Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all.
Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage") |
|
Post Reply 
|
Page 123 4> |
| Author | |||
Tristan Mulders 
Prog Reviewer 
Joined: September 28 2004 Status: Offline Points: 1723 |
 Topic: PA does harm to music history!Posted: September 04 2007 at 17:59 |
||
|
Of course not having experienced the 70s and all that, I always considered, based upon the variety of artists that I've heard, either via this website or not, that Art Rock was a more commercial or at least more accesible part of the prog rock spectrum. Rock with an artistic imprint or whatever...
|
|||
|
Interested in my reviews?
You can find them HERE "...He will search until He's found a Way to take the Days..." |
|||
 |
|||
|
MrHiccup
Forum Senior Member 
Joined: December 02 2005 Location: Argentina Status: Offline Points: 167 |
Posted: September 04 2007 at 16:09 |
||
|
This new categories will create a paradox! This will lead to the complete destruction of the Universe as we know it... An alternate timeline will be created, in which Keith Emerson & Peter Gabriel will be the new Princes of Pop, and the Backstreet Boys would probably play Hammonds.
 Nah, just kidding. Good music is good music, I don't mind how do we call it.
 |
|||
|
Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends...
|
|||
|
|||
|
Philéas
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 14 2006 Status: Offline Points: 6419 |
Posted: September 03 2007 at 15:48 |
||
|
|||
|
|||
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator 
Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 22 2005 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 21211 |
Posted: September 03 2007 at 13:55 |
||
I would add Fusion as a separate genre, but other than that I think you're right. We *could* leave it at that, but we won't!  Edited by MikeEnRegalia - September 03 2007 at 13:56 |
|||
|
|||
|
debrewguy
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 30 2007 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 3596 |
Posted: September 03 2007 at 12:30 |
||
Yes yes yes. But I also think BTO were progressive in that they took 4/4 time, basic hard rock riffs & heavy guitars & still managed to get a good string of hit singles (back when "hit singles" actually existed) without resorting to the later music marketing 101 trick - the power ballad. Oh, what hell the 80s wrought upon the artist ... |
|||
|
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Shakespeare
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 18 2006 Status: Offline Points: 7744 |
Posted: September 03 2007 at 12:20 |
||
|
I considered that, too, but psych would easily fall under rock, and other could easily contain all non-rock prog.
|
|||
|
|||
|
laplace
Prog Reviewer
Joined: October 06 2005 Location: popupControl(); Status: Offline Points: 7606 |
Posted: September 03 2007 at 12:16 |
||
|
I partially agree with that...
I'd add space rock and non-rock (primarily for electroprog and chamber) to make a round five. |
|||
|
|||
|
Shakespeare
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 18 2006 Status: Offline Points: 7744 |
Posted: September 03 2007 at 12:13 |
||
|
As far as I'm concerned, we could run PA with 3 subgenres.
Prog rock, prog metal, other. (Other would be Zeuhl, avant, electric, et etera.) Edited by Shakespeare - September 03 2007 at 12:13 |
|||
|
|||
|
Peter
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: January 31 2004 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 9669 |
Posted: September 03 2007 at 12:08 |
||
Yes, I see that Mike (as I indicated in another part of my rambling post) but I, myself, as an individual, just don't look for music that way (nor do i think I'm entirely alone in this). I need to hear it, or hear of it from someone (with similar tastes) who knows what I might like. Short of hearing it, detailed reviews work best for me.
That's all. To each his own. Edited by Peter - September 03 2007 at 12:08 |
|||
|
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. |
|||
|
|||
|
Peter
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: January 31 2004 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 9669 |
Posted: September 03 2007 at 12:02 |
||
  Aha! I expected that! Notice I said "fine categorization." I see the need for and utility of BROAD categories. (But less is more, for me.)Just keep putting "metal' in the name, and I'll know it's not my cup o' chai....
(That's a sub-genre of tea, BTW.)
 Edited by Peter - September 03 2007 at 22:23 |
|||
|
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. |
|||
|
|||
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 22 2005 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 21211 |
Posted: September 03 2007 at 11:34 |
||
You don't need genres when you're searching for a band which you already know the name of. You need them when you're searching for bands which might be similar to one you already know. Genres can be very useful because they narrow down your search considerably ... and not all genres are confining or limiting. Consider a simple label like "spacey". If you like an album and you see that it's tagged as being "spacey", you can choose to explore other albums which share this tag. I really can't see any harm in that ... it's not complicated at all. |
|||
|
|||
|
VanderGraafKommandöh
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 04 2005 Location: Malaria Status: Offline Points: 89372 |
Posted: September 03 2007 at 11:19 |
||
|
peterrideoutsgoodmusicarchives.com
Peter Rideout's ultimate music archives, for the discerning listener! No categorisations, just the music he loves! No prog metal though (oops, that's categorising isn't it?). Get your groove on.   Without categorisation, there wouldn't be any prog metal and without prog metal, Peter wouldn't be able to complain about it, because it wouldn't have a name. I personally think categorisation is necessary, just because I like to read Peter's posts against such things. Hugues, that's what I thought too... and as I said, that's not what we've currently got. Edited by Geck0 - September 03 2007 at 11:20 |
|||
  
|
|||
|
|||
|
Peter
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: January 31 2004 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 9669 |
Posted: September 03 2007 at 11:10 |
||
 Am I alone in thinking categories and sub-genres don't matter much anyway? I hear (or hear of) a band, then I simply locate them by clicking on the corresponding letter of the alphabet on the Archives start page.
Okay, I suppose some users of PA enjoy a band from a given category, then are moved to trustingly explore all other artist listed in that category, but I really don't care what others call King Crimson, or any other artist. It doesn't affect me at all, and I don't treat art like science (because it's not a science).
As I've said before, each original band/artist essentially makes its own category anyway. The "category" for Zappa is "Zappa" -- file under Z.
(Would-be) fine categorization is at best a subjective, contentious, inexact process. People will ALWAYS argue about it, because no two people will respond to all music in exactly the same way. This never-ending issue gets way more attention than it merits, in my opinion. Once an artist is considered to be "prog" (of any supposed "format"), and is listed here, that's good enough for me. Hearing samples and reading reviews will do the rest., in a much clearer, informative fashion than any category decided (or dreamed up) by a committee of self-appointed "experts" (really just ordinary mortal music fans like the rest of us) ever could.
 So, in the end, PA's categories really don't matter to a listener like me. You can call it 'log" "snog" "trog" "glog" or "Bob," for all I care. As I've long maintained, mere words and headings don't pin something as amorphous, emotive and listener-dependent as music into place, like a dead beetle (Beatle?) in some dusty display case.
Carry on with the arguing, soul-searching and threats to leave, though -- I'll be on the sidelines, watching the chest-thumping fray, and digging the groovy music.
 Edited by Peter - September 03 2007 at 11:14 |
|||
|
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. |
|||
|
|||
|
Sean Trane
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk Joined: April 29 2004 Location: Heart of Europe Status: Offline Points: 20300 |
Posted: September 03 2007 at 03:37 |
||
Effectively, they were the same. In North America, no one knew of progressive rock in the 70's, it was just Art Rock. But usiong the name Art rOck was to name the other groups that couldn't be easily classified in other "genre" . So effectivey it was "Other sort of prog rock"
OK, I've helped out the Art Rock team in subdividing that category, but I still think we're going the wrong way:
We are multiplying the subgenres which of course is worsening the problems that are plaguing the site.
And personally I would still like to see the Art Rock name being used. Prog must claim the name in order to stop it being used to name other non-prog currents using to their credits.
This subdivision was not helpfull IMHO (it was botched according to what the original plans were set:
the iidea was to use three Art Rock sub-sub-genres (as Ivàn wanted with his "national" schools in Symphonic)
so effectively the plan was:
|
|||
|
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword |
|||
|
|||
|
Verwuestung
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 02 2006 Location: Israel Status: Offline Points: 105 |
Posted: September 02 2007 at 23:16 |
||
|
there isn't a general agreement about what art rock or progressive rock is and logically there never was.
what about the velvet underground? if anything they should be defined as art rock (they had bloody andy warhol as their.. whatever) the way I see it it's a change for the best because ultimately having all those bands that had little to do with eachother, classified under 'art rock' was vauge and never could give a general picture of what a band was about.. all in all using generes is generalizing, but on the other hands you can't file the 3000 bands on this website solely under "progressive rock". trying to stick to what was once considered this and that is maybe historically significant but people were people back than as they are now and probably still argued about it, hence trying to accurate and articulate further then the accepted consensus is not such a bad idea the way I see.. |
|||
|
|||
|
ghost_of_morphy
Prog Reviewer
Joined: March 08 2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2755 |
Posted: September 02 2007 at 22:12 |
||
Amen.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Zargus
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 08 2005 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 3491 |
Posted: September 02 2007 at 18:43 |
||
Yes i have read many rock/pop music books and in every one of em prog is not the word they use very much most of the big prog bands are named art rock, so when i first came here i tough it was a bit wierd, but then again this site seem to live in its own litle univers with its own litle rules, coming up with new sub-genres out of nowhere. |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
mystic fred
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: March 13 2006 Location: Londinium Status: Offline Points: 4252 |
Posted: September 02 2007 at 18:30 |
||
|
though i side with Erik on this and am confused by the new genre titles, Crossroads rock or Dyslexic prog, we'll just have to live with them now..
Anyway, in the words of our famous Bard....
"What's in a name.......wouldn't Art Rock by any other name still sound as sweet...? "
Edited by mystic fred - September 02 2007 at 18:32 |
|||
 Prog Archives Tour Van 
|
|||
|
|||
|
sleeper
Prog Reviewer
Joined: October 09 2005 Location: Entropia Status: Offline Points: 16449 |
Posted: September 02 2007 at 16:35 |
||
It all depends on whether Crossover, Eclectic and Heavy are sub genres of progressive rock or sub genres of Art rock,which is a sub genre of prog rock. If its the formr then I think no, the titles should be left as they are clearly showing that they are indipendant sub genres of prog. If its the latter then go with your suggestion, showing them to be the three sides to Art rock. At the moment, anyone comeing to the front page will see that crossover, heavy and eclectic are all indipendant sub genres and art rock being non existent, but then isnt prog rock part of art rock anyway? |
|||
|
Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005
|
|||
|
|||
|
Easy Livin
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin Joined: February 21 2004 Location: Scotland Status: Offline Points: 15585 |
Posted: September 02 2007 at 13:51 |
||
|
I guess there will probably be a few bands in other genres who may now fit better into one of the newly created ones, but the proposal was taken forward on the basis that it was simply splitting up a larger category.
As I recall, an option to retain the Art rock name as "Art rock - Crossover prog" etc., was suggested. Would that be the preferred style, or is it too long?
|
|||
|
|||
|
Post Reply
|
Page 123 4> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
PA does harm to music history!
Topic Options
Zargus wrote:
