Jump to content

Talk:Progressive rock

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 212.159.59.41 (talk) at 14:30, 28 December 2018. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Findnote

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

== 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).

Split

Sandbox preview
Looks to me like an improvement. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That spinoff got tagged pretty hard - take a look [1]. Steve Quinn (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

WikiProject proposal: Psychedelic music

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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)[reply]

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 of 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 does come across 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Progressive_rock&oldid=875712783"