Why add groups such as Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath who did nothing for the progression of music. Led Zeppelin was just a blues influenced band and although Black Sabbath were influential to heavy metal, they did next to nothing in terms of innovative playing. And Queen in this category makes no sence at all since they were around after the prog movement began.

If we start a "proto-prog" section and add all of these groups to the site, what's to stop us from adding Elvis Presley, Buddy Holly, Roy Orbison and so on, then looking back even further to thier influences.

Stop taking artists you think are good and finding some loophole into classifying them as prog! Soon prog could be concidered such a broad term that it would be almost impossible not to concider any band with even the slightest unique touch part of the genre.

DavidInsabella wrote: Why add groups such as Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath who did nothing for the progression of music. Led Zeppelin was just a blues influenced band and although Black Sabbath were influential to heavy metal, they did next to nothing in terms of innovative playing. And Queen in this category makes no sence at all since they were around after the prog movement began. If we start a "proto-prog" section and add all of these groups to the site, what's to stop us from adding Elvis Presley, Buddy Holly, Roy Orbison and so on, then looking back even further to thier influences. Stop taking artists you think are good and finding some loophole into classifying them as prog! Soon prog could be concidered such a broad term that it would be almost impossible not to concider any band with even the slightest unique touch part of the genre.

Common sense can stop us - and will. Adding a band that is slightly less prog than other bands which are currently listed doesn't mean that other slightly less progressive bands can now included.

In case of Queen, it's not a question of them being slightly more or less progressive than other bands. Some people think they are progressive (and that Queen II is a prog masterpiece), some others think that they are not prog at all and that Queen II is just a good album. Adding Queen has no implications on other bands anyway, because Queen are not comparable to any other band out there ... only if you take away the elements that cause them to be considered prog by some people.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: DavidInsabella wrote: Why add groups such as Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath who did nothing for the progression of music. Led Zeppelin was just a blues influenced band and although Black Sabbath were influential to heavy metal, they did next to nothing in terms of innovative playing. And Queen in this category makes no sence at all since they were around after the prog movement began. If we start a "proto-prog" section and add all of these groups to the site, what's to stop us from adding Elvis Presley, Buddy Holly, Roy Orbison and so on, then looking back even further to thier influences. Stop taking artists you think are good and finding some loophole into classifying them as prog! Soon prog could be concidered such a broad term that it would be almost impossible not to concider any band with even the slightest unique touch part of the genre. Common sense can stop us - and will. Adding a band that is slightly less prog than other bands which are currently listed doesn't mean that other slightly less progressive bands can now included.

Yes, but on another thread there was a suggestion to add a subgenre to the site called "proto prog," and include artists like Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath who had some hand in inspiring what would become progressive rock. I wrote this thread opposing that because I think it's foolish.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: In case of Queen, it's not a question of them being slightly more or less progressive than other bands. Some people think they are progressive (and that Queen II is a prog masterpiece), some others think that they are not prog at all and that Queen II is just a good album. Adding Queen has no implications on other bands anyway, because Queen are not comparable to any other band out there ... only if you take away the elements that cause them to be considered prog by some people.

Yes, but on the same thread it was suggested that Queen be included in the proto prog category, which wouldn't make much sence at all.

Too say what prog rock is or should be is very stupid...I think this music cant be discrived easy...its actually pretty hard !!! So, why say how prog shoul be...One of the elements that make prog what it is is to NOT do what the rest does...to break new ground...how can you break ground if you limit prog to "shoulds"?

Still...Queen should not be here!!!!

el böthy wrote: how can you break ground if you limit prog to "shoulds"?

Because there must be a line somewhere to seperate Yes from the Spice Girls. If there were not defining point to decide what is and what isn't prog then anything could technically be added here and many members here, including me, would feel offended if  somone who is clearly not prog were added to this site that is supposed to get us away from the mainstream music. Many people here are offended with Queen,
and from what I've heard about how they should not be here, I am totally confused about how they did get here in the first place and why they still are here, there are more people here saying they should go than saying they should stay. We must decide what to do with bands like Queen who don't belong here but don't count as mainstream.

I think only bands that everyone can agree is prog should be here, if the majority think they should not be here, then it will serve them better to not be here because they will please more people, and the ones who do want Queen here are the minority IMO.
If you remove Queen you will get much more satisfaction and if you only add what about 90% of us can agree is prog, then that also will be better for everyone.

I say there should be a poll to see if they stay or not, if they are voted to go then they should be taken to a sub-section of the archives, not neccessarily gone for good, but off this part of the archives atleast, it seems most of us can agree with that, that they should not be on this part.

With over 8,500 titles by over 1,700 bands, this site can hardly be considered "exclusive."  Yet it has always been regarded as the most "prog" of prog sites for the very reason that it has - until recently - refused to include groups simply because (i) many other sites include them, or (ii) a few zealots batter down the doors to get them in.  The minute the site started permitting every Tom, Dick and Harry to add bands and albums, situations like the one with Queen were inevitable.

Max and Rony need to act quickly to reverse this process - including putting all current member-added groups on hold - and go back to the original process, which was either (i) Max and Rony making the decisions in their sole discretion, or (ii) having all potential new bands discussed by the collaborators group and seeing what the consensus was, and making the decision based on that.

End of story.

Led Zeppelin did more to the progres of rock, then most bands

Gorloche wrote: To be completely honest, there is no line seperating Yes from Spice Girls.

I try to find an "emotion", fitting this comment, but find it impossible 

Gorloche wrote: . If the Spice Girls suddenly started to create complicated tritonal musical harmonies on top of avant-jazz music but dealt with the same lyrical content, they would be prog.

That made me think, are there lyrical boundaries in Prog??

TheProgtologist wrote: I'm still trying to get over the statement that Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath did nothing for the progression of music.They are as influential to the progression of rock as The Beatles,The Stones,The Who,Hendrix,etc.

That statement is wrong - but that doesn't mean that it makes sense to include them as prog bands. Even if there were a sub-genre "proto-prog", and another one for bands like Queen ("progressive-pop"), it would still be hard to separate the reviews and ratings. Those bands would be labeled "non-prog" or "not-quite-prog-but-still" or whatever, but they would still mix with the other bands. And if - for example - Led Zeppelin IV was added, it would get very high ratings, and enter the top 100 list, and THAT would cause damage to the reputation of this website. Although people tend to overrate the importance of that list, it does say something about the nature of this website AND it's visitors.  

maani wrote: With over 8,500 titles by over 1,700 bands, this site can hardly be considered "exclusive."  Yet it has always been regarded as the most "prog" of prog sites for the very reason that it has - until recently - refused to include groups simply because (i) many other sites include them, or (ii) a few zealots batter down the doors to get them in.  The minute the site started permitting every Tom, Dick and Harry to add bands and albums, situations like the one with Queen were inevitable. Max and Rony need to act quickly to reverse this process - including putting all current member-added groups on hold - and go back to the original process, which was either (i) Max and Rony making the decisions in their sole discretion, or (ii) having all potential new bands discussed by the collaborators group and seeing what the consensus was, and making the decision based on that. End of story.

I second the

nothing wrong with "proto-prog" or "prog-related" section IMHO, this way we can see which bands influenced the development of rock music, and their relations with the prog bands of their time. For instance, the very disdained Black Sabbath featured Master Wakeman in their Bloody Sabbath album, which, along with Vol 4, Sabotage etc. is one of the "forefathers" of prog-metal genre... Not to mention the Sabbath-Zeppelin influence over many prog-metal bands. (DT covered some Zeppelin tracks every now and then)

I believe "prog related" section should be (if it should) a distinctly seperate section, for instance, where everyone cannot review the albums, or if they could, the reviews wouldn't appear on the home page. It is also important to have their "prog related" albums only, in case Beatles was included in such sub-section (and it definitely needs to be included btw), their albums from "please please me" up to (and including or excluding)"help" would make no sense to the progger (though several beatles pieces from this period was covered by many prog bands every now and then!)... BUT; "Rubber Soul" is a turning point, which IMHO every progger (except prog-metalheads: they are a different story) should have an idea about. Not to mention the groundbreaking Sgt. Pepper album.

lastly: kicking bands out of the site will do no good, I think you will end up blotting out Genesis one day!

I agree with maani. There are no "rules" about which band is prog and which isn't and we can argue this until the bovines return to their domiciles.

To avoid this site becoming too large (and too much work for the people who run it), new additions should be discussed by the collaborators and only added on a majority vote.

Bilek wrote: nothing wrong with "proto-prog" or "prog-related" section IMHO, this way we can see which bands influenced the development of rock music, and their relations with the prog bands of their time. For instance, the very disdained Black Sabbath featured Master Wakeman in their Bloody Sabbath album, which, along with Vol 4, Sabotage etc. is one of the "forefathers" of prog-metal genre... Not to mention the Sabbath-Zeppelin influence over many prog-metal bands. (DT covered some Zeppelin tracks every now and then) I believe "prog related" section should be (if it should) a distinctly seperate section, for instance, where everyone cannot review the albums, or if they could, the reviews wouldn't appear on the home page. It is also important to have their "prog related" albums only, in case Beatles was included in such sub-section (and it definitely needs to be included btw), their albums from "please please me" up to (and including or excluding)"help" would make no sense to the progger (though several beatles pieces from this period was covered by many prog bands every now and then!)... BUT; "Rubber Soul" is a turning point, which IMHO every progger (except prog-metalheads: they are a different story) should have an idea about. Not to mention the groundbreaking Sgt. Pepper album. lastly: kicking bands out of the site will do no good, I think you will end up blotting out Genesis one day!

A very reasoned post, if I may say so.

Pardon me!

Sabbath never allowing music to progress...... outside of metal. Listen to their debut and Paranoid and tell me that again.......

Zep is harder to put in prog but No Quarter , Kashmir , Achille's Last Stand , Song Remains The Same and a few more.

Purple's first three albums are the typical albums that would fit perfectly in the proto-prog genre. This could also include the awful Concerto album, and go up to the end of Mk II line-up.

Agreed all three are barely prog but they were essential side-partner to prog rock.

To add them in the PA may be a bit too much. I think a side drawer with them (and Uriah Heep - they were not any more prog than the afore-mentinned three) and  another drawer for Queen , Roxy Music and 10 CC as side issues.

But I do support the proto-prog thing, though! Proto-prog is an accepted term for pre ITCOTCK prog. It would include most psych-prog of the late 60's and some more obscure early 70's prog such as Gracious , Indian Summer etc.... Hell should the Beatles ever be included it should be in Proto Prog.

But I do not believe every albums of the groups in those three drawers should be shown  or even less reviewed  - not much point to showing Please Meet The Beatles, uh? Start with Rubber Soul. For Sabbath , stop at Sabotage . Purple ? at the end of Mk II. Queen: stop at Jazz

For those groups we could find someone to write a text , discuss the albums show a few covers etc..... but simply not accessible to reviewing , rating. Just an editorial thing!

Sean Trane wrote:   Sabbath never allowing music to progress...... outside of metal. Listen to their debut and Paranoid and tell me that again.......

Anyway, I had a thought, even if there was a proto prog section, Court of the Crimson King was released in the same year as Zeppelin's first album, and a year before Sabbath's. This means that not only did these two begin after prog had already begun, but they also failed to progress beyond King Crimson and Gentle Giant (just to name a couple) who were already there.

Proto punk is a category for VU and The Stooges and so on, bands that were around before punk that inspired it. Well how could these two be concidered proto prog if they were neither around before, nor very influential to the first waves of prog?

Sean Trane wrote: Pardon me! Sabbath never allowing music to progress...... outside of metal. Listen to their debut and Paranoid and tell me that again....... Zep is harder to put in prog but No Quarter , Kashmir , Achille's Last Stand , Song Remains The Same and a few more. Purple's first three albums are the typical albums that would fit perfectly in the proto-prog genre. This could also include the awful Concerto album, and go up to the end of Mk II line-up. Agreed all three are barely prog but they were essential side-partner to prog rock. To add them in the PA may be a bit too much. I think a side drawer with them (and Uriah Heep - they were not any more prog than the afore-mentinned three) and  another drawer for Queen , Roxy Music and 10 CC as side issues. But I do support the proto-prog thing, though! Proto-prog is an accepted term for pre ITCOTCK prog. It would include most psych-prog of the late 60's and some more obscure early 70's prog such as Gracious , Indian Summer etc.... Hell should the Beatles ever be included it should be in Proto Prog. But I do not believe every albums of the groups in those three drawers should be shown  or even less reviewed  - not much point to showing Please Meet The Beatles, uh? Start with Rubber Soul. For Sabbath , stop at Sabotage . Purple ? at the end of Mk II. Queen: stop at Jazz     For those groups we could find someone to write a text , discuss the albums show a few covers etc..... but simply not accessible to reviewing , rating. Just an editorial thing!

It's good to see people uniting on common sense!
With a few exceptions I would agree with this post.
For instance, I've been struggling hard for including Deep Purple, on the basis that Uriah Heep is here. I believe there are basically no differences between these two. Anyway, let's not go into the "this is here, so that must be here too" discussion again...

The points I disagree is the strict limitations. DP's proggish period seems to end at the end of MkII, but Burn is an album that should definitely be considered. The same for BS, Never Say Die! is not less progressive than Sabotage! Zep is as mentioned, a bluesy hard rock band with a few proggy songs (maybe with an additional somehow proggy album, 4th)
Besides, there are excellent comebacks of the mentioned bands... Where will you put Queen's Innuendo, for instance? And how about Deep Purple's Purpendicular, Live at the Olympia and the Royal Albert Hall (with the perfect remake of Concerto) albums, which features the respected prog guitarist Steve Morse?!?!? (well, even morse could not save Bananas! I think it was Lord who gave the band's prog characteristics!)

Anyway, it's good to hear "progressive" ideas like that!

Now comes the question: where do we start?

DavidInsabella wrote: Sean Trane wrote:   Sabbath never allowing music to progress...... outside of metal. Listen to their debut and Paranoid and tell me that again....... Gladly. I find Black Sabbath to be one of the most overrated rock groups of all time. Yeah man , you probably said that because you look like that spike head goon in your signature! Listen to their first two albums , really !   Anyway, I had a thought, even if there was a proto prog section, Court of the Crimson King was released in the same year as Zeppelin's first album, and a year before Sabbath's. This means that not only did these two begin after prog had already begun, but they also failed to progress beyond King Crimson and Gentle Giant (just to name a couple) who were already there. Proto punk is a category for VU and The Stooges and so on, bands that were around before punk that inspired it. Well how could these two be concidered proto prog if they were neither around before, nor very influential to the first waves of prog?

I did not say you had to put Zep in proto-prog. Beatles  yes.  Zep could be in the quasi-prog or prog related/influenced section. But some widely acknowledged proto-prog dates from 71 or 72. No severe borderline creating conflits berween Kuwait and Irak.

DavidInsabella wrote: Sean Trane wrote: Sabbath never allowing music to progress...... outside of metal. Listen to their debut and Paranoid and tell me that again....... Gladly. I find Black Sabbath to be one of the most overrated rock groups of all time. Anyway, I had a thought, even if there was a proto prog section, Court of the Crimson King was released in the same year as Zeppelin's first album, and a year before Sabbath's. This means that not only did these two begin after prog had already begun, but they also failed to progress beyond King Crimson and Gentle Giant (just to name a couple) who were already there. Proto punk is a category for VU and The Stooges and so on, bands that were around before punk that inspired it. Well how could these two be concidered proto prog if they were neither around before, nor very influential to the first waves of prog?

I think you got it wrong. We (at least I personally) are not saying "let's make a "proto-prog" section and squeeze everything we like over there!". As I said above, there might be more than one section, or just a "prog-related" section, where we can honour "proggy" albums of the aforementioned bands & the like...

Of course neither sabbath nor zeppelin is proto-prog. Deep Purple is hardly proto-prog, just for the sake of their debut, even that itself is already influenced by other proto-prog things, such as sgt. pepper (it includes Help, for God's sake!). Actually these three are known as the holy trinity of hard rock. Yet, there might still be a way to relate these bands (at least for their proggy songs' sake, which are already mentioned), either in a seperate drawer, or in an editorial section whatsoever...

lastly: if you still think Sabbath did not progress outside of metal, leave aside the first two albums (when it comes to first two albums even Yes may not make it out of the well!) and give a heed to Master of Reality, Vol.4 and Bloody Sabbath (I repeat: Wakeman contribution!) albums...

"...having all potential new bands discussed by the collaborators group and seeing what the consensus was, and making the decision based on that." (Maani)

This sounds logical. Hypothetical suggestion: Information of bands and albums added by user should not go directly to the archives, but to a some kind of datapool, where you could see what has been offered and rejected. Collaborators would then process the offers as they manage. This would ofcourse take lots of job and time from collaborators...

It would be a good idea, to have only SOME proggiest albums from some bands, like "Concerto for group and orchestra" from DEEP PURPLE, but not their hardrock albums.

DavidInsabella wrote:  Gladly. I find Black Sabbath to be one of the most overrated rock groups of all time

This is A STUPID AND IGNORANT COMMENT . Sorry, but that it is. Black Sabbath created METAL . It's not about whether you like them or not, I don't give a f**k , but the band is NOT over-rated, it CAN NOT be.

[/QUOTE]

That made me think, are there lyrical boundaries in Prog??

[/QUOTE]

No

Sean Trane wrote:  Gladly. I find Black Sabbath to be one of the most overrated rock groups of all time. Yeah man , you probably said that because you look like that spike head goon in your signature! Listen to their first two albums , really !

Uh, I don't like thier first two albums. Is that a crime.

Bilek wrote: DavidInsabella wrote: Sean Trane wrote: Sabbath never allowing music to progress...... outside of metal. Listen to their debut and Paranoid and tell me that again....... Gladly. I find Black Sabbath to be one of the most overrated rock groups of all time. Anyway, I had a thought, even if there was a proto prog section, Court of the Crimson King was released in the same year as Zeppelin's first album, and a year before Sabbath's. This means that not only did these two begin after prog had already begun, but they also failed to progress beyond King Crimson and Gentle Giant (just to name a couple) who were already there. Proto punk is a category for VU and The Stooges and so on, bands that were around before punk that inspired it. Well how could these two be concidered proto prog if they were neither around before, nor very influential to the first waves of prog? I think you got it wrong. We (at least I personally) are not saying "let's make a "proto-prog" section and squeeze everything we like over there!". As I said above, there might be more than one section, or just a "prog-related" section, where we can honour "proggy" albums of the aforementioned bands & the like... Of course neither sabbath nor zeppelin is proto-prog. Deep Purple is hardly proto-prog, just for the sake of their debut, even that itself is already influenced by other proto-prog things, such as sgt. pepper (it includes Help, for God's sake!). Actually these three are known as the holy trinity of hard rock. Yet, there might still be a way to relate these bands (at least for their proggy songs' sake, which are already mentioned), either in a seperate drawer, or in an editorial section whatsoever... lastly: if you still think Sabbath did not progress outside of metal, leave aside the first two albums (when it comes to first two albums even Yes may not make it out of the well!) and give a heed to Master of Reality, Vol.4 and Bloody Sabbath (I repeat: Wakeman contribution!) albums...

And I still can't stand Black Sabbath. I find them boring and uncreative.

robertplantowns wrote: DavidInsabella wrote: Logos wrote: DavidInsabella wrote:  Gladly. I find Black Sabbath to be one of the most overrated rock groups of all time This is A STUPID AND IGNORANT COMMENT . Sorry, but that it is. Black Sabbath created METAL . It's not about whether you like them or not, I don't give a f**k , but the band is NOT over-rated, it CAN NOT be. How could I be ignorant? I've heard the material and I don't like it. If anything you're all close minded to be blindly following the crowd by insulting anyone with the guts to go againt the grain. I take it that you don't listen to anything metal oriented or any metal progressive rock because if you did you would respect the role Black Sabbath had in helping form what we know as metal now.  If you do listen to metal-influenced music and still don't acknowledge them, THEN you are ignorant.  And if you don't listen to metal-influenced music well then you're ignorant as well.  Sorry man any way you slice it

Grow up pal, if you're goal on the internet is to criticize people until they submit to the same taste as you then you've come to the wrong website. I can like or dislike anything I want.

Logos wrote: Sure you can, just please don't go around saying the band that invented metal music is over-rated.

It's called an opinion, and people can share it if they want to. I would think people on this forum already knew that.

Logos wrote: Sure you can, just please don't go around saying the band that invented metal music.

Are you sure?

Here is the offical definiton for Root of Prog:

Roots of prog
Rock Bands in existence prior to 1969 that influenced the development of progressive rock. The late 60's was a predominately experimental period for music. These bands were moving in a stream that eventually led to prog. The influence could have come from new sophisticated forms of writing and playing music, recording techniques, new instruments and vocal harmonies to name a few. Some of these bands became progressive rock bands themselves others did not.

There is another category that will be made for bands like Queen, Asia etc.  We are still working on the name and Definiton.

I think it's good to try invent some gategorizations for these bands, that some people want here. If DEEP PURPLE is listed on the site as proto-prog, I think it's OK as it is indicated that it's not prog in way YES are, for example.  Keep on working on those genres! It's unrewarding by the peolpe, but essential when forming big (and good) catalogues.

Dick Heath wrote: Logos wrote: Sure you can, just please don't go around saying the band that invented metal music. Are you sure?

Are you seriously saying your opinion regarding this matter differs from mine?