No Longer Prog!
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Site News, Newbies, Help and Improvements
Forum Name: Help us improve the site
Forum Description: Help us improve the forums, and the site as a whole
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=89908
Printed Date: December 04 2024 at 10:01
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: No Longer Prog!
Posted By: Bosh66
Subject: No Longer Prog!
Date Posted: October 03 2012 at 04:04
|
I appreciate that bringing this suggestion up is a little like picking at an old scab so it doesn’t heal, but there has to be some way that ProgArchives can accommodate progressive rock albums by non-prog bands without compromising the integrity of the archive. Or there has to be, in my opinion. Not doing so means that these same bands will continue to be suggested, and more importantly the archive will arguably be missing some important albums in the development of the genre. As a suggestion, could we not create entries for bands limited to a time period? A similar approach has been taken for the Ian Gillan Band. Albums by Gillan after the name was changed are not included, but IGB output quite rightly is. This approach would be more difficult for a band that has a couple of prog albums spread through their discography, but some artists lend themselves nicely to this approach. Here are some (possibly controversial) suggestions by way of example; UFO (to 1973) would contain 3 albums (including UFO Live), possibly in Space or Heavy Prog. Later albums have no place in the archive. Scorpions (to 1973) – two albums in heavy or krautrock including a live album. Later albums have no place. Judas Priest (to 1976/7) – 2/3 albums in heavy prog. Later albums have no place. A more controversial suggestion perhaps, and would you want to include Nostradamus? Deep Purple (to 1970) – 3 studio and some live albums in Heavy Prog. The remainder of the discography to remain in prog-related. The first three studios are prog, not prog-related. Journey (to 1977) – 3 albums in jr/f with the remainder in prog-related given they are already on the site and have lots of reviews. There are undoubtably a good number of other bands this approach could be applied to. It's not about opening the floodgates, rather than managing a situation that to me is currently unsatisfactory. This suggestion is only for bands who had a progressive period, rather than bands that are “proggy” without being prog. They remain in Prog-related. I’ve a feeling this will get flamed, but thought I’d raise it anyway! |
Replies:
Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: October 03 2012 at 05:40
|
Why do you care about bands like Deep Purple or Scorpions, 99.96% of people that would ever look into a PA, knows who they are and what they did. So it does not matter the last little bit if they are put into Heavy Prog, Prog Related or not at PA at all. The thing is, 98% of rock in the 70's had a prog element. That why i would allways suggest a very strick policy on 70's music
------------- Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours |
Posted By: Bosh66
Date Posted: October 03 2012 at 06:02
| Well Deep Purple are (rightly) on here as Prog Related already. I do understand your sentiment, but I suppose I differentiate between a band that was (for some period) a progressive rock band, and a band that incorporated progressive influences or movements into their music (Wishbone Ash, Queen, The Who etc). There were lots of the latter to varying degrees, especially as you say in the 1970s, but less of the former. I care about the former partly because I think people exploring the genre may not be aware of these progressive rock albums. I don't care enough for it to keep me awake at night, but I think it's a gap we should and could easily close. |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: October 03 2012 at 06:26
|
^Proto Prog actually, but I don't like your idea could it could star the the idea of the removal of albums. For example DP are Proto Prog so any album that isn't should be removed. Or they would become a two or three, even four genre band. eg Proto Prog Prog Realted Heavy Rock Blues bRock ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: Bosh66
Date Posted: October 03 2012 at 06:56
|
Proto-prog may be closer, I'm fine with that, although stylistically early DP do remind me of bands like Quatermass and their ilk.
Not many bands would become multi-genre as the bands already on this site to which this may apply will be in prog-related, and it would realistically only be two genres (Prog and proggy). Of course, you could leave the likes of Purple and Journey as they are and where they are. More important is accommodating bands that moved away (or possibly into) the prog realm that we have no room for at the moment. These would be assessed as any suggested band is currently as to their relevance. The only difference is that their discography would be restricted chronologically.
What I'm not suggesting here is tagging albums by style or sub-genre. That's altogether a more complex discussion.
|
Posted By: irrelevant
Date Posted: October 03 2012 at 07:19
But tagging would be more useful IMO. Also according to the site, to be included in the database, an artist only needs one album of fully prog material anyway. ------------- https://gabebuller.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow - New album! http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=7385" rel="nofollow - http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=7385 |
Bosh66 wrote:Posted By: Bosh66
Date Posted: October 03 2012 at 07:31
|
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: October 03 2012 at 07:41
|
It is a little annoying that albums like Kind Of Blue end up at the top of the Jazz Rock/Fusion charts when there's nothing fusion about them.
------------- 
|
Posted By: irrelevant
Date Posted: October 03 2012 at 07:47
------------- https://gabebuller.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow - New album! http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=7385" rel="nofollow - http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=7385 |
Posted By: Bosh66
Date Posted: October 03 2012 at 07:56
And now I've just alienated the jazz enthusiasts 
|
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: October 03 2012 at 08:01
That's okay, that's why we have Jazz Music Archives. -------------
|
Posted By: Bosh66
Date Posted: October 03 2012 at 08:03
|
Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: October 03 2012 at 10:50
|
The best would be genre by album, but its just a very huge task for the grene admins, to go trough every album by every artist. Can imagine trying to spilt everything by Zappa into the right category. Not to mention how angry fans would be if albums already on PA was removed, is every Genesis album prog ? How many Beatles albums are proto, ect ect, would be endless debates. What we got is far from perfect, but its hard to make it a lot better. Unless you are prepared to start everything all over, I doubt that will ever happen. ------------- Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours |
Posted By: Bosh66
Date Posted: October 03 2012 at 11:03
| I kind of agree with you tamijo. We likely have to accept that not all albums will be in the correct genre. Many many prog bands flit between genres, and as you suggest between prog and non-prog. That wasn't what I was suggesting we do in the OP though. Adding the first three UFO albums for example has no impact on the rest of the site. Adding all UFO albums would have a negative impact on the site (even though there are proggy bits in some of the later albums). |
Posted By: NotAProghead
Date Posted: October 03 2012 at 13:21
How to control this? Block "Add albums" after adding these 3 albums? There is a rule: if the band is on PA, its entire official discography could be added. In my opinion it's a good rule and no need to invent new troubles. People are not deaf to sort out which albums are prog and which ones are non-prog. ------------- Who are you and who am I to say we know the reason why... (D. Gilmour) |
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: October 03 2012 at 13:25
Some people are deaf and I think it's insensitive of you to deny their affliction. -------------
|
Posted By: Bosh66
Date Posted: October 03 2012 at 15:10
Ok, I wasn't really expecting this to go anywhere. The problem with this is though, a band like UFO (purely an example - there are obviously others) is unlikely to be included on PA because the vast majority of their albums (after the first three) are straight hard rock. So the prog albums get ommited as well. So be it.
|
Posted By: NotAProghead
Date Posted: October 03 2012 at 16:40
|
^ Discussions like this happen from time to time. There were suggestions to add, for instance, The Scorpions because of their proggy debut. Rejected. Another example - Alan Sorrenti http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=2807" rel="nofollow - http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=2807 . His first 2 albums are almost corner stones of Italian prog (I can't stand them, but that's not the point  ) while the rest are pure pop. It was a tough decision, but the artist is here.I think if you'd like to see some band here the only way is to suggest it and prove the progginess of at least some albums with convincing arguments. It's not always so easy, you have to have enough patience to make it. ------------- Who are you and who am I to say we know the reason why... (D. Gilmour) |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: October 03 2012 at 18:39
|
I see thye OP's point, there's more to it than just some mildly proggy LP by the Scorps; Almost everyone with any real interest in music and its expansion did at least one album between about 1970 and 1979 that could be considered progressive rock, or a progression of rock. It was truly a Grand Age of Prog and you had people as Meatloaf[Bat Out of Hell], Stevie Wonder[Music of My Mind,Songs in the Key of Life], even McCartney[Wild Life]. I'm not suggesting these artists be considered for ProgRelated or even the albums, just that this Grand Age should be recognized. |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: October 03 2012 at 19:18
But isn't that what the Prog-related section should be for? I mean, why not add bands that had prog albums but not prog careers to PR? People get pissed and go, "but that band isn't prog," and you say, trollfacely, "But A Ha (see what I did there), they are in prog related, not a full prog subgenre!" Prog Related should be the largest "subgenre" here, truth be told. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: NotAProghead
Date Posted: October 03 2012 at 19:41
As I remember from past discussions, Prog-related section was intended for bands/artists whose music has prog elements, but who don't have fully prog albums. If they released at least one prog album they should be included in some prog genre. Excuse me if I'm wrong. But what I'm trying to say here is that the last thing I want to see on PA is different rules (like complete discography for some bands and only selected albums for others). It's too confusing. ------------- Who are you and who am I to say we know the reason why... (D. Gilmour) |
Posted By: Ambient Hurricanes
Date Posted: October 03 2012 at 22:18
In theory, I agree with you, but I don't want this to become the prog related archives, so I do support somewhat of a strict standard for which bands can be included. If most artists in the 70's released a proggy album at some point, then the site could be flooded with new additions of bands that may technically belong in PR but, in the larger context of the site, would be better left out. I think the criteria for new Prog Related additions right now is that the artist must be clearly influenced by progressive rock and also have had an influence upon the prog scene. I think that could be tweaked a bit (it basically rules out new bands from inclusion in PR) but I think something like it is necessary to keep the focus of the site. ------------- I love dogs, I've always loved dogs |
Posted By: Bosh66
Date Posted: October 04 2012 at 03:51
|
I still struggle to see why restricting the discography for certain bands should prove to be an issue. Whether done manually (note in the biography like on the IGB page) or by the system, we would know which bands fall into this category whn we add them.
If not (and I suspect not!), someone on this site I think did suggest somewhere having a category similar to the Various Artists category (Samplers, Concept Albums, Tributes) where people could add progressive albums, but not progressive bands. That might work. To stop the site getting swamped with all sorts of proggy albums by mainstream artists that they want to review or promote, additions to the "sub-genre" could even be restricted to admin or collabs. It can't be beyond the ken of mortal men to solve this. Of course, I may be in a small minority who think that there is an issue at all here!
|
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: October 04 2012 at 13:20
|
The decision that a band's complete discography should be added is solely down to M@x, the site owner. There was a lot of debate about it in the early days, and M@x made it clear that was how it was to be. It can of course be debated again, but that is a fundamental tenet of the site. There are no exceptions to this, even bands such as IGB and Tyrannosaurus Rex have all their albums added (or eligible) providing they are by those specific artists.
|
Posted By: Mellotron Storm
Date Posted: October 04 2012 at 16:12
|
^ As Bob has pointed out this just isn't going to happen unless mailto:M@X" rel="nofollow - M@X has a change of heart and personally i like things as they are. ------------- "The wind is slowly tearing her apart" "Sad Rain" ANEKDOTEN |
Posted By: presdoug
Date Posted: October 04 2012 at 17:22
| ^ Or go to Discogs or Rateyourmusic-that is where i had to go to review Helmut Koellen. |