What band would you remove from the archi
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: Proto-Prog and Prog-Related Lounge
Forum Description: Discuss bands and albums classified as Proto-Prog and Prog-Related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=30443
Printed Date: November 24 2024 at 19:43
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: What band would you remove from the archi
Posted By: UtUmNo1
Subject: What band would you remove from the archi
Date Posted: October 29 2006 at 09:40
|
The reason I ask is that it seems to me that the realm of prog/proto/related is growing at such a rate that soon there won't be any music other than R&B and boybands that fall outside of the prog and/or related genre.
For me, to get the ball rolling, I would drop the newly appointed Mastodon off the lists. Sure, they're metal and sure they don't sound overly generic, but a few intricate riffs and a jazzy sounding drummer don't make progressive metal for my mind.
|
Replies:
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: October 29 2006 at 09:42
happy wishful thinking to anyone replying:
 ------------- 
|
Posted By: UtUmNo1
Date Posted: October 29 2006 at 09:45
|
I wasn't intimating that removing bands was a possibility. It's simply just one of the ol' hypothetical Q&A sorts of thing. |
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: October 29 2006 at 09:50
then happy "flaming" everyone!  plus I think such a topic was made before.  -------------
|
UtUmNo1 wrote:Posted By: Joolz
Date Posted: October 29 2006 at 10:02
But, you only joined today .....  |
Posted By: E-Dub
Date Posted: October 29 2006 at 10:04
|
Yeah, I'm staying away from this one. I know who I'd like to see omitted, but it won't make a difference, while at the same time hacking others off.
E ------------- 
|
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: October 29 2006 at 10:06
I'd unhesitatingly remove that band of uber-posting pre-pubescent n'er-do-wells known as the VELVET GANG, for crimes against the art of conversation!
Put a
 in it! Just joshing, kiddywinks!  ------------- "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: Ricochet
Date Posted: October 29 2006 at 10:07
as I said:
 -------------
|
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: October 29 2006 at 10:15
^ Such a pity!
 Vee haff vays uff making you not talk.... ------------- "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: Ricochet
Date Posted: October 29 2006 at 10:19
|
we don't necesarily have to talk. only to post.
-------------
|
Posted By: OpethGuitarist
Date Posted: October 29 2006 at 10:31
|
Genesis or Yes ------------- back from the dead, i will begin posting reviews again and musing through the forums |
Posted By: Abstrakt
Date Posted: October 29 2006 at 10:32
|
Radiohead Deep Purple Uriah Heep The Beatles that's all i can think of now |
Posted By: Arrrghus
Date Posted: October 29 2006 at 10:33
NEVER REMOVE HEEP!! Heep more than deserves a place here. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Frasse
Date Posted: October 29 2006 at 10:45
| Some of the bands listed as Prog Metal could be moved to Prog-related Imho. |
Posted By: Ne_Plus_Ultra
Date Posted: October 29 2006 at 10:46
|
hmmmm... not sure that iron maiden, beatles and perhaps queen have a place here. Aviv Geffen is definitely not progressive in any way. Collaborating with Steven Wilson does not instantaneously qualify one as prog... Maybe I'm wrong and it's just my ignorance but I've never heard anything progressive from Nightwish... |
Posted By: Trickster F.
Date Posted: October 29 2006 at 10:48
Agreed, e.g. Rhapsody, Nightwish, Lacrimosa. ------------- sig |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: October 29 2006 at 10:55
|
Yes, Nightwish, they're not prog in any description, not even prog-related.
-------------   
|
Posted By: NotSoKoolAid
Date Posted: October 29 2006 at 10:58
| Well there's plenty of mistakes on this site. I'd start with Tool myself. |
Posted By: Tenth Chaffinch
Date Posted: October 29 2006 at 11:01
|
Queen, Dream Theatre, and Iron Maiden ------------- www.myspace.com/fatherunderground |
Posted By: rileydog22
Date Posted: October 29 2006 at 11:01
|
Beatles are out of place, as are ELO. Also, as much as I love Arthur Brown, only his band Kingdom Come is progressive. The Crazy World of Arthur Brown is not progressive.
-------------   |
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: October 29 2006 at 11:02
| Every band in Proto-Prog and Prog Related ought to go in my opinion. Shame I can't make it happen... I will have to start a site of my own. |
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: October 29 2006 at 11:04
|
If you remove the band, you also remove the reviews which people have spent time and effort writing. Not to mention the work which was done to add the band and their albums in the first place.
Is that fair?
|
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: October 29 2006 at 11:18
|
Posted By: Frasse
Date Posted: October 29 2006 at 11:19
No, it isn't.
It will always be debates of who are worthy of a place in PA. Everybody have differnet opinions so the last words must of course go to the owner of the site.
IMHO every band who have ever been mentioned as progressive, even by mainstrem media (especially by them), is worthy of a place at least as Prog-related. Then it's up to the owners and collaborators if they think the band is more than just related.
The term Prog-related is quite problematic too, and I think there should be a greater distinction, graphically, between the related bands and the prog bands, i.e. mark the related bands in yellow instead of orange.
|
Posted By: cuncuna
Date Posted: October 29 2006 at 11:26
|
None. I use this sites because of the information; not to validate the art forms. ------------- ¡Beware of the Bee! |
Posted By: Frasse
Date Posted: October 29 2006 at 11:31
Well said cuncuna.
|
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: October 29 2006 at 11:31
Good idea - i will visit your new site and ask......"where are The Beatles, Deep Purple, Iron Maiden, Queen and Wishbone Ash?" they were important to the development of Prog and should be here - you're only showing half the picture!!
 -------------  Prog Archives Tour Van 
|
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: October 29 2006 at 11:34
This is my view of the subject:
|
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: October 29 2006 at 11:52
|
Rest assured, bands will not be removed
|
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: October 29 2006 at 11:58
| I can accept that, if you back it up with a better explanation |
Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: October 29 2006 at 13:23
I can't see how it could be growing at such and amazing rate. Especially since there has been a moratorium placed on those genres, while we concentrate on the backlog of prog bands. Of course, I still got New Kids on the Block, and James Brown in before that happened.
------------- a.k.a. H.T. http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com |
Posted By: Atkingani
Date Posted: October 29 2006 at 13:35
|
I don't know if it happens in other countries, but for instance, here in Brazil, when we learn about the Discovery of the Americas, by Columbus, we study all previous efforts, the technical developments, the need for spices and other products, the political situation in Europe then, the menace from the Otomans, etc. We study also the Natives, that were here before the land was (re)discovered and the attempts made by other people to colonize parts of the land (nordics, mainly).
I think the example is well applied when the issue is Progressive Music (in fact, for any issue you wish). Hence, proto-prog must stay.
For the prog-related bands, I believe that the explanation provided by PA speaks by itself.  ------------- Guigo ~~~~~~ |
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: October 29 2006 at 13:44
Because that is the policy of the site.
|
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: October 29 2006 at 14:02
That's better!  |
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: October 29 2006 at 14:06
We can apply the example you give without having those influential bands included on the site. We can write articles about them and how they influenced Progressive Music. We all know classical music influenced Prog, yet no classical composers can be found on the site. |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: October 29 2006 at 14:10
|
I would go with specific cases: 1.- Agnus Dei: Austrian NEW AGE music:
Was included as Symphonic and we sent the band to Prog Related, I believe they shouldn't be here.
2.- Bjorn Lynne: Here I repectfully disagree with my teammate HT who finds the some Prog moments in his music deserve the invclusion, (Not totally disagree because there are some moments), but after reading his auto biography, honestly I still believe he shouldn't be here, he has been sent to ELECTRONIC after an hours negotiation with HT (Hey we debate things inside the team and not always agree):
As HT I believe some of his albums have SOME Symphonic elements but we add artists for a career, this guy is a merchandiser of music, writes whatever a client requests doesn't matter if we talk about ringtones, Jazz, Funk, Techno, Dance, Hip Hop, New Age, Meditation, etc.
If some albums are Prog (I dobt he has a 100% Prog album) add them to various genres as Andrew Lloyd Webber's couple of works added, but I don't believe Bjorn Lynne has the profile of a Prog musician.
Iván ------------- 
|
Posted By: Atkingani
Date Posted: October 29 2006 at 14:12
Yep, but I was talking about the cauldron that produced the navigations, not the history of the entire Western Europe. Proto-prog is the cauldron that originated prog-rock. ------------- Guigo ~~~~~~ |
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: October 29 2006 at 14:56
|
I see your point, we can do without classical composers, but in my
opinion Proto-Prog bands don't need to be on the site either as they
aren't 100 % Prog. Like I said, a detailed article describing Prog's
background and birth, with references to influential bands and albums,
would be better. By the way, I still haven't seen a good argument for why having the bands on the site is better, I've only seen attempts to derail the discussion. |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: October 29 2006 at 15:04
|
I believe Proto Prog is essential.
A movement or a musical genre is not born ijn one second or with one album, it's aprocess an evolution, we must understand at least the inmediete prefecessor to understand why it evolved into something.
Proto Prog bands are part of this process, already have Prog elements and for that reason it's important to know them.
Prog Related is just another name for almost Prog bands or bands from other genres who share ome elements with us, in this case we could debate but, they don't harm unless included in a 100% sub-genre.
Iván -------------
|
Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: October 29 2006 at 15:05
Ok, here is your argument. I like to know the origins, and that is one of the reasons I came to this site. That also includes finding out about the bands that are being referenced. I would be unsatisfied if there was only a blurb in an article. I want the same amount of info as other bands. If they are important enough to discuss, they deserve equal treatment. ------------- a.k.a. H.T. http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com |
Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: October 29 2006 at 15:14
Yes, sometimes we do have friendly disagreements. On a completely unrelated topic, you won't be seeing me in public for a while. 
------------- a.k.a. H.T. http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: October 29 2006 at 15:16
I agree with you HT, we need to understand the historicall events that lead to something diffenernt:
Those that don't learn from the past, are doomed to fail again
Why did Prog evolved to what we love? We will only understand the phenomenom if we know the history and Proto Prog is part off it.
If a band is here in any sub-genre or category, it must receive the same treatment as all the others.
Iván -------------
|
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: October 29 2006 at 15:42
That's more like it! I see your point, and I must admit that it is pretty strong. But really, how hard would it be to look up those influential bands and records on sites like allmusic.com or wikipedia instead? Most of them are fairly well-known, so finding information wouldn't be such a big problem. As for the lesser known ones, there isn't much more information avaliable here than anywhere else. |
Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: October 30 2006 at 08:58
On a general site, they are treated like any other artist. Here, it is in a prog context. We could look up any band here on another site, couldn't we? ------------- a.k.a. H.T. http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com |
Posted By: NutterAlert
Date Posted: October 30 2006 at 09:04
 who else but.......... Genesis ------------- Proud to be an un-banned member since 2005 |
Posted By: blbx93
Date Posted: October 30 2006 at 20:30
|
The beatles and queen both deserve a place here. However half of their albums are not prog in the slight bit. Queen II and A Night at the Opera, as well as Abbey Road and Sgt. Peppers surely deserve their spot.
|
Posted By: Sasquamo
Date Posted: October 31 2006 at 21:26
Classical music influenced many prog bands as much as the Beatles and such. Do you really want to see Mozart listed here under proto-prog. I agree with Phileas. The whole proto-prog and prog related sections have to go. If they're not prog, then why should they be on this site. And now that Led Zeppelin is apparently getting in it looks like nearly anything can get in if enough people like it. Maybe we could do forum "petition signings" on the site. Like, if 100 senior members petition for a band to go, the admins think about getting rid of it. I know that's not going to happen, but just an idea. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: November 01 2006 at 00:31
| I assume the reason those bands were considered and included is because this site is striving to be a comprehensive and history-minded place rather than just pure prog only. Besides, there are plenty prog rock sites that don't and will never feature Zep or Maiden or Purple. |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: November 01 2006 at 00:45
|
Yes
Genesis
Pink Floyd
Frank Zappa
Dream Theater
Univers Zero
Mike Patton
Pendragon
IQ
King Crimson
Jethro Tull
Kansas
Not prog enough.  ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Cygnus X-2
Date Posted: November 01 2006 at 00:48
Classical Composers that influenced progressive rock were never rock artists were they? The keyword here is Progressive Rock. ------------- 
|
Posted By: salmacis
Date Posted: November 01 2006 at 13:36
Well I don't agree with removing bands. There are a few here that I wouldn't necessarily agree with- ELO, Fairport Convention, Triumph- but then, all of those are in prog related and HAVE done prog tracks. I think a key phrase is 'prog is in the ear of the beholder'. 
|
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: November 01 2006 at 14:24
Well since I appear to be getting nowhere fast, I'll accept the fact
that the owners do whatever they want to with their site. But I still
think they're doing it the wrong way. However, there are many good
sides to Prog Archives aswell, I'll just focus on them and pretend that
Prog Related and Proto-Prog never happened, or something...  |
Posted By: UtUmNo1
Date Posted: November 02 2006 at 00:54
|
Maybe the question should have been,
"What artist(s) do not belong in the archives, in your opinion.
Thereby removing any hint of 'removal' or critisicm of the site's administrators/reviewers/people who decide such things as who gets added etc.
|
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: November 02 2006 at 01:01
What Classical Music being prog or proto-prog again?  Isn't it plain obvious that it isn't a matter of influence or predisposition, but a situation of different artistic styles?! Or do we all just, in a constant and unchanged way, tell our opinion, no matter how wrong it is? -------------
|
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: November 02 2006 at 04:55
| Opinions can't be wrong. |
Posted By: UtUmNo1
Date Posted: November 02 2006 at 04:59
| You know what they say about them though..... |
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: November 02 2006 at 05:44
| Yes. |
Posted By: lucas
Date Posted: November 02 2006 at 16:36
|
Not progressive in essence :
Deep purple
Iron Maiden
Queen
The Beatles
But I agreee they had an influence on progressive rock/metal bands ------------- "Magma was the very first gothic rock band" (Didier Lockwood) |
Posted By: DallasBryan
Date Posted: November 02 2006 at 18:51
|
100% of the CRAP!
90% of the NEO-PROG bands
80% of the PROTO-PROG/PROG RELATED bands
70% of the PROG METAL bands
60% of the AVANT JAZZ FUSION bands
50% of the 3rd/4th TIER CANTERBURY bands
40% of the 90's bands
30% of the 80's bands
20% of the BORING SYMPHONIC PROG bands
10% of the JAPANESE band
0% of the TRULY PROGRESSIVE BANDS
!  |
Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: November 03 2006 at 17:49
|
Queen
...even if Muse sound like them
 |
Posted By: Stefanovic
Date Posted: November 03 2006 at 17:52
should be progressive music
|