Talk:Progressive rock/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

Canterbury Scene

Is not a genre it needs to be moved to derivative term or also see. Anyone else agree? A7xTheRev12 (talk) 01:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I very strongly disagree. It was a distinct "sound" within the larger prog-rock scene. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)It's a well-documented (mostly by me) movement within prog, and has its defining characteristics. Accordingly, I don't agree, and contend that it was of its own kind, therefore deserves to be regarded as sui generis, unless you have a reliable source that says otherwise. --Rodhullandemu 01:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The Syn

There's been a wave of editing activity around The Syn and Steve Nardelli, including a certain amount of dispute. Some 'third parties' with expertise in prog would be valuable if anyone would like to come on over. Bondegezou (talk) 10:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Soft Machine?!

Soft Machine are Prog? Since when? I understand that someone posted some dubious "source", but reading through these archives we can find sources that various acts such as The Who, Led Zeppelin, even Uriah Heep being Prog. Clearly a line needs to be drawn between "sources" and reality. On progarchices.com they have various ridiculous "sub-genres" where anybody and everybody is some "hyphenated-prog" genre. The Best Prog Album In The World Ever had various non-Prog artists. But everyone just knows what is and isn't. And, dubious sources aside, everyone knows that Soft Machine ain't Prog. 41.245.168.88 (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

1966. But what "everybody knows" isn't the acid test here; even "the truth" doesn't cut it. However, Allmusic, a source treated as reliable by the WP:MUSIC and WP:ALBUM projects says they are Prog. Therefore, for our purposes, they are Prog. Just a reminder that deletion of sourced information against consensus IS vandalism and can lead to blocking. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 15:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Tiers

In archive was mentioning "First Tier", "Second Tier" etc. So is asking "Who is First Tier(probable guess Genisis and King Crimson", "Who is Second Tier? Giess Egg and Camel" How many Tiers are there be? Thrre? Four? Etc What would make one band First tier, what characteretics would make other band Second Tier, or Three Tier etc? Can someone explaine, and maybe add to the articles? Sincereley. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.245.161.62 (talk) 14:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what this means without a link, but it would seems that "wave" is a better term than "tier"; in any event, the article is ordered chronologically, and seems clear enough to me. --Rodhullandemu 14:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I never wrote this, so it's somewhat strange it was signed by me. Anyay, from what I can gather, he is asking what the Tiers are. Everyone knows Waves, but people have for instance referred to King Crimson or Yes as First Tier, Kansas as Second Tier etc. There was a rather heated discussion in the archives over whether Kansas were First or Second. 41.245.161.62 (talk) 06:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC) (yes me this time)

Scaruffi?

Just wondered why Scaruffi's opinions(and that's all they are really) feature so heavily as fact-based sources. Much of what he says is quite simply POV bollocks. Why not use Jerry Lucky or for that matter, the Classic Rock Prog Special? Could someone say why one person is deemed the "Expert" over and above the rest? Thank you. 41.245.155.173 (talk) 07:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

He's far more reliable than that joke one-line critic Robert Christgau -- and he's used in half the articles on this site. At least Scaruffi thinks independently, unlike most of the music media. With that said, I do disagree with some of his assertions; they should be balanced by pro-prog sources. But at least he doesn't blindly follow 4/4 time pop like the Beatles. — Deckiller 01:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

A plea for moderation in moderation

Hi, I just stumbled in to the article, added "Rush", then previewed it ... and only then noticed all of the HTML comments saying "never ever ever add Rush". OK, that's fine - I get the point, and - after further research - agree with it.

However, the comment says that anyone who adds Rush will get blocked.

I think that's a bit extreme.

I'm a relatively clueful contributor, and I came ** this ** close to adding the link (but I didn't!) because I didn't see the inline comment.

So: the policy of "no Rush" is a good one, but please be a bit forgiving for folks who make a mistake. Thanks. TJIC (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Laundry Lists

This article is descending into sets of laundry lists, where everyone wants their favourite band mentioned, like it's some kind of discredit if they're left out - and hence it's become very unenjoyable to read.

Lists are for other pages, e.g. List of Progressive Rock artists, List of Early Progressive Rock artists and so on - we do not need to crowbar everyone in here, and there is no need to single out specific bands - they should ONLY be used for example.

There's also all this nonsense about Tiering - what does that actually mean?

Are Tier 1 most popular or best somehow?

This term "Tier" is not normally used to describe any kind of music - let's avoid it.

This article is also flagged as having issues - what are the other issues with it, and how can we solve them?

MarkCertif1ed (talk) 08:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletions

I'm all for being WP:BOLD, but removal of sourced material without WP:CONSENSUS gets dangerously close to vandalism. However:

• It is beyond doubt (even the BBC agree, if you watch BBC4) that the bands listed by Scaruffi were the first to be described as progressive rock bands, and I guess Allmusic and Rolling Stone would tend to agree, if sources other than Scaruffi can be found.
• Scaruffi himself is no longer an approved source from the point of view of the WP:ALBUMS project, so it's in our interest to seek other sources.
• We do not rejig articles merely because nitwits come along and insert their favourite, unsourced, band; we revert and explain.
• The proper venue for discussing improvements to articles is their Talk page, i.e. here. Nobody is going to see inline comments unless they try to edit the article.
• However, people are going to come along and ask why some bands, such as the precursors, are omitted as such. --Rodhullandemu 20:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Done some removal of material without WP:CONSENSUS - so maybe I'm a vandal, but I consider what has been done to the page recently cannot possibly have been done consensually - please feel free to review my edits and comment on them; I have tried to edit sensibly.

Not sure what you're getting at, Rodhullandemu - I tried to backtrack the conversation, but it looks a bit like you're making general comments!

I put a load of inline comments in the article because I intend to do some editing - there has been a lot of silence here lately on anything other than which bands to exclude/include (which is a waste of anyone's time, until the article starts to make a bit more sense as a whole).

Sadly, I don't have time to act on all my ideas in one go, and I'd rather get the sensible stuff in then discuss it here than ask questions and return two months later for an answer - especially where it's simply logical and factual stuff that doesn't need consensus.

Scaruffi's comment about melody has been deleted, because it is not true - Prog is in no way "non-melodic"; Quite the reverse. I for one will be glad to see his opinions removed from this article so that it reads more like an encyclopaedia entry than a catalogue of one man's thinking. MarkCertif1ed (talk) 13:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well the article does need a major rewrite and has done for a while, but I haven't had time enough to tackle it myself; a major problem is that people come along and add stuff without sourcing it. I agree on Scaruffi, in some ways he is spot on, but no longer regarded as a reliable source. As for editing, the process is Bold, Revert, Discuss, and we have now reached the latter stage, which is no bad thing. --Rodhullandemu 13:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The first few paragraphs all seem to be AllMusic.com's version of events which, while generally accurate, tends to be a bit obfuscating by getting events in the wrong order and discussing the writer's opinion.

The important thing about Prog is that it evolved from the psychedelic/progressive music scene in England in the mid/late 1960s, but it's also important to note the influences coming out of the U.S. from their progressive music scene, and the input from the blues, jazz and folk scenes.

In any history of this era, this time was a melting pot in which many musical styles came together. Hence the bit about Prog emerging from psych/progressive should be first, and the History/precursors sections should discuss the coming together of these musical styles. I don't think it's OR to state that all of the above can be heard in both "In the Court of the Crimson King" and "Trespass" (not forgetting Tull or any of the others) - it's common knowledge, isn't it?

Is it accpetable to rewrite this section in a more appropriate order (not changing the facts as stated) and reference the content to AllMusic? MarkCertif1ed (talk) 09:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)