A.C.T. and The Tangent eclectic ?

Logan wrote: 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...).

exactly

Isn't this the problem with labels, tags, genres and sub-genres and genres within genres, they paint broad strokes and flatten textures?

Personally, I wouldn't bracket A.C.T or The Tangent with GG, KC, or VDGG.  I wouldn't bracket any of those 3 bands with each other either.  So what do these labels and groupings exist for?  They are a convenient means to sketch an idea of a band's overall sound and to help us, at a site like Progarchives, to investigate similar bands that we may not know on the basis of those that we do?

It's a problem I encounter when trying to describe the music I enjoy to the non-proggers ('straights' as I refer to them) out there; how to convey an impression of a group's sound without being able to play something for their ears?  I resort to clumping and clumsy generalisations of this or that and slack comparisons with whoever or whatever may fit appropriately, but I don't know that I'm actually doing justice to the artist I'm trying to describe or being in any way helpful to 'the straight'.

You'll notice how I have used a tag to describe a huge proportion of the human race whom I have bracketed together as 'those who have not heard (or do not like) the music I enjoy'.  It must amount to over 6 billion souls and is a useful tag for me, in so far as I need to use it, but it in no way helps us to understand anything about the complexity  or individuality of  any single entity within this rather large group I have banded together.  I have however, created a nice division for us to tribalize around and we like that don't we, us humans?  It provides an arena for us to contest our wills and if there is anything that we are good at as a species, it's that.

I think I've made my point and I'm no closer to knowing where either A.C.T or The Tangent usefully belong other than coming out of some speakers.


Edited by Makntak - December 22 2009 at 06:12