A.C.T. and The Tangent eclectic ?

what Eclectic bands share is 'hybrids of styles and diversity of themes, promoting many elements from different sources..  a plural style without a clear referential core' ,  that's the whole point of Eclectic, that's what the bands share, that's why it was implemented

    Eclectic Prog definition: 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.







Edited by Atavachron - October 09 2008 at 05:11

Based on the definitions, there are two conditions:

 > blend of styles, with the majority of them making the band an eligible "(pure) prog" one
 > blend of styles, without one/any of the styles being representative for that band

This can go both for a band's full work and within a band's album.

Besides this, concepts such as "complex", "artistic" are also creating an image of music from the Eclectic Prog category - and it sounds logic too, once you think about the Three representative Gods themselves: VDGG (especially!), KC and GG.

Now, on topic:

I've only listened to one album by A.C.T, Last Epic from 2003, which a reviewer like Cert1fied categorized as "prog metal", which to my ears sounds tad extreme, nonetheless combines metal, heavy, alternative and such, sounding, mostly, progressive. I have the other albums, so in case an evaluation of the band must be done, I myself can do that pronto. But (so far) , in general lines, A.C.T seems IMO to definitely belong in one of the Art Rock categories, I don't think Eclectic is wrong, but Heavy could also work, given the Metal closure.

Regarding The Tangent, I have absolutely no idea about the music. We can initiate a dialogue between Eclectic and Symphonic, as far as I understand. But I have to warn you, at least one Symphonic collab, Iván, takes more lightly the style combinations, so he might reply "A+B+C = Eclectic" instead of focusing if "Symphonic would be the most representative, dominant style out of A, B & C".

But, anyway, the Eclectic Team can evaluate these two bands' situations, thanks for the advice (and have patience).

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. 

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.

^ 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

Gladly. And keep in touch about these two bands.

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

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.

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?

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...).