PA does harm to music history!
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=41327
Printed Date: December 23 2024 at 08:29
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: PA does harm to music history!
Posted By: erik neuteboom
Subject: PA does harm to music history!
Date Posted: September 01 2007 at 06:32
|
Hello fellow progheads.
In the past I have created many threads about the categories but then I stopped discussing about it ..until today: I notice that Led Zeppelin is in Prog-related and Deep Purple is in Proto-Prog while these bands fit perfect in the new created category Heavy Prog. And then the Art-Rock, a wonderful category for bands like Queen, Supertramp, Bebop DeLuxe, 10CC and King Crimson (also for Anekdoten because Crossover Prog to Anekdoten looks even funny to say it a bit cynical) but PA has decided to delete the term and split it into 3 new categories, incredible, we should do something to keep that term alive, it's part of music history. I also notice that the very small category Indo-Prog/Raga Rock still exists while Prog Andaluz is ignored, the most influential and widespread blend of prog and folk ever made, it deserves way more an own category than Indo-Prog/Raga-Rock and even Zeuhl. I respect the other visions (yes, I really do fellow collaborators), I know it's a lot of work for the teams to keep it clear but if I look at the abovementioned bands and categories, to me it looks like PA does harm to music history
 . |
Replies:
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 01 2007 at 06:39
|
I don't think that Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple or Queen are prog, so prog-related is the only place for them on this website. If you think otherwise you're welcome to rate and tag some albums and create your own view on prog on my website: http://ratingfreak.com/user/MikeEnRegalia - http://ratingfreak.com/user/MikeEnRegalia http://ratingfreak.com/user/erikneuteboom - http://ratingfreak.com/user/erikneuteboom on your user page only your own genre assignments will be displayed ... I'll soon improve the layout of the charts facility, and you'll be able to show people how you view the world of prog ... a bit like this chart I'm preparing for prog metal: http://ratingfreak.com/home/music.xhtml?path=artists/genre_charts/prog_metal - http://ratingfreak.com/home/music.xhtml?path=artists/genre_charts/prog_metal ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to: 
|
Posted By: erik neuteboom
Date Posted: September 01 2007 at 06:46
|
Haha, the inevitable Mike and his thread where Prog Andaluz rules
 Mike, Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple their music was very progressive and it rocked so Heavy Prog matches with these elements. And Queen was also a band that rocked and had a lot of progressive ideas, perfect for Art-Rock instead of that awful sounding category Prog-related. But the start of this thread is already a clash of subjective theories
 |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 01 2007 at 06:52
|
^ It very much depends on the album. On my website I tagged Queen II as "prog" ... Deep Purple came close, but never quite crossed the border to prog IMO. I don't think that "Prog-Related" sounds terrible, but it is not a valid genre - only an attribute of music. I don't think that "Heavy Prog-Related Hard Rock" sounds all too bad ... and on my website you can create such labels easily.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: September 01 2007 at 06:57
|
Erik, you're one of those who currently don't understand what's going on with these changes. The three genres were discussed and sent to approval for a long time by now, they finally got approved, right now there will follow a work by which all the bands who were in Art Rock will be moved into the three respective genres. Out of what you question, I have to say that, for the moment, we will focus only on Art Rock bands being sorted into Heavy, Crossover and Eclectic. After that, we may consider some bands that don't fit their category too much and may have a better place in these three genres. Also The Split of Art Rock is meant to be a radical re-shape of ART ROCK, not of PROG ROCK. Therefore, for example we can't think of Hard ROCK bands that are currently in Proto-Prog having gained a pass towards Heavy PROG. The category of Heavy Prog will have an influence on the Hard Rock and Blues Hard Rock movement, but won't necesarily include those Hard Rock influential bands, if they are not progressive. Just the same, not much of Prog Related and Pop Prog will be redefined under Crossover, only because the genre of Crossover is a blend of progressive rock with more mainstream orientations or lost qualities. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Kotro
Date Posted: September 01 2007 at 07:16
|
Please explain something to me: is Prog Rock part of Art-Rock or Art-Rock part of Prog Rock? Because only in this site I have I found the first option to be the case. ------------- Bigger on the inside. |
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: September 01 2007 at 07:20
|
Art Rock is part of Prog Rock and was always modeled accordingly. Too bad Art Rock is now erased together with its clear and concise definition it had (made by Ivan Melgar), because it stated so well how Art Rock was a genre of "100% Prog Rock", plus a genre of "many influences and various styles". So far as we're "redifining" that, I don't see the big problem. Art Rock stays Art Rock, by the fact that it was only a huge genre, weighting +500 bands and losing its focus by every new band being added. Art Rock was in fact not even a genre, as it was a category. -------------
|
Posted By: Nightfly
Date Posted: September 01 2007 at 07:37
| I can understand what you guys are doing here but Art Rock was a widely accepted (not just here) description of bands of the likes of Queen, Roxy Music and 10cc. If someone describes a band as Art Rock then I know imediately what they're talking about. Terms like Eclectic are just a bit more vague. |
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: September 01 2007 at 07:51
|
Well I can sense a confusion between what seen as Art Rock in "general music" and what's been defined as Art Rock in "Prog Rock" over here. Sure, Art Rock can elaborate to much more. It is even a reason why Bowie is so desired around here...he is an "Art Rock" great (if not fundamental) artist. But it all stops to be, however, that richly colored once we notice how Art Rock was "perfectioned" by the standard of progressive rock. Right now, we simply mean an even better perfection and orientation for the Art Rock category, since it was on the point of exploding and losing complete focus. Heavy Prog, based on the influence of Heavy Rock and Blues Heavy Rock (like the definition states) was a much desired genre, Eclectic Prog compensates a massive orientation within the old Art Rock, mainly adapting Art Rock's old definition of "various styles" and "artistic valorous orientations", and Crossover was innovate out of the idea that there are some bands (and even a good orientation) which combines the prog attitude with mainstream or less obvious progressive values. Going back to the "fears" these three genres may produce: Heavy Prog may open a door to the Heavy Rock it gets its influence from (names like Zep and Deep coming in mind): it will mostly for sure not happen! Eclectic Prog may stir confusion of prog quality: it will in fact focus on essential qualities: "various-styled" and 'artistic' prog. Crossover may open a door to Prog Related, Pop Prog and even Pop (Queen, Roxy Music and so coming in mind): it will mostly not happen!! -------------
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: September 01 2007 at 08:16
As in any other place, in Prog Archives Art Rock is a sub-genre of Progtressive Rock.
The sub-genre here is still Art Rock, it has only been splitted in three lets call sub-sub-genres or categories.
Also Proggnosis
Lets see Progressive Ears
So it's clear Kotro, in each and every Prog site, Art Rock is a sub.genre of Progressive Rock, including Prog Archives, just the opposite of what you say.
Iván ------------- 
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
Kotro wrote:
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 01 2007 at 08:19
|
It's really simple: I agree that Art Rock is a sub genre of Prog Rock, but you have to know that in the 70s the term "Art Rock" was used synonymously to "Prog Rock". This usage didn't last though, so today it can be discarded.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Bilek
Date Posted: September 01 2007 at 08:21
I only agree with Deep Purple statement 100%, they are the reason why I always stood in favor of Heavy Prog, and I really can't see why they're still in Proto (and apparently intended to be kept that way) while a very similar band, Uriah Heep, and a clear DP-influenced band, Birth Control, (rightfully) moved to Heavy...
I can only patially agree with Led Zep, cause only a few of their albums can be said to be "prog", and these are only partly prog, i.e. still have much "unprog" moments
 (straightforward blues treacks, that is... even their most progressive albums include one or two of them...)The same can be said about Queen, and this fact makes both bands "prog related", i.e. not a 100% prog band in their own right, but having made some prog albums (Led Zep IV, Queen II, A Night at the Opera, that is...) deserving a place in a category in progarchives, albeit in the "outer rim"... Although they are not in the list, the same can be said about Rainbow as well... After 3 or four perfectly progressive albums, they too moved onto more mainstream heavy rock & AOR...
And I really can't see how we can relate King Crimson to Supertramp! Supertramp is a perfect example of (previous) Art-Rock definition, but King Crimson is simply unclassifiable!!!
By the way, Art Rock, as previously defined by progarchives used to be very vague and somewhat inversion of the original term... Check out this wikipedia definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_rock - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_rock Normally Art rock should have remained a category, not a genre, which sometimes (and actually most of the time) crosses prog... Having said that, I might say that I agree with the "splitting" old Art Rock subgenre into three clearer categories (especially Heavy Prog, which I had been advocating for so long.)
------------- Listen to Turkish psych/prog; you won't regret: Baris Manco,Erkin Koray,Cem Karaca,Mogollar,3 Hürel,Selda,Edip Akbayram,Fikret Kizilok,Ersen (and Dadaslar) (but stick with the '70's, and 'early 80's!) |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 01 2007 at 08:28
That's why Supertramp will move to Crossover, and King Crimson stay in eclectic.  ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: September 01 2007 at 08:31
Yes Mike, Art Rock has changed three times:
It's so clear that Par Lindh created the Swedish Art Rock Society in 1991 to help the rebirth of more complex bands as an opposition to Neo Prog and AOR, a return to the roots but more radical.. I bet you remember you and me supported this change about two years ago, because the new meaning was somehow obscure. Most sites remain with the 80's - 90's definition, we were ahead of most sites, but now the due to how crowded the ggenre had turned, it was necessary to split it, I believe Art Riock should remain as the main category and Ecklectic, Heavy (still believe Hard Prog is more accurate) and Crossover as sub-categories.
I believe that is the intention.
Iván -------------
|
Posted By: Firefly
Date Posted: September 01 2007 at 09:13
I'm pretty sure Anekdoten don't mind where you place them, genre-wise. They'd just shrug their shoulders and say "ok". Hell, if you ask them what they play, they're more likely to amile and say they just play "good music" and leave it at that.
|
Posted By: erik neuteboom
Date Posted: September 01 2007 at 10:22
|
Ricochet, it's not that I don't understand what's going on here on Prog Archives, it's simply that I don't agree with deleting Art-rock (part of music history), putting Deep Purple and Led Zep not into Heavy Prog and ignoring Prog Andaluz while supporting Indo-Prog/Raga Rock.
By the way, I prefer to mention Seventies bands like Yes, King Crimson, Jethro Tull, ELP, Pink Floyd and Genesis the Classic Prog bands, this does more justice to their musical heritage than splitting these bands and giving different categories.
|
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: September 01 2007 at 10:31
|
Art Rock, except under a "name", was not deleted. You'll only find that, right now, only a few bands were moved into Heavy and Eclectic, the rest still stand in Crossover (and will get fixed as soon as possible). Deep Purple and Led Zep can't enter Heavy Prog, since they don't have the Prog quality. Heavy Prog remains a genre of "100% prog" music, while Deep and Zep are Hard Rock and was approved as having influenced prog. I can't tell you anything about Prog Andaluz, it's out of my knowledge, just like Indo-Prog/Raga lies. About Classic Prog, we can only prefer to use such a term and regard such a phase, cause, regarding style, it's purely obvious what a complex kind of diverse great prog rock was composed, it's impossible to put everything under classic brackets. -------------
|
Posted By: andu
Date Posted: September 01 2007 at 10:52
|
I would also like the Art Rock term and label to be kept somehow, but I'm glad that this move of the Art-Rock team will clear a lot of this confusion between "art rock" as in a certain style of prog and "art rock" as in sophisticated (but non-prog) rock. I've seen already countless threads dwelling on that ambiguity, making various demands, and I'm glad they'll be over with. Regarding "Heavy Prog", I can't understand something: Erik you were the most visible advocate for "Heavy Prog" for the last year that I've been around, so one thing I was sure about the new move is that you'll be the happiest member. I remember plenty of your posts in the Symphonic thread in which you demanded the creation of a Heavy Prog category. What happened in the meantime?  ------------- "PA's own GI Joe!" 
|
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: September 01 2007 at 11:40
Erik you and I both know that led Zep and Deep purple weren't Prog Rock bands. To say otherwise is to change history. I am 46 years old, I was around then. Led Zep were NOT Prog. This isnt just my opinion it is an historical fact. |
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: September 01 2007 at 11:53
|
The thread title is disappointing, we look to our collaborators to talk positively about the site.
The case for splitting the Art Rock into smaller sub-sections was well made. If the names of those new sub-groups need to be enhanced, we should discuss that without the need for tabloid style headings.
As has been emphasised before though, the new categories are simply sub-splits of the previous Art Rock, they are not an excuse to skip non-prog bands into prog categories.
|
Posted By: erik neuteboom
Date Posted: September 01 2007 at 13:01
|
You are right Bob, wrong title and I notice only more "where opposites meet", in fact I should have done what I did last year: no more discussions about categories so I stop posting and reading, to me it's OK to close this thread. |
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: September 01 2007 at 13:38
First, Erik, your passion for the music, and your long-standing dedication to PA is admirable and ever apparent.  But: PA is a human system, thus, by definition, imperfect.  It also lacks a single, over- arching vision or direction -- "government by committee" often leads to too much compromise, and a lack of focus, when something must be "all things to all people" involved. There's a lot of "cooks" in the PA "kitchen" -- thus we predictably end up with a melange when supper's ready -- a stew, with each person's favourite flavours and ingredients thrown into the pot. (As old Aesop would have it, I don't think it's possible to please all of the people, all of the time.) Finally, to paraphrase old Sir Winston, PA is a terrible system, but it's still the best one there is.... I like the place -- inevitable warts, petty disagreements and all! Nothing's perfect. (With art and its criticism, interpretation and especially categorization, there will always be disagreement, and never 100% singularity of vision.)  Plus, progholes seem to be compulsive, almost obsessive categorizers. There's not a musical "hair" so fine, that we can't keep splitting it -- we love our little boxes, and boxes within boxes, within.... ------------- "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. |
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: September 01 2007 at 14:08
|
And, of course (to use a gemstone metaphor), one man's "flaw" is another's "facet."
------------- "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. |
Posted By: Pafnutij
Date Posted: September 01 2007 at 15:00
| That's the argument I made when I first joined, while the site was adding Deep Purple and bands like that. Those bands were never considered a part of the prog genre, so yes, Prog Archives is rewriting music history, and personally I don't like that. My reason is that the supposed "innovations" of these Prog-Related, etc bands are mightily overrated: they were great rock bands, little more. |
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: September 01 2007 at 15:21
If you dont think that Deep Purple have any relation to Prog then you need to do a lot more research. As Proto-Prog Deep Purple are a shoe-in even the most basic knowledge of rock history would point to this. These arguments are bizarre,because they betray the initiators complete lack of knowledge,yet these people post as of they have some special wisdom. |
Posted By: Pafnutij
Date Posted: September 01 2007 at 16:04
The main reason for Deep Purple's inclusion were probably the albums "Concerto for Group and Orchestra" and "Deep Purple". The former went by unnoticed and didn't influence anybody and was even later denounced by the band members. The second kinda holds up as "Proto-progressive" album, but again, it didn't received much attention (the Proto-prog tag suggests the album in question played some role in the evolution of prog music, at least in part) and wasn't an indication of were they were heading. If you could include those albums while removing all other DP records, that might make sense; otherwise they play a very small part in their discography.
Another group claimed they were prog because of their breakthrough album, DP in Rock: apparently, their willingness to make louder, heavier music was "progressive". This is what I was pointing at in my initial post: obsessing over a trivial thing like cranking up a bloody amp (and that to assist the creation of a totally different genre).
If that's a valid reason for inclusion, I look forward to seeing The Sex Pistols on this site (or are they here already
?) |
Posted By: Bilek
Date Posted: September 01 2007 at 17:39
|
All those who are speaking blatantly against Deep Purple (as for their progressiveness... whether they appreciate DP as an ordinary "rock band" or not...) are missing a point: DP might have been widely recognised a "heavy rock" band for a certain period of time, but this heaviness still included obvious "progressive" elements. And I'm not talking about Mark I period or the highly controversial Concerto here. I'm not talking about introducing heaviness to rock (a fact which artists like Jimi Hendrix done a couple of years ago anyway!) as a progressive characteristic, either! People are so overwhelmed by the popularity of tracks like Smoke on the Water & Child in time etc., that they easily overlook obviously progressive tracks such as "Fools" (from Fireball) or "Burn". Listen to Lazy (from Machine Head) with attention, for heaven's sake! And these are not just oddities in DP's overall style, or just a cream on the top of the cake: their entire seventies period is dominated by this kind of progressiveness, mainly thanks to their "classically trained" keyboardist Jon Lord. Well, not just him, as far as I know both Gillan and Blackmore have some classical connections (for instance, look at both men's first 3 or 4 post-DP albums!), which eventually gave Deep Purple a blend of classical music & rock (which became "heavy" in our example), a prominent characteristic of progressive music itself!!!
A Turkish friend wrote a very defining paragraph about the so-called "similarities" among the 3 bands which are often quoted as predecessors of heavy metal, Purple, Sabbath and Zeppelin, that is. He concludes that the seeming similarities are nothing but an illusion, giving examples from tribute albums to these 3 bands. I'll try to translate that as soon as possible and post here. ------------- Listen to Turkish psych/prog; you won't regret: Baris Manco,Erkin Koray,Cem Karaca,Mogollar,3 Hürel,Selda,Edip Akbayram,Fikret Kizilok,Ersen (and Dadaslar) (but stick with the '70's, and 'early 80's!) |
Posted By: Pafnutij
Date Posted: September 01 2007 at 19:14
It isn't : the small classical interludes they did were brilliant, but were just little ornamental devices to "spice up" the music. They were fitted on top of songs with abasic pop structure driven by blues-rock riffs; the songs were never based around them. They were not that common either - in fact, I wished they would've done more of that stuff! But a few minutes total of classically-influenced music from otherwise pure hard rock just doesn't cut it in terms of progressiveness.
Initially, it was those bands that emerged as the leaders of heavy rock , so the press happily lumped them into a "Big 3", and, looking back now, they were more infuential than just about any of their peers. That doesn't mean they were similar. I'd say that Deep Purple ended up the most straightforward of the three (yes, despite their limited "progressiveness"), while Zep the most adventurous (though not quite prog either). Sabbath were a suprising success: fans really took to their Satanic themes and evil riffing, which were considered anything but commercial. My guess is that soon they'll be here as well: it's only a matter of time before someone points to "Superczar" or "The Writ" off Sabotage, or to their debut album, as proof that they had something to do with prog. |
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: September 01 2007 at 19:24
These were the formative years of Prog, and rock with "knobs on" was basically where it was at. Where Yes and Genesis moved on from their early album toe-in-the-water attempts at moving the rock genre forward, Purple settled for hard rock. Doesnt make their Proto-Prog status any less valid though. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 01 2007 at 19:31
I pretty much agree about the two DP albums you mentioned. For me DP are related to prog because on their latter albums quite a few songs were influenced by prog. Consider "Space Truckin'" for example, or Child in Time ... The Mule on DP Live in Japan, Jon Lord's organ solo on that album as the intro to Lazy ... many tracks of Fireball, the experimental organ track "A" 200 on Burn ... It's not prog, but I see a definitive relation. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: September 02 2007 at 06:38
Th'n you might want to change the thread title, the discussion can go on!!
On another point, I can see (and you're partly right) where Purple and Zep not being in the same category is misleading.
Let's move Purple to prog-related (and The Who, which is preposterous in PR as well) to get rid of this ambiguity! And I won't oppose Sabbath's addition to prog-related as well should it come dowqn to that! All three were influential in regards to prog.
This way, we won't be misleading or hurting music history ------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword |
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: September 02 2007 at 09:57
| Art Rock is synonymous with Prog Rock. Listing it as a sub-genre here made no sense at all. |
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: September 02 2007 at 10:01
Correct. It was daft. Just the same as entertaining Prog Rock and Progressive Rock as different genres....but the kids dont understand this! |
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: September 02 2007 at 10:03
Obviously not. I'm glad it's gone. |
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: September 02 2007 at 10:23
|
Any thoughts on an alternate title Erik?
What are the views on Hugues proposals for reclassifying The Who and DP?
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 02 2007 at 10:37
|
^ I agree 100% that DP should be moved to prog-related. However, I don't think that the whole bunch of 70s rock bands in PR (Queen, LZ, DP, Who etc) influenced prog - rather the other way round.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: September 02 2007 at 11:17
|
Just a correction: currently, Heavy Prog, Crossover Prog and Eclectic Prog are clearly a sub-genre of Progressive Rock, not of Art Rock. The way it was all envisioned - as I understand it - was that the three new sub-genres, were to be a sub-genre of Art Rock. This is currently not the case. Will this be sorted out? This is quite a big ambiguity, as the Art Rock team are saying they're sub-genres of Art Rock, when the site clearly shows they're not. -------------   
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 02 2007 at 12:17
The fact that all the genres are listed on the same level doesn't mean that they are conceptually. It can be explained in the descriptions of these three genres that they together form what was previously listed as Art Rock. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: September 02 2007 at 12:20
|
True, but nevertheless, it's a tad ambiguous to newcomers to the site. I'm sure there's a way of indicating that all three sub-genres are a branch off of Art Rock (even if it's not an active hyperlink).
-------------
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 02 2007 at 12:25
|
^ the question is whether these three genres are intended to stay grouped together. My guess is that they'll become more and more independent, with the Art Rock team managing them.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: September 02 2007 at 12:30
|
Well the initial plan was that were a branch off of Art Rock, but if they do become independent, then that's fair enough. I do want to see a split-up of the Avant-Garde Rock genre though, in the future. -------------
|
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: September 02 2007 at 13:51
|
I guess there will probably be a few bands in other genres who may now fit better into one of the newly created ones, but the proposal was taken forward on the basis that it was simply splitting up a larger category.
As I recall, an option to retain the Art rock name as "Art rock - Crossover prog" etc., was suggested. Would that be the preferred style, or is it too long?
|
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: September 02 2007 at 16:35
It all depends on whether Crossover, Eclectic and Heavy are sub genres of progressive rock or sub genres of Art rock,which is a sub genre of prog rock. If its the formr then I think no, the titles should be left as they are clearly showing that they are indipendant sub genres of prog. If its the latter then go with your suggestion, showing them to be the three sides to Art rock. At the moment, anyone comeing to the front page will see that crossover, heavy and eclectic are all indipendant sub genres and art rock being non existent, but then isnt prog rock part of art rock anyway? ------------- Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005 
|
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: September 02 2007 at 18:30
though i side with Erik on this and am confused by the new genre titles, Crossroads rock or Dyslexic prog, we'll just have to live with them now..
Anyway, in the words of our famous Bard....
"What's in a name.......wouldn't Art Rock by any other name still sound as sweet...? "
-------------  Prog Archives Tour Van 
|
Posted By: Zargus
Date Posted: September 02 2007 at 18:43
Yes i have read many rock/pop music books and in every one of em prog is not the word they use very much most of the big prog bands are named art rock, so when i first came here i tough it was a bit wierd, but then again this site seem to live in its own litle univers with its own litle rules, coming up with new sub-genres out of nowhere. ------------- 
|
Posted By: ghost_of_morphy
Date Posted: September 02 2007 at 22:12
Amen.
|
Posted By: Verwuestung
Date Posted: September 02 2007 at 23:16
|
there isn't a general agreement about what art rock or progressive rock is and logically there never was.
what about the velvet underground? if anything they should be defined as art rock (they had bloody andy warhol as their.. whatever) the way I see it it's a change for the best because ultimately having all those bands that had little to do with eachother, classified under 'art rock' was vauge and never could give a general picture of what a band was about.. all in all using generes is generalizing, but on the other hands you can't file the 3000 bands on this website solely under "progressive rock". trying to stick to what was once considered this and that is maybe historically significant but people were people back than as they are now and probably still argued about it, hence trying to accurate and articulate further then the accepted consensus is not such a bad idea the way I see.. |
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: September 03 2007 at 03:37
Effectively, they were the same. In North America, no one knew of progressive rock in the 70's, it was just Art Rock. But usiong the name Art rOck was to name the other groups that couldn't be easily classified in other "genre" . So effectivey it was "Other sort of prog rock"
OK, I've helped out the Art Rock team in subdividing that category, but I still think we're going the wrong way:
We are multiplying the subgenres which of course is worsening the problems that are plaguing the site.
And personally I would still like to see the Art Rock name being used. Prog must claim the name in order to stop it being used to name other non-prog currents using to their credits.
This subdivision was not helpfull IMHO (it was botched according to what the original plans were set:
the iidea was to use three Art Rock sub-sub-genres (as Ivàn wanted with his "national" schools in Symphonic)
so effectively the plan was:
------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword |
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: September 03 2007 at 11:10
 Am I alone in thinking categories and sub-genres don't matter much anyway? I hear (or hear of) a band, then I simply locate them by clicking on the corresponding letter of the alphabet on the Archives start page.
Okay, I suppose some users of PA enjoy a band from a given category, then are moved to trustingly explore all other artist listed in that category, but I really don't care what others call King Crimson, or any other artist. It doesn't affect me at all, and I don't treat art like science (because it's not a science).
As I've said before, each original band/artist essentially makes its own category anyway. The "category" for Zappa is "Zappa" -- file under Z.
(Would-be) fine categorization is at best a subjective, contentious, inexact process. People will ALWAYS argue about it, because no two people will respond to all music in exactly the same way. This never-ending issue gets way more attention than it merits, in my opinion. Once an artist is considered to be "prog" (of any supposed "format"), and is listed here, that's good enough for me. Hearing samples and reading reviews will do the rest., in a much clearer, informative fashion than any category decided (or dreamed up) by a committee of self-appointed "experts" (really just ordinary mortal music fans like the rest of us) ever could.
 So, in the end, PA's categories really don't matter to a listener like me. You can call it 'log" "snog" "trog" "glog" or "Bob," for all I care. As I've long maintained, mere words and headings don't pin something as amorphous, emotive and listener-dependent as music into place, like a dead beetle (Beatle?) in some dusty display case.
Carry on with the arguing, soul-searching and threats to leave, though -- I'll be on the sidelines, watching the chest-thumping fray, and digging the groovy music.
 ------------- "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: September 03 2007 at 11:19
|
peterrideoutsgoodmusicarchives.com Peter Rideout's ultimate music archives, for the discerning listener! No categorisations, just the music he loves! No prog metal though (oops, that's categorising isn't it?). Get your groove on.  Without categorisation, there wouldn't be any prog metal and without prog metal, Peter wouldn't be able to complain about it, because it wouldn't have a name. I personally think categorisation is necessary, just because I like to read Peter's posts against such things. Hugues, that's what I thought too... and as I said, that's not what we've currently got. -------------
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 03 2007 at 11:34
You don't need genres when you're searching for a band which you already know the name of. You need them when you're searching for bands which might be similar to one you already know. Genres can be very useful because they narrow down your search considerably ... and not all genres are confining or limiting. Consider a simple label like "spacey". If you like an album and you see that it's tagged as being "spacey", you can choose to explore other albums which share this tag. I really can't see any harm in that ... it's not complicated at all. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: September 03 2007 at 12:02
 Aha! I expected that! Notice I said "fine categorization." I see the need for and utility of BROAD categories. (But less is more, for me.)Just keep putting "metal' in the name, and I'll know it's not my cup o' chai....
(That's a sub-genre of tea, BTW.)
------------- "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. |
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: September 03 2007 at 12:08
Yes, I see that Mike (as I indicated in another part of my rambling post) but I, myself, as an individual, just don't look for music that way (nor do i think I'm entirely alone in this). I need to hear it, or hear of it from someone (with similar tastes) who knows what I might like. Short of hearing it, detailed reviews work best for me.
That's all. To each his own.  ------------- "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. |
Posted By: Shakespeare
Date Posted: September 03 2007 at 12:13
|
As far as I'm concerned, we could run PA with 3 subgenres. Prog rock, prog metal, other. (Other would be Zeuhl, avant, electric, et etera.) |
Posted By: laplace
Date Posted: September 03 2007 at 12:16
|
I partially agree with that... I'd add space rock and non-rock (primarily for electroprog and chamber) to make a round five. ------------- FREEDOM OF SPEECH GO TO HELL |
Posted By: Shakespeare
Date Posted: September 03 2007 at 12:20
| I considered that, too, but psych would easily fall under rock, and other could easily contain all non-rock prog. |
Posted By: debrewguy
Date Posted: September 03 2007 at 12:30
Yes yes yes. But I also think BTO were progressive in that they took 4/4 time, basic hard rock riffs & heavy guitars & still managed to get a good string of hit singles (back when "hit singles" actually existed) without resorting to the later music marketing 101 trick - the power ballad. Oh, what hell the 80s wrought upon the artist ... ------------- "Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: September 03 2007 at 13:55
I would add Fusion as a separate genre, but other than that I think you're right. We *could* leave it at that, but we won't!  ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: September 03 2007 at 15:48
|
Posted By: MrHiccup
Date Posted: September 04 2007 at 16:09
|
This new categories will create a paradox! This will lead to the complete destruction of the Universe as we know it... An alternate timeline will be created, in which Keith Emerson & Peter Gabriel will be the new Princes of Pop, and the Backstreet Boys would probably play Hammonds.
 Nah, just kidding. Good music is good music, I don't mind how do we call it.
------------- Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends... |
Posted By: Tristan Mulders
Date Posted: September 04 2007 at 17:59
|
Of course not having experienced the 70s and all that, I always considered, based upon the variety of artists that I've heard, either via this website or not, that Art Rock was a more commercial or at least more accesible part of the prog rock spectrum. Rock with an artistic imprint or whatever...
------------- Interested in my reviews? You can find them http://www.progarchives.com/Collaborators.asp?id=784 - HERE "...He will search until He's found a Way to take the Days..." |