WikiProject Progressive Rock, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Progressive rock on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This page is within the scope of ||
||This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Why the "requisite" Christgau review?
I first noticed this in the article on "Tales for Topographic Oceans," but I think it applies to progressive rock album articles more generally. Why is there a seemingly requisite Robert Christgau review? As his WP article notes, he was no fan of progressive, so his reviews are virtually violations of NPOV. I would say that the only reason they're in the infoboxes is that they are available online, rather than because they have any special insight into progressive rock. The fact that he'd comment on every kind of album doesn't mean that his tastes were in any way catholic. I would suggest simply dumping them from the article infoboxes in this Project. Academic38 (talk) 08:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- I read what he had to say about Tales from Topographic Oceans and other Yes albums; he classifies them under B's and C's on the ABCDF scale. They seemed awfully negative to have such ratings, save for some of the albums he rated B- or higher, especially that of The Yes Album, which he rated B. If it is true that he is not a progressive rock fan by default, then it is not necessary to have his reviews on progressive rock pages or for his reviews to apply to the WikiProject. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 19:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- You seem to be misappropriating WP:NPOV. That Robert Christgau doesn't like many prog albums is irrelevant. He counts as a reliable source. NPOV states that we should try to adequately represent all viewpoints. Discarding the ones we think of as "not catholic" or "extreme" is itself a violation of NPOV. Una LagunaTalk 18:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, I get where you're coming from there. Just because he doesn't like progressive rock by default does not mean he dislikes all progressive rock. A crackdown removal would not be necessary, then. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 00:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Reliable sources is a guideline for sources about facts or opinions about facts, not about things that are purely matters of taste. The word "music" does not appear anywhere in the guideline for a reason. There is no sense in which opinion about music can be extreme in the way a fringe conspiracy theory would be. What matters with reviews is whether they are useful for people who might be interested in the album. I contend that Christgau's reviews are not useful to someone who would be interested in progressive rock. They would be unlikely to prefer an album because it was closer to another genre (Christgau's best grade for a King Crimson album was based on its being more like jazz). His reviews are not useful information; they are being privileged simply because they are available on the web. Very few reviews from the 1970s are available on the web, and that's when much of this music was released. If his views were useful in telling us that "Tales" was a better album than "Close to the Edge," that would be one thing, but given his bias, his views are not useful. Academic38 (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- That is a good point. Considering his bias against progressive rock, he likely is not the "go-to guy" for the genre. As I said in my first post on this thread, his reviews are not necessary to apply to this WikiProject because of this. So, what about the reviews that are already put there? If you deem it necessary, you can forget about the last sentence in my second post. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 23:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- ...which again boils down to "we shouldn't include his reviews for certain albums because he doesn't like certain albums". This selectivity is a POV issue - we're starting to go around in circles. If the issue was with the quality of Christgau's reviews, full stop, then that may be a case worth considering, but considering you're cherry-picking reviews of his to ignore, that's not the case. Una LagunaTalk 23:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- No, I am definitely not arguing that we should cherry pick his reviews. I think we should get rid of all of them because he has nothing useful to say about the genre. So, in your words, my argument is about the quality of his reviews, full stop, of progressive rock albums. Academic38 (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- In my view, we shouldn't include any specific reviewers on every album. Each album should be examined on a case by case basis, but overall keep in mind that the infobox review section should include one positive, one neutral, and one negative review in order to satisfy WP:NPOV. Obviously some albums are going to have universally positive or negative review, and so we should seek to balance out the critical reception as best we can. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 00:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Completely agree with Academic38; strongly differ with Una Laguna. Robert Christgau is an active enemy of progrock — which is something that a freelance critic has every right to be (there are many horror stories about Christgau's prog reviews: he thought his amp had died when he put on Soft Machine Seven, he directly compares Henry Cow to American jazz, etc. etc. etc.). If you're looking for a WP:Notable source, use AllMusic. Not that the reviews are necessarily all that good all the time (some of them are but many are not; I've written them countless times on genre bias and incorrect factual information). The virtue of the site is that it's extremely comprehensive and as a commercial site, not prone to link rot. As for Floydian's point, I don't think that would be a tenable common practice. Multiple reviews more often than not reveal a narrow range of consensus; it's the exception to provoke love 'em / hate 'em reactions a la Captain Beefheart or Cardiacs.
I agree with Backtable that we don't necessarily need to purge Christgau's reviews, but if there are pages with only a Christgau review, I'd strongly suggest adding the AllMusic review. That would also serve Floydian's concern for "balance."
Let me address a final point to Una Laguna. Look, let's be honest with ourselves. Every person on this project's signup sheet has identified themselves as a fan of progrock. We're not, you know fans of every type of music with an aversion to having biasd musical tastes who decided to help out the Progrock project strictly because of our undying love for Wikipedia. We're here to help this music get better exposure primarily for the sake of people who may like the music because progrock has been a misunderstood, minority style even during the brief cultural moment when it was popular. Robert Christgau is a self-identified "rockist" — which is an essentialist ideology about what people like him believe rock music should and should not be. Christgau ranks Yes albums with C's because he's comparing them in his head to The Rolling Stones. Which is as absurd as getting a classical reviewer to share his/her opinions on the latest Madonna release.
Understand that I'm no advocate of adding fancruft, pushing POV or editing confrontations with the mainstream to make the band or album in question "look good." My contribution is going to try to add (and hopefully source) some balanced and objective musical analysis to prog on the obscure end of the spectrum: RIO, Zeuhl and avant-prog. I just think we don't need to go out of our way to confirm a 20-year-old mainstream consensus that prog is somehow not part of what NYTimes critic Ann Powers called "rock's canon" at the turn of the millenium. Prog is coming back; even teenage garage bands are obsessed with odd time signatures these days (cf. the math rock and djent movements). Chrisgau's views are out of date.
Snardbafulator (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Several points here. First of all, you're all talking as though Wikipedia is a buyer's guide. It's not; it's an encyclopedia. So whether or not Robert Christgau's reviews are "useful" is irrelevant. All that matters is that they are notable. Our job is to document an album's historical reception, not help music lovers make purchasing decisions.
Second, you're barking up the wrong tree anyway. Your theory that Christgau hates progressive rock is based solely on reading way too much into some of his comments, and the observation that 95% of his reviews of prog rock albums are negative. The latter is meaningless, because 95% of all of Christgau's reviews are negative. He doesn't hate progressive rock any more than he hates music in general. Meanwhile, you have plenty of reviewers on Allmusic who essentially write "This album is progressive rock; therefore it stinks" and even make snide comments such as "The spirit of traditional progressive rock experimentation is alive on this album; five of the seven songs exceed six minutes."(actual example from a real Allmusic review!) Singling out Christgau makes no sense.
Third, and most importantly, if you are indeed "here to help this music get better exposure" as Snardbafulator says, then you really should excuse yourself from editing music-related articles, if not Wikipedia entirely, because this is what is known as conflict of interest. Intentionally introducing bias only damages Wikipedia's content, not to mention makes progressive rock look far worse than reviewers like Christgau could ever hope to make it look.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well put. Essentially this is a long way of saying Verifiability, not truth... We all know the truth is that progressive rock is awesome, but unfortunately we have to verify it from people that are more important and notable than us. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Genre infobox vandalism
Just to say that there's an IP switching around genres in infoboxes for no given reason. All of their edits here  may need to be reverted. Delusion23 (talk) 01:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's hard to tell what they've added and what is already vandalized. From the looks of it, most Weezer albums are IP troll-holes. They need some love and dedication. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Bah! I hate and loathe the type of editing that consists of changing genres for no reason! Thank you much for the warning to others about the issue. If this person keeps up this shady activity, you can report it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Genre warring is one of the most bottom feeding practices of the music scene.
- Also, I have another one to share. There has been an IP-hopping person who pervasively changes genres, even after being told not to do so. The IP name almost always starts with 90.21#.###.###. The 1 is there most the time, but not all the time. I haven't seen editing characteristic of this in a while, and I'm not sure if (s)he persists, but if it happens anywhere, then you can report it to the two above links and possibly tell me, because I could be able to help with relevant information.
- Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 01:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- By the way, this number 90 person I'm talking about has his/her most recent activity with this edit on February 2, 2011. I haven't seen activity from this person since that edit, I believe, but that doesn't mean this person isn't active. I've observed long spans of little activity from this person before, so that doesn't mean this person is done for good. That person has been doing it for over two years.
- As for the originally posted genre warrior, (s)he's gone under another IP and done similar activity. That is pretty unfortunate, but a fellow user reverted a lot of 98's stuff. That is definitely reminiscent to the practice of number 90, by the way, especially if the person keeps IP hopping. I, as well as others, just hope that the IP does not keep this non-negotiating serial genre changing up. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 01:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, I did some minor revisions on Allan Holdsworth's genres in the body of the article. I indicated specifically where he plays jazz-rock fusion (a specific genre started by jazz musicians), British jazz-rock (started by rock musicians) and progressive rock. There are multiple reliable sources that identify his music as all three; I just sorted it out.
Anybody's welcome to quibble and reinsert the common (but somewhat empty) generic term "jazz fusion" if they like, but I think my reasoning is solid (and duly posted on the AH Talk page).
The last thing I'd ever do is tweak a genre anonymously or against consensus. Sheesh.
Snardbafulator (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Decline of prog rock also correlates with rise of jazz rock
- I'm reviving this from the archives, since I just wrote a ton on this very subject on the Allan Holdsworth talk page. Obviously I'm not intending this for inclusion in Wikipedia as it would qualify as original research (until such time as it becomes sourced), but it does speak to the genre discussion on this page. Snardbafulator (talk) 05:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Or it seemed that way at the time in the 1970s - in addition to the rise of punk. When John McLaughlin and Mahavishnu Orchestra http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McLaughlin_(musician), Chick Chorea and Return to Forever etc took off (all ex Miles Davis sidemen) this new virtuoso genre seemed to render prog rock clunky and irrelevant, though in hind site this was a misguided view, probably because at the time instrumental virtuosity seemed to be so much of what prog rock was about although (again with the benefit of hind site) it was not the main point of prog rock at all. McLaughlin and Chorea's bands were all such dazzling technicians that most of the prog rockers were not in their league technically (in terms of say speed), with the notable exception of Bill Bruford (a brilliant drummer by any standard), Zappa and company, maybe Soft Machine and possibly Keith Emerson. Clearly Mahavishnu and Return to Forever owed much to prog rock's concept album format, marriage of influences etc. The sad thing about this move to complex jazz rock was that the 70s jazz fusion players, first and foremost and despite the myriad influences, were identifiably jazz musicians on loud electric instruments, whereas prog rock was indisputably rock music.
This is all opinion sorry - I don't have a ref. but I'm sure one exists somewhere or perhaps I'll write it, I just wanted to put this thought here for when an appropriate ref. emerges. Hope this is the right place to leave it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Jazz-rock fusion (as distinct from the later and much more generic term "jazz fusion") is decidedly another stream of progressive rock and IMHO should be included within the scope of this project. The difference between "jazz-rock fusion" and "jazz fusion" (or, for that matter "fusion") is that the original form was most often progressive, whereas by the late 70s, "fusion" began to encompass instrumental funk (no doubt by very competent musicians) that doesn't push musical boundaries nearly to the extent of the first-generation Miles Davis alumni whose music spawned the term. The IP is correct that "jazz-rock fusion" consisted of jazz musicians who began to play rock instruments, and thus generally have a much higher level of both technique and also in many cases musical background even than those progrockers who are identified as virtuosos. Keith Emerson and Chick Corea may have a fairly comparable level of raw chops, but as a lifetime jazz musician, Corea can improvise on a much more deeply interactive level, which would make him arguably a more well-rounded musician. That said, jazz-rock fusion and progrock, as part of a broad, anti-mainstream movement that also included "trad" folk rock, were musical allies and didn't detract from each other's popularity.
- It's important to recall that virtuosity was only part of progrock's appeal; there are strains of progrock that aren't at all "virtuosic" as the term was understood by the endlessly soloing jazz-rock fusioneers. Genesis and post-Dark Side of the Moon Pink Floyd didn't improvise at all, for instance. Most Canterbury rock had room for improv and some of it is heavily jazz-influenced (qualifying it as jazz-rock, but not fusion), but it's also beloved precisely because it isn't obsessed with constant displays of self-important virtuosity — making it a charmingly self-deprecating alternative to the TERMINAL SERIOUSNESS of Yes, ELP, King Crimson and Rush. Creativity has many available avenues.
- The IP's thesis statement is incorrect; progrock and jazz-rock fusion arose at roughly the same time and rode the same economic and cultural currents. It's also much more likely that fusion had a greater influence on progrock (especially on the Canterbury jazz-rock contingent) than the reverse (fusion guys were immersed in the rather hermetic world of jazz gigging). I'd like to demonstrate the following, but it would take genuine scholarly work to conduct a broad survey of articles from the time and not just cherry picking the ones that make this point. I think it can be objectively argued that jazz-rock fusion took the first critical hits a few years before progrock became the punk rocker's favorite piñata. In the early to mid-70s, even reviewers who were generally supportive of prog began to feel that virtuosity for its own sake was becoming a dead end (I recall, among several reviews making this general point, a Creem magazine trashing Mahavishnu Orchestra in the same issue that was lovin' on ELP). By the time punk's press supporters began wailing on "wankery" in all its forms progrock and fusion were conflated — and it was the fault of those flamboyant virtuosi.
- It's important to recall that Sid Vicious was a huge Magma fan, Captain Sensible adores the arch-progressive keyboard trio Egg and countless punk and New Wavers were quick to sing the praises of the non-virtuosic (but oh so musically innovative) Captain Beefheart and the Magic Band. So progressive per se wasn't so much the issue.
- Finally, an irony somewhat galling to progrockers. Because fusion is essentially jazz, and jazz can be disassembled into funk, blues and the American popular song, it was pretty easy to de-tune the music and take the edges off without losing the music's essence as "fusion" (the descendents of jazz-rock fusion remain in the background music on The Weather Channel and on "smooth jazz" radio), guaranteeing a solid market niche all through the late 70s, 80s, 90s and beyond. Progrock, in order to survive, had to amalgamate with New Wave in various ways, and beyond the relative successes of examples of this, it's arguable that this deformed the music (neither quite prog nor quite New Wave) in a way you can't say about fusion.
- So while jazz-rock fusion was more about virtuosity, progrock was (and is) more about form. The pressure to innovate satisfyingly is thus heavier on the less virtuosic genre.
Snardbafulator (talk) 05:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
This page had been classified as unsourced and was then, I would say erroneously, deleted. It is on the other hand true, that there are more and more entries where I am not sure, whether the band and/or album listed satisfy WP:NALBUMS. Proposal: New entries are only acceptable if at least two reliable sources are cited. If not, the entry shall be removed. A review shall be made to cleanup the existing entries of all Timeline of Progressive rock pages to add the necessary citations and to remove all entries in the list failing WP:NALBUMS.Your comments are appreciated. Cdl obelix (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'd start by filtering out the bluelinks. From what remains, first find if they're released an album in the past two years, and then see if they're reviewed by a major source (UG, DPRP, something that's not just an unedited, user submitted review), or if they have two reviews from minor sources. This should clean up most of the junk. I'd list the ones that you can only find minor sources for here at the end, so that they can be looked at case-by-case. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Tool's 10,000 Days album cover
I would like to summon anyone coming across this thread (and preferably has experience with album cover displays) to take a look at this since I'm seeking help for a consensus here. • GunMetal Angel 07:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Going over the task list for this project, I noticed that much of it has to do with the article Timeline for Progressive Rock. I've seen these timeline articles before and honestly, I still don't really understand their purpose. When I'm going through Wikipedia as a reader and not an editor, I'm never tempted to visit them, because the bulk of info they must present makes them both hard for a reader to absorb and difficult if not impossible for editors to bring anywhere near a reasonable comprehensiveness. Can anyone explain what function timeline articles serve? I'd like to help out with this, but obviously I can't be much use without knowing exactly why we're doing it.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I nominated the following hook for DYK. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Did you know
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- The DGM article should run on DYK on 25 March. Its good article review has begun.
- Will somebody look at
- Smith, Sid (2001). In the court of King Crimson. Helter Skelter Publishing. ISBN 1-900924-26-9.
- and see whether Smith mentions Discipline Global Mobile, please?
- Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
New Flower Kings album article for deletion
Banks of Eden has been nominated for deletion. See the discussion and weigh in please! - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Outside eyes would be useful. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- Noting prior discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Prohibited (sic) links. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
There is a discussion occuring here regarding which music articles should be deemed vital to the Wikipedia project. Your input would be appreciated. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
The "tasks" section suggests creating a "GEPR list" page, but I've already created List of progressive rock bands and populated it with a lot of referenced names. Why not amend that request and ask that anybody with the time and inclination please compare the new list page with GEPR and add any names that are missing? There are also quite a few redlinked names that could use articles. Dementia13 (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)