opposed to it but those hundreds of possibilities of entries would certainly dilute the content of the database I would say that if proto-prog is a necessary evil (given the date resrictions) , the prog-related or proto-progmetal (do ypu think that we could apply this proto prefix to RIO or Cantyerbury then?) shopuld be limited in numbers the problem is that we always think that since X and Y are in , why not Z? ------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 07 2006 at 06:45
|
Maybe the key is only to list the most important bands. WE could mention in the "genre" description that we only list a selection of artists here, as opposed to the prog genres where we try to list all artists. Which artist makes it into the artists is a subjective (but collective) decision ... ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: PROGMAN
Date Posted: April 07 2006 at 07:05
|
Mike I like the idea of a Proto Prog Metal genre I would recommend that. It would make more sense to narrow the Progressive Metal genre, like Nightwish some say "Nightwish are not Prog2, even an old a one time friend said "Nightwish can't be considered Prog because of the Keyboard", so maybe a Prog Metal Releted Genre can be introduced to make that more specific. Here some suggestions I thought of: Proto Prog Metal - as Mike says bands like Metallica, Megadeth etc, the first bands that pioneered this genre. Proto Prog Rock: I like the Proto Prog genre as it is but if they changed it could be this, but I think it's OK as it is now (Proto Prog). Prog Related needs more clarification so sub Prog Related genres are needed IMO, but it least we know with this genre it's not true Prog in a sense. Here is some suggestions for that: Prog Art Rock Related Prog Metel Related Prog AOR/Pop Related Alternative Prog Related?? Progressive Tendencies - bands that are not Prog at all, little bit related to Prog but Prog/Progressive elements are composed. (but I think this genre would not work, but unsure!!) any views on these topics??
------------- CYMRU AM BYTH 
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 07 2006 at 07:24
|
I think that it would not be wise to include "Prog Metal Related" bands ... as much as I'd love to see bands like Nevermore in the archives, I fear that it would create too much confusion as to why they're here. The decision whether something is prog or not is difficult and subjective enough ... "prog related" is even harder to define, more general, less specific and more subjective. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: Trickster F.
Date Posted: April 07 2006 at 08:04
|
Mike, will Katatonia ever come back to the archives? -- Ivan ------------- sig |
Posted By: Seyo
Date Posted: April 07 2006 at 19:01
|
How come this is still not clear? "Proto-" means "earlier in time", "before". So Proto-prog is early roots before the terms "prog" or "art" rock appeared. Basically, period 1966-69. Prog-related as I understand can be any period, any genre which is not "true prog" but has certain elements common with prog. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 08 2006 at 04:25
I don't know, Ivan. I wasn't involved in their addition, nor in their removal. I did ask for them to be removed though, shortly after they had been added. Katatonia are a perfect example of the problem that I am trying to talk about in this thread. If only people took the time to read the posts and think about it instead of patronizing me/us, reminding that prog related means from any time period ... ok, then give us another solution of how to limit the number of prog related additions without making irrational decisions. Back to Katatonia: For me the certainly can be called prog related. They're not prog, but have played with many prog elements on their albums. When we discussed the prog-related genre many months ago, the initial motivation for having such a genre at all was that mailto:M@x - M@x wanted more visitors for the website ... more specifically: Visitors who don't know prog, but might like it once they got to know it. With that in mind: Why wouldn't Katatonia be a perfect band for achieving that goal? A good question indeed ... the main reason for my rejecting them a couple of months ago was that other bands had been rejected as prog related too, which I considered to be less progressive even than Katatonia. So I was trying to be consistent. But the more prog related bands we have, the more difficult it will be to explain to visitors why band X is here, but band Y isn't. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: Trickster F.
Date Posted: April 08 2006 at 09:47
Well, I think Viva Emptiness(amazing album)and the latest have some prog influences, sounding like Opeth, Porcupine Tree and Tool at times. Their first two full-lengths had Dan Swano on keyboards and have some moments of avant-gardish kind of Doom Metal. Mikael Akerfeldt did vocals from Brave Murder Day too. I think one of the reasons Steve Vai was added was that he had played with prog musicians. So did Katatonia! -- Ivan ------------- sig |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 08 2006 at 12:11
No, not really. It was because he plays progressive stuff! But I know that people have a problem with prog in "unusual places" ... they're simply not flexable! ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: Bryan
Date Posted: April 09 2006 at 20:00
Viva Emptiness and their latest one are about as straightforward as metal gets... all simple, verse/chorus/verse, standard sounding alt-metal. Very good mind you, but not prog in any way. I would be quite disappointed if Katatonia were brought back, I really feel they have no place on here (regardless of Dan Swano and Mikael Akerfeldt's minor contributions to the band). |
Posted By: Garion81
Date Posted: April 21 2006 at 17:09
Mike
Look at the genre as defined on the genre page. It is limited to bands between 66-69. We debated this 6-7 months ago in the collaborators page. -------------
"What are you going to do when that damn thing rusts?" |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 21 2006 at 17:37
|
^ that only applies to proto-prog. In this thread I try to discuss whether a metal band like Nevermore (1990s/2000s) can be added as prog-related, or if it generally makes sense to also limit prog-related ... to the 60s/70s, when classic prog was most popular/active. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: Garion81
Date Posted: April 21 2006 at 19:33
Well the quote I took from you was about proto-prog.
 I helped write the prog-related definition but I stay away from it to tell the truth. -------------
"What are you going to do when that damn thing rusts?" |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: April 26 2006 at 03:23
Peraonally I don't have a problem with adding any of those bands as Proto-Prog metal - in fact, I'm still very confused as to why people (generally) seem so blinkered about their important contributions. ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 26 2006 at 03:30
|
Cert,
I agree with you - on my website I rated Metallica - Master of Puppets as a progressive album. I also think that these bands deserve to be here, but people are not going to understand it. The genre assignment needs to be moved to the album level, so we can add Metallica without implying that St. Anger or Load are prog.
And adding Metallica would open the door to many more metal inclusions ... where does it end?  ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: May 05 2006 at 07:50
I know you agree Mike - as you say, most people here simply don't understand it - they don't "get" where the prog is - just like I don't get where it is with some bands that are here (no names!). It's the wide variety of opinions on what Prog is that gets surprising bands into the archives. To deny Metallica's progginess is one set of closed ears, but to deny their progressiveness (literally), and prog related/proto-prog metal status seems like blind prejudice to me. ...And Justice for All  ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Trickster F.
Date Posted: May 05 2006 at 08:24
I have the same reason for not wanting to see Metallica in the archives as I have with Cradle Of Filth: they may be progressive, proggy or prog-related enough, but they are not GOOD enough.
Of course, that, like you say, is a prejudice and I don't deny it!
-- Ivan
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 05 2006 at 08:54
What do you mean by "not good enough" - are you saying that we should only accept good bands? ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: May 05 2006 at 09:52
|
There is no such thing as "progressive" rock as a definable, clearly-delineated genre (living, or otherwise), let alone "prog related" or "proto prog."
It's all arbitrary, and VERY subjective -- the individual listener decides which artists belong together in his or her collection, or on home-made compilation discs.
You will NEVER get anything remotely approaching consensus on such matters of the categorization of art -- "quality" and "meaning" lie within the audience member, not the art.
The more categories, the more confusion and endless argument. Except in the broadest ways, art resists categorization, and mere words (always open to interpretation) do not define it or "contain" it.  ------------- "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 05 2006 at 10:22
|
On my website I created a list of attributes which you can assign to the album. I think that this is the best way to categorize music, although I'm not yet sure that I've determined the best set of attributes.
The big advantage of this approach is that these attributes are all much more descriptive and self-explanatory than genre labels. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: May 05 2006 at 10:25
|
I cannot understand why those people who dont like the labels dont just IGNORE them.
There are thousands of everday things that get on my nerves,but those things I cannot cure with extreme violence,I just IGNORE!!
|
Posted By: MegaMoog
Date Posted: May 05 2006 at 10:34
| It is hard to say, I would like to, but bands like yes still release new music which I do not like and rick wakeman has the retro album which I consider classic Prog so for me as always Prog is a sound not a style therefore adding a ablum b/c it is long or talks about space does not make it prog. look we all know what really prog is stop trying to get every CD in your case on the web page, its ok there are other web pages that talk about them everyday. We all know about those ablums we just chose not to talk about them here. here Prog #1 |
Posted By: Rorro
Date Posted: May 05 2006 at 11:42
|
I agree with all that said that proto is to 60's groups and prog related can be reffered to any time. The problem is that if the archives include all the bands that are similar to any prog band this will become a non prog site. Then someone who doesn't know what prog is, but likes good quality music finds this site and sees the bands listed, and then realises that almost all the bands he knows are progressive, then he thinks that prog is a general term to describe good bands, i wouldn't like that happening.
IMO the prog related term should be applied only for groups that in their entire carreer (i mean almost in every album) , there are clearly some prog elements, but the entire albums can't be considered progressive. Then i question bands like Radiohead of being even prog related.
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 05 2006 at 11:45
|
^ Most Radiohead albums are progressive. In fact, IMO only the debut and Hail to the Thief are "just" prog related. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: Rorro
Date Posted: May 05 2006 at 11:50
| Ok, i was thinking of that two albums as "not prog at all", but it's true that there are less progressive albums by other bands, so i may be wrong. |
Posted By: Rorro
Date Posted: May 05 2006 at 11:51
| Also i don't know if Pablo Honey is prog-related. The Only one that without a doubt is progressive is Ok Computer. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 05 2006 at 11:52
|
Not wrong - we just have different opinions of where the thresholds are between "not prog", "prog related" and "prog". ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 05 2006 at 11:54
to me it is prog related, but I can understand people who think it's not prog. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: May 05 2006 at 12:16
Are you saying that Kid A and Amnesiac aren't progressive? I think those are Radiohead's major works of Prog!  ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: aapatsos
Date Posted: May 05 2006 at 12:23
|
For me Proto- relates to 60's and 70's prog related can be at any period I don't reckon any Proto- beyond 60's/70's (regarding prog) |
Posted By: Trickster F.
Date Posted: May 05 2006 at 12:26
No. I just mean that I would not feel comfortable with Metallica on the archives. I'd gladly review their albums expressing my opinion so that the argument is valid and understandable, but I wouldn't exactly hurry up and speed up the process of their inclusion in the archives(something I'd gladly do for the bands whose inclusion I am really interested in!). And for the record, it is hard to consider something progressive when you consider it to be CRAP.
-- Ivan
|
Posted By: Rorro
Date Posted: May 05 2006 at 12:29
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 05 2006 at 13:17
Metallica have been rejected by the Prog Metal team ... it is highly unlikely that they get added any time soon. However, when Max finally implements the genre per album feature (whenever that might happen) I would reconsider their addition - at least Master of Puppets can be included as Prog Related.
I think that this ability is what separates the really good reviewers from the rest. I hope I'll master that someday! ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: Trickster F.
Date Posted: May 05 2006 at 13:32
|
Will that ever happen? And if so, will it be like your site, i.e. users deciding the genre by themselves? And I disagree. I think that a good reviewer should be as objective as possible, still trying to find good sides even in the music he doesn't find too pleasing. I know I try to.
 -- Ivan
|
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: May 05 2006 at 13:49
|
Thanks all, this has been a really interesting discussion. The
categories of proto- and related have to be handled very carefully, in
my opinion, or the database could get out of control very quickly. No offense to the collaborators who did this, but I'm not sure I see the value in prog-related. A quick look on the subgenre page showed Queen as one of the top artists - my point is, why do they need to be on the website at all if they have been deemed to be not prog? Is the point to suck in newcomers with a sentiment like, "Hey, you've probably heard of and really enjoy Queen; well, they're not too far from some bands that this community calls "prog", why don't you check them out?". Since I'm such a metal fan I guess I'd love to see at least Iron Maiden as a proto-prog-metal (I agree with Master of Puppets and Rust In Peace as isolated "proggy" moments, but I'm not sure I'd like to see those bands in the archives), but I realize that this too can get unwieldy. Brings up other questions too, such as I've always viewed Rush as a progenitor of what we call prog-metal. But they've also been deemed to be "flat-out" prog. What to do? |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 05 2006 at 14:40
I don't think so ... that is (and will remain) an unique feature of my website.
That's just what I said ... why do you say "disagree"? ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: Trickster F.
Date Posted: May 05 2006 at 15:15
|
No, really, what I said makes a significant difference. Seeing good sides of unpleasant music is what makes a good reviewer, seeing progressive in sources where you wouldn't normally expect progressive makes a good progmetal team member. If I am writing a review, I'll just make myself a tiny note that 5 stars means a masterpiece of progressive music and is reserved for things that are progressive, unique, emotional and balanced, and the rest is for judging that is not as perfect. I will not give things 1 star, unless they wouldn't fit any progger's collection(see my reviews so far), I'll at least give two stars, if I know that there is something here that people would enjoy.
However, if I was a progmetal team member or something, things would be a lot different. I would have to stop judging groups by how much I like them, and instead concentrate on the proginess factor alone. See what I mean? I may not like the opportunity of adding Blind Guardian or Nevermore to the site, although if I was a member of a team, whose decision affects the result. To sum it all up, the aim of a sub-genre team member is to be as inclusive as possible, the aim of a reviewer - to share his passion for music, cover as much area as possible and be as convincing and still objective as you can.
If a reviewer/team member doesn't follow these rules, he does not make much good for the site, besides feeding his own ego.
This could be an outsiderish look at the things, so you are more than welcome to correct me.
 -- Ivan
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 05 2006 at 15:32
|
What I said was simply that a good reviewer should be able to separate how he likes something from how progressive he thinks it is. Both elements are then combined in the star rating.
A team member must try to do the exact same thing. He cannot vote for a band that he likes very much although he knows that they're not progressive enough ... but he also mustn't reject a band just because he thinks they're crap - if they're progressive enough they have to be added.
BTW: A team member should be open minded - after all Max wants this website to be inclusive. But that doesn't mean that he has to vote for the inclusion of bands that he thinks are not prog - and I hope that the history of additions shows that we don't include every band that is a little bit more complex than Manowar. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: May 05 2006 at 18:08
Indeed - just as not all the Genesis discography is prog (roughly 30% of it, if you work it out chronologically). In other words, since Radiohead's studio output is at least 50% prog, that makes them more prog than Genesis, doesn't it? ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Trickster F.
Date Posted: May 06 2006 at 06:47
That's not how *I* would put it, Cert, especially knowing that the whatever percent of Genesis music is prog is associated with prog practically by anyone, whereas the only people who consider Radiohead are the overtly obsessed prog fans who pay so much attention to classification and categories. Most of us, basically.  So, in any case, Genesis is more prog than Radiohead.
-- Ivan
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 06 2006 at 06:53
|
^ Or in other words: Genesis are more obviously prog (at least the 30% of their discography that are), and Radiohead are not prog in the 70s sense, but if you stretch your imagination a little bit and acknowledge the fact that their music is progressive, and they're a rock band. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: May 07 2006 at 16:28
At least you seem to get the little joke there, Ivan...
But I don't think it's true to say that I pay any attention whatsoever to categories - I hate subgenres with silly names with a passion. While I was of course teasing about Genesis, I still take issue with statements like "Only OK Computer is Prog, so Radiohead aren't prog", because of Kid A and Amnesiac, which are, if not "Symphonic Prog", at least the same sort of Prog as Can or possibly early Kraftwerk and in the same Avant-garde school of thinking as some of the early electronic bands like the Silver Apples, Fifty Foot Hose and White Noise. Radiohead have only produced one "Indie" album (if you can call it that, as Parlophone is hardly an independent label!), and that's Pablo Honey. So it's not fair to lump them in with "Britpop" bands, even if bands like Blur and Pulp did come up with some very inventive material, they were never as off the wall as Radiohead were with Kid A or Amnesiac. ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 07 2006 at 16:33
|
^ Pablo Honey is seriously underrated. And some of the songs are amazingly complex compared to typical indie music of that era. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: Tristan Mulders
Date Posted: May 07 2006 at 18:00
|
Hi Mike,
Just a quick note to state that I think that prog-related should be off all time periods.. basically because there are quite a few bands out there nowadays who aren't fully progressive, but have a few minor tendencies. ------------- Interested in my reviews? You can find them http://www.progarchives.com/Collaborators.asp?id=784 - HERE "...He will search until He's found a Way to take the Days..." |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: May 07 2006 at 18:06
Not really - for example, I think that Blur and Pulp produced some very complex material too. While I dislike Blur's music simply because I don't like it, Pulp's "Different Class" (which I do like a lot) has many surprising subtleties in it. I agree Pablo Honey is underrated, though
------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 07 2006 at 18:45
|
^ I don't really know Pulp (only their hit "Common People"), but I knew Blur quite well back then. I can't remember any of their songs being as experimental as Anyone Can Play Guitar, I Can't or Blow Out. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: May 10 2006 at 08:26
I'd recommend "Different Class" - it's a really good album IMHO, and more sophisticated than you might think. While I never liked Blur (except for Song #2), they did run a real gauntlet of styles. I'm not suggesting for a minute that they're more progressive than Radiohead, and really I should be bashing them for some of the atrocities they produced, like "Park Life" - but even that is experimental in aspect and intelligently put together. I just hate it!
While we're on the subject of 1990s bands, do you know Beck's music? ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 10 2006 at 08:37
|
I have heard most popular Beck songs - I love them. Somehow I never managed to get around to listen to full albums though.
I think he qualifies for the label "Alternative Experimental", a genre description which I'm growing more and more attached to. emusic.com is a great resource for these bands ... ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: Rorro
Date Posted: May 10 2006 at 09:49
I never said "Only Ok Computer is Prog, so Radiohead aren't prog", i said "I Question ..", i meant that i'm not sure if they are or not. There's a difference between Genesis and Radiohead. Genesis had a entire period of progresivness, when he made many fully progressive albums, much more progressive than any Radiohead album. Radiohead made only one entirely progressive album in my humble opinion, so what i was trying to say is that i don't know if a band can be considered art rock when they only made one progressive album. But as i saw, many of you thinks that Radiohead has more entirely prog albums, so taking that as a truth i retract. But if they have only opne and you said that they should be included as art rock, why not including metallica under prog metal when they only made "Master Of Puppets" as a progressive album(i took this from another thread)?.
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: May 11 2006 at 05:11
You said "Radiohead made only one entirely progressive album in my humble opinion". I assume you mean "OK Computer" - yet Kid A and Amnesiac are both more progressive - surely you'd agree with that? And Radiohead's "period of progressiveness" is clearly from "The Bends" (although some might validly argue the case for "Pablo Honey") right up to "Amnesiac". Compare that with Genesis, whose "period of progressiveness is from "Trespass" to "The Lamb". For both, that's a total of 5 albums. Prog Rock IS Art Rock - there's no distinction. And I completely agree with you about "Master of Puppets" - it's probably the most progressive metal album ever made. I'm waiting for a few non-absolute, and well thought-out posts to be added to that thread before I look back - but somehow I doubt there will be any. I'm certain there will be a series of "Oh no it's not" type posts with little or no reasoning. Most people don't think of Metallica as progressive, so it's cast in their minds that they never were - and they've never stopped to think otherwise, hence it kind of stops their minds dead when a challenging thought like that comes about. ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 11 2006 at 05:18
|
I think of MoP as progressive, but not as "Prog". That's the main problem. Operation: Mindcrime is here under the label "prog" although it's not very progressive, MoP is not here although it's very progressive.
The world isn't perfect! ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: Rocktopus
Date Posted: May 11 2006 at 05:23
I agree, but you probably mean up to 'Hail to the Thief'? To all you naysayers, listen to Kid A/Amnesiac. Some of the best and most important progressive rock albums from the last 25 years. Ok Computer was just the beginning. ------------- Over land and under ashes In the sunlight, see - it flashes Find a fly and eat his eye But don't believe in me Don't believe in me Don't believe in me |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: May 11 2006 at 07:26
Indeed - but that's a different discussion
And I definitely think of MoP as Prog - especially in terms of Prog Metal - as well as progressive. Even Kill 'em All is progressive. And I won't start to name any bands or albums that I don't think of as even remotely progressive... ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: TheProgtologist
Date Posted: May 11 2006 at 07:29
|
What astounds me is that people who consider a few of Metallica's album as progressive metal always name MoP as their most progressive.
I agree that it is awesome,but I always though And Justice for All was their most progressive album. -------------  |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 11 2006 at 07:32
|
^ depends on how much you appreciate technicality. IMO MoP is a better mix of innovation, technicality, psychedelic "remnants" and raw energy. Justice is not as diverse, although some tracks (One, Justice) are more progressive than MoP. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: terramystic
Date Posted: May 11 2006 at 07:35
I don't know if post rock is the most important recent genre but I think it's accepted in prog canon despite some refutal. |
Posted By: Trickster F.
Date Posted: May 11 2006 at 07:58
Yes, you are right. The site, despite being more unconventional(in a positiive way!)than most prog sites, still judges groups by how "prog" they are in the traditionally accepted meaning of the word. For example, instead of adding such an amazing proggy progressive collective as My Dying Bride, this site will gladly accept a third rate Dream Theater rip-off from Albania.
-- Ivan
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 11 2006 at 08:12
The key is to find a balance of accepting both types of bands. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: May 12 2006 at 04:06
Listening to OK Computer and Kid A, it seems obvious to me that Radiohead became "Prog" very much in the 70s sense - even if it was unintentional. It also seems clear to me that Radiohead became Prog in a more modern sense with Kid A. Let's face it, Genesis didn't start out by saying "Hey, let's be a Prog Rock band" - that's just how people labelled them several years after the event - and, unlike Radiohead, their first album has absolutely no proggy elements - with the arguable exception of a single song. I'm not familiar with the music of My Dying Bride, but I've heard quite a bit about them recently - I'll check them out. ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Trickster F.
Date Posted: May 12 2006 at 09:50
Well, I can guess that Genesis DID aim to reach a certain sound - the sound similar to(and influenced by)the prog acts of that time, such as King Crimson, The Moody Blues and Pink Floyd, they didn't exactly copy their sound but used the aesthetics as fundaments for their music(well, since Trespass anyway). Although nobody called them "Progressive Rock" at the time, they were a part of a scene the members of which had certain similarities in sound.
Radiohead, on the other hand, as you put it very accurately, didn't try to "just be" progrock either. However, while they definitely "take away" a vital influence from what is considered to be prog, they manage not to sound like anyone else and that is why most Radiohead fans don't realize their favourite group is a part of the type of music they despise.
What I am trying to say now is that Radiohead are indeed very progressive, and a prog-influenced group at that. However, when it comes to who is most "prog"(a question which I would never answer if I was asked myself, btw)it all comes down to what is traditionally accepted as prog, read: stereotypes and casual opinions. Basically, it makes sense that The Flower Kings or some third rate Dream Theater clone would be associated with prog more than an interesting, unique group as Radiohead. Fortunately for us, the prog specialists go deeper in detail when deciding who to add and who to reject, although I don't always agree with their decisions(not that the members always share the same opinion either!).
-- Ivan
|
Posted By: Trickster F.
Date Posted: May 12 2006 at 10:20
|
Speaking of My Dying Bride, it's a good idea to start out with Turn Loose The Swans, which is their BEST album(I would probably tell you which is their MOST PROGRESSIVE album, but it is way too inaccessible and most MDB fans hate it). In my opinion, MDB's sound is best introduced on that release and I tend to think that their sound is both progressive and very prog-related/influenced. Since groups like Anathema, The Gathering, Novembre and 3rd And The Mortal are featured on the website, I simply don't understand the progmetal specialist's response "they don't sound like most progmetal". Isn't that why we make more room for _different_ kinds of prog? None of the groups listed above are associated with prog. People say that MDB aren't prog because they are Doom/Death Metal and Gothic Metal. Well, I think this is a bit unfair. Many of the groups in various categories are not classified the same: outside of the prog fans nobody calls Radiohead, Kate Bush and Peter Gabriel prog. Another example would be Lacrimosa. Every stereotypical goth who dresses in black and sleeps at the local cemetary knows he is not a "true" follower of the trend if he doesn't listen to Lacrimosa as much as if he ignores Marilyn Manson(who isn't a part of the goth scene, but that let's not go further in detail).
In other words, saying that MDB shouldn't be in the archives because "they are associated with goth rockers" isn't very thoughtful as it isn't what matters and the site is inclusive in nature, allowing groups with popularity outside of the prog world enter(e.g. Tool).
Why I think MDB should be added is the music. There is a plenty of reasons to let them in, which make them worthy of being a part of the PROG ARCHIVES. Some reasons:
1) Classical influence.
2) Epic, long compositions. Their average song is about 9-10 minutes.
3) Tempo changes.
4) Unusual time signatures and also TS changes(I know it for sure because I used to learn to play an MDB song on flute a few months ago).
5) Guitar playing is very technical and is influenced by VOIVOD.
6) MDB were pretty much Opeth before Opeth started to exist. You can't deny it that Opeth must have been influenced by MDB, the only group, at the time Turn Loose The Swans was released, that used heavu and beautiful music mixed up with both clean and growled vocals.
7) Certain parts of MDB songs remind you of modern tendencies('Heroin Chic' has a trip-hop influence, 'Cry Of Mankind' has a lengthy Drone break-down, while 'The Whore, The Cook, The Mother' includes a long post-rockish middle section; just a few examples).
8) First four MDB albums had successfully implemented use of pianos, keyboards and especially violin. Violin was gone after the forth full-length, however, keyboards remained.
9) Influenced a huge number of groups in the Prog Archives.
10) Bizarre and queer(as in 'strange') approach to vocals.
Other, less important reasons:
11) Deep lyrics difficult to understand if approached without much effort.
12) Always progressive, changing.
-- Ivan
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 12 2006 at 10:35
|
MDB were rejected by the Prog Metal Team, but we can always discuss them again. It would be interesting to compare them to Anathema. I'll listen to both bands again (the early albums).
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls Listened to:
|