New subgenres?!?!
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Bands, Artists and Genres Appreciation
Forum Description: Discuss specific prog bands and their members or a specific sub-genre
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=41067
Printed Date: November 23 2024 at 08:34
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: New subgenres?!?!
Posted By: Dim
Subject: New subgenres?!?!
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 16:37
I may a bit slow and have only realised this now but, why are there three new subgenres?
I see Crossover prog, which seems to have taken art rock (which makes NO sense)
Eclectic prog, with no bands in it but, refers to Vdgg, GG, anf KC
Heavy prog, Which also has no bands but, refers to Uriah Heep atomic rooster ect...
can someone fill me in please? ------------- 
|
Replies:
Posted By: chamberry
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 16:44
|
It's something that has been planed by the Art Rock team for quite some time now. The genre (Art Rock) has been now divided into 3 genres, but I'll let someone from the team to fill you in. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 16:48
|
The Art Rock team have been working for some time on splitting up the sub-genre. At present it accounts for too big a proportion of bands on the site, who often have little in common with each other.
I'll let the team explain the details but the mechanics of the work are that two new sub-genres have been created, and Art rock renamed for the third. Bands will be moved from Art Rock into their new homes over the next few days/weeks. Note however that only bands currently classified as Art Rock are affected.
|
Posted By: clarke2001
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 16:53
Hooray, finally the very 'eavy very 'umble prog is here!! I'm all for those categories, it's a great thing! BUT: What about, well, Art Rock? It would be pity to lose that term for good...that was the very name of the progressive rock back in the seventies! The prog web site with Art Rock is certainly missing something important... Unless someone is not planning to throw Roxy Music, XTC and the Stranglers in  The bottom line is: people will never be satisfied. But I think this change is for better! ------------- |
Posted By: Dim
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 16:54
|
Well, this is good, though I think Rush should stay with Crossover prog, they are quite poppy, but I guess heavy prog might suit them too... -------------
|
Posted By: The Miracle
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 16:55
It's clearer this way and much more descriptive of the sound of bands in each category
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/ocellatedgod" rel="nofollow - last.fm |
Posted By: Shakespeare
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 16:56
| My immediate reaction was WHAT ARE THEY DOING?!?! But now that I see the motive, I think the change is for the best. |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 16:57
Yes, it's well known since a few monnths ago, it's necvesary but I find small problems:
But the idea is OK, if a genre so big was too hard to manage, then it's better to split it. Iván ------------- 
|
chamberry wrote:Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 16:58
|
I can only say WTF? But what the hell... Arrgh arrgh arrgh (foaming at the mouth and falling over backwards) ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Personally I think art rock should have been left as a category.Posted By: Minimalist777
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 17:00
I think Heavy Prog is a great new category, I have long though there should be a genre for Atomic Rooster, Urian Heep etc. Crossover Prog does seem a bit flakey, I mean if theres already prog related than whats the point? Eclectic Prog seems pretty plausible, Overall this probably a good move.  ------------- WWOSD? What Would OliverStoned Do? |
Posted By: BaldJean
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 17:00
Posted By: The Miracle
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 17:01
|
^Probably just a mistke Jean, it doesn't make much sense.
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/ocellatedgod" rel="nofollow - last.fm |
Posted By: heyitsthatguy
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 17:03
|
holy hell the world's at an end
------------- 
|
Posted By: Shakespeare
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 17:03
|
All art rock bands are still listed as Crossover at this time, aren't they? Eclectic and Heavy are completely empty right now, just let the fellas do their thing. |
Posted By: FranMuzak
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 17:03
| Also they have to be very meticulous about which band fits each category, being a few bands able to fit in all 3 ones. It's going to be interesting to see what happens. |
Posted By: Dim
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 17:03
|
I like the idea for crossover prog.
I think this shows the fine line between popular prog bands more for the popularity (prog related), and prog bands more for the artisticness (crossover). -------------
|
Posted By: moreitsythanyou
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 17:04
|
I feel that I'm right to be a skeptic at first (I agree with what Ivan said as far as the terms go) but I'm confident that the art rock team will sort this out. I feel it's a necessary change that will certainly work out with time. -------------  <font color=white>butts, lol[/COLOR] |
Posted By: BaldJean
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 17:04
another mistake: "High Tide" in "Crossover Prog"? have you ever heard them? they are the prime example for "heavy prog" -------------  A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 17:04
|
I see Crossover as a place for for artists like Howe, Gabriel, etc athat are too iconic for Prog Related but not totally Prog.
But still I see the limits very dark.
BTW: I agree with the heavy category, the problem is with the name, I would go with Hard Prog, but not my call.
Iván -------------
|
Posted By: Dim
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 17:04
Yeah Jean, right now all the bands are under crossover, they will switch it right!  -------------
|
Posted By: Tuzvihar
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 17:05
Actually, as I noticed, the definition of Crossover Prog was initially thrown in place of Prog Related. By mistake, I assume. BTW, doesn't the word "crossover" mean the same as "eclectic"?  ------------- "Music is much like f**king, but some composers can't climax and others climax too often, leaving themselves and the listener jaded and spent." Charles Bukowski |
Posted By: Dim
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 17:05
Agreed -------------
|
Posted By: Inverted
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 17:06
|
I understand the Moody Blues and Radiohead in crossover prog, but I don't know if I agree with the Tangent being in there. They don't seem very "mainstream-influenced" (except for "The Sun in my Eyes.") No one I have ever talked to in real life has ever even heard of The Tangent. It's very difficult for me to agree with that move, but overall it is a change for the better. Perhaps all the bands have not yet been changed to their final spots, so I will not complain, for now. ------------- Prog... It's good. |
Posted By: BaldJean
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 17:07
|
generally I think this is a good idea, I always felt uncomfortable with King Crimson and VdGG being listed under "Symphonic Prog"
------------- A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta |
Posted By: explodingjosh
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 17:07
|
dang. BaldJean be me to it; I'm fine with the new changes, as long as the bands mentioned in the subgenre's summary are actually in the subgenre....
obvious mistake, and I'm sure the Art Rock guys are still getting it sorted out
 |
Posted By: Shakespeare
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 17:09
In case you missed my earlier post, Jean, I said
All art rock bands are still listed as Crossover at this time, aren't
they? Eclectic and Heavy are completely empty right now, just let the fellas do their thing.
|
Posted By: Tuzvihar
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 17:11
|
Gentle Giant is mentioned as an example in the Eclectic Prog definition whilst they're in Crossover Prog at the moment. It looks like all the bands that previously were in Art Rock are now in Crossover Prog. Obviously the transformation isn't complete. Patience people...  ------------- "Music is much like f**king, but some composers can't climax and others climax too often, leaving themselves and the listener jaded and spent." Charles Bukowski |
Posted By: BaldJean
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 17:11
cross·o·ver   https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fbrowse%2Fcrossover"> [kraws-oh-ver, kros-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun
ec·lec·tic https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fbrowse%2Feclectic"> [i-klek-tik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective
------------- A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 17:11
Please, leave the guys from the team work, they have only given the first step, this is a work for months, I know how hard it is, leave the particular cases for the end,
Now lets focus ins the general fine tunning, they still have to check each and every band as they been doing very proffesionally, so if a band is bad labeled, that will be corrected when the time comes and al the structure is ready.
If we start asking Hey X doesn't belong he re but there, wer're not helping them, still there is work to be done with the structure.
Iván
-------------
|
Posted By: clarke2001
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 17:11
|
So how about a simplified explanation for my humble IQ? ECLECTIC PROG - good old messy bands like CRIMSON and GENTLE GIANT. CROSSOVER PROG - easy listening prog (but not prog related) So let's say, Pavlov's Dog dog are crossover, and Wishbone Ash, slight less prog are on the other side of the line and they remain prog related. Right? And heavy prog is Tangerine Dream I guess...that damn equipment must've been very heavy ------------- |
Posted By: Dim
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 17:13
|
JEAN CHILL OUT!!!
Its not finished! -------------
|
Posted By: BaldJean
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 17:15
|
I just wanted to explain the difference between "crossover" and "eclectic", since someone had mentioned they were the same
------------- A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta |
Posted By: Tuzvihar
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 17:16
As I said: crossing over = selecting or choosing from various sources  ------------- "Music is much like f**king, but some composers can't climax and others climax too often, leaving themselves and the listener jaded and spent." Charles Bukowski |
Posted By: explodingjosh
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 17:16
|
Yea guys I seriously doubt the people working on the changes are even listening to your opinion on which band belongs in which subgenre right now. ------------- 
|
Posted By: BaldJean
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 17:17
"heavy prog" would be bands like High Tide or Uriah Heep ------------- A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta |
Posted By: heyitsthatguy
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 17:19
|
I think progressive metal should be its own subgenre
-------------
|
Posted By: Shakespeare
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 17:19
Say whut, jimbo? (Schizoid, you have unleashed all hell with your thread.) |
Posted By: clarke2001
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 17:21
I know, Jeanine, I used a wink...I hope my IQ is not that humble!  However, I'm very glad because of that category..for the sake of Uriah Heep, Birth Control and many others!! ------------- |
Posted By: NotSoKoolAid
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 17:21
|
Not only was this thread thuroughly confusing, but it's also added more to argue about. As you can see above.
I hope those in charge figure out what to set in stone though - goodluck.
|
Posted By: explodingjosh
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 17:22
Yup. So do the people who work on the subgenres, since there already is a Prog Metal subgenre. If you meant "I think prog metal should be subdivided like Art Rock," then I agree. -------------
|
Posted By: sircosick
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 17:25
|
I don't share the purpose of complaining about. We all should reckon that the term 'Art Rock' is quite ambiguous and needed to be subdivided or something like that. It's a good beggining by The Team.
------------- The best you can is good enough... |
Posted By: Leningrad
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 17:26
Phish for Crossover Prog. 
|
Posted By: explodingjosh
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 17:31
lol, I mean I'm sure they're busy enough just making the changes. We'll probably have to wait a while until we can start saying "hey this band belongs here". -------------
|
Posted By: chamberry
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 17:35
|
^^^ They already did that. It took them months to categorize each and every Art Rock band in there (see if you can count how much). Everything is set. Now they just need time to move the bands into their respective genre, that's all. -------------
|
Posted By: heyitsthatguy
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 17:42
|
this may be a little off topic but could we get Porcupine Tree moved to one of these new genres? They haven't been psychedelic in ages
-------------
|
Posted By: explodingjosh
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 17:45
|
^^^ Oh. Well in that case, voice your opinions all you want! lol, I just assumed (and made an a$$ out of myself) that they were still swamped in work since the new subgenres look like they do now... -------------
|
Posted By: explodingjosh
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 17:54
No, no, no, no, no.... I'm still pretty new to PT (I only have FoaBP, UtDS, Metanoia, InAbs, Deadwing), but I think their music is rooted in Psychedelic more than anything else. Plus, the genre is titled "Psychedelic/ Space Rock": imho PT is definitely Space Rock (Space Metal, if you will  ) if not psychedelic. I think it still has the atmosphere of such. What do you think?-------------
|
Posted By: Shakespeare
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 17:57
Gotchya, Jo, I thought you meant that the admins and collabs didn't care about http://www.progarchives.com/album.asp?id=4487 - us , which obviously ain't da http://www.progarchives.com/album.asp?id=15039 - truth . They love us like their own. Right? |
Posted By: ProgBagel
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 18:05
|
I don't fix myself to genres anyway, just whatever sounds pleasant to the ear.
|
Posted By: Morda
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 18:06
|
A good idea, I'm not sure about the phrasing of the subgenres at all though.
I mean, heavy prog - as has been said, slightly ambiguous. And crossover prog just seems like an intermediary step really - I mean, surely progressive metal, progressive electronic, prog folk etc. are also crossover prog. I'm of the opinion that crossover prog should probably be divided further if it remains a large category - perhaps not to the extent that we end up with a pronk category, but it's still a bit of a nebulous term which could encompass already extant subgenres on this site. This all said, the idea is excellent and my problems are really with the names rather than anything else. I'm very thankful to the team for doing this and for making the effort of sorting all of the art rock bands and (presumably) scouring the prog-related category to shove stuff into crossover. Art rock just had to go, it's almost invariably used (by my experience anyway) to mean what prog-related is on this site rather than what art rock was described as on here, so was slightly confusing. Perhaps prog-related should be renamed art rock? |
Posted By: Atkingani
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 18:15
|
All bands that composed the previous Art-Rock are presently in the Crossover... soon they'll be rearranged to their new sub-genres.
------------- Guigo ~~~~~~ |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 18:22
|
Be patient guys, two of the members of the Art Rock Team are away for a week or so, so you may find nothing materializes until they return. I still find a lot of ambiguity with the definitions though. Crossover Prog to me, is bands like Taal and 4/3 de Trio (who I both believe are going to remain in Crossover), because their music incorporates many different styles. It's nothing to do with how poppy they are, as far as I am aware. I don't like the term Eclectic either. Most prog bands are eclectic... -------------   
|
Posted By: heyitsthatguy
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 18:23
|
i think progressive netal should have its own subgenre
-------------
|
Posted By: Shakespeare
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 18:27
and synphonic |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 18:28
|
A quick query... Is it possible to group the two sub-genres together under "Art Rock"? That'd make sense to me. PROG SUB-GENRES: -------------
|
Posted By: Man With Hat
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 18:41
|
I think it was good when they "accidently" had crossover prog for prog-related.
However Eclectic is better then art-rock IMO. ------------- Dig me...But don't...Bury me I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect. |
Posted By: Proletariat
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 18:43
|
Now if only post-rock and avant could make a seperate math rock genre ------------- who hiccuped endlessly trying to giggle but wound up with a sob |
Posted By: markosherrera
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 18:46
|
Other genre:Defies classification..for bands that defy classification
Bands like String Quartet and Apocalyptica....included in what? prog metal? that doesnt sound like metal..
.And some prog new age musicians ?
How is the classification of these musicians?
|
Posted By: Shakespeare
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 18:58
I think eclectic will cover the "defies definition" bands. As for new age prog, most of them can fit into the genres we have already. |
Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 19:19
|
Seriously, let's relax a bit until the Art guys are finished putting everything in place. They put a heck of a lot of time and effort into this. There was also much discussion in the collaborator section. They should be commended. Art Rock was a huge mess. This wasn't just about splitting it up, they also found many bands that belonged in other existing sub-genres. This could only be done by looking at every single entry. These are three P.A. studs. They will explain everything in due time. ------------- a.k.a. H.T. http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com |
Posted By: chamberry
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 20:05
I wouldn't mind seeing them being moved to one of the new genres. Seeing them in psychedelic is quite misleading. I'll see what I can do. -------------
|
Posted By: chamberry
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 20:06
You'd be surprised. -------------
|
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 20:06
| Heavy Prog? |
Posted By: moreitsythanyou
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 20:08
I've been bringing this up for quite a while. They'd fit in well with eclectic or based on their latest outputs, heavy. I feel that they've gone far beyond psychedelic and have embraced a new musical outlook. ------------- <font color=white>butts, lol[/COLOR] |
Posted By: Shakespeare
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 20:10
|
Posted By: chamberry
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 20:19
I agree. I'll bring this up to the psych team to see their opinions on it. Thanks for the reminder. -------------
|
Posted By: Proletariat
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 20:20
Surprised in a good way? That would be awsome  ------------- who hiccuped endlessly trying to giggle but wound up with a sob |
Posted By: fungusucantkill
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 20:25
i most definetly would pull for a math rock sub genre. It seems so NEEDED -------------  
|
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 20:27
Indeed. It could happen. -------------
|
Posted By: chamberry
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 20:30
We're working on it. There hasn't been a clear decision yet, but we're still fighting for it. -------------
|
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 20:33
|
Indeed. I'm all in favour of it and it has been discussed.
-------------
|
Posted By: Proletariat
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 20:34
|
It would be great and would open the door for so many bands who deserve adds but dont fit the current subgenres. ------------- who hiccuped endlessly trying to giggle but wound up with a sob |
Posted By: chamberry
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 20:36
|
Lets hope the Admins are reading this.
-------------
|
Posted By: Ghandi 2
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 22:03
|
Although I first I was angry VDGG were Crossover (until I figured it out), it mostly makes sense now, although I still kind of get that feeling that we're just making sh*t up. ;-) Nobody was talking about Crossover back then, and I don't like imposing genres retroactively, but on the other hand it is a excellent compromise to micky's Rush for prog-related campaign. :)
Haha, cham, if I were a collab I would fight with you! Maybe one day I'll get around to writing all those reviews...
Based on their latest output, I think PT would fit very well in Crossover. :P
|
Posted By: memowakeman
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 22:17
Now that everyone wants to do everything, i want to move Elfonia from Prog Folk to crossover prog.
 Returning to the point, i believe it is a good decision, sometimes Art Rock was very confusing and it is good to rearrange bands into a kind of Art Rock sub-subgenre, now lets hope people can get used and adjust to these new genres soon.
 And by the way, looking to this list:
Bands that represent Heavy Prog would include ATOMIC ROOSTER, URIAH HEEP, TEMPEST, BLACK WIDOW, DR. Z, RUSH, WARHORSE, PAATOS, BIRTH CONTROL, TILES.
Paatos are my favorite heavy prog band  ------------- Follow me on twitter @memowakeman |
Posted By: chamberry
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 22:36
|
Thanks Ghandi! And Memo, I was thinking about moving Paatos to the post-rock genre. I haven't heard their latest album so I can't make a full observation on them, but if they label themselves as post-rock and their sound in Kallocain is post-rock then something must be done. Lets wait for the work of moving bands from genre to genre be finished so we can later ask for these moves. -------------
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 22:44
|
I still believe Hard Prog is more precise than Heavy Prog.
The word HEAVY has Metal connotations and most of the bands that are going to be added there have absolutely no connection with Metal.
I was against Hard Prog (Never even imagined Heavy Prog). because it's too wide but in this case that's precisely it's advantage, Uriah Heep, Rush, Atomic Rooster, etc have more relation with Hard Rock than with Heavy Metal and being the term so wide, even some bands with Metal elements could fit there comfortably.
Just remember Every Metal Band has a Hard Rock component, but not every Hard Rock (Or hard Prog) band is related to Heavy Metal, we're creating confusion and a conflictive gray area, there0's already one with Crossover, lets not add more, it's just a word that may make things simpler.
Lets keep Prog Metal as a totally independent sub-genre.
Iván -------------
|
Posted By: heyitsthatguy
Date Posted: August 20 2007 at 23:39
|
new subgenres!!?
-------------
|
Posted By: Prog-jester
Date Posted: August 21 2007 at 02:36
|
hell yeah! It's nice to refresh the old Archives system!!!
What about Indie/Alternative Prog now? OCEANSIZE, AMPLIFIER, RADIOHEAD, DREDG, THE MARS VOLTA, THE AMBER LIGHT, SLINT, TOOL, A PERFECT CIRCLE, AND YOU WILL KNOW US BY THE TRAIL OF DEAD, THE DECEMBERISTS, THE SECRET MACHINES, BARK PSYCHOSIS, BAUER, COHEED AND CAMBRIA, YOUTHMOVIES, THREE, PAATOS, GAZPACHO, PURE REASON REVOLUTION, SIGUR ROS, PINEAPPLE THIEF, LIS ER STILLE... |
Posted By: Tapfret
Date Posted: August 21 2007 at 03:04
Wow it is absolutely awesome how little I care about more pointless names to pigeon whole bands, some of whom have ludicrously little to do with progressive anything.
Proto-prog, avant-garde prog, post-neo-industrial-sasquatch-crossover-penguin loving-heavy metal-Ukranian folk dance prog...... (edit: I just noticed that the previous poster is in Ukraine, not directed at you specifically, let's change it to heavy metal-Sri Lankan folk dance prog)
It's like the other day and I asked who the band was on some guys t-shirt, when he told me I asked him if they were metal. His snide reply was, "No! They're *black* metal" ....WHO CARES?!?! Simplify man!
From now on I think I'm going to just have 2 genres, "music I like" and "the rest of the crap".
If somebody asks me, I might give some descriptives like, "Their kind of jazzy", "...bluesy...", "...heavy...", "...all over the place..."
------------- https://www.last.fm/user/Tapfret" rel="nofollow">  https://bandcamp.com/tapfret" rel="nofollow - Bandcamp |
Posted By: Prog-jester
Date Posted: August 21 2007 at 03:06
Yes, I know that band you're talking about, they're from my town
|
Posted By: Tapfret
Date Posted: August 21 2007 at 03:08
|
Heh....I noticed your location after my post and edited. Totally random. ------------- https://www.last.fm/user/Tapfret" rel="nofollow"> https://bandcamp.com/tapfret" rel="nofollow - Bandcamp |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: August 21 2007 at 03:14
You may cover your eyes, you may deny it, but sub-genres exist, since the Medieval Age when pagan Music split from religious, genres have existed.
Prog has grown too much, bands like Genesis, Dream Theater, Los Jaivas, Henry Cow, Gentle Giant, Supertramp, Mahavishnu, STYX, etc, have almost nothing in common, so you need to create a classification for better understanding and to better select what you want to listen.
We haven't created them, we only try to adapt them better, we don't have 100 sub-genres as other sites, we try to be rational.
Some people are only interested in listening, others want to research more and analyze what they listen, I'm one of them, I beluieve the sub-genres are ivaluable help for everybody.
Now, calling whatever you don't like crap is very unpolite not to say arrogant.
Iván -------------
|
Posted By: N Ellingworth
Date Posted: August 21 2007 at 03:30
|
Personally I think the 3 sub genres that have split from Art Rock make a lot of sense. as band like Barclay James Harvest and VDGG really don't have much in common except that under to old system they didn't fit anywhere else. It'll obviously take a while for me to get used to the new system but once I'm used to it I suspect that it'll make a lot more sense. Well done to the AR team, you guys have done a really good job. |
Posted By: BaldJean
Date Posted: August 21 2007 at 03:37
VdGG will be put into eclectic; they are only temporarily in "crossover", where all artists labeled "art rock "landed (and a few artists formerly labeled "symphonic" too, because that was where VdGG had been put formerly) ------------- A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta |
Posted By: rileydog22
Date Posted: August 21 2007 at 04:44
|
Are you sure VdGG was sympho before, Jean? I'm pretty sure that at one point I had considered them sympho but was surprised to find them in Art Rock. I think right now it's just that every Art Rock band is under Crossover right now. Anyways, Art Rock was kind of the b*****d child amongst the other genres, so it's good that we're organizing it a bit. -------------   |
Posted By: BaldJean
Date Posted: August 21 2007 at 04:47
|
they had been in symphonic for a long time at least, but they fitted their like a warthog among a bunch of piglets
------------- A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta |
Posted By: Kotro
Date Posted: August 21 2007 at 04:52
|
Bah, call it what you like, the system still sucks anyway. Labeling, if any, should be for albums, not artists. ------------- Bigger on the inside. |
Posted By: Mandrakeroot
Date Posted: August 21 2007 at 05:05
|
I think that CROSSOVER PROG isn't synonymous of ART ROCK. Rather it is what I call "NOT SYMPHONIC PROG". I read well the new category? ------------- 
|
Posted By: Tapfret
Date Posted: August 21 2007 at 05:19
Arrogant? Maybe it's proto-arrogant. Or agitation related neo-arrogance.
The point is we must be careful that we don't find ourselves with sub-genres with only one band in them. That's what band names are for. My point about music I like and music I don't is that I would prefer to have the broader descriptives and judge for myself. The danger is somebody lumping a band that I may potentially enjoy in with a bunch that I do not. Somebody has already pigeon-holed the band before it hits my ears. Even with the broader classes there is a danger of that kind of thing. Even though record stores tend to keep themselves limited to general categories like rock/pop, country, jazz and classical, they still tend miscategorize because they have pigeon holed a specific label or see a cover image that invokes a musical stereotype. An example is Botch, a metal band with a cover photo of high mountain peaks stuck in the classical section of the local Tower Records. That's why I like online stores like Wayside and Laser's Edge. Everything is alphabetical instead of having to search through a bunch of categories.
Anyway....
 If I was covering my eyes or denying it I would not address the subject at all.
And thanks for not having the 100's of sub-classes others do. ------------- https://www.last.fm/user/Tapfret" rel="nofollow"> https://bandcamp.com/tapfret" rel="nofollow - Bandcamp |
Posted By: BaldJean
Date Posted: August 21 2007 at 05:21
I completely agree. labeling artists means we don't allow them to change their style, which is plainly ridiculous ------------- A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta |
Posted By: Tapfret
Date Posted: August 21 2007 at 05:24
'tis true, calling Genesis post-1980 anything with prog in it (unless progressively more wealthy) would be a falsehood. ------------- https://www.last.fm/user/Tapfret" rel="nofollow"> https://bandcamp.com/tapfret" rel="nofollow - Bandcamp |
Posted By: Morda
Date Posted: August 21 2007 at 06:35
|
Am I the only one who's not keen on the idea of a math rock subgenre? From my knowledge of the bands usually term I'm pretty sure that most of them would fit neatly into experimental/post-rock. I mean, most of the bands I think are definitely of the style that should be on this site, but I just think that the subgenre's a little superfluous, really.
Plus I hate the term "math rock". Not the music (in fact I saw Battles on Saturday), just the term.
Of the bands I know in that list (all but 6), most of them would fit under the genre name "New Prog" which is being used in the media now - which was something I tried to push for a while back but was basically told there was no need for it. Which I totally disagree with, as it's a growing subgenre, and a particular fusion of note and as Wikipedia has deemed it notable enough to not delete the article into oblivion and remove all references to it in the main prog rock article... I don't think that Sigur Rós, Slint and Tool would be in the subgenre (the first two are definitely post-rock and the third is more prog metal than new prog) and I'm unsure that A Perfect Circle or And You Will Know Us By The Trail of Dead... would really qualify. Good idea though, and I thoroughly support it, even though as someone whose posts aren't even into the triple digits I doubt my voice counts for much. |
Posted By: chamberry
Date Posted: August 21 2007 at 06:48
The problem is that it'll take an excruciating amount of time to label 15,500+ albums and there are many factors that can prevent us like out-of print albums, export albums among others. It's too much. -------------
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: August 21 2007 at 07:15
At least if albums were labelled instead of artists there would be much less conflicting cases. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to: 
|
Posted By: Norbert
Date Posted: August 21 2007 at 08:13
|
There are already more than enough subgenres in my opinion.
For me the following would be enough:
Progressive Rock(including Art, Symphonic and Folk)
Progressive Metal
Jazz Rock/Fusion/Canterbury
RIO/Avant/Zeuhl
Frankly I could live without electronic, and "Unkrautrock".
But I guess others couldn't. |
Posted By: laplace
Date Posted: August 21 2007 at 08:19
that's how I have my mp3s arranged, with a fifth folder for space rock. =) I don't see it going down well with the present genre teams, though. ------------- FREEDOM OF SPEECH GO TO HELL |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: August 21 2007 at 08:28
"Progressive Weed" ... that would be an interesting genre! ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Prog-jester
Date Posted: August 21 2007 at 08:31
Yep, exactly! I've been with this issue too few months ago and recieved little positive reaction. Maybe, there's not enough New/Modern/Indie/Alternative/Whatever-you-call-it Prog bands for a genre, but I believe in necessity of it's existance. TOOL is Metal, but not in usual sense of the word - not Heavy or Alternative if you ask me - and both SLINT and SIGUR ROS can remain in Post-Rock, yes... Do you know, what your login means in informal Russian/Ukrainian?
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: August 21 2007 at 08:31
Depends on how you do it. If genre per album was to be implemented, we could simply set the genre of all albums to that of the artist ... and then simply go through the albums and change those which seem inappropriate. This work could be divided by genre. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|