Talk:Progressive rock/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9


Electronic keyboards

"The Mellotron is an instrument that contains tape loops of recorded instruments and plays back their sounds when the keyboard is pressed." This is inaccurate. The tapes in Mellotrons begin playing when the key is pressed, play through to the end and stop. When the key is released, the tape quickly rewinds. That's not a tape loop. I'd suggest "The Mellotron is an instrument that contains tape recordings of real instruments, and plays back their sounds when the keyboard is pressed." O0drogue0o (talk) 09:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The change is fine by me.--SabreBD (talk) 16:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

as the long-time owner of an m400, & a close associate of the streetly guys, I've taken the liberty of editing this para slightly. mainly to remove the always-offensive notion that the machines have loops in them (I've even recorded a piece of music entitled "they're NOT loops!") but also to reword the rest of the para somewhat, & remove the sense that the technology was somehow inferior; it was not. if you see the main article on the mellotron, there's an explanation there as to the peculiar quality of the sound; simply put, the musicians recorded the individual notes one at a time, with nothing to intonate against, & thus the machine has no defined temperament. in the words of robert fripp, "tuning a mellotron... doesn't."

-)

duncanrmi (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Influence

First off, I'm happy that this article has matured to GA status (my heartfelt gratitude to everyone involved!), and in particular, I'm glad to see that my off-the-cuff addition from long time ago, regarding the influence of prog on other – especially metal – genres, has essentially persisted, even retaining much of my original phrasing, and has even considerably superior sourcing now.

That said, I maintain the opinion that characteristic and defining qualities and typical elements of prog can be found in all forms of metal (whether black, death, thrash, doom, gothic, symphonic, power, traditional or folk) – just not all at the same time, and in different ways, which mark the distinctive individual characters of the respective subgenres, and the genre overall as well as each subtype in different ways as consciously eschewing mainstream appeal – or at least putting up with suboptimal accessibility, especially by doing without easily intelligible vocals (both due to delivery and content).

Specifically, I must rebut the (apparently unsourced) claim that black metal "is often virtuosic". Not at all: It is often remarked that black metal is generally raw and relatively simple to play (sometimes embracing a lo-fi aesthetic); in this aspect, as well as its aggressive attitude and proneness to provocation and shock effects, it is often specifically likened to punk. (In fact, there are even crossovers of black metal with punk.) What distinguishes it from punk is the focus on creating a very dark, even bleak, "icy" and "hateful" atmosphere, with vocals more as enhancers of this goal, contributing to the music as essentially yet another instrument, less as communicating lyrics (whose irrelevance is sometimes patent, for example when lyrics are barely intelligible even to the initiated and not printed in the booklet). The fundamental character of the BM scene is fiercely counter-cultural, so much that a general suspicion, rejection or even outright denunciation of commercial success (going as far as band members remaining pseudonymous and never even performing in public) is a frequent target of ridicule among general metalheads (who may find the scene overly insular, although its spectacular and widely publicised excesses of the 1990s are essentially a thing of the past).

On the other hand, death metal is indeed often relatively virtuosic (in fact, black metal is said to have started as a reaction to it not dissimilar to how punk branded itself opposite to prog, and there was at one time a vicious rivalry between the Norwegian BM and Swedish DM scenes), and it is probably not incidental that bands are commonly described as "atmospheric black metal" or "symphonic black metal", or on the other hand "progressive death metal" or "technical death metal", while symphonic death metal is conspicuously rare and technical black metal almost unheard of, or at least very unusual. (I would also like to point out the avant-garde metal movement, many bands of which are associated with the Scandinavian black metal and to a much lesser extent death metal scene. More avant-garde-/non-traditional-leaning BM bands also tend to gravitate into similar directions and incorporate elements and influences from similar non-metal music genres.) So I think what makes black metal resemble prog is its attempt to immerse the listener into a particular atmosphere and avoid traditional song structures and elements (such as "clean", easily intelligible vocals – not to mention a reliance on dissonance and reduced emphasis on melodies and catchiness), but certainly not virtuosity or highly complex arrangements. Exceptions such as Emperor's Prometheus are conspicuously singled out as such by genre fans and connoisseurs.

(It might be interesting to note that a fascination with nature, not to mention the metal-typical obsession with medievalism and Tolkienesque high fantasy, where BM bands are however distinct by leaning to the side of the antagonists, is characteristic for BM, and not infrequently, artists make conscious reference to – especially Scandinavian – Romantic period music and art, such as allusions to Grieg or Wagner, or the Burzum album Filosofem using Kittelsen for its artwork, a clear similarity with prog.)

On a quite different note, I have noticed the slogan "prog is the new punk" attributed to either Bixler-Zavala or Rodriguez-Lopez of The Mars Volta, although the closest I can find on the web is this, while here, it is implied that a prog-rock themed special in the October 2006 edition of the German magazine Musikexpress was inspired by the release of a new The Mars Volta album and titled "Prog is the New Punk", after a quote by Bixler-Zavala given only in German translation, but translated back into English it would be: "If punk really means to break habits in a productive way, then prog is the new punk". I wonder if this would be a worthwhile addition to the article. I could try and find the precise citation. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Elton John

Even though Elton John may not be considered Prog like many artists of that time, it seems to me early in his career there was a Prog influence or maybe could have been considered "Pop Prog". When I listen to "Empty Sky", "Funeral for a Friend" and even "Rocket Man" there's a Prog sound going on. So in someways, with all the genres he's in, couldn't Prog be one of them as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.80.110.225 (talk) 02:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually on Wikipedia, Empty Sky is considered a progressive rock album, and from what Wikipedia describes as progressive rock it fit the description. So why shouldn't he be considered prog. I think it's justified and compliments his versatility as a musical artist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.80.110.225 (talk) 05:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Reception

Shouldn't the reception section be a little more balanced? There's only two sentences that mention the acclaim prog had while much of the section is devoted to criticism. This looks to be a bit biased. Shouldn't we find some sources that acclaim it in order for it to be more neutral? Twyfan714 (talk) 23:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Surely there must also be some articles out there discussing the re-emergence of progressive musical styles in mainstream rock music, including from musicians that back in the day produced everyday rock - Floydian τ ¢ 23:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
It's way worse than that. The opinions, whether sourced or not, wherever they came from, are not expressed as opinions, but as objective fact. Nothing is expressed as a consensus among music writers, which might make an opinion more objective. It should say "XX of YY magazine wrote that..." Material sourced from opinion should be stated as opinion, not fact, no matter how notable the person is who gave the opinion. I myself don't have time to work on this today, but maybe soon? Dcs002 (talk) 03:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Selling England by the Pound

Selling England by the Pound - Genesis, You state this critised the British class system. Can you be more explicit and quote the appropriate lyrics. Having listeded to this countless times since it's release, I've not hear any reference to the British class system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.147.13.198 (talk) 23:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This is somebodies personal opinion most likely. Referencing the lyrics (quoting = copyright infringement) would not verify the meaning of the song, only a secondary and reliable review or statement/interview with band members/personnelle. The statement should probably be removed. - Floydian τ ¢ 23:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Contradictory statements about the origin of Prog Rock

This article is confusing. In par 1 it states that : "It developed from psychedelic pop (rather than psychedelic rock, as is often stated)" This seems to contradict par 3: "The genre grew out of the 1960s space rock of Pink Floyd and the classical rock experiments of bands like The Moody Blues, Procol Harum and The Nice". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.162.92.175 (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is due to some recent changes. I will see if I can sort it out. Thanks.--SabreBD (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Remember that in the UK and elsewhere, the word "pop" does not mean the same as it means in the US. Referring to rock music as pop does not have the same connotations everywhere. I'm not sure, but I think in the UK, rock music was predominantly referred to as pop in the 60s. It might be anachronistic or US-biased to remove a term used by the artists themselves. And I think we all know how much we love specifying our genres - as used in the quote, "space rock" seems synonymous with "psychedelic rock" (or even psychedelic pop) if 1960s Pink Floyd is the example. Music writers have made genre designations almost useless. Dcs002 (talk) 03:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The Doors?

The Doors were a prog band? Esszet (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Nope.--SabreBD (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Ah, thank you. Esszet (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. :) The Doors played jazz rock too, so they were also prog. --79.8.94.30 (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
If you have reliable sources stating that they are prog rock please let us know.--SabreBD (talk) 20:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Non-leftist proggers

There should be more examples of progressive rock musicians who are not left-wing. Frank Zappa was a self-described conservative. --68.185.2.134 (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC) 

What on earth has the political orientation got to do with the nature of Prog?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.134.44 (talk) 10:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Progressive Rock sub-genres?

First of all, Canterbury can't be a Progressive Rock genre, since that genre predates it. Second, Krautrock had nothing to do with Progressive Rock. Both genres were independent the one from the other, with no similar influences nor styles. Third, Zeuhl isn't a Progressive Rock sub-genre too. Vander, the founder of Magma and the Zeuhl genre, cites no Rock influences, and he even claims to have never listened to King Crimson (arguably the beginning of the genre). Fourth, Avant-Prog isn't a sub-genre too. The genre took influences from Zappa's experimental band The Mother of Invention, and some Canterbury influences.

These four genres can't be sub-genres of Progressive Rock, since they were all developed independently. YellowJelly (talk) 04:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

A genre isn't a linear timeline of influences building upon one another, it's a set of styles, musical forms, even just a set of groups that sound similar. FWIW though, I've never felt Canterbury was prog either... fits more with the jam band (aka Phish) style of rock. - Floydian τ ¢ 14:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

"Suite"

There are currently many references to "suites" in the article, and to classically-derived suites, but to my knowledge this use of the term only betrays an ignorance of classical music, as well as a misuse of the term "suite." Rush's 2112 album might be called a suite, since a suite is a collection of separate pieces related to each other and presented as a distinct set. Instead, people are misusing the term to refer to any long piece that contains multiple (joined) sections. Moreover, the huge number of rock genre articles on Wikipedia sounds merely like a bunch of non-musical cliques trying to explain why their own clique is somehow distinct from other people's. There is probably little actual musical basis for so many of the distinctions presented on Wikipedia as rock "genres" - especially when these are classified in terms of entire bands (rather than on a song-by-song or piece-by-piece basis). 136.181.195.29 (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Beatles

How does Beatles appear 9 times in an article about progressive rock? Beatles are totally irrilevant in the history of progressive rock. A FREE encyclopedia shouldn't use sources that are bankrolled by the music industry or simply ignorant. --2.234.228.28 (talk) 08:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Your views are not shared by other editors here, or, I think, by reliable sources. Please try to edit collaboratively with other editors. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
They have only been mentioned when needed. Their inclusion is fine, and they were not totally irrelevant to it's history. YellowJelly (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Original research

@Ilovetopaint: on the 9 March you added the WP:OR template to the Classical and Jazz section. I was just wondering what section did you consider to be original research? Just curious so it perhaps can be addressed. Karst (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The entire section misinterprets most of its citations and contrives original research. Actually, almost everything in the second half other article is like that. I more or less tidied up the history that precedes the 'Classical and jazz' section.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Progressive rock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Overly detailed

The "Characteristics" section was basically "Some bands did [X]" with the rest of the paragraph elaborating on what those bands did instead of just broadly discussing [X]. This made the article basically an unreadable mess that looked more like a personalized list of prog rock recommendations than a real encyclopedic summary (WP:UNFOCUSED). As a solution, I moved all of that into footnotes, which now perfectly demonstrates how much nothing was in the section.

A lot of information from the footnotes needs to be removed, though I'm not sure which parts. There is a good chunk of info that would make more sense under "History", namely anything that contains words like "pioneered" or "was the first". --Ilovetopaint (talk) 03:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Progressive rock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Good article reassessment

It's safe to say that this article has fallen short of the Good Article criteria in the past few years. I think a community reassessment of the article, and what it needs to retain the GA star, is in order. As a courtesy, I'm raising this here first to get input from others. - Floydian τ ¢ 14:30, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@Floydian: I added a to-do list with all my thoughts.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

== Taken as a whole, this article is far too subjective and seems overly obsessed with genres, sub-genres and other disputed minutiae. Attempts to define prog rock in terms of what may or may not have been "progressive" misses the point: the genre was simply a musical style which many bands adopted during the nineteen seventies as a response to the economic and technological circumstances of the time. Its evolution coincided with 1) rising affluence which enabled the purchase of albums rather than singles; 2) improvements in musical technology which permitted greater artistic experimentation; 3) a stagnant UK economy in which middle-class teenagers saw little prospect of self-advancement through conventional careers; and 4) the maturation of a post-war educational policy which promoted the teaching of music in state schools. Its decline coincided with 1) the advent of the music video; 2) improvements in portable music systems; 3) increasing affluence which enabled ever younger children to buy music (and middle class teenagers to pursue lucrative conventional careers); 4) increasing consolidation and centralization of the recording industry; and 5) the abandonment of music teaching in schools. Boring, I know, but probably more significant than the hostile opinions of critics or the supposed desire of artists to be "authentic" or "true to their roots" (whatever that might mean).

Notice of category deletion discussion

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 31#Category:Proto-prog albums --Ilovetopaint (talk) 06:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Split

Sandbox preview
Looks to me like an improvement. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
That spinoff got tagged pretty hard - take a look [1]. Steve Quinn (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, most of the content is WP:SYNTH. The sources tend to point out a feature that is common to one or two bands, but then the text suggests that the characteristic is ubiquitous in prog.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 06:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Avant-garde

Experimentalism does not necessarily have to be avant-garde. I think the article is written with an avant-gardist bias. E104421 (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Most of the references to the avant-garde in this article are with respect to art rock, not progressive rock.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject proposal: Psychedelic music

If interested, please offer support for a WikiProject focused on psychedelic music.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

1976?

Why is 1976, of all years, considered the last of prog's "peak years"? If anything I'd say it should extend to 1977, as the decline and fragmentation of prog didn't really begin until 1978. While there were still great albums released from the 1978-1982 era, I'd say 1978 marked a shift in prog's popularity, as punk and disco began to dethrone the genre. Yes threw tomatoes on the cover of their ridiculed Tormato, ELP released their ridiculed Love Beach, Gentle Giant released their ridiculed Giant for a Day, and several bands ceased to exist, including Procol Harum and Wigwam. Genesis had lost Steve Hackett and put out the confused, shapeless ...And Then There Were Three.--OpenYourEyes2 (talk) 04:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Because of Macan's claim that "most of the genre's major bands released their most critically acclaimed albums during the years 1971–1976." If you can find other sources for prog's "peak years", you're free to cite them. 1976 is when punk broke out so that's probably why he chose that year in particular.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Superfluous text

There is an awful lot of "scholarly" style writing in this article, such as "Academic John S. Cotner contests Macan's view...". This makes it read as a secondary source. Now, I recognize that mention of music criticism is required for an article on a music genre, but encyclopedic writing requires (and the easy use of references and footnotes allows) that this article should be edited into a proper tertiary source.

Here are some pointers:
  • A source should not refer to itself. For example, "Smith feels that..." cannot be sourced to Smith. If Smith's opinion is so important, a source about Smith's opinion should be used. But this source can't merely cite Smith, it has to say explicitly that Smith's opinion matters.
  • Wikipedia articles are supposed to be confined to the scholarly consensus. Giving a blow-by-blow of scholarly disputes is against WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Instead, the main consensus should be reported, perhaps with a mention of the minority view.
  • Author names, dates of publication and book/journal titles are best left to the refs, per WP:CITE.
Anyway, when I have time I will be trimming some of this material. Please discuss here. Abductive (reasoning) 19:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps it can be toned down slightly, but if there's an instance of, say, Cotner discussing a view held by Macan and countering it, then that is relevant to the subject. Put it this way, inline attribution is often needed for interpretation of musical works and especially genres and styles, because so much of it comes down to a subjective viewpoint: it's not fact that an album is in a particular musical style. There are examples where an artist has long argued with the labels applied to their work – "No, that's not raga rock", "We were never Britpop" – and it's not as if there's some directory or international register of musical genres. (For this reason, over the years, some editors have suggested doing away entirely with the genre fields in album, single and song articles, because the information isn't really factual – it's what someone or some people think about a piece of music. Alternatively, we have situations like at Garage rock fairly recently, where the whole identity of the genre in relation to garage punk is heavily debated; similarly, there are conflicting sources regarding acid rock and whether that even qualifies as a separate style from psychedelic rock.) Also, authors can be completely blinkered in what and who they recognise as being either precursors to a genre or its main exponents at the height of its popularity. JG66 (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "This makes it read as a secondary source." He is literally referencing Macan's views in that particular text. "Progressive rock" was not offered a serious critical perspective until the 1990s, when Macan created a sort of "prog-rock doctrine" that tightened the genre's modern definition (the one understood by most people today). Hegarty & Halliwell's point is that Macan and Martin exacerbated a false perception that was created by biased music journos in the 1970s. Cotner also notes that the kind of "prog-rock" Macan writes about should not be taken as representative of the entire genre.
This is not uncommon with scholars who attempt to retroactively define music genres. The reverse happened with Simon Reynolds and "post-punk" (his bias of post-punk normalized a much looser definition than what the original critics intended).--Ilovetopaint (talk) 10:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "Instead, the main consensus should be reported, perhaps with a mention of the minority view." I don't understand how the article doesn't already achieve this. If you look at "Scope and related terms", you'll see that the 1st and 2nd paragraphs describe the main consensus. The 3rd paragraph then provides a space for disagreements, clarifications, and minority views.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 10:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The lead should conform to WP:LEAD. I'm not saying it doesn't. Such edits as I make will be careful ones. Abductive (reasoning) 19:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Progressive rock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Progressive and Prog

The article does try in places to show that the terminology given to this music is now largely driven by authorities, academics and hindsight. I don't think it puts across that the name "Prog" didn't appear in general print till the 1980s, when it was largely used as a shorthand or a bit of a put down. In the 1960s, when it was actually happening, I never saw or heard it called anything other than "Progressive", except the early orchestral and psychedelic bits (driven largely by Keith Emerson and the Nice, and Pink Floyd)), which for a while was called "Underground", till after a few mins it wasn't underground at all, but out there getting extremely popular. It's a mistake (or a prejudice, which is mentioned in the article) to confuse "progressive" with "classical crossover". That was only ever one thread, as various keyboard players and others emerged from formal classical training and spotted that rock'n'roll was more fun, as well as being potentially a much better living. Bands like Jethro Tull, Traffic, Family, the Incredible String Band weren't "proto-prog" - they were the real thing, and highly influential - unless you only define "prog" as long widdly keyboard or guitar solos, and that was only ever one aspect of progressive music, and everyone knew that at the time. I am talking from the UK - the USA may have a different angle, but we got a lot of US music including the entire West Coast bundle, which might perhaps be called pre-progressive if anyone insists. But that would be a way of dissecting it looking backwards. What was going on at the time was ... various people got bored with doing straight pop or blues and learned other instruments - the Stones' Brian Jones being a main suspect - and brought what they found into rock and roll. Great stuff, a great time to be alive. 212.159.59.41 (talk) 14:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't there in the '60s but this is exactly the kind of impression I got. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 08:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Fix or reassess

There are numerous cleanup tags throughout the article, including "vague", "example's importance", "text-source integrity", "verification needed", "weasel words", "further explanation needed", "citation needed", etc. Additionally, two whole sections are tagged "This section possibly contains inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text" (since March 2016) and "This section may contain excessive or improper use of non-free material" (since June 2016).

A "Good article" is supposed meet "a core set of editorial standards": the presence of so many tags casts doubt on whether this is currently met. These problem areas should be fixed or the article downgraded. (The GA nominator Dementia13 has not edited on WP since Sept. 2017.)

—Ojorojo (talk) 14:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Images

Does this article really benefit in any way from having four very similar distant shots of (visually) almost indistinguishable bands playing on stage? At least two of them should be removed - they provide no information of encyclopedic value. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

CS1 v CS2

This article has a blend with CS1 being ahead about 85 to 58. The Sources/Bibliography have a preponderance of CS2. I was looking into fixing citation parameter error, warnings along with sfn target problems and unused harv targets. I think I should wait until I know the consensus on format to use. What say you all? —¿philoserf? (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

There is also a blend of full inline citations with the predominant sfn/source. Leading to duplication and other issues. —¿philoserf? (talk) 01:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

brutal prog

what about a section for brutal prog? Straightxandxalert (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

That sounds like an interesting idea. Enjoyer of World (talk) 12:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Invention of the term - Chris Welch

Chris Welch claims to have invented the term 'progressive rock' (as well as 'supergroup') here at 40'50s Acorrector (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Progressive_rock/Archive_9&oldid=1175135272"