Heavy Prog ... huh ?

Ghost Rider wrote: I believe everyone should be entitled to criticise choices, but I also think words like "silly" should be avoided, especially when talking about definitions that were discussed for months before being implemented.

I didn't mean there was anything silly about the new genres and their definitions, I'm only saying that there are many people who are used to the term "art rock" but have never heard of "crossover prog."

I realize the need to split art rock into smaller categories, and I agree that the new genres are a better way to classify these bands than the somewhat vague "art rock." However, I don't believe crossover prog and eclectic prog (and the old art rock) are "actual" genres in the same way as symphonic, prog folk and the new heavy prog that are based on similar musical elements.

Crossover and eclectic prog still have the same problem as art rock did, that they may include bands that have musically little or nothing in common. This was one way to categorize the bands previously in art rock, and as most of them don't unambiguously fall into a certain genre by their sound or musical style, the new genres are as good as any others. It just takes a while to get used to them.

Anyway if there's a "heavy Prog" then it stands to reason their must be a light prog  after all everything has a "reverse polarity" according to professor Peart  .. 
  Hey lets do this to all the sub genres so that they all have a equal and opposite a counterpart   then we would have twice as many subgenres as we already have  woohooo  

Yorkie bolts with his tail between his legs to avoid conflict  


Edited by Yorkie X - September 20 2007 at 12:39

We need more and more genres to keep pace with the ever increasing amount of Collaborators we have....

Vompatti wrote: Ghost Rider wrote: I believe everyone should be entitled to criticise choices, but I also think words like "silly" should be avoided, especially when talking about definitions that were discussed for months before being implemented. I didn't mean there was anything silly about the new genres and their definitions, I'm only saying that there are many people who are used to the term "art rock" but have never heard of "crossover prog." I realize the need to split art rock into smaller categories, and I agree that the new genres are a better way to classify these bands than the somewhat vague "art rock." However, I don't believe crossover prog and eclectic prog (and the old art rock) are "actual" genres in the same way as symphonic, prog folk and the new heavy prog that are based on similar musical elements. Crossover and eclectic prog still have the same problem as art rock did, that they may include bands that have musically little or nothing in common. This was one way to categorize the bands previously in art rock, and as most of them don't unambiguously fall into a certain genre by their sound or musical style, the new genres are as good as any others. It just takes a while to get used to them.

Watch out, I'm revving up the rant & rave machine & brewing up a word storm !!!!!!

Short of actually finding a name for each very particular & specific (o.k., let's all say it together VERY LIMITED) alleged, allied, similar, comparable sub sect of a sub-genre of a sub-genre of an incompletely descriptive overall name for different groups that kinda play something that could be used to explain why one group might interest others that are into another group (whooooo , take a breath, continue) .... that plays something rather close to the aforementioned first group's sort of music, the people who run this site (on our behalf, and unpaid at that) attempt from time to to time to fine tune the various segments inside Proggressive music.
YES, PA & its' members, and this includes us Plebes outside the collab & Admin spheres, could easily overdo the "name the music so the music reflects the name" game & sub-divide itself into a multi-myriadic mishmash of made-up monikers for any & all strains of (what PA considers) Prog.
 So rather than taking out one's frustrations on the PA staff, go back & work on the really important problems in your life. Once you have become reasonably calm, THEN return to PA's forums & admit that the attempt to introduce a musical index of sorts is just an way of trying to help PA prog fans better navigate the many streams of this music we all love (though we don't all love all the different streams, & wish that some simply streamed down certain household porcelain disposal units), so as to help, or at least give some dichotomic guidance to the many searchers/explorers/discoverers here that wish to find new treasures that may exist within certain general musical boundaries.
I didn't mind the Art Rock term. I knew it was sometimes very vague & all-encompassing, but knowing many of the acts just gave me an indication that they were groups who shared a certain bent towards creating music. So I could see how the Moody Blues & Rush or King Crimson could share a common path.
The new subgenres (heavy, eclectic, crossover) are more specific & frankly, the heavy prog section is one that I am glad has come about, because while I don't mind Prog Metal, I'm more interested in a more "uptempo" or (egad) heavier type of music. The same with eclectic & crossover. They are clearer terms to try, and yes, please remember that "TRY" is the important word here, and give a better indication re : comparison point to those who want to follow up on groups who may be similar to those they currently like.
Some genres are easily definable such as Krautrock & Italian Symphonic. But their fans, if they had nothing better to do, could easily raise a big stink about variations within the description - Kraftwerk & Amon Duul II play the same type of music ??? PFM/Le Orme are similar to Pholas Dactylos ??? What happens if a Italian Symphonic group tends towards lengthy multi part suites ? If PFM is a leader in this genre, why don't they have any of these types of compositions in their work ?

So, if & when changes are being discussed or contemplated, please share your opinions & justifications for such, no matter what side you take. Once a decision has been reached, instead of nitpicking on why genre X is an artificial construct, ask yourself if it represents a more homogeneous aggregation of groups that will enhance a prog music fan's chances of finding "new" music that they will enjoy.

And if for some reason, "new" names for the same old music is something you find offensive, blasphemous, or ridiculous; well , then you do have the option of disregarding them or even leaving this community. Me, I'd rather argue about the music, then what it's called. When I first stumbled onto PFM, I was looking for something comparable to Gentle Giant on the Pandora web site. The song E Festa was among the 8 tunes presented as suggestions. From there I went on to acquire the entire PFM discography, but I never quite saw the similarities between the two. I even strained to see the so-called Crimson influence in some early PFM tunes, other than that they shared a certain "dark" quality to them, the same as with some early Ange compositions.
But i never went back to Pandora to complain that their "suggestions" stank or did not make sense. The general explanation seemed simple & made enough sense that I could see why they were "lumped" together. I might have used different descriptors, but I wasn't asking myself, now was I ? I was asking for someone else's guidance, or help in finding more music that I would enjoy. So for this, in my take on this whole genre/ sub-genre debate, is that the whiners forget about the end user's goal - not to find the most objective, clear cut, no argument, clear as sky, one word definition of a music's genre; but to have signposts that may show the way to  music I will enjoy

"Nuff Said
\Actually, likely, as per my occasional habit ... too much said

debrewguy wrote: Vompatti wrote: Ghost Rider wrote: I believe everyone should be entitled to criticise choices, but I also think words like "silly" should be avoided, especially when talking about definitions that were discussed for months before being implemented. I didn't mean there was anything silly about the new genres and their definitions, I'm only saying that there are many people who are used to the term "art rock" but have never heard of "crossover prog." I realize the need to split art rock into smaller categories, and I agree that the new genres are a better way to classify these bands than the somewhat vague "art rock." However, I don't believe crossover prog and eclectic prog (and the old art rock) are "actual" genres in the same way as symphonic, prog folk and the new heavy prog that are based on similar musical elements. Crossover and eclectic prog still have the same problem as art rock did, that they may include bands that have musically little or nothing in common. This was one way to categorize the bands previously in art rock, and as most of them don't unambiguously fall into a certain genre by their sound or musical style, the new genres are as good as any others. It just takes a while to get used to them. Watch out, I'm revving up the rant & rave machine & brewing up a word storm !!!!!! Short of actually finding a name for each very particular & specific (o.k., let's all say it together VERY LIMITED) alleged, allied, similar, comparable sub sect of a sub-genre of a sub-genre of an incompletely descriptive overall name for different groups that kinda play something that could be used to explain why one group might interest others that are into another group (whooooo , take a breath, continue) .... that plays something rather close to the aforementioned first group's sort of music, the people who run this site (on our behalf, and unpaid at that) attempt from time to to time to fine tune the various segments inside Proggressive music. YES, PA & its' members, and this includes us Plebes outside the collab & Admin spheres, could easily overdo the "name the music so the music reflects the name" game & sub-divide itself into a multi-myriadic mishmash of made-up monikers for any & all strains of (what PA considers) Prog.  So rather than taking out one's frustrations on the PA staff, go back & work on the really important problems in your life. Once you have become reasonably calm, THEN return to PA's forums & admit that the attempt to introduce a musical index of sorts is just an way of trying to help PA prog fans better navigate the many streams of this music we all love (though we don't all love all the different streams, & wish that some simply streamed down certain household porcelain disposal units), so as to help, or at least give some dichotomic guidance to the many searchers/explorers/discoverers here that wish to find new treasures that may exist within certain general musical boundaries. I didn't mind the Art Rock term. I knew it was sometimes very vague & all-encompassing, but knowing many of the acts just gave me an indication that they were groups who shared a certain bent towards creating music. So I could see how the Moody Blues & Rush or King Crimson could share a common path. The new subgenres (heavy, eclectic, crossover) are more specific & frankly, the heavy prog section is one that I am glad has come about, because while I don't mind Prog Metal, I'm more interested in a more "uptempo" or (egad) heavier type of music. The same with eclectic & crossover. They are clearer terms to try, and yes, please remember that "TRY" is the important word here, and give a better indication re : comparison point to those who want to follow up on groups who may be similar to those they currently like. Some genres are easily definable such as Krautrock & Italian Symphonic. But their fans, if they had nothing better to do, could easily raise a big stink about variations within the description - Kraftwerk & Amon Duul II play the same type of music ??? PFM/Le Orme are similar to Pholas Dactylos ??? What happens if a Italian Symphonic group tends towards lengthy multi part suites ? If PFM is a leader in this genre, why don't they have any of these types of compositions in their work ? So, if & when changes are being discussed or contemplated, please share your opinions & justifications for such, no matter what side you take. Once a decision has been reached, instead of nitpicking on why genre X is an artificial construct, ask yourself if it represents a more homogeneous aggregation of groups that will enhance a prog music fan's chances of finding "new" music that they will enjoy. And if for some reason, "new" names for the same old music is something you find offensive, blasphemous, or ridiculous; well , then you do have the option of disregarding them or even leaving this community. Me, I'd rather argue about the music, then what it's called. When I first stumbled onto PFM, I was looking for something comparable to Gentle Giant on the Pandora web site. The song E Festa was among the 8 tunes presented as suggestions. From there I went on to acquire the entire PFM discography, but I never quite saw the similarities between the two. I even strained to see the so-called Crimson influence in some early PFM tunes, other than that they shared a certain "dark" quality to them, the same as with some early Ange compositions. But i never went back to Pandora to complain that their "suggestions" stank or did not make sense. The general explanation seemed simple & made enough sense that I could see why they were "lumped" together. I might have used different descriptors, but I wasn't asking myself, now was I ? I was asking for someone else's guidance, or help in finding more music that I would enjoy. So for this, in my take on this whole genre/ sub-genre debate, is that the whiners forget about the end user's goal - not to find the most objective, clear cut, no argument, clear as sky, one word definition of a music's genre; but to have signposts that may show the way to  music I will enjoy "Nuff Said \Actually, likely, as per my occasional habit ... too much said

Pantagruel strikes back! 

Ghost Rider wrote: Time Signature wrote: Is all this genre-w**king part of being a progger? Does it make us seem more sophisticated or does it really makes us seem pretentious and silly? As I've said earlier, if we keep up at this rate, we'll end up having a genre per artist. As a Collaborator to this site, I find your definition rather derogatory, not to say offensive. A lot of thought went into the split, and, while we were well aware that pleasing everybody was not possible, I don't think it is fair or respectful to imply that for us it was only a question of 'genre-w***ing'.  In my earlier posts, I've tried to explain our motivations, but it seems some people pretend not to see what others write. I'm not asking for people to agree with our choices - I'm just asking for RESPECT.

The nebulous hell of Art Rock was hardly simple.

I think the three-way split was necessary. It makes a place for lighter prog that is not quite Prog Related, a spot for heavier prog that is not quite metal, and then a place for bands that defy any kind of categorization. It fills in the gaps. And that is what a "genre" is for: to describe a group of music that needs description. These bands were not adequately described in the Art Rock days.

Bravo to the collabs and team members!

I would like to take this opportunity to rant about some of the other sub-genres.

Edited by Slartibartfast - September 20 2007 at 20:54