Boston are they prog related ?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Suggest New Bands and Artists
Forum Description: Suggest, create polls, and classify new bands you would like included on Prog Archives
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=35474
Printed Date: November 28 2024 at 16:33
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Boston are they prog related ?
Posted By: lighthouse
Subject: Boston are they prog related ?
Date Posted: March 13 2007 at 21:39
I`ve heard plenty of bits and pieces of music from the band Boston that for me seem to be a little bit progressive, perhaps even more so than some of the bands already listed on this site are .. So I thought just out of respect for the recent death of Brad Delp , who had one of the best voices in rock maybe now is a good time to consider adding these rock dinosaurs to this site. 
|
Replies:
Posted By: E-Dub
Date Posted: March 13 2007 at 21:41
Before I joined PA I would've said no; but, after seeing some of the bands that get a pass to be included, I'd say yes.
E
-------------
|
Posted By: Chris H
Date Posted: March 13 2007 at 21:42
I voted Yes they should be added, but not just out of respect for Delp. They should have been in here a while back. Now about Blue Oyster Cult...
-------------
Beauty will save the world.
|
Posted By: rileydog22
Date Posted: March 13 2007 at 21:52
Not even close. They don't strike me as progressive in the least. For that matter, neither are Zeppelin or Queen. I guess Boston wouldn't be a huge step in the recent trend of incorperating every single classic rock band into the Prog Related section.
-------------
 
|
Posted By: E-Dub
Date Posted: March 13 2007 at 21:56
 rileydog22 wrote:
Not even close. They don't strike me as progressive in the least. For that matter, neither are Zeppelin or Queen. I guess Boston wouldn't be a huge step in the recent trend of incorperating every single classic rock band into the Prog Related section.
|
I agree. I voted 'yes' because of the others inclusion. I think what finally did it for me was allowing Split Enz to be prog related. If anything, The Cure are a ton more prog than they are, but I don't even consider them prog related.
E
-------------
|
Posted By: Mikerinos
Date Posted: March 13 2007 at 21:57
No. I've heard their first three albums, and really enjoy the debut, but only very rarely do they even have slight prog tendencies. Yeah, I guess they're about as prog as some bands here, but this has to stop somewhere.
-------------
|
Posted By: lighthouse
Date Posted: March 13 2007 at 21:58
well I believe bands like Boston and Zeppelin are how some of us prog heads start off so I can honestly thank them for pointing the way ... We need to stop being so protective of what we deem as "our precious prog" because I can honestly say I don`t relate to half the bands on this site at all but I enjoy the other half lots.
|
Posted By: cookieacquired
Date Posted: March 13 2007 at 22:00
|
Fraid not
There are some prog related on now that shouldn't be... but this is definitely not
-------------
|
Posted By: The Rock
Date Posted: March 13 2007 at 22:20
|
Zeppelin,Purple,Heep,Airplane,ect....
Now how about GOLDEN EARRING !!!!!????
-------------
What's gonna come out of my mouth is gonna come out of my soul."Skip Prokop"
|
Posted By: Harry Hood
Date Posted: March 13 2007 at 23:30
|
Boston were very innovative. They even had stickers on their album sleeves that said "no synths were used on this album". I think they made more selling equipment than they did selling albums.
But at the end of the day, they're just another arena rock band.
-------------
|
Posted By: video vertigo
Date Posted: March 14 2007 at 01:25
No just because other bands that are not prog are on here under that label doesn't mean we need more.
Good music is not always prog.
-------------
"The rock and roll business is pretty absurd, but the world of serious music is much worse." - Zappa
|
Posted By: lighthouse
Date Posted: March 14 2007 at 01:46
video vertigo wrote:
No just because other bands that are not prog are on here under that label doesn't mean we need more.
Good music is not always prog. |
OK well why are Triumph here but Boston aren`t thats what I don`t get
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: March 14 2007 at 01:52
|
No way, Boston is the most emblematic AOR band, absolutely no relation with Prog.
If somebody adds The New Kids in the Block, I would still say no, because one aberration doesn't allow a new one, if we already made mistakes, plese don't make more.
Boston doesn't belong in a Prog site.
Iván
-------------
|
Posted By: MadcapLaughs84
Date Posted: March 14 2007 at 01:59
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
No way, Boston is the most emblematic AOR band, absolutely no relation with Prog.
If somebody adds The New Kids in the Block, I would still say no, because one aberration doesn't allow a new one, if we already made mistakes, plese don't make more.
Boston doesn't belong in a Prog site.
Iván |
I agree with that. LOL NKOTB
-------------
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: March 14 2007 at 02:28
No, though several songs are prog-oriented if not related.
And the fact that Zeppelin is here as ProgRelated is evidence against Boston's inclusion, not for it; Each band must be judged individually-- Zep held up as an act whose music had progressive elements and developed over the course of time, Boston would not pass that test.
|
Posted By: The Whistler
Date Posted: March 14 2007 at 02:37
|
Yeah, but...did Led Zep write "Peace of Mind?" No. Don't think so. They wrote some crappy song about elevators. But "Peace of Mind," man...
-------------
"There seem to be quite a large percentage of young American boys out there tonight. A long way from home, eh? Well so are we... Gotta stick together." -I. Anderson
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: March 14 2007 at 02:42
Oh they rocked, man, big time. But they split up before they had a chance to have regular prog elements. Also, let's face it, they were the very definition of AOR-- as the Admins recently commented about a different band, 'they're related to prog-related'.
|
Posted By: The Whistler
Date Posted: March 14 2007 at 02:45
Uh, Actrovachywan? I believe that the Dio has spoken.
-------------
"There seem to be quite a large percentage of young American boys out there tonight. A long way from home, eh? Well so are we... Gotta stick together." -I. Anderson
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: March 14 2007 at 02:57
|
the Dio? you're a balding, deranged, satan-worshipping, age-inappropriate headbanger?
|
Posted By: The Whistler
Date Posted: March 14 2007 at 03:05
Wait, what? Okay, Actryvacron, I can understand that you like Passion Play...and Presence...and even David Gilmour...but you don't like Dio? Okay, that's where I draw the line.
-------------
"There seem to be quite a large percentage of young American boys out there tonight. A long way from home, eh? Well so are we... Gotta stick together." -I. Anderson
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: March 14 2007 at 03:07
but wait... I used to be a major metalhead, so I used to like Dio (mainly the first two records), and I loved his guitarist Viv Campbell years before in the Irish metal band Sweet Savage.
|
Posted By: The Whistler
Date Posted: March 14 2007 at 03:12
|
I lost my copy of Holy Diver somewhere...which is really quite sad, because I wanted to blast it out my window at the neighbors the other night when they were having some kind of adult contemporary pop fueled party.
Just say six Hail Dios and you'll be fine.
-------------
"There seem to be quite a large percentage of young American boys out there tonight. A long way from home, eh? Well so are we... Gotta stick together." -I. Anderson
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: March 14 2007 at 03:25
|
ah yes, a lot of those in L.A., as I recall.. especially those Valley parties at the rich kid's houses.
|
Posted By: The Whistler
Date Posted: March 14 2007 at 03:27
Stooopid rich kids with their snobby, elitist parties. Either they need to invite me so's I can be a snobby elite, or they need to learn some respect for Dio!
-------------
"There seem to be quite a large percentage of young American boys out there tonight. A long way from home, eh? Well so are we... Gotta stick together." -I. Anderson
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: March 14 2007 at 03:30
and now we should stop killing this thread and hope that someone wanting to discuss the pros and cons of Boston as ProgRelated comes along.
|
Posted By: The Whistler
Date Posted: March 14 2007 at 03:33
|
Alright, I'll try to steer us back on track...
I myself cannot truly comment on Boston, as, as usualy, I don't feel my knowledge is satisfactory. I don't know if they caught any progresive minded trends early or later on, if their music is lenghty and complex leaning, or if any of their albums were conceptual(although, I still state that "Peace of Mind" was a pretty sweet song. Dio obviously wrote it).
-------------
"There seem to be quite a large percentage of young American boys out there tonight. A long way from home, eh? Well so are we... Gotta stick together." -I. Anderson
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: March 14 2007 at 03:36
There is that one smokin' cut on the first album-- it's a semi-classical instrumental with organ and guitar... sweet. Forget the name of it
|
Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: March 14 2007 at 11:41
E-Dub wrote:
rileydog22 wrote:
Not even close. They don't strike me as progressive in the least. For that matter, neither are Zeppelin or Queen. I guess Boston wouldn't be a huge step in the recent trend of incorperating every single classic rock band into the Prog Related section.
|
I agree. I voted 'yes' because of the others inclusion. I think what finally did it for me was allowing Split Enz to be prog related. If anything, The Cure are a ton more prog than they are, but I don't even consider them prog related.
E |
Have you heard Split Enz early albums? I would have agreed with you until I heard "Mental Notes." It's nothing like their '80s stuff. I also think the Cure deserve some consideration. But the stigma about '80s bands obscures objectivity.
Boston may have had some leanings in a prog direction, but a few decent keyboard parts do not make prog.
-------------
a.k.a. H.T.
http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com
|
Posted By: salmacis
Date Posted: March 14 2007 at 14:05
|
The one thing I've ever heard from Boston that even approaches prog is 'Foreplay', and even that's an introductory passage to another AOR song 'Long Time'. Great band, but they simply have no place here, imho.
|
Posted By: cmidkiff
Date Posted: March 14 2007 at 14:11
If The Doors and Led Zeppelin are here then of coarse Boston should be here.
-------------
cmidkiff
|
Posted By: Chris H
Date Posted: March 14 2007 at 14:12
cmidkiff wrote:
If The Doors and Led Zeppelin are here then of coarse Boston should be here. |
Ahh the old X&Y arguement again...
-------------
Beauty will save the world.
|
Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: March 14 2007 at 19:50
cmidkiff wrote:
If The Doors and Led Zeppelin are here then of coarse Boston should be here. |
Yeah, because I have a hard time telling those three bands apart. 
-------------
a.k.a. H.T.
http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: March 14 2007 at 22:50
Avoiding the temptation to include some of the "elitist" opinions, I vote that Boston does deserve to be included, at least in the prog-related sub-genre.
Piece of Mind, & Foreplay/Long Time especially were standout tracks that were ahead of their time, not only sonically, but in the arrangements. I mean, I've read in some threads of the need for differing tempos, time changes, certain song lengths etc... Not every group here has them all, all the time, eh ...
For those of you who may silently be objecting because you perceive them as a "commercial" AOR act, take this in consideration : most, if not all of the music, was recorded in Tom Scholz's basement by lonely ol' Tom, with Brad Delp's vocals dubbed in. Although the label insisted on Tom's reworking them (i.e. remixing), the final result was the original recordings were the ones used on the album.
So, yes, you win the argument "is it prog"; but that's why PA includes more than a few subgenres, like Prog-related. If there's an aspect of a band that can relate it to the genre, it should be included. Nobody's being forced to go through the subgenres they don't like. Remember, there is some dissension as to RIO/Avant-Garde's inclusion as "prog". But it has its' own "prog" elements, even if they are not necessarily "pure" prog.
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: March 15 2007 at 02:36
|
Pantacruel:
1.- Boston is not influential for any Prog band
2.- Boston is not influenced directly by any Prog band
3.- Ay other non Prog added before doesn't justify the inclusion of Boston
4.- Boston is not Prog
5.- Boston is not even Prog Related
6.- This is a Prog site, so we must priorize REALLY PROG BANDS
7.- Prog Related bands bneed to have some relevance in Prog.
8.- We shouldn't priorize Prog Related inclusions (Despite the fact that Boston is not even PR).
Iván
I see absolutely no reason.
Iván
-------------
|
Posted By: TheProgtologist
Date Posted: March 15 2007 at 09:23
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Pantacruel:
1.- Boston is not influential for any Prog band
2.- Boston is not influenced directly by any Prog band
3.- Ay other non Prog added before doesn't justify the inclusion of Boston
4.- Boston is not Prog
5.- Boston is not even Prog Related
6.- This is a Prog site, so we must priorize REALLY PROG BANDS
7.- Prog Related bands bneed to have some relevance in Prog.
8.- We shouldn't priorize Prog Related inclusions (Despite the fact that Boston is not even PR).
Iván
I see absolutely no reason.
Iván
|
My thoughts exactly Ivan.
-------------
|
Posted By: cmidkiff
Date Posted: March 15 2007 at 10:35
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Pantacruel:
1.- Boston is not influential for any Prog band - so what
2.- Boston is not influenced directly by any Prog band - how do you know?
3.- Ay other non Prog added before doesn't justify the inclusion of Boston - sure it does, it sets precedence.
4.- Boston is not Prog - so what, half of the bands on this site are not prog
5.- Boston is not even Prog Related - if you use the same definition of "Prog Related" that got Queen, The Doors, ect. here, then it is.
6.- This is a Prog site, so we must priorize REALLY PROG BANDS - yea right, like thats happening
7.- Prog Related bands bneed to have some relevance in Prog. - not according to this site and the other bands that are here
8.- We shouldn't priorize Prog Related inclusions (Despite the fact that Boston is not even PR). - thats right, they shouldn't be here at all. Or maybe we should have "Almost Prog Related" as well
Iván
I see absolutely no reason.
Iván
|
-------------
cmidkiff
|
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: March 15 2007 at 10:37
Definitely yes. Its what Prog Related is all about.
-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: March 15 2007 at 11:37
|
Their two first albums are quite pleasant, but nowhere near Prog.
|
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: March 15 2007 at 11:44
I don't see anything prog at all about Boston (although they do rock.)
Not to open up an old can of worms, but everything on Queen II is far
more proggy than anything Boston ever did.
p.s. Dio rules!
-------------
|
Posted By: WaywardSon
Date Posted: March 15 2007 at 12:15
|
I think they only have one proggish song, Longtime/Foreplay, but besides that, it´s just good melodic rock.
|
Posted By: TheProgtologist
Date Posted: March 15 2007 at 12:43
cmidkiff wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Pantacruel:
1.- Boston is not influential for any Prog band - so what
2.- Boston is not influenced directly by any Prog band - how do you know?
3.- Ay other non Prog added before doesn't justify the inclusion of Boston - sure it does, it sets precedence.
4.- Boston is not Prog - so what, half of the bands on this site are not prog
5.- Boston is not even Prog Related - if you use the same definition of "Prog Related" that got Queen, The Doors, ect. here, then it is.
6.- This is a Prog site, so we must priorize REALLY PROG BANDS - yea right, like thats happening
7.- Prog Related bands bneed to have some relevance in Prog. - not according to this site and the other bands that are here
8.- We shouldn't priorize Prog Related inclusions (Despite the fact that Boston is not even PR). - thats right, they shouldn't be here at all. Or maybe we should have "Almost Prog Related" as well
Iván
I see absolutely no reason.
Iván
|
|
I would like to remind you that the bands added to Prog Related and Proto Prog aren't added on a whim.They are very extensively discussed and often times hotly debated among the collaborators,sometimes for years(as in the case of LZ,who were being debated back when I first became a Collab).
All additions to these genres require the approval of the Admin Team,and some of the bands here are added at the direct order of the people who OWN this site.And if they want them here,they will be added here.
-------------
|
Posted By: cmidkiff
Date Posted: March 15 2007 at 12:55
TheProgtologist wrote:
cmidkiff wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Pantacruel:
1.- Boston is not influential for any Prog band - so what
2.- Boston is not influenced directly by any Prog band - how do you know?
3.- Ay other non Prog added before doesn't justify the inclusion of Boston - sure it does, it sets precedence.
4.- Boston is not Prog - so what, half of the bands on this site are not prog
5.- Boston is not even Prog Related - if you use the same definition of "Prog Related" that got Queen, The Doors, ect. here, then it is.
6.- This is a Prog site, so we must priorize REALLY PROG BANDS - yea right, like thats happening
7.- Prog Related bands bneed to have some relevance in Prog. - not according to this site and the other bands that are here
8.- We shouldn't priorize Prog Related inclusions (Despite the fact that Boston is not even PR). - thats right, they shouldn't be here at all. Or maybe we should have "Almost Prog Related" as well
Iván
I see absolutely no reason.
Iván
|
|
I would like to remind you that the bands added to Prog Related and Proto Prog aren't added on a whim.They are very extensively discussed and often times hotly debated among the collaborators,sometimes for years(as in the case of LZ,who were being debated back when I first became a Collab).
All additions to these genres require the approval of the Admin Team,and some of the bands here are added at the direct order of the people who OWN this site.And if they want them here,they will be added here. |
Just because the owner wants a band here doesn't make them any more or less prog. Besides at this point the owner is probably more interested in web traffic (advertising revenue) then prog accuracy.
-------------
cmidkiff
|
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: March 15 2007 at 13:54
thellama73 wrote:
I don't see anything prog at all about Boston (although they do rock.)
Not to open up an old can of worms, but everything on Queen II is far
more proggy than anything Boston ever did.
p.s. Dio rules!
|
Not only Queen II, but most of their 70's albums.
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: March 15 2007 at 14:53
cmidkiff wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Pantacruel:
1.- Boston is not influential for any Prog band - so what
Prog Related is for bands that influenced or were influenced by Prog bands and have SOME Prog elements
2.- Boston is not influenced directly by any Prog band - how do you know?
Because I listen music, no band claims Boston as their MAIN influence (At least not any 100% Prog band that I know), and we all know Boston was not influentialñ for Prog.
What's next? Toto? Europe? Eagles?
3.- Any other non Prog added before doesn't justify the inclusion of Boston - sure it does, it sets precedence.
Every band is added BECAUSE OIF THEIR OWN CAREER, this is not a trial where precedence is a valid argument.
4.- Boston is not Prog - so what, half of the bands on this site are not prog
OK, lets add The Bee Gees, N'Sync and Britney because they are not Prog and according to you 50% of the bands here are not Prog...The Owners, Adms, Team Member, Collaborators and Members have expressed repeatedly that "If X why not Y band" is not a valid argument.
5.- Boston is not even Prog Related - if you use the same definition of "Prog Related" that got Queen, The Doors, ect. here, then it is.
"If X is here then why not Y" is not a valid arguent, as I said before, if you step over dog sh!t with your right foot, you don't step with the left one also to make it even.
The Doors is a Psychedelic band (100%), Queen has at least two Prog albums, Boston has nothing, and even if the first ones were not Prog, we should not fall in the same mistakes to make the problem and incoherences worst.
6.- This is a Prog site, so we must priorize REALLY PROG BANDS - yea right, like thats happening
Then give a solution, don't make the problem worst.
7.- Prog Related bands bneed to have some relevance in Prog. - not according to this site and the other bands that are here}
Yes according to the definition (Read it) and the mistakes that could have been done before don't justify a new one.
|
PROG RELATED
Rock and Pop Bands and Artists after 1970 who were not truly “prog” (as that term is generally and broadly defined, even by the site), but who were clearly not “mainstream” or simply “rock” bands.
Boston was simply an AOR Mainstream Rock band, nothing else
A wide subgenre that encompasses two kinds of bands/artist, that either consist of progressive artist that strayed away from their progressive roots into mainstream rock or were influenced by progressive rock.
This is not the case of Boston, they were never Prog or turned into Prog or were uinfluenced by Prog.
Even though the music by these artists is sometimes unrelated it had things in common with prog music in that it was very structured and even adventurous, sometimes hard or heavy, sometimes mellow, strong melodies, good hooks are an integral part of most of the material. Sometimes these artists pioneered other rock genres.
Again...not the case of Boston
Though most of these artist can't really be considered progressive themselves, their relation to progressive music is not to be underestimated.
There is no relation between Prog and Boston, this completely destroys their case....If they ever had one.
Garion81
http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive-rock.asp#38 - http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive-rock.asp#38
|
8.- We shouldn't priorize Prog Related inclusions (Despite the fact that Boston is not even PR). - thats right, they shouldn't be here at all. Or maybe we should have "Almost Prog Related" as well
Yeah, then lets make almost Symphonic, almost Neo Prog, almost Rock and almost musicians.
I like your solution, take out all Prog Related bands (ignoring that some of them have strong ties with Prog or accept anything, open the doors and allow everything, sorry but this is not rational, we need copmmon sense to decide what is Prog Related and wha is not.
If we accept Boston, lets change the name to "Prog, Almost Prog and Almost Related to Almost Prog Archives".
Iván
|
|
-------------
|
Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: March 15 2007 at 15:07
cmidkiff wrote:
4.- Boston is not Prog - so what, half of the bands on this site are not prog
|
I won't even bother to address your other comments, but this one is ridiculous. Have you been through the database? Proto and Related make up a small percentage of the artists listed on this site. Try going through just one of the sub-genres sometime.
Those of us involved with the content here, work very hard, and put in a lot of hours. All of this is on a volunteer basis. We do it out of love for the music, and we take it seriously. Every addition is considered with care. Collaborators from many teams will weigh in on just one candidate. So, don't insult us by making generalizations.
-------------
a.k.a. H.T.
http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com
|
Posted By: cmidkiff
Date Posted: March 15 2007 at 16:24
bhikkhu wrote:
cmidkiff wrote:
4.- Boston is not Prog - so what, half of the bands on this site are not prog
|
I won't even bother to address your other comments, but this one is ridiculous. Have you been through the database? Proto and Related make up a small percentage of the artists listed on this site. Try going through just one of the sub-genres sometime.
Those of us involved with the content here, work very hard, and put in a lot of hours. All of this is on a volunteer basis. We do it out of love for the music, and we take it seriously. Every addition is considered with care. Collaborators from many teams will weigh in on just one candidate. So, don't insult us by making generalizations.
|
Actually, my generalization is based on some of the other sub-genres (other then those two) not really being all that progressive as well.
-------------
cmidkiff
|
Posted By: cmidkiff
Date Posted: March 15 2007 at 16:51
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
cmidkiff wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Pantacruel:
1.- Boston is not influential for any Prog band - so what
Prog Related is for bands that influenced or were influenced by Prog bands and have SOME Prog elements
2.- Boston is not influenced directly by any Prog band - how do you know?
Because I listen music, no band claims Boston as their MAIN influence (At least not any 100% Prog band that I know), and we all know Boston was not influentialñ for Prog.
What's next? Toto? Europe? Eagles?
I doubt that you have ever talked to them(Boston), and I doubt that you have listened to every prog band.
3.- Any other non Prog added before doesn't justify the inclusion of Boston - sure it does, it sets precedence.
Every band is added BECAUSE OIF THEIR OWN CAREER, this is not a trial where precedence is a valid argument.
But is a valid argument, if you going to set a standard, then you need to stick with it.
4.- Boston is not Prog - so what, half of the bands on this site are not prog
OK, lets add The Bee Gees, N'Sync and Britney because they are not Prog and according to you 50% of the bands here are not Prog...The Owners, Adms, Team Member, Collaborators and Members have expressed repeatedly that "If X why not Y band" is not a valid argument.
Thats your opinion, I think it is a valid argument.
5.- Boston is not even Prog Related - if you use the same definition of "Prog Related" that got Queen, The Doors, ect. here, then it is.
"If X is here then why not Y" is not a valid arguent, as I said before, if you step over dog sh!t with your right foot, you don't step with the left one also to make it even.
The Doors is a Psychedelic band (100%), Queen has at least two Prog albums, Boston has nothing, and even if the first ones were not Prog, we should not fall in the same mistakes to make the problem and incoherences worst.
Yes, but you can remove the mistakes.
6.- This is a Prog site, so we must priorize REALLY PROG BANDS - yea right, like thats happening
Then give a solution, don't make the problem worst.
I already have.
7.- Prog Related bands bneed to have some relevance in Prog. - not according to this site and the other bands that are here}
Yes according to the definition (Read it) and the mistakes that could have been done before don't justify a new one.
As I said before mistakes could be removed, along with "Prog Related" as its not even a genre, it should be a reference at the most.
8.- We shouldn't priorize Prog Related inclusions (Despite the fact that Boston is not even PR). - thats right, they shouldn't be here at all. Or maybe we should have "Almost Prog Related" as well
Yeah, then lets make almost Symphonic, almost Neo Prog, almost Rock and almost musicians.
I like your solution, take out all Prog Related bands (ignoring that some of them have strong ties with Prog or accept anything, open the doors and allow everything, sorry but this is not rational, we need copmmon sense to decide what is Prog Related and wha is not.
If we accept Boston, lets change the name to "Prog, Almost Prog and Almost Related to Almost Prog Archives".
Iván
Actually, I'm not for the inclusion of Boston if thats what you are thinking. But I'm sure by now you know my arguments were more sarcastic and were more being against watering down the site with those other bands that are no more progressive then Boston.
|
|
|
-------------
cmidkiff
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: March 15 2007 at 21:56
cmidkiff wrote:
I doubt that you have ever talked to them(Boston), and I doubt that you have listened to every prog band.
1.- No, I haven't talked with them but I read their interviews and their official biographies in their website http://bandboston.com - http://bandboston.com , I could quote each and every Boston member declarations and tell you who they claim is theor main influence and no one mentions Prog artists, but I will focus only in Tom Sholz ad Brad Delp:
Tom Sholz: Animals, Kinks, Yardbirds, Jeff Beck, Joe Walsh, Jimmy Page and Ray Davies also mentions Tofdd Rundgren but only about his melodic style and he's not even a 100% Prog artist being that only UTOPIA is a Prog band from his list http://bandboston.com/html/ts_html.html - http://bandboston.com/html/ts_html.html
Brad Delp: The Beatles who we know are in Prog Related only because two or maybe three albums that don't sound at all like Boston, being closer o the first Pop era of the fab four. http://bandboston.com/html/bd_html.html - http://bandboston.com/html/bd_html.html
2.- I haven't neard EVERY Prog band, but have heard most of the main ones and at least 300 bands from Symphonic when doing a band by band check out for our team work plus several hundreed of other bands from different sub-genres, NONE sounds influenced by Boston.
Maybe a rare band somewhere may have been influenced by Boston, but this doesn't add relevance to their inclusion.
3.- Every Rock site descroibes Boston as AOR. Arena Rock or Pop Rock, nobody ever mentions them as Prog.
But is a valid argument, if you going to set a standard, then you need to stick with it.
There may be a couple of mistakes in Prog Related and some of them I have pointed, I don't ess non Prog bands in other genres.
I always stick to my argument.
Yes, but you can remove the mistakes.
No, because the policy set by the OWNERS, who created this site and pay for us having a good time here decided that when a band is added it can't be removed.
I agree with them, bands as STYX, Roxy Music or Asia have a strong relatio with Prog but not 100% in the genre, so there's no other place for them other than Prog Related
I already have.
No you are not giving a solution, you claim you know Boston is not a Prog band, but becauser there are a few non Prog bands added by mistake "Kets add them"
This is not a solution, this is making an existing problem even worst
As I said before mistakes could be removed, along with "Prog Related" as its not even a genre, it should be a reference at the most.
When you create your site and pay for it, you can decoide that Prog Related and the bands you want can be removed, in the meanwhile, you have to accept what the owbers want, and believe me they have their reasons.
Now about Prog Related, I believe it's necesary, bands as STYX, Be Bop Deluxe, Toxy Music ans ASIA or artists as Greg Lake dobn't make 100% Prog music, but they are important fopr the genre, so there must have a place and that's Prog Related.
Actually, I'm not for the inclusion of Boston if thats what you are thinking. But I'm sure by now you know my arguments were more sarcastic and were more being against watering down the site with those other bands that are no more progressive then Boston.
Then don't make us loose our time replying constantly with silly arguments, but I don't find any band less Progressive than Boston, not a single one.
Iván
|
-------------
|
Posted By: Chris H
Date Posted: March 15 2007 at 21:59
cmidkiff wrote:
bhikkhu wrote:
cmidkiff wrote:
4.- Boston is not Prog - so what, half of the bands on this site are not prog
|
I won't even bother to address your other comments, but this one is ridiculous. Have you been through the database? Proto and Related make up a small percentage of the artists listed on this site. Try going through just one of the sub-genres sometime.
Those of us involved with the content here, work very hard, and put in a lot of hours. All of this is on a volunteer basis. We do it out of love for the music, and we take it seriously. Every addition is considered with care. Collaborators from many teams will weigh in on just one candidate. So, don't insult us by making generalizations.
|
Actually, my generalization is based on some of the other sub-genres (other then those two) not really being all that progressive as well. |
You should quit while you're behind.
-------------
Beauty will save the world.
|
Posted By: E-Dub
Date Posted: March 15 2007 at 22:01
bhikkhu wrote:
E-Dub wrote:
rileydog22 wrote:
Not even close. They don't strike me as progressive in the least. For that matter, neither are Zeppelin or Queen. I guess Boston wouldn't be a huge step in the recent trend of incorperating every single classic rock band into the Prog Related section.
|
I agree. I voted 'yes' because of the others inclusion. I think what finally did it for me was allowing Split Enz to be prog related. If anything, The Cure are a ton more prog than they are, but I don't even consider them prog related.
E |
Have you heard Split Enz early albums? I would have agreed with you until I heard "Mental Notes." It's nothing like their '80s stuff. I also think the Cure deserve some consideration. But the stigma about '80s bands obscures objectivity.
Boston may have had some leanings in a prog direction, but a few decent keyboard parts do not make prog.
|
No, but maybe I'd reconsider if I did. I'm just going from what I've heard.
Songs like "Fascination Street" and "From The Edge Of The Deep Green Sea" have some progginess to them. I still think of them as a goth alt band, for the most part.
E
-------------
|
Posted By: cmidkiff
Date Posted: March 16 2007 at 08:40
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
cmidkiff wrote:
I doubt that you have ever talked to them(Boston), and I doubt that you have listened to every prog band.
1.- No, I haven't talked with them but I read their interviews and their official biographies in their website http://bandboston.com - http://bandboston.com , I could quote each and every Boston member declarations and tell you who they claim is theor main influence and no one mentions Prog artists, but I will focus only in Tom Sholz ad Brad Delp:
Tom Sholz: Animals, Kinks, Yardbirds, Jeff Beck, Joe Walsh, Jimmy Page and Ray Davies also mentions Tofdd Rundgren but only about his melodic style and he's not even a 100% Prog artist being that only UTOPIA is a Prog band from his list http://bandboston.com/html/ts_html.html - http://bandboston.com/html/ts_html.html
Brad Delp: The Beatles who we know are in Prog Related only because two or maybe three albums that don't sound at all like Boston, being closer o the first Pop era of the fab four. http://bandboston.com/html/bd_html.html - http://bandboston.com/html/bd_html.html
2.- I haven't neard EVERY Prog band, but have heard most of the main ones and at least 300 bands from Symphonic when doing a band by band check out for our team work plus several hundreed of other bands from different sub-genres, NONE sounds influenced by Boston.
Maybe a rare band somewhere may have been influenced by Boston, but this doesn't add relevance to their inclusion.
3.- Every Rock site descroibes Boston as AOR. Arena Rock or Pop Rock, nobody ever mentions them as Prog.
But is a valid argument, if you going to set a standard, then you need to stick with it.
There may be a couple of mistakes in Prog Related and some of them I have pointed, I don't ess non Prog bands in other genres.
I always stick to my argument.
Yes, but you can remove the mistakes.
No, because the policy set by the OWNERS, who created this site and pay for us having a good time here decided that when a band is added it can't be removed.
I agree with them, bands as STYX, Roxy Music or Asia have a strong relatio with Prog but not 100% in the genre, so there's no other place for them other than Prog Related
I already have.
No you are not giving a solution, you claim you know Boston is not a Prog band, but becauser there are a few non Prog bands added by mistake "Kets add them"
This is not a solution, this is making an existing problem even worst
As I said before mistakes could be removed, along with "Prog Related" as its not even a genre, it should be a reference at the most.
When you create your site and pay for it, you can decoide that Prog Related and the bands you want can be removed, in the meanwhile, you have to accept what the owbers want, and believe me they have their reasons.
Now about Prog Related, I believe it's necesary, bands as STYX, Be Bop Deluxe, Toxy Music ans ASIA or artists as Greg Lake dobn't make 100% Prog music, but they are important fopr the genre, so there must have a place and that's Prog Related.
Actually, I'm not for the inclusion of Boston if thats what you are thinking. But I'm sure by now you know my arguments were more sarcastic and were more being against watering down the site with those other bands that are no more progressive then Boston.
Then don't make us loose our time replying constantly with silly arguments, but I don't find any band less Progressive than Boston, not a single one.
Iván
|
|
Policys can be changed, mistakes can be fixed, but my main point is that "Prog Related" is not a genre of music, and it should be here as a referance only, instead of watering down the site with allot of those bands that have no relevance, but are here anyway. I'm not saying it shouldn't be here at all as some of those bands are relevent.
Of coarse the owners can decide whatever they want, its there site. If they want to add disco as a sub-genre then who can stop them, its their site. However, it won't make disco any more progressive. I know they have thier reasons, the wider the range of bands here the more traffic the site will generate.
If I had the time and knew how to design websites I would make one.
...The Doors are no more progressive then Boston.
-------------
cmidkiff
|
Posted By: Mandrakeroot
Date Posted: March 16 2007 at 08:59
|
CMIDKIFF and IVAN_MELGAR_M wrotes:
"7.- Prog Related bands bneed to have some relevance in Prog. - not according to this site and the other bands that are here}
Yes according to the definition (Read it) and the mistakes that could have been done before don't justify a new one.
|
PROG RELATED
Rock and Pop Bands and Artists after 1970 who
were not truly “prog” (as that term is generally and broadly defined,
even by the site), but who were clearly not “mainstream” or simply “rock” bands.
Boston was simply an AOR Mainstream Rock band, nothing else
A wide subgenre that encompasses two kinds of bands/artist,
that either consist of progressive artist that strayed away from their
progressive roots into mainstream rock or were influenced by
progressive rock.
This is not the case of Boston, they were never Prog or turned into Prog or were uinfluenced by Prog.
Even though the music by these artists is sometimes unrelated it had things in common with prog music in that it was very structured and even adventurous,
sometimes hard or heavy, sometimes mellow, strong melodies, good hooks
are an integral part of most of the material. Sometimes these artists
pioneered other rock genres.
Again...not the case of Boston
Though most of these artist can't really be considered progressive themselves, their relation to progressive music is not to be underestimated.
There is no relation between Prog and Boston, this completely destroys their case....If they ever had one.
Garion81
../Progressive-rock.asp#38 - http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive-rock.asp#38" |
I ANSWER:
" Certainty that the Boston is exclusively an AOR band. In fact I haven't ever heard a Prog musician that have claim to be itself instigator to the Boston. That they haven't not even the structure of the songs to to be considered Prog Related (does that a certain amount, Asia and BOC have in good measure). Instead a lot of Prog Metal bands besides the Pink Floyd and Yes (or Genesis) cite also Deep Purple, Queen etc. that are a lot more Prog of how much you are thought.
For this also I am opposite to the insertion of the Boston in PA."
-------------
|
Posted By: Chris H
Date Posted: March 16 2007 at 10:32
|
This thread is getting more and more confusing by the second!
Can't we just sum it all up and say that Boston does not belong here, bands cannot be deleted from the archives, and stop suggesting bands that have no ties to prog "just because Led Zeppelin is here".
Okay?
-------------
Beauty will save the world.
|
Posted By: The Whistler
Date Posted: March 17 2007 at 01:45
thellama73 wrote:
I don't see anything prog at all about Boston (although they do rock.) Not to open up an old can of worms, but everything on Queen II is far more proggy than anything Boston ever did.
p.s. Dio rules!
|
f**k yeah!
-------------
"There seem to be quite a large percentage of young American boys out there tonight. A long way from home, eh? Well so are we... Gotta stick together." -I. Anderson
|
Posted By: Thyme Traveler
Date Posted: March 17 2007 at 19:54
|
I think the problem is that some people seem to be confused and think:
- prog = great music therefore great music = prog
- prog = innovative music therefore innovative music = prog
prog is a subset of great and innovative music (and many would argue the "prog circle" may simply overlap the other two with much of prog being neither innovative nor great music.
this website is designed to be a thorough guide to the genre of progressive rock, not all music which is great and innovative. Otherwise, why not add classical music ?Beethoven wrote great very innovative music(and one could even argue influenced many more prog bands than Boston, but he was not prog (or even rock) and should not be on this site. Boston had a couple of great AOR albums which were innovative. But once again, great innovative music is not the same thing as prog.
As Ivan stated, if it's not prog, it had better at least be related to, influenced by, or influence prog acts to be considered prog related.
btw. in my time travels, I spoke with Beethoven and introduced him to prog. He likes Genesis, Yes, and Camel, but is rather annoyed by Gentle Giant.
-------------
Fire up the flux capacitor ! We're taking this Delorean through all four dimensions.
What is the future of prog ? Genesis reunion ? I'm not telling!That could upset the thyme/space continuum.
|
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: March 17 2007 at 19:57
Thyme Traveler wrote:
I think the problem is that some people seem to be confused and think:
- prog = great music therefore great music = prog
- prog = innovative music therefore innovative music = prog
prog is a subset of great and innovative music (and many would argue the "prog circle" may simply overlap the other two with much of prog being neither innovative nor great music.
this website is designed to be a thorough guide to the genre of progressive rock, not all music which is great and innovative. Otherwise, why not add classical music ?Beethoven wrote great very innovative music(and one could even argue influenced many more prog bands than Boston, but he was not prog (or even rock) and should not be on this site. Boston had a couple of great AOR albums which were innovative. But once again, great innovative music is not the same thing as prog.
As Ivan stated, if it's not prog, it had better at least be related to, influenced by, or influence prog acts to be considered prog related.
btw. in my time travels, I spoke with Beethoven and introduced him to prog. He likes Genesis, Yes, and Camel, but is rather annoyed by Gentle Giant. |
I thought you travelled in thyme?
-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Thyme Traveler
Date Posted: March 17 2007 at 20:06
Snow Dog wrote:
Thyme Traveler wrote:
I think the problem is that some people seem to be confused and think:
- prog = great music therefore great music = prog
- prog = innovative music therefore innovative music = prog
prog is a subset of great and innovative music (and many would argue the "prog circle" may simply overlap the other two with much of prog being neither innovative nor great music.
this website is designed to be a thorough guide to the genre of progressive rock, not all music which is great and innovative. Otherwise, why not add classical music ?Beethoven wrote great very innovative music(and one could even argue influenced many more prog bands than Boston, but he was not prog (or even rock) and should not be on this site. Boston had a couple of great AOR albums which were innovative. But once again, great innovative music is not the same thing as prog.
As Ivan stated, if it's not prog, it had better at least be related to, influenced by, or influence prog acts to be considered prog related.
btw. in my time travels, I spoke with Beethoven and introduced him to prog. He likes Genesis, Yes, and Camel, but is rather annoyed by Gentle Giant. |
I thought you travelled in thyme? |
Darn. Leave it to Snow Dog to catch my spelling mistake before I could fix it. I guess I could go back in thyme and rewrite it, but then Snow Dog would never post his follow up, and that could lead to a cascading effect which might lead Snow Dog to never add Britney Spears to the archives two years from now. (Not saying he will, but he might...)
-------------
Fire up the flux capacitor ! We're taking this Delorean through all four dimensions.
What is the future of prog ? Genesis reunion ? I'm not telling!That could upset the thyme/space continuum.
|
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: March 17 2007 at 20:25
Thyme Traveler wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
Thyme Traveler wrote:
I think the problem is that some people seem to be confused and think:
- prog = great music therefore great music = prog
- prog = innovative music therefore innovative music = prog
prog is a subset of great and innovative music (and many would argue the "prog circle" may simply overlap the other two with much of prog being neither innovative nor great music.
this website is designed to be a thorough guide to the genre of progressive rock, not all music which is great and innovative. Otherwise, why not add classical music ?Beethoven wrote great very innovative music(and one could even argue influenced many more prog bands than Boston, but he was not prog (or even rock) and should not be on this site. Boston had a couple of great AOR albums which were innovative. But once again, great innovative music is not the same thing as prog.
As Ivan stated, if it's not prog, it had better at least be related to, influenced by, or influence prog acts to be considered prog related.
btw. in my time travels, I spoke with Beethoven and introduced him to prog. He likes Genesis, Yes, and Camel, but is rather annoyed by Gentle Giant. |
I thought you travelled in thyme? |
Darn. Leave it to Snow Dog to catch my spelling mistake before I could fix it. I guess I could go back in thyme and rewrite it, but then Snow Dog would never post his follow up, and that could lead to a cascading effect which might lead Snow Dog to never add Britney Spears to the archives two years from now. (Not saying he will, but he might...) |
In two years thyme, Britney will be producing some fine Prog. (Presuming that we make the relevent changes in the thyme stream!)
Ahh thyme, one of my favourite herbs to travel through. So fragrant, and so many anomalies!
-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Kotro
Date Posted: March 18 2007 at 11:06
| What's next? Toto? Europe? Eagles? |
Just out of curiosity, has anyone heard Toto's 2006 album? That alone should grant them entry in PA.
-------------
Bigger on the inside.
|
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: March 18 2007 at 11:08
Kotro wrote:
| What's next? Toto? Europe? Eagles? |
Just out of curiosity, has anyone heard Toto's 2006 album? That alone should grant them entry in PA. |
Toto, we aren't in Kansas anymore......
-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Kotro
Date Posted: March 18 2007 at 14:21
Snow Dog wrote:
Kotro wrote:
| What's next? Toto? Europe? Eagles? |
Just out of curiosity, has anyone heard Toto's 2006 album? That alone should grant them entry in PA. |
Toto, we aren't in Kansas anymore...... |
And in Neo-Prog, not Prog-Related! Seriously, I've seen aditions based on a lot less merit. And again I'm not just refering to Prog-Related...
-------------
Bigger on the inside.
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: March 18 2007 at 20:00
|
Now TOTO 
How many albums dies TOTO has? 23!!!!!!
How many 100% Prog? NONE
How many remotely related? I will accept your word about one because I haven't heard it.
This doesn't justify an inclusion...NEO PROG?????
Please read the definition of Neo Prog. it doesn't mean new Prog, it's a defined sub-genre in which Toto has never fit.
Iván
-------------
|
Posted By: Kotro
Date Posted: March 19 2007 at 07:21
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Now TOTO
How many albums dies TOTO has? 23!!!!!!
How many 100% Prog? NONE
How many remotely related? I will accept your word about one because I haven't heard it.
This doesn't justify an inclusion...NEO PROG?????
Please read the definition of Neo Prog. it doesn't mean new Prog, it's a defined sub-genre in which Toto has never fit.
Iván |
It's so easy to piss you Prog Purists off, it's not even challenging...
And I'm sorry, Ivan, but Toto's 2006 Falling in Between is 90% Neo-Prog according to PA's definition. 
And your argument that one prog album does not make an artist worthy of inclusion has long been proven wrong. 
-------------
Bigger on the inside.
|
Posted By: Thyme Traveler
Date Posted: March 19 2007 at 11:32
Kotro wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Now TOTO
How many albums dies TOTO has? 23!!!!!!
How many 100% Prog? NONE
How many remotely related? I will accept your word about one because I haven't heard it.
This doesn't justify an inclusion...NEO PROG?????
Please read the definition of Neo Prog. it doesn't mean new Prog, it's a defined sub-genre in which Toto has never fit.
Iván |
It's so easy to piss you Prog Purists off, it's not even challenging...
And I'm sorry, Ivan, but Toto's 2006 Falling in Between is 90% Neo-Prog according to PA's definition.
And your argument that one prog album does not make an artist worthy of inclusion has long been proven wrong. |
Which band(s) was included based on simply one album(talking about a band with a long career span, not a band with only a few albums ?
I acknowledge that a single album can perhaps define a bands career, but a band with a very long history of a certain genre of music who changes direction for one album does not all of a sudden make that band belong to a certain genre of music. Established bands often experiment with new styles late in their career.
If I wrong, let me know so I can go to discoarchives.com and suggest ELP for their archive. Certainly the album cover of Love Beach alone makes them a disco group !
-------------
Fire up the flux capacitor ! We're taking this Delorean through all four dimensions.
What is the future of prog ? Genesis reunion ? I'm not telling!That could upset the thyme/space continuum.
|
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: March 19 2007 at 11:33
|
I think this thread has definitely run its course, especially as the Admin team have agreed about NOT adding Boston to the site's database.
|
|
