PA does harm to music history!

Well the initial plan was that were a branch off of Art Rock, but if they do become independent, then that's fair enough.

I do want to see a split-up of the Avant-Garde Rock genre though, in the future.

Easy Livin wrote: 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?

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?

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..

 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.

Edited by Peter - September 03 2007 at 11:14

Peter wrote:  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.

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.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Peter wrote:  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. 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.

Edited by Peter - September 03 2007 at 12:08

I partially agree with that...

I'd add space rock and non-rock (primarily for electroprog and chamber) to make a round five.

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

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 ...

Zargus wrote: 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.

Peter wrote: 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.

Shakespeare wrote: 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.)