Talk:Progressive rock (radio format)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Merge with Freeform

I proposed merging this article with Freeform (radio format). Both formats are basically the same. Stations that carry/carried the format are often referred to as 'freeform'. Besides, there is a genre of music called progressive rock, and this may lead to some confusion. I think this information should be combined into the freeform article. It may also be a good time for rewriting it, as there is currently a tag on the article's page. --Fightingirish 19:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I oppose this merge. While the formats share a common heritage, they are quite different in the kind of music they play, the kind and size of radio stations they appear on, and the business model they operate under. For example, as the article makes clear, progressive rock radio was in business to make money; and when it no longer could, the format faded away. That's an important distinction from freeform. Indeed, if you look at Category:Radio formats, you will see plenty of more-similar formats with separate articles (e.g., Active rock, Modern rock, and Mainstream rock) than these two. If you want to start merging, that's a better place to start. And as for confusion with the progressive rock music genre, the article makes it clear that they are two different things. Wasted Time R 19:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, I see you are changing radio station articles which previously linked to progressive rock (wrong article) to link to freeform (radio format), instead of progressive rock (radio format). This is wrong! These were two different formats, and station histories need to accurately describe what they were. Wasted Time R 19:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I've done the work to correct those articles where the format name was incorrectly altered, and to correctly link to this article. Wasted Time R 00:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

What I notice here is that you do not give any reason for the naming. The type of format is mostly called 'freeform',[1][2][3] [4][5][6] [7] in that the jocks basically picked their own music. 'Progressive rock.' is also used, but since there are two articles about basically the same thing, wouldn't it make more sense to just combine the two? Besides, to call a format 'progressive rock,' wouldn't that basically mean they play nothing but Yes, ELP, old Genesis, etc.? The old freeform rockers, most of which survived into the 70s and even a few into the early 80s, played a wide variety of rock music. Stuff like Aerosmith, ZZ Top, James Taylor, etc., that I would hardly call 'progressive rock.' Just because you say it's true doesn't necessarily mean so.

And yes, the alternative rock and modern rock articles should be merged. In fact, I proposed it once and those people practically went nuclear on me. Album-oriented rock is basically the version of the format that introduced those tight playlists that we all know and love (sarcasm intended). Mainstream rock is probably the same damn thing. Active rock is used for stations that play the newer, harder stuff. And so on and so on.

Besides, no offense, but your article has absolutely no sources whatsoever, which is why it probably has the tag at the top of it. The freeform article isn't that great either, but it has been around for three years, which is why I have no idea why you decided to do a competing article. If I sound a bit snitty here, it's probably because I didn't particularly appreciate you stalking and reverting all my edits. That's a pretty crappy thing to do, but I'll assume good faith.

I'll post something about this over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio Stations. Seems that's the best place to go for a consensus. Particularly since hardly anyone visits this page anyway.--Fightingirish 00:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

First, I wasn't "stalking" your edits in general, just ones that pertained to this specific issue. If an editor sees that someone has made a string of similar edits that are mistaken, it is not stalking to go and fix them up. That's just being comprehensive. "Stalking" would be if I looked at all your edits, not just ones on this matter, and started picking apart and editing them. I didn't do that; I have no interest in your or your other edits. Wasted Time R 00:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You still haven't proven that I was even 'mistaken.' Like I said, just because you believe it does not mean it's true. --Fightingirish 01:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Please also note that even if your stance prevails and the articles are merged, my edits to the radio station articles were in fact correct, because those formats were indeed called "progressive rock" at the time (otherwise those editors wouldn't have used the term); a redirect will take them to the merged article. Wasted Time R 01:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Second, you are correct that this article needs better sourcing. I will endeavor to do this. But please note that this article has 91 "what links here" references to it, the large majority from articles I did not write. These are all people who know that a given radio station's format was called "progressive rock", not "freeform". You are saying that all those other editors are mistaken, not just me! Indeed you can see examples where it was in a radio station's slogan, such as for WMEB-FM, another article I did not write. I created this article over a year and a half ago because I know that "freeform" and "progressive rock" were two different formats and needed different articles. The big progressive rock Metromedia stations of the 1970s were commercial powerhouses that had a big effect on the mainstream rock music industry, something that no freeform stations ever had. Wasted Time R 01:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The Metromedia stations were still 'freeform.' Read "Radio Waves" by Jim Ladd. He should know, he worked for them. And the creators of the Jive 95 site, a tribute to Metromedia's KSAN, call it 'free form' (it should be two words, but that's another issue). You still have not spelled out the differences between the two. Why shouldn't the two be merged?--Fightingirish 01:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The key differences:

• Freeform could play any kind of music, progressive rock limited itself to (all kinds of) rock
• Freeform stations tended towards non-commercial or niche markets, progressive rock could handle large mar:kets
• Progressive rock was intended to be as fully commercially viable as any other mainstream radio format; freeform generally shunned such ambitions
• The progressive rock format had a large impact on the commercial rock music industry at the time, while the freeform format generally didn't
• The progressive rock format is gone today, but the freeform format is still around, a consequence of the differences above.

Please note that the Freeform (radio format) article lists many examples of stations in the format, but not any of the Metromedia 1970s powerhouses are included; that's because the editors of that article (which don't include me!) understand the difference. Wasted Time R 01:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Now, I readily concede there was a relation between the formats, in that both featured the DJ playing what he or she wanted. Thus the progressive rock format involved "freeform" DJing, which is why you sometimes see both terms used in describing one of the big stations. But the formats were distinct. Wasted Time R 01:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Improved citing is underway. It will take awhile. (I wish Google had an "ignore all wikipedia-based web sites" option - these days one gets lots of useless echos.) Wasted Time R 04:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

there may be no real examples of the specific progressive rock radio format in existence today on the FM dial. - don't know - Jim Ladd puts on a show very much like the one he put on in the early 1980's —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.33.44.66 (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)