Talk:List of progressive rock bands and musicians
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Why is Tool on here, but not A Perfect Circle? They are very similar (sharing a vocalist and general music tendencies). if there is a good reason, though... ugen64 02:24, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)
For some reason Citizen Cain was changed to Citizen Cain (band) - but since the article wasn't renamed this only removed the link. I have now restored it. If there is an alternative definition for Citizen Cain, please move the band article accordingly and add a disambiguation page. Lee M 02:53, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- The article has now been AFD'd so I've removed the link. I personally feel that once again an article has been deleted for the wrong reasons, and worse still there was no attempt to remove the links to the article. Lee M 14:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
---
Is Queen (band) prog rock? If not, why not?
- No synthesizers!
Fire Star 05:34, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Just wondering...
Is there a reason this list's TOC is in groups A-C, D-G, etc.? Is there some sort of convention regarding this, or did it just happen?
I am wondering why there isn't a section for bands whose names start with, or are, numerical, i.e. 3. Also, would Cursive belong on this list? Although they are usually considered Indie, they have orchestral and other non-standard rock instrumentation, concept albums, long compositions, etc... (My apologies for any inproper formating, I'm new at this.) DrumStickHolder 04:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Do add numericals if you think it will improve the list. Narssarssuaq 08:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Beatles
I see that the Beatles have just been added to this list. While I know that there are already some groups included whose status as "progressive rock" musicians is dubious, I do not think that the Beatles should be included. They were certainly "progressive" in many ways, but "progressive rock" as a genre refers to something that the Beatles had little to do with. - Aiwendil42
- agree, we can't just call everything prog --LimoWreck 19:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree. The Beatles have many characteristics of prog:
- Long compositions
- Songs are made up of shorter parts
- Lyrics that focus on themes other than love (after 1965, the majority of their songs fit this)
- Concept albums (Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heats Club Band was originally meant to be a concept album)
- Use of unusual time signatures, etc.
- Use of instruments unusual in rock
- Inclusion of classical music--well, they had quite a large orchestra for a while. Also Because (song) was inspired by a Beethoven piece.
- Linking the music with visual art--the article on progressive rock uses the Beatles as an example!
The beatles started progressive music with their album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band as music that drew influence from other styles and broke boundaries. that is a way better definition of what prog is than the crappy one on wiki. Also, side two of Abbey Road is pretty much one long medley that influenced many early prog acts --NecroVMX
- That's a rather broad criteria that isn't necessarily specific to prog rock. And "Lyrics that focus on themes other than love"--that's pretty much the majority of rock songs since the late 60s. WesleyDodds 08:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thirty Years' War
Hello, I added Thirty Years' War, a Swedish progressive rock band to the list, but caught myself adding a link to the 17'th century war "Thirty Years' War". I wonder if someone could either make some sort of split or tell me how to do one. I'm keen on writing an article about the band.
- Aren't they called Trettioåriga kriget? Narssarssuaq 08:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bands and musicians
The list title should be: List of progressive rock bands and musicians
The list should also include solo composers (e.g. Kit Watkins, Eddie Jobson) and musicians who play or played in several bands (Mel Collins, Dick Parry. Dlvmx 18 October 2006
[edit] Huge amount of redlinks on this page
I just removed a huge amount of redlinked bands/artists on this page. janejellyroll 10:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- I appreciate your significant effort to improve the article, but I actually think most of those bands should be kept in the list. There were a number of acknowledged, although obscure bands that have now been removed, and many of the bands most prog fans consider artistically successful in this genre are rather unknown to the larger public. Moreover, the red links were useful as pointers to articles that should be created. I'd like a discussion about this - what does everyone else think? Should we re-add the red links? Narssarssuaq 10:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- I appreciate what you're saying and I certainly see your point. My concern is that with the previous state of the article there was virtually no standard for inclusion. I could start a band in my basement with my dog and put the name on this list without any other person ever hearing of us. How could we tell the useful/probably needs an article redlinks from the useless/completely nn redlinks? Keep in mind that there are a lot of people like me who know virtually nothing about progressive rock and are going to be looking at this article. I/others like me would be competely unable to tell the different between an obscure yet important band and somebody who just wanted to put their name on a list. A compromise solution might be to start some sort of project to create articles for the bands who shouldn't be redlinks anyway. I'd be willing to help with this. janejellyroll 00:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Resources like [1] and [2] could help point out from a npov which bands are and are not significant progressive rock bands. The organic nature of Wikipedia has worked OK in this case, unimportant bands have been removed, while important bands without a Wikipedia article have been kept. I'd support creating articles for the bands who shouldn't be redlinks anyway. As we seem to slightly disagree, I'd like other people's opinion on this as well. Narssarssuaq 07:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- I understand and I'd like to hear what other people have to say as well. I won't remove any redlinks that appear in this article until we work out a solution. janejellyroll 09:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- I brought this topic up on the discussion page for list guidelines and got the following response.[[3]] It seems as if not to many people are interested in this topic, either on this discussion page or that one. Too bad, because it's a real issue on many pages. I know on List of death metal bands the policy is that no redlink should be added to the article. janejellyroll 04:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Resources like [1] and [2] could help point out from a npov which bands are and are not significant progressive rock bands. The organic nature of Wikipedia has worked OK in this case, unimportant bands have been removed, while important bands without a Wikipedia article have been kept. I'd support creating articles for the bands who shouldn't be redlinks anyway. As we seem to slightly disagree, I'd like other people's opinion on this as well. Narssarssuaq 07:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- I appreciate what you're saying and I certainly see your point. My concern is that with the previous state of the article there was virtually no standard for inclusion. I could start a band in my basement with my dog and put the name on this list without any other person ever hearing of us. How could we tell the useful/probably needs an article redlinks from the useless/completely nn redlinks? Keep in mind that there are a lot of people like me who know virtually nothing about progressive rock and are going to be looking at this article. I/others like me would be competely unable to tell the different between an obscure yet important band and somebody who just wanted to put their name on a list. A compromise solution might be to start some sort of project to create articles for the bands who shouldn't be redlinks anyway. I'd be willing to help with this. janejellyroll 00:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- A suggestion. A number of us working on the List of photographers were struggling with red-linked names being added to the List, which was becoming increasingly diffult to maintain/verify (and the subject of vandalism/spurious entries). So we reserved space on the article's talk page for red-linked names (which could then be easily verified, and removed altogether if they were not noteworthy - or removed and added to the main List when articles had been created for them). The same solution would probably work for this List, too. What do you think? Pinkville 15:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I like that idea. It preserves a list to use as an article development resource while avoiding problems of verification. janejellyroll 06:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it's a very good idea. If someone takes the time to copy the redlinks that were removed to this page. Also, it may be stated as a (non-visible) comment on the top of the article. Narssarssuaq 11:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- It took me a couple of hours to set up the List of photographers page/talk page - but it was well worth it. If you check out Crum375's comment here you'll see that the editors of at least one other list have come up with a similar solution. One thing I like about the layout of the List of photographers talk page, though, is that it mirrors the main List, wehich makes it easy to grasp, visually, while still allowing editors to add their comments/research results. A related informal list (not a List) - appearing on the Wikiproject History of photography page - is that of dubious photographer articles; I'm sure the same thing has happened with this list, where far-from-notable folks have created a vanity article in WP and added their name to the List - it's obviously harder to spot such monsters since they're blue-, not red-linked, but they stand out better on the main list when the vast majority of the names really are recognisably notable. Pinkville 02:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it's a very good idea. If someone takes the time to copy the redlinks that were removed to this page. Also, it may be stated as a (non-visible) comment on the top of the article. Narssarssuaq 11:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- I like that idea. It preserves a list to use as an article development resource while avoiding problems of verification. janejellyroll 06:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- A suggestion. A number of us working on the List of photographers were struggling with red-linked names being added to the List, which was becoming increasingly diffult to maintain/verify (and the subject of vandalism/spurious entries). So we reserved space on the article's talk page for red-linked names (which could then be easily verified, and removed altogether if they were not noteworthy - or removed and added to the main List when articles had been created for them). The same solution would probably work for this List, too. What do you think? Pinkville 15:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Oh yeah, here's the SGML note that appears at the top of the List of photographers - and at the top of each alphabetical (and separately editable) section: <!--Notable photographers who do not yet have articles should be added to the list on the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_photographers#Sub-list_of_photographers Talk Page].-->. Pinkville 02:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
I just added the sub-list below. Narssarssuaq 09:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sub-list of progressive rock bands and musicians
Add significant bands and artists who don't yet have articles (redlinks) to the list below, and not to the article itself:
- Rustichelli e Bordini
- Sakre
- Ruphus
- Farpoint (band)
- Siavash Mirfattahi
