Print Page | Close Window

Most contested inclusion in ProgArchives

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=33830
Printed Date: February 20 2025 at 05:53
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Most contested inclusion in ProgArchives
Posted By: Guests
Subject: Most contested inclusion in ProgArchives
Date Posted: January 29 2007 at 21:56
I am sometimes surprised at some groups inclusion in ProgArchives, and am looking at seeing what others think. Personally, I find a it BIG Stretch in saying Uriah Heep is Prog, no matter if you call it proto-prog, prog related ... whatever. I love much of their early stuff, especially until David Byron's departure, but apart from the long song on Salisbury, they are a pretty straightforward 70s hard rock group. Same with Deep Purple, once you take out the Philharmonic album & Child in Time, they are the epitome of their era's music. Ditto Led Zeppelin - I've racked my brains & gone through all their albums, Kashmir is about the only thing that is Prog, & only because of its' "eastern" tempos & lyrics. The rest of their material was a mix of rock, blues, pop, heavy, some folk. Black sabbath, well Ozzy as a prog head ??? The Beatles as Proto - Prog, no question because of their musical adventures & leadership in exploring music.
But to use the dreaded abbreviation, IMHO, it's like the definition is vague enough, with enough sub-genres to allow just about any musician except for those whose output was very limited to the more basic rock genres - Ac/DC - hard rock, Sex Pistols - punk, Shania Twain - new country, George Jones - Old country, Dave Brubeck west coast jazz,  Frank yankovic - polka. Get my idea ... And the final nail in the coffin is the obscure masterworks. May Blitz - competently played generic blues/jammy late 60s rock; Kin Ping Meh, which I tried to get through at least a few albums & submit reviews to improve my changes to jump up in this site's reviewer standings by reviewing groups with no reviews yet - 16 songs, & all I could see was, obscurity is sometimed deserved.
\So away I go to await the tidal wave /<) or dribble :> from my fellow deep thinking progheads.



Replies:
Posted By: Camel_APPeal
Date Posted: January 29 2007 at 22:18

Proto-Prog and Prog Related are not Prog, so don't worry about those inclusions Thumbs%20Up

Your parents are "Proto-You", and you're not your parents and they are not you. Your siblings are "You-Related", and again, you're not your sibling and they're not you.

I apologize for the stupid analogies, but it's a way to see it;
 
Another way to see it:
 
Proto-Prog bands are bands that had some tendencies in the late 60's that eventually led to what other bands would develop and we know as Prog Rock.
 
Prog Related are bands that aren't really prog, but have some elements that *could* appeal to a proghead.


-------------

"After all, it's music what we're talking about here, so there's no best or worst; just what you like and what you don't"


Posted By: TheProgtologist
Date Posted: January 29 2007 at 23:34
Nothing will be said here that hasn't been said before.All the arguments and debates have raged,over and over again.
 
The Proto Prog and Prog Related categories are here because the good people that own this site want them here.It's as simple as that,and they aren't going away.I hate to be so blunt but that is the truth.
 
The best thing we can do is be responsible and very selective about what artist is added to those categories,and make sure that bands added in them are very relevant to those genres.We don't take those categories lightly and believe me,there is a ton of debate and polls concerning these additions.The debate over Led Zeppelin was going on when I came to this site!!
 
I don't really see anything constructive coming out of this thread,but I will be keeping my eye on it.
 
 


-------------




Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: January 29 2007 at 23:37
^ He's the last person in the world you want keeping an eye on you.

-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "


Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: January 29 2007 at 23:38
The Force is with him, you see...


Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: January 29 2007 at 23:39
The process for inclusion is usually very thorough, especially if the band is a widely-known band to go in prog-related, like Iron Maiden. Even before the announcement to the public forum, where further debate was held even after the decision was made, the collabs in the Collab Zone debated the inclusion for weeks. It's not a light-handed approach.

-------------
http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!


Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: January 29 2007 at 23:49
I can't but endorse what Jody said. The sooner forum members get into their heads that this is not their website (or even the Collaborators'), the better - I hate to be so blunt, but there are dozens of prog sites of every description on the Web, and I don't see why some people have to torture themselves by visiting a site whose policy they don't approve of.

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

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


Posted By: Mellotron Storm
Date Posted: January 30 2007 at 00:13
I'd love to see BLACK SABBATH included and applaud the inclusion of LED ZEPPELIN and THE BEATLES.

-------------
"The wind is slowly tearing her apart"

"Sad Rain" ANEKDOTEN


Posted By: enteredwinter
Date Posted: January 30 2007 at 00:33
Originally posted by sinkadotentree sinkadotentree wrote:

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


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

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

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


-------------


Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: January 30 2007 at 00:47
OK, Zeppelin were included at the owners' request (see Jody's post above), Purple because their first four albums are definitely prog, Maiden because they have lots of prog influences (and they've been called prog-metal by many sources, especially in relation to their last three studio albums). Sabbath, on the other hand, never cut a wholly prog album, and their main influence is not on prog-metal, but on classic heavy metal. Anyway, if you use the Search function, I'm sure you'll find lots of polls which include the reasons you're looking for.

As to people getting mixed up, all they have to do is to look for the definition of each subgenre on the home page. There are rather clear statements as to Proto and Prog-Related NOT being prog. If people ignore the resources at their disposal, then it's their fault if they get mixed up.


Posted By: Masque
Date Posted: January 30 2007 at 01:26
The inclusion of surprising bands isn't made without lots of thought, they don`t just include any band just for the hell of it. The term proto prog is often the reason why certain bands get added and I think that's a good thing  I never use to but I do now , because progs umbrella needs to get bigger  when the reality of where prog got its DNA  starts to influence new prog bands (already has) it will make for a bigger melting pot of raw creativity  and that is a very good thing !    Smile


-------------


Posted By: enteredwinter
Date Posted: January 30 2007 at 01:46
Thanks for the explanation about Black Sabbath, Ghost Rider.

I understand the justification. I am not entirely convinced, but that's mostly because it just doesn't feel right to leave them out while including the other bands I mentioned. I mean, surely prog-metal would have developed far differently if Sabbath had never existed. And that's assuming prog-metal would have developed at all in a world without Sabbath!

But, I do understand that's not enough of a reason for including them Ermm.


-------------


Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: January 30 2007 at 01:49
I see your point, but answer my question.... Prog, being a manifestation of rock, would've never existed without Elvis Presley... Is that reason enough to include him in PA?Wink


Posted By: enteredwinter
Date Posted: January 30 2007 at 01:53
^ I laughed out loud at the idea of Elvis reviews suddenly appearing on the front page.

Ok, you win Wink. But keep in mind, in my last post I had already conceded that I didn't have a strong-enough argument for including Sabbath.


-------------


Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: January 30 2007 at 01:56
Sabbath is in the same family as Zep and Purple because of their roots in Heavy Blues. The difference appears to be that the vast majority of their output was always HB based metal, whereas the other two progressed past that family.


Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: January 30 2007 at 02:44
I have relocated this thread to the proto-prog and prog related section, as it seems mainly concerned with those bands.
 
These categories remain the most misunderstood on the site.


Posted By: Dick Heath
Date Posted: January 30 2007 at 09:59
I would suggest wrt the time between suggestion and inclusion, Wishbone Ash - for whom I was soliciting addition soon after I joined PA in April 2004. And the most contested must be The Who. The additions of Radiohead, Queen, LZ, Black Sabbath, Beatles, Gerry & The Pacemakers (Wink) , although contentious were otherwise comparatively smooth.

-------------
The best eclectic music on the Web,8-11pm BST/GMT THURS.
CLICK ON: http://www.lborosu.org.uk/media/lcr/live.php - http://www.lborosu.org.uk/media/lcr/live.php
Host by PA's Dick Heath.



Posted By: Kotro
Date Posted: January 30 2007 at 10:45
The general problem is that people fail to see that being in this site does not make you a Prog act. Get it in your system once and for all.
Yet still, I have more than once called for the dangers of letting anyone add albums by bands in the archives that have no shred of Progressive Rock in them. Inclusions of Deep Purple and Queen, for instance, should have contemplated their first 4/5 albums, tops, but no more than that.
 
The fact that Prog-Related and Proto-Prog are hailed as sub-genres of Progressive Rock (it's clearly stated in the site's frontpage heading) doesn't help. All bands have their "prog" moments, which have reflections on songs and albums, not on careers. I have more than once stated ProgArchives should be inclusive, yes, but of specific albums by X-band, and not of bands per si.   


-------------
Bigger on the inside.


Posted By: andu
Date Posted: January 30 2007 at 10:51
Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

The Force is with him, you see...


Which side? Wink


-------------
"PA's own GI Joe!"



Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: January 30 2007 at 13:56
Originally posted by Kotro Kotro wrote:

 
The fact that Prog-Related and Proto-Prog are hailed as sub-genres of Progressive Rock (it's clearly stated in the site's frontpage heading) doesn't help
 
The descriptions of these sub-genres make it clear they are not prog, but I see your point about them being listed as "Prog sub-genres".


Posted By: salmacis
Date Posted: January 30 2007 at 15:41
I don't really get into a lather about these inclusions. There are some acts, without wishing to flare an argument, like Led Zeppelin, Fairport Convention, Triumph (especially them) that I wouldn't personally have ever considered even related to prog, really, but that's just a personal opinion. And anyway these acts are in 'prog related' category which is clearly expressed as being merely bands considered adjacent to prog rather than being it, so to speak. At the end of the day, you DON'T have to review those albums or even look at their pages.
 
I find it frankly bizarre that so many of these threads expressing deep trauma about such trivialities appear, really. One upon a controversial inclusion's announcement I can understand but not months or even years after they have taken place. One would have expected the heat to have cooled off by then, IMHO.


Posted By: Jim Garten
Date Posted: January 31 2007 at 03:49
Originally posted by Dick Heath Dick Heath wrote:

And the most contested must be The Who. The additions of Radiohead, Queen, LZ, Black Sabbath, Beatles, although contentious were otherwise comparatively smooth.


Comparatively smooth..? There are still wards in psychiatric hospitals full of post traumatic stress disorder sufferers following the Radiohead wars of 2004 and the short but vicious Queen uprising of 2005...

...Peter Rideout's never been the same, you know

-------------

Jon Lord 1941 - 2012


Posted By: Neil
Date Posted: January 31 2007 at 04:10
There are many bands discussed here that are nothing to do with prog in my opinion but I won't lose any sleep over them. 
 
I guess that there are many younger music enthusiasts who, whilst they enjoy what I and many of my age would call real prog (Yes, VDGG, Genesis, etc) would still like to include their contemporary bands, most of which aren't prog in the original sense.
 
Similarly there will always be bands on the verge of prog which you personally really enjoy; therefore you may campaign to get them included in the forum.  Then you get to the business that one man's prog is another man's art rock and who are we to argue?
 
Let's just enjoy the music and comment on the bands that we like, not sl*g off the bands that we don't.Thumbs%20Up
 
Iron Maiden 'though???????LOL


-------------
When people get lost in thought it's often because it's unfamiliar territory.


Posted By: Jim Garten
Date Posted: January 31 2007 at 07:25
Originally posted by Heavyfreight Heavyfreight wrote:

Let's just enjoy the music and comment on the bands that we like, not sl*g off the bands that we don't




Originally posted by Heavyfreight Heavyfreight wrote:

who are we to argue?


Five words I never though to see from you, Neil

-------------

Jon Lord 1941 - 2012


Posted By: TheProgtologist
Date Posted: January 31 2007 at 10:23
Originally posted by Heavyfreight Heavyfreight wrote:

There are many bands discussed here that are nothing to do with prog in my opinion but I won't lose any sleep over them. 
 
I guess that there are many younger music enthusiasts who, whilst they enjoy what I and many of my age would call real prog (Yes, VDGG, Genesis, etc) would still like to include their contemporary bands, most of which aren't prog in the original sense.
 
Similarly there will always be bands on the verge of prog which you personally really enjoy; therefore you may campaign to get them included in the forum.  Then you get to the business that one man's prog is another man's art rock and who are we to argue?
 
Let's just enjoy the music and comment on the bands that we like, not sl*g off the bands that we don't.Thumbs%20Up
 
Iron Maiden 'though???????LOL
 
This will be the last time I say this.
 
Why can we have bands/artists related to symphonic prog,etc. in Prog Related but not a band that was hugely influential to the development of progressive metal?
 
This bias towards PM is getting OLD.
 


-------------




Posted By: WaywardSon
Date Posted: January 31 2007 at 11:51
I agree with The Progtologist on this.
I would also go as far as to suggest Malmsteen in Prog Related (Just for his output in the early ´80s)


Posted By: Melomaniac
Date Posted: January 31 2007 at 11:54
Originally posted by WaywardSon WaywardSon wrote:

I agree with The Progtologist on this.
I would also go as far as to suggest Malmsteen in Prog Related (Just for his output in the early ´80s)
 
I agree here, he has had, after all, a major impact on bands like Symphony X and Dream Theater, to name but these two !


-------------
"One likes to believe in the freedom of Music" - Neil Peart, The Spirit of Radio


Posted By: Dick Heath
Date Posted: January 31 2007 at 13:59
Originally posted by Jim Garten Jim Garten wrote:

Originally posted by Dick Heath Dick Heath wrote:

And the most contested must be The Who. The additions of Radiohead, Queen, LZ, Black Sabbath, Beatles, although contentious were otherwise comparatively smooth.


Comparatively smooth..? There are still wards in psychiatric hospitals full of post traumatic stress disorder sufferers following the Radiohead wars of 2004 and the short but vicious Queen uprising of 2005...

...Peter Rideout's never been the same, you know
 
You appreciate I was talking about time, not nastiness of arguements (although there is a point in these politer, draw out things when I've started to believe I'm wasting a lot of breath)Smile


-------------
The best eclectic music on the Web,8-11pm BST/GMT THURS.
CLICK ON: http://www.lborosu.org.uk/media/lcr/live.php - http://www.lborosu.org.uk/media/lcr/live.php
Host by PA's Dick Heath.




Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2014 Web Wiz Ltd. - http://www.webwiz.co.uk