PA does harm to music history!

You are right Bob, wrong title and I notice only more "where opposites meet", in fact I should have done what I did last year: no more discussions about categories so I stop posting and reading, to me it's OK to close this thread.

erik neuteboom wrote:              Haha, the inevitable Mike and his thread where Prog Andaluz rules   Mike, Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple their music was very progressive and it rocked so Heavy Prog matches with these elements. And Queen was also a band that rocked and had a lot of progressive ideas, perfect for Art-Rock instead of that awful sounding category Prog-related. But the start of this thread is already a clash of subjective theories

Erik you and I both know that led Zep and Deep purple weren't Prog Rock bands. To say otherwise is to change history.

I am 46 years old, I was around then. Led Zep were NOT Prog. This isnt just my opinion it is an historical fact.

Art Rock, except under a "name", was not deleted. You'll only find that, right now, only a few bands were moved into Heavy and Eclectic, the rest still stand in Crossover (and will get fixed as soon as possible).

Deep Purple and Led Zep can't enter Heavy Prog, since they don't have the Prog quality. Heavy Prog remains a genre of "100% prog" music, while Deep and Zep are Hard Rock and was approved as having influenced prog.

I can't tell you anything about Prog Andaluz, it's out of my knowledge, just like Indo-Prog/Raga lies.

About Classic Prog, we can only prefer to use such a term and regard such a phase, cause, regarding style, it's purely obvious what a complex kind of diverse great prog rock was composed, it's impossible to put everything under classic brackets.

erik neuteboom wrote:  (also for Anekdoten because Crossover Prog to Anekdoten looks even funny to say it a bit cynical)

Bilek wrote: And I really can't see how we can relate King Crimson to Supertramp! Supertramp is a perfect example of (previous) Art-Rock definition, but King Crimson is simply unclassifiable!!!

That's why Supertramp will move to Crossover, and King Crimson stay in eclectic.

It's really simple: I agree that Art Rock is a sub genre of Prog Rock, but you have to know that in the 70s the term "Art Rock" was used synonymously to "Prog Rock". This usage didn't last though, so today it can be discarded.

Well I can sense a confusion between what seen as Art Rock in "general music" and what's been defined as Art Rock in "Prog Rock" over here. Sure, Art Rock can elaborate to much more. It is even a reason why Bowie is so desired around here...he is an "Art Rock" great (if not fundamental) artist. But it all stops to be, however, that richly colored once we notice how Art Rock was "perfectioned" by the standard of progressive rock.

Right now, we simply mean an even better perfection and orientation for the Art Rock category, since it was on the point of exploding and losing complete focus. Heavy Prog, based on the influence of Heavy Rock and Blues Heavy Rock (like the definition states) was a much desired genre, Eclectic Prog compensates a massive orientation within the old Art Rock, mainly adapting Art Rock's old definition of "various styles" and "artistic valorous orientations", and Crossover was innovate out of the idea that there are some bands (and even a good orientation) which combines the prog attitude with mainstream or less obvious progressive values.

Going back to the "fears" these three genres may produce:

Heavy Prog may open a door to the Heavy Rock it gets its influence from (names like Zep and Deep coming in mind): it will mostly for sure not happen!
Eclectic Prog may stir confusion of prog quality: it will in fact focus on essential qualities: "various-styled" and 'artistic' prog.
Crossover may open a door to Prog Related, Pop Prog and even Pop (Queen, Roxy Music and so coming in mind): it will mostly not happen!!

Art Rock is part of Prog Rock and was always modeled accordingly.

Too bad Art Rock is now erased together with its clear and concise definition it had (made by Ivan Melgar), because it stated so well how Art Rock was a genre of "100% Prog Rock", plus a genre of "many influences and various styles". So far as we're "redifining" that, I don't see the big problem.

Art Rock stays Art Rock, by the fact that it was only a huge genre, weighting +500 bands and losing its focus by every new band being added. Art Rock was in fact not even a genre, as it was a category.

Erik, you're one of those who currently don't understand what's going on with these changes.

The three genres were discussed and sent to approval for a long time by now, they finally got approved, right now there will follow a work by which all the bands who were in Art Rock will be moved into the three respective genres.

Out of what you question, I have to say that, for the moment, we will focus only on Art Rock bands being sorted into Heavy, Crossover and Eclectic. After that, we may consider some bands that don't fit their category too much and may have a better place in these three genres.

Also The Split of Art Rock is meant to be a radical re-shape of ART ROCK, not of PROG ROCK. Therefore, for example we can't think of Hard ROCK bands that are currently in Proto-Prog having gained a pass towards Heavy PROG. The category of Heavy Prog will have an influence on the Hard Rock and Blues Hard Rock movement, but won't necesarily include those Hard Rock influential bands, if they are not progressive. Just the same, not much of Prog Related and Pop Prog will be redefined under Crossover, only because the genre of Crossover is a blend of progressive rock with more mainstream orientations or lost qualities.




Edited by Ricochet - September 01 2007 at 06:59

Edited by erik neuteboom - September 01 2007 at 06:51