Prog Metal: Organizing the categories

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

 Citanul wrote:

 MikeEnRegalia wrote:

The dividing line between Power, Neo and Symphonic isn't that clearcut, and it can be difficult to decide where a band belongs.  Combing all three would ease this problem.
We already combine Neo and Symphonic because of that reason. Orchestral and Power will also be combined. Between those two (Neo/Symphonic and Orchestral/Power) there are many easily recognizable differences. 

I think there is some overlap between Neo and Power - from what I've heard of Pagan's Mind, Conception and Circus Maximus, I would classify them as power.  Although haven't heard much by those bands, and if someone more familiar with them decides that they're Neo, I won't disagree.

I'm pretty sure on Pagan's Mind, but I'll mark Conception and Circus Maximus for more consideration. Circus Maximus are very much "influenced"  by Dream Theater and Symphony X, and the question is which one is more dominant.

 Citanul wrote:

The definition of Orchestral is also a bit tricky.  I'm not sure how many of the bands there actually make that much use of classical music - I don't hear it in Saviour Machine or Anathema. (Anathema has been moved to Avant) There are also bands in the Power, Neo and Symphonic categories that incoporate classical elements.  (not in the neo or symphonic category. Occasional passages are not the criterium - the question is whether a band - or album - is based on that style) 

OK, I'll accept that, although I'm still not convinced Saviour Machine should be there.

I've marked them for consideration as well.

 Citanul wrote:

This means that either the definition of Orchestral needs to be changed (and there could also be confusion between the terms "Symphonic" and "Orchestral" Read the descriptions - maybe YOU confuse them?) 

What I meant is that someone seeing the names, without the descriptions might not understand what the difference between Orchestral and Symphonic is - those terms are closely linked, and to use both of them together could lead to some confusion.

I'm not using them together - and I will make the difference more clear in the genre definition that will be published along with the genres.

 Citanul wrote:

or as I propose, the Orchestral bands become combined with the other groups.  I realise that the bands labelled as Orchestral don't necessarily sound that similar to the other groups, but I think the difference isn't as great as those in the Avant or Extreme categories. It may not be as great, but it is a very important difference. Therion or Rhapsody are really good examples. They are always accused of not being progressive, and in a way those people are right - they are merely fusing metal and classical. Very different to bands like Pain of Salvation or Payne's Gray, or also the melodic (neo) bands like Dream Theater or Shadow Gallery. 

I agree that there is a difference, but there is a greater difference regarding the Extreme/Avant bands, which I feel is more important.  And if Rhapsody are fusing metal and classical, shouldn't they be Orchestral as opposed to Power? 

Rhapsody are a borderline band. Therion too, they could also do well in the Power category. This is why I decided to combine those two categories. The same goes for Neo and Symphonic - Dream Theater are both, with the odds a little bit in favor of Neo.

 Citanul wrote:

When people talk about prog-metal, it's usually in reference to the bands in the Power, Neo, Symphonic and Orchestral groups, and not really the Avant or Extreme groups.  I don't think so - Opeth and Tool are very important and popular Prog Metal bands, and even in the Extreme genre there are some bands that are regarded as masterpieces of Prog Metal (e.g. Cynic - Focus) which influenced various other bands - even those in other genres. 

There are a few exceptions such as Opeth, Tool and Cynic, but I still stand by my statement

Have a look at the Prog Metal polls. Opeth and Tool are among the most favorite prog metal bands, and even underground bands like Cynic or Atheist have a large number of followers. 

 Citanul wrote:

In fact the majority of people who call themselves as prog-metal fans aren't fans of the Avant of Extreme groups in general.  Maybe a poll could shed some light on this. I DO believe that the Orchestral, Power and Extreme genres are those which are least accessible for prog rock fans who are looking for an entry point into the prog metal world. Neo/Symphonic/Avant is more accessible. 

I'm not sure if the Avant bands are that much more accessible than the Orchestral bands, and the Power bands are fairly accessible if you're prepared to accept the metal aspects.

The typical Orchestral+Power bands like Rhapsody, Nightwish, Therion etc. are often described as "light-weight" prog. They're about the most accessible Prog Metal bands I can think of - if you're open to metal, that is.

 Citanul wrote:

I designed my categories so that they can be grouped ... so we have can now choose which categories to group together. Sure, I though about just splitting Prog Metal into two categories - extreme and normal. But I'd really like to also separate Orchestral/Symphonic, too. And whether Avant/Experimental will become a separate category ... we'll see.

Maybe it should be done in stages.  There's been a fair amount of opposition to your proposed split, but if it was just splitting extreme and normal, then I think that would be acceptable.  At some later point you could try the other splits (although I'm still not convinced they're absolutely necessary).

Yes, I thought about that - but how would you label the non-extreme of the genres ... "Normal Prog Metal"? 