^ so the precept of Eclectic being Art Rock has flown?

Epignosis wrote: Dean wrote: ^ so the precept of Eclectic being Art Rock has flown? I was not around (or active, I should say) when Art Rock was here (or perhaps I only remember it vaguely).  I've never considered Eclectic Prog to always be Art Rock, as I've never considered Art Rock to always be Prog.  The Eclectic subgenre serves the PA database this way: A band is prog, but engages in too many styles to comfortably sit in one of the other genres.

I don't think that's enough, by that criteria every band here fits into Eclectic. As with all subs here that have parallels in the outside World (eg Avant Garde => Progressive Avant, Psyche Rock => Progressive Psyche and Folk Rock => Progressive Folk) our Art Rock was really Progressive Art Rock, in that it was a subset of Art Rock concerned with Progressive Rock bands that were of the wider Art Rock genre - so yes, Art Rock wasn't all Prog, but our Art Rock was.

Dean wrote: Epignosis wrote: Dean wrote: ^ so the precept of Eclectic being Art Rock has flown? I was not around (or active, I should say) when Art Rock was here (or perhaps I only remember it vaguely).  I've never considered Eclectic Prog to always be Art Rock, as I've never considered Art Rock to always be Prog.  The Eclectic subgenre serves the PA database this way: A band is prog, but engages in too many styles to comfortably sit in one of the other genres. I don't think that's enough, by that criteria every band here fits into Eclectic. As with all subs here that have parallels in the outside World (eg Avant Garde => Progressive Avant, Psyche Rock => Progressive Psyche and Folk Rock => Progressive Folk) our Art Rock was really Progressive Art Rock, in that it was a subset of Art Rock concerned with Progressive Rock bands that were of the wider Art Rock genre - so yes, Art Rock wasn't all Prog, but our Art Rock was.

I disagree with "every band here fits into Eclectic."  That's what I was trying to address in Bonnek's post. 

I agree that most prog bands are eclectic (little e), but most do not venture into other styles or genres consistently enough to be labeled Eclectic (big E) prog for the purposes of our database, which is a helpful tool for those wanting to explore a certain sound, or in Eclectic's case, a variety of sounds by a single prog band.

Dean wrote: So, the precept of Eclectic being Art Rock has flown. When did this happen?

I was not familiar with any such precept.  I joined the Eclectic team two years ago.

I adhere to our genre's definition, taken from here:

The term 'eclectic' in the context of progressive rock describes a summation of elements from various musical sources, and the influences and career paths of bands that take from a wide range of genres or styles. While progressive music can be, in a larger sense, eclectic, the 'Eclectic Prog' term is specially meant to reference bands that trespass the boundaries of established Progressive Rock genres or that blend many influences. Eclectic Prog combines hybrids of style and diversity of theme, promoting many elements from different sources. The Eclectic category recognizes bands that evolved markedly over their career (in a progressive, evolutionary way), or have a plural style without a clear referential core. The basic features lie within the music's variety, rich influences, art tendencies and classic prog rock elements. Among the representative bands are KING CRIMSON, VAN DER GRAAF GENERATOR, and GENTLE GIANT.

This is what I've been describing in this thread (especially the bold part).

Dean wrote: So, the precept of Eclectic being Art Rock has flown. When did this happen?

I don't use it because I find the term "art rock" broad and unhelpful.  It may have been useful in 1969, but is it a useful label in 2011 (especially in terms of giving database users a broad idea what a band may sound like)?

Now if this is what PA used to determine what art rock was:

1. 100% Prog bands
2. Bands that are beyond the limits of the sub-genre parameters or
3. Bands that have evolved through their career so much that they crossed different sub-genres without any single sub-genre being preeminent over the rest or
4. Bands that have characteristics of two or more different sub-genres and can’t be reasonably classified in either or
5. Bands that simply are one of a kind and for that reason can’t be included as part of any sub-genre.

Then I don't see any discrepancy between that and what bands our team adds.  We merely emphasize the diversity of styles present (as opposed to a commercial or popular appeal as Crossover does).

What's more, when I visit this:

http://web.archive.org/web/20060702103606/www.progarchives.com/subgenre.asp?style=3

I see an earlier definition of art rock:

Art Rock Art Rock definition This was the original name of progressive rock music. We now use this within the umbrella of Prog or Progressive Rock as category that is used to refer to explorative works by bands that cross different genres or have an experimental nature that is not specific to one genre. Some of these bands may have had roots in other prog categories in their early years but later became more AOR or mainstream or vise versa starting out mainstream then becoming prog. These bands are considered primarily to be prog bands.

I'm not really sure why this should cause any concern.  Is it because I don't use the term "art rock?"



Edited by Epignosis - November 25 2011 at 11:31

Words and music are two totally different languages. There are many languages around the world that are based on spoken or written 'words' - ie things which describe real objects, real actions & real emotions - it is relatively easy therefore for someone with the necessary knowledge to interpret or translate one spoken or written language into another. Music is based around a myriad of different sounds pitches and textures - none of these describe anything that is 'real' or that can be seen, touched, smelt etc. - They are all abstract forms of expression that are invariably interpreted by different people in different ways. Attempting to translate a language like music into ones based around words was never going to be easy, and the more different genres and sub genres mankind decides to create for it with these words (and goodness knows there have been enough of them!) the harder it gets. I don't think anyone can 'win' this argument - we just have to accept that we will always have these differences in interpretation regarding the music we hear, and try to accommodate them as on here as best we can.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: What else do you ask?

^ Thanks, nothing more.

This link can be interesting...it also mentions Kirszta Kovats who I have suggested as well time ago (rejected I think but I'm not sure)