A.C.T. and The Tangent eclectic ?

Isn't this the problem with labels, tags, genres and sub-genres and genres within genres, they paint broad strokes and flatten textures?

Personally, I wouldn't bracket A.C.T or The Tangent with GG, KC, or VDGG.  I wouldn't bracket any of those 3 bands with each other either.  So what do these labels and groupings exist for?  They are a convenient means to sketch an idea of a band's overall sound and to help us, at a site like Progarchives, to investigate similar bands that we may not know on the basis of those that we do?

It's a problem I encounter when trying to describe the music I enjoy to the non-proggers ('straights' as I refer to them) out there; how to convey an impression of a group's sound without being able to play something for their ears?  I resort to clumping and clumsy generalisations of this or that and slack comparisons with whoever or whatever may fit appropriately, but I don't know that I'm actually doing justice to the artist I'm trying to describe or being in any way helpful to 'the straight'.

You'll notice how I have used a tag to describe a huge proportion of the human race whom I have bracketed together as 'those who have not heard (or do not like) the music I enjoy'.  It must amount to over 6 billion souls and is a useful tag for me, in so far as I need to use it, but it in no way helps us to understand anything about the complexity  or individuality of  any single entity within this rather large group I have banded together.  I have however, created a nice division for us to tribalize around and we like that don't we, us humans?  It provides an arena for us to contest our wills and if there is anything that we are good at as a species, it's that.

I think I've made my point and I'm no closer to knowing where either A.C.T or The Tangent usefully belong other than coming out of some speakers.


Edited by Makntak - December 22 2009 at 06:12

Logan wrote: It doesn't need to be raised, and this is not in response to any comment, but one thing that some people get confused about when it comes to Eclectic is that when they hear a wide variety of styles that it's automatically right for Eclectic.  This is not the case, not only should it not lean too much towards the attributes for another Prog category, but it should be a cross of Prog styles more than a general cross of styles of music.  So a band that releases an album that is symph, disco, grunge, heavy metal is not going to be as suitable as one that is part psych, part jazz-rock, part RIO etc.  It's Eclectic Prog (variety of Prog styles), not just eclectic music that is Proggy, and if we had tags would be labelled with various categories.  But it can draw on non-prog music too (prog generally does).  And the music is often more experimental, or "progressive" than in some other categories.  Though it's pretty hardcore Prog category, "newness" is valued in modern bands, and we actually have some great "alternative" prog bands in Eclectic such as June Cleaver & The Steakknives.  It's often not easy determining if a band fits best in Eclectic, and sometimes it requires compromise (we may think it better for another category, but other teams don't want it there, and would rather it be in Eclectic, so if we're 'okay' with it...).

exactly

It doesn't need to be raised, and this is not in response to any comment, but one thing that some people get confused about when it comes to Eclectic is that when they hear a wide variety of styles that it's automatically right for Eclectic.  This is not the case, not only should it not lean too much towards the attributes for another Prog category, but it should be a cross of Prog styles more than a general cross of styles of music.  So a band that releases an album that is symph, disco, grunge, heavy metal is not going to be as suitable as one that is part psych, part jazz-rock, part RIO etc.  It's Eclectic Prog (variety of Prog styles), not just eclectic music that is Proggy, and if we had tags would be labelled with various categories.  But it can draw on non-prog music too (prog generally does).  And the music is often more experimental, or "progressive" than in some other categories.  Though it's pretty hardcore Prog category, "newness" is valued in modern bands, and we actually have some great "alternative" prog bands in Eclectic such as June Cleaver & The Steakknives.  It's often not easy determining if a band fits best in Eclectic, and sometimes it requires compromise (we may think it better for another category, but other teams don't want it there, and would rather it be in Eclectic, so if we're 'okay' with it...).

I see. Because while they did undergo a dramatic stylistic change over time, the lack of the fusion of these elements on one release is the defining factor? So then eclectic has more to do with the band's sound in each album rather than represented over the course of their discography? Makes sense. Have to draw the lines somewhere.

I remember Porcupine Tree being moved. Isn't heavy prog a pretty new category? I seem to remember Rush being in the art rock one for a while, too.

If, say, King Crimson had stopped making albums after Islands, they'd probably be considered normal symphonic prog?

Wait, one more question, while the topic is still here:

If the idea of eclectic prog is drawing from a wide variety of influences, at least a lot wider than normal, what is preventing Porcupine Tree from being in that category? I have no problem with where they are now, but a strange spread of influences and a particularly evolutionary history seem to suggest that they might qualify for this category.

Basically, I think I still don't quite understand the actual category in question. Hm.

A.C.T should be in Crossover. Yes, they use many different sounds and other things but not in an experimental way.

Gladly. And keep in touch about these two bands.

^ It's an impure look then, because it's still a pure-prog category. It covers bands that play this and that and that, not bands that don't fit elsewhere.

About Van der Graaf Generator, they're complex and über-progressive. Not to mention, out of the old Art Rock, Eclectic is the essential place for them. Given their influence and unique art (artistry), they're also top of the Eclectic representativeness.

@progrules: all the genres cover from the 70s to the 00s, so shouldn't the question "what does the 00s band have in common with the classic 70s" be asked in every genre's case? It's not that A.C.T don't have anything to do with Van der Graaf, in fact don't even think all Eclectic does is to rotate around the Three suns we mentioned. Eclectic is not a stylistic genre, it's a category, which, based on definitions, can comprise any band that corresponds to the definition's main points.

Now, can I please listen to A.C.T and The Tangent, to see where they fit best?


Edited by Ricochet - October 09 2008 at 12:04

Interesting statements so far but what about my point that in this way the eclictic category on itself is not very recognizable ? I mean with prog metal you know what you can expect roughly same as with jazz rock or canterbury for instance but with eclectic... ? What's the similarity between A.C.T. and the three leading bands (besides the definition) ? From what I heard of this band (several albums) it sounded pretty accessible, poppy almost. Where is the similarity here with the eclectic 70's bands ? Isn't the idea that through the subgenre we know what we can expect from a band ? That's why I proposed in the case of A.C.T. the crossover category, maybe it could even be prog related.

Prog Metal bands are usually representative enough for...the Prog Metal genre, if a band with such connection would end up in Eclectic, it would mean it plays "metal + x + y + ...", and that (Prog) Metal isn't the representative, dominant style.