Proto-Prog and Prog-Related Lounge - New Definition for Prog Related

Print Page | Close Window

New Definition for Prog Related

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=41091
Printed Date: December 04 2024 at 14:08
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com

Topic: New Definition for Prog Related

Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Subject: New Definition for Prog Related
Date Posted: August 21 2007 at 13:03

As promised to Bob (Easy Livin’), a couple of weeks ago I wrote a new definition for Prog Related that has already been approved by the Adm Team and thanks to the efforts of Bob:

Prog Related

Progressive rock is not a separate universe in music, it’s a genre among many others, a voice in the chorus and as part of a biggest scenario has points of contact with other musical genres.

Prog Related is the category that groups bands and artists that:

- Without being 100% Prog, received clear MUSICAL influence of this genre.

- Are widely accepted as MUSICALLY influential to the development of Progressive Rock by the community,

- Blend characteristics of Progressive Rock with mainstream elements creating a final product that despite not being part of the genre is evident that are close to Prog.

We specify the word MUSICAL because simple performance of a determined instrument in a Prog or mainstream band is not justification enough to include an artist, no matter how virtuoso he/she may be, Prog Archives has to evaluate their compositional work because the music is what determines the characteristics of a band or an artist.

Prog Related bands are not considered part of the genre but they have contributed in some form in the development of Progressive Rock, the inclusion of a band is exceptional and only after verifying that it’s a contribution for the better understanding of Prog among the members and visitors instead of a source of confusion for the community.

Iván Melgar Morey

http://www.progarchives.com/subgenre.asp?style=38 - http://www.progarchives.com/subgenre.asp?style=38

I tried to emphasize certain requirements to be added like:

Being MUSICALLY influential to Prog: Not technical, not making a great performance but making music which is the reason why we are here, there’s also an additional requirement, being WIDELY ACCEPTED as influential, I know this may be subjecticve, but we can't avoid all teh aleatory elememnts from a definition...Buit be honest with yourselfs even if you publicly don't accept it, we all know when a band is widely accepted as prog and when not despite all the arguments.
Being MUSICALLY influenced by Prog.
Blend Prog and mainstream Characteristics.

It’s also emphasized the RXCEPTIONAL characteristic of an addition of a band to Prog Related,. It’s not our main purpose, not even the second main purpose, it’s exceptional and left to the criteria of the Administrators Team.

To end it’s also important to notice that we recognize a Prog Related band IS NOT A PROGRESSIVE BAND and for that reason shouldn’t cause problems among some members (including myself) because it doesn’t affect the integrity and/or coherence of Progressive Rock.

Thanks Easy Livin’ for your help.

Iván

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

Replies:

Posted By: el böthy
Date Posted: August 21 2007 at 15:09

I approve it... so you know it´s good jejejeje

-------------
"You want me to play what, Robert?"

Posted By: rileydog22
Date Posted: August 21 2007 at 15:15

You're such a lawyer, Ivan!

Excellent definition, should clear up a lot of the confusion that happens when guys like Led Zeppelin or the Who get added.

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

Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: August 21 2007 at 15:23

I agree, makes PR very clear cut. Unforunatly there will still be people complaining. Ermm

-------------
Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005

Posted By: cookieacquired
Date Posted: August 21 2007 at 15:24

Very nicely phrased, this new definition should end some squabbles

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

Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: August 21 2007 at 16:03

Nice ... here's a few suggestions though:

- It should be called "category" instead of "genre" ... it's really not a genre of music.
- it could be made more clear that the three conditions are alternatives ... most prog-related bands only satisfy one of them, and people might think that's not enough.

Smile

-------------
https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:

Posted By: ProgBagel
Date Posted: August 21 2007 at 16:08

Great as always Ivan!

Posted By: Chicapah
Date Posted: August 21 2007 at 16:34

Good work, Ivan!

-------------
"Literature is well enough, as a time-passer, and for the improvement and general elevation and purification of mankind, but it has no practical value" - Mark Twain

Posted By: StyLaZyn
Date Posted: August 21 2007 at 16:41

I thought this genre was for musicians related to other musicians in Prog. I bet its a hell of a jam around the holidays.

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

Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: August 21 2007 at 16:58

Mike en Regalía wrote:

Nice ... here's a few suggestions though:

Always welcomed Mike

- It should be called "category" instead of "genre" ... it's really not a genre of music.

If you read the definition, I never called Prog Related a sub-genre, as a fact read the third line of the definition:

Definition:

Prog Related is the category that groups bands and artists that:

Any mention of the word GENRE is referred to Progressive Rock, if it was referred to Prog Related it would say Sub-Genre.

- it could be made more clear that the three conditions are alternatives ... most prog-related bands only satisfy one of them, and people might think that's not enough.

That’s a good idea, as in the definitive version of Art Rock definition I wrote (Already deleted), I included the words OR in two places, I will ask Bob to do so, like this:

Definition should say:

Prog Related is the category that groups bands and artists that:

- Without being 100% Prog, received clear MUSICAL influence of this genre, OR

- Are widely accepted as MUSICALLY influential to the development of Progressive Rock by the community, OR

- Blend characteristics of Progressive Rock with mainstream elements creating a final product that despite not being part of the genre is evident that are close to Prog.

I believe that would solve the slight problem, I will ask Bob to make the the addiotion of the two words, don’t know how I could forget them.

Iván

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

Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: August 21 2007 at 17:04

^ sorry about the genre/category thing ... I misread the first sentence of your definition (I read "Prog-Related is not a separate universe in music, it’s a genre among many others" Wink

)

-------------
https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:

Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: August 21 2007 at 17:07

The new one's far better than the old one! Good work.

Posted By: Melomaniac
Date Posted: August 21 2007 at 17:10

Now : can we talk about The Police's inclusion in prog-related ???

They influenced quite a few prog acts in the 80's most notably Rush (Vital SIgns, Signals and Grace Under Pressure).

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

Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: August 21 2007 at 17:12

MikeEnRegalia wrote:

^ sorry about the genre/category thing ... I misread the first sentence of your definition (I read "Prog-Related is not a separate universe in music, it’s a genre among many others" Wink

)

Don't worry, this are visual problems proper of iour advanced age

Thanks to you and the other members for the support.

Iván

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

Posted By: Easy Money
Date Posted: August 21 2007 at 17:17

Nice definition, I guess this is where Jimi Hendrix and David Bowie belong.

Posted By: Rivertree
Date Posted: August 21 2007 at 17:21

Well done, Ivan Clap

This is a good example for improving our site - and finally a good example for a collective effort Thumbs%20Up

-------------
https://awesomeprog.com/users/Rivertree" rel="nofollow">

Posted By: andu
Date Posted: August 21 2007 at 19:29

I liked the old definition, but this is even better, because of the explained reasons. Could we somewhere keep the old definition, for the record? Like, in the "Documents" page.
Good work.

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

Posted By: Yorkie X
Date Posted: August 21 2007 at 23:00

If prog related is not a Genre ... whats it doing here ? Confused

(would prefer it if it was gone actually)

Posted By: rileydog22
Date Posted: August 21 2007 at 23:17

Melomaniac wrote:

Now : can we talk about The Police's inclusion in prog-related ???

They influenced quite a few prog acts in the 80's most notably Rush (Vital SIgns, Signals and Grace Under Pressure).

Except that Rush wasn't a prog act in the 80's.

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

Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: August 21 2007 at 23:44

Yorkie X wrote:

If prog related is not a Genre ... whats it doing here ? Confused

(would prefer it if it was gone actually)

A genre or more precisely a Prog SUB-GENRE groups bands with a similar sound or common root of influence, that's the case of Symphonic, Fusion or Neo Prog, in a perfect world we would have only sub-genres.

But this is art and art is far from structural perfection, ASIA or STYX made their music iinfluenced by Prog bands but they never were part of a defined SUB-GENRE, but they must be mentioned.

But as Asia we have bands in the same situation with other mainstream influences that may be AOR, POP, Disco, Rock & Roll, etc, and we need to place them somewhere.

So being all so different,we can't create a sub-genre wide enough to contain the elements present in all of them, the only solution is a category that groups bands with only something in common, they are somehow related to ´prog despite their different backgrounds.

If you don't like it, you have 20 sub-genres to investighate and nearly 12,000 albums in other sub.genres, so you can expend a lifetime not having the need to visit Prog Related once.

If we understand that the addition of a Prog Related band is exceptional and not a priority, there should not be problems.

And believe me, I am, the member who has probably disagreed with more Prog Related inclusions, but I would be blind to reality if I didn't knew we need this category becase some non 100% Prog bands were so important for the genre or are so related that have to be mentioned.

Cheers.

Iván

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

Posted By: Barla
Date Posted: August 21 2007 at 23:53

Well done, Iván, now there isn't any confusion about this topic! Clap

-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/Barla/?chartstyle=LastfmMyspace">

Posted By: Yorkie X
Date Posted: August 22 2007 at 04:19

Thanks for taking the time to explain things Ivan Tongue

Posted By: Mandrakeroot
Date Posted: August 24 2007 at 19:24

Great, Ivàn!

Prog Related, in every case is Music Progressive, not Progressive Music. Change the order... Changes all!!!

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

Posted By: Seyo
Date Posted: August 30 2007 at 16:42

Without intention to disrespect Ivan's hard worked, I am still not clear about definitions of PP and PR.

These were the old ones:

Proto-Prog

Rock Bands in existence prior to 1969 that influenced the development of progressive rock.

Prog Related:

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.

Now you say again that inter alia prog related bands are those who influnced development of prog rock. But that was already covered by proto-prog? Or am I missing something?

Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: August 30 2007 at 17:02

Seyo wrote:

Without intention to disrespect Ivan's hard worked, I am still not clear about definitions of PP and PR.

These were the old ones:

Proto-Prog

Rock Bands in existence prior to 1969 that influenced the development of progressive rock.

Prog Related:

Now you say again that inter alia prog related bands are those who influnced development of prog rock. But that was already covered by proto-prog? Or am I missing something?

I understand it, mostly because none of the sub-genres or categories is really very clear.

IMO Proto Prog is mainly the link between Psyche and Prog, bands that had achieved all the requirements to be considered fully Prog, but not developed them yet, in Prog Archives Proto Prog are all bands that influenced Prog before 1969.

Again IMHO this is not correct, this is too wide and ambiguous, but not my call.

To see how the definition should be understood, you only need to check all the Proto Prog bands, you will discover that except The Who each and every Protto Prog band has Psychedellic elements.

Now Prog related is created to be confusing, because is not an homogenous sub-genre but a wide category that groups dfferent bands with different roots and influences that probably have nothing in common except that they:

Are not Prog bands but
Fall in one of this three characteristics

Influenced Progressive Rock bands, or
Were influenced by Prog bands or
Have some Prog elements.

So I understand your confusion.

Iván

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

Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: August 31 2007 at 12:10

Sorry for being rushed, but I am writing from a library (no Internet at home yet). Anyway, kudos to Ivan for the great new definition - though I have to say I don't think it'll stop people from whining, and for a very simple reason. There are people here who simply
REFUSE to understand that PP and PR are NOT Prog, because if they did they would be forced to stop attacking others every time a controversial new addition is made.

Sorry for being so disillusioned about it, but this is what over two years of PA have taught me Cry

...

Posted By: Mandrakeroot
Date Posted: September 03 2007 at 05:03

Ghost Rider wrote:

Sorry for being rushed, but I am writing from a library (no Internet at home yet). Anyway, kudos to Ivan for the great new definition - though I have to say I don't think it'll stop people from whining, and for a very simple reason. There are people here who simply
REFUSE to understand that PP and PR are NOT Prog, because if they did they would be forced to stop attacking others every time a controversial new addition is made.

Sorry for being so disillusioned about it, but this is what over two years of PA have taught me Cry

...

this is fundamental. Proper for this reason I think that the 60's production of Manfred mann is a great example of Proto Prog. But proper for this reason I think that Wishbone Ash and Rainbow wouldn't be badly in the Heavy Prog.

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

Posted By: DoctorJimmy
Date Posted: September 03 2007 at 22:23

Excelente

Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: September 04 2007 at 00:40

Mandrakeroot wrote:

this is fundamental. Proper for this reason I think that the 60's production of Manfred mann is a great example of Proto Prog. But proper for this reason I think that Wishbone Ash and Rainbow wouldn't be badly in the Heavy Prog.

Mandy, already on another thread Easy Livin has explained the new sub-genres are only for 100% Prog bands from ART ROCK.

Art Rock has splitted to be more easy to manage but this doesn't turn bands that have been cataliogued and approved by the Adm Team as Prog Related or Proto Prog into full Prog bands.

Wishbone Ash and Rainbow are heavy yes, BUT NOT PROG AT ALL, the fact that Art Rock split, doesn't change that.

Iván

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

Posted By: Seyo
Date Posted: September 04 2007 at 03:58

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Seyo wrote:

Without intention to disrespect Ivan's hard worked, I am still not clear about definitions of PP and PR.

These were the old ones:

Proto-Prog

Rock Bands in existence prior to 1969 that influenced the development of progressive rock.

Prog Related:

Now you say again that inter alia prog related bands are those who influnced development of prog rock. But that was already covered by proto-prog? Or am I missing something?

I understand it, mostly because none of the sub-genres or categories is really very clear.

Again IMHO this is not correct, this is too wide and ambiguous, but not my call.

To see how the definition should be understood, you only need to check all the Proto Prog bands, you will discover that except The Who each and every Protto Prog band has Psychedellic elements. (I would add blues elements too)

Are not Prog bands but
Fall in one of this three characteristics
1. Influenced Progressive Rock bands (I guess this means after 1969?), or
2. Were influenced by Prog bands or
3. Have some Prog elements.

So I understand your confusion.

Iván

Thank you for elaborating again!