Heavy Prog ... huh ?

I don't use it. I'm stubborn when it comes to that sort of thing. I remember Rush being Art Rock, and now they're something else. Call them what you want and put them into whatever category with whatever made up name you want, they're still Rush.

the term 'heavy prog' is used constantly all over the place... 

First of all, if you look at the ProgGnosis site, you'll see many more, and even more outlandish, definitions. They have "Hard Progressive", if you really want to know.

Secondly, the new definitions were approved after MONTHS of discussion in the collabs zone. They weren't any overnight decision. We knew there would be reservations on the part of many users, though there are as many of them who are quite happy with the change.

Thirdly - and most important thing - the AR split was suggested (by myself, I have to add) because the category was becoming next to untenable. We had almost 500 bands in the section, which ranged from The Moody Blues to Atomic Rooster through VDGG and Curved Air, and people were becoming increasingly confused by the name. Some of you might remember the threads going, "why are KC in Art Rock? This means they're not prog!". I suppose you are aware that Art Rock is often used to describe something that is not quite prog.

I believe everyone should be entitled to criticise choices, but I also think words like "silly" should be avoided, especially when talking about definitions that were discussed for months before being implemented.

stonebeard wrote: ^ I'm sure the new genres fit well, Rico, but after becoming accostomed to a certain set of genres, then having a whole new set of genres thrust open you, you feel put on the defensive and unaccepting of these new "upstart" genres.

there was always such a defensive response to any new, curios or unprepared change (the Symphonic clean-up, for example. Didn't it shook the world of Prog Archives? Didn't it cause hysteria when Crimson, GG, Rush and so were moved to Art Rock?). But we aren't trying to do harm or bedazzled by these new definitions.

These three new genres practically proposed a better and more comprised orientation and practice within the Art Rock sum of styles and movements. All three should, practically, express a different value within the old Art Rock. But, of course, since we're also thinking of some bands from other genres that could fit in one of these new ones, the statement above can't be accepted 100%.

genres are overrated

at least, that's what king crimson thought in 1969

but what do they know

good deal, FruMp

Like Ghost Rider has noted, there were a lot of threads from people with problems understanding the whole Art Rock genre throughout its existence, probably due to the confusion stirred from different designation purposes and significantly due to the wide variety of bands included, whereas it'd be almost unthinkable to understand what some bands had in common. Still, it was practical to those who understood it, and I did as well, but I see the need to divide it; and although I'm not too crazy with the names Eclectic Prog and Crossover Prog, they're the genres that were present in Art Rock - together with Heavy Prog - that were providing little accuracy as a conjoint unit, so it's efficient to part them, in the long run. As to Heavy Prog, I've seen it numerous times and somewhat feel what it's about without even reading the definition posted and empathize when directed to Rush, as I always thought that'd be their best designation. Kind of a progressive hard-rock, I'd say, but there's obviously more to it.
It'd be best if you read the definition (if you've yet to do so, of course), Yorkie, then attempt to draw some specific doubts, if you have any left. Also, one should have in mind that, being a recent development, the bands included in each genre are not necessarily accurately placed - given Vemod and Nucleus, Eclectic Prog sounds a better home for Anekdoten, imo, but I've yet to hear the rest so... -, but with patience and proper discussion everything will fall into place eventually.

You'll see that in one years time everybody "around" will use terms like "eclectic", "heavy prog" and "crossover", and the terms will make perfect sense to you... Patience, my friend.

Though we have split in three separate teams, we're still very much collaborating with each other - especially since there are only two of us in each team. At present, Ricochet is dealing with Eclectic on his own, as his partner Chus is very busy with his studies. We've just split our AR chart yesterday... We'll have our tags changed soon, but for the time being there are more pressing matters to deal with.

^ more like a genre per 50 artists. I can live with that!