Suggested Sub-Genre: New Prog
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Site News, Newbies, Help and Improvements
Forum Name: Help us improve the site
Forum Description: Help us improve the forums, and the site as a whole
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=63243
Printed Date: March 04 2025 at 02:39
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Suggested Sub-Genre: New Prog
Posted By: Citizen Erased
Subject: Suggested Sub-Genre: New Prog
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 16:44
|
Upon browsing the Prog Archivse I've discovered a lot of my favourite bands, but not all of them in the genre I'd expect. Many of these bands are lumped in with Prog-Related, which to be honest could be virtually anything that escapes the constrains of pop structure. Others are labelled in Crossover Prog; one example I saw on this sub-forum recently is Dead Letter Circus - an inherently New Prog band, or alternative rock band with progressive tendencies, that come from a tradition of bands such as Radiohead rather than Rush. The Australian rock scene in particular are spawning a lot of these 'alternative' bands that may take influence from as far as post-rock to nu metal e.g. Karnivool, Cog, The Butterfly Effect and so on. In fact a good portion of what I'd listen to is a sub-genre that's emerged in recent years could be called New Prog. A good description would be thus:
In a personal sense, bands today that are just making 20 minute songs about hobbits with extended overblown guitar solos don't tend to interest me. Progressive music has evolved, and in terms of the mainstream, very much disappeared over the course of the 80s and 90s. However a new wave of progressive bands have been gaining more mainstream attention, influenced more by the likes of Radiohead, Tool and Sigur Rós than the likes of Genesis and Yes. These bands tend to be bracketed as alternative rock bands because the length of their songs might not be long, they do focus on a good pop melody and in many cases seem to have songs that sound not dissimilar to the mainstream rock bands of today. However these bands become so popular for a reason. Some focus highly on dynamics (Biffy Clyro), others on time signatures (Oceansize) etc. Many may confuse this genre with "Neo-Prog", the genre from the 80s, and many may just use the term to describe any modern progressive band. However I think it's important to define this is a term to describe alternative rock/post-rock bands that have a progressive aspect to their music/part of their musical DNA. Take a band like Muse, there's a definite progressive slant to what they do, and yet to call them prog-related makes them sound like they make vague passing references to it (Their latest symphony suggests this isn't the case). On the other hand we can't call them a full blown prog band like Genesis or Yes. Solution? New Prog. It's a term that's become more and more popular on messageboards and I reckon it'd be a useful addition to the site, particular for listeners of this style of music such as myself. Of course, this is just a suggestion. I'd be interested to hear what the mods or whatever would make of this and whether others on here reckon this is just a load of needless rubbish. Anyway: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_prog http://rateyourmusic.com/list/WiiAreRabbid/new_prog__progressive_rock_with_a_modern_twist/ This is a list of bands whose fanbases are labelling New Prog (I'm not this user btw but I doubt he'll be too bothered.  ):
------------- And lo, the mighty riffage was played and it was good 
<a href="www.last.fm/user/jonzo67" targe |
New Prog is not to be confused with 80s Neo-Prog, which is strongly
influenced by Symphonic Rock. New Prog is a relatively new sub-genre of
Progressive Rock, which combines elements of traditional Progressive
Rock with more recent styles of music such as Alternative Rock,
Post-Hardcore, and Post-Rock. This list includes New Prog bands, a few
modern Art Rock bands with similar influences, as well as a few
bordline bands that may be enjoyed by fans of New Prog. This list does
not include new bands that play purely 70s Progressive Rock, it also
does not include bands that are purely Progressive Metal.
Replies:
Posted By: Citizen Erased
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 16:48
Oh and I found the forum this might want to be moved to actually  "Suggestions to Improve the Site" sub-forum or whatever - it might be better placed there but I couldn't see it at all at that moment in time = / ------------- And lo, the mighty riffage was played and it was good
<a href="www.last.fm/user/jonzo67" targe |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 16:56
|
Search and ye shall find...
http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62988 - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62988 http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=55434 -
http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=55434
http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=53224 - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=53224
http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=50275 - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=50275
http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=48190 - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=48190
http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=60679 - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=60679
http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=41923 - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=41923
http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=36473 - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=36473
http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=45776 - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=45776
http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=42062 - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=42062
http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=17942 - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=17942
... also, wrong forum section... moving to Help Us Improve The Site
------------- What? |
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 16:57
| I dig this proposal. By keeping all the newfangled sounds in a single spot, prog newbies will be able to spot the differences between kids' stuff and the real deal. Similarly, those of us who look for, say, eclectic prog or symphonic rock, will be able to identify the classics without having to wade through bands that formed last week. This definitely has my approval! |
Posted By: Citizen Erased
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 16:57
|
Yeah. I noticed that afterwards. Sorry Mr Admin. ------------- And lo, the mighty riffage was played and it was good
<a href="www.last.fm/user/jonzo67" targe |
Posted By: Citizen Erased
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 16:58
I appreciate the support mate. And will continue to favour the noob prog bands over emotionless sci-fi twaddle. Nah, I'm just winding you up back. I love a lot of old prog bands. ------------- And lo, the mighty riffage was played and it was good
<a href="www.last.fm/user/jonzo67" targe |
Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 17:06
|
I think New Prog is interesting I have only heard of those bands Porcupine Tree, Mew, Muse, Tool and Opeth (which I dont concidder to be New-prog but Progressive Metal) I think Porcupine Tree, Tool and Opeth will be hard to remove from where they are placed now (heavy prog, Experimental metal and Tech/Extreme metal) but i think this sub-genre diserves to be here since it is a NEW movement in Progressive rock (they use the curent genres of 90s and 00s and expand it bounderies which also the 70s prog bands did in there time by fusing psychadelic rock /beat music with classical music, Jazz, folk, avant garde and 20th century classic and minimalistic music while todays New-prog scene blends alternative rock/hardcore punk /post rock with Noise rock, shoegazing, grunge, prog, metal and electronica. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 17:12
I should really close this thread and direct everyone to the one Conor opened last week on the same subject: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62988 - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62988
But you obviously put a lot of thought into the OT I'm reluctant to close it. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Citizen Erased
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 17:21
|
Feel free to merge or whatever. I just hope it doesn't get lost hehe.
------------- And lo, the mighty riffage was played and it was good
<a href="www.last.fm/user/jonzo67" targe |
Posted By: progkidjoel
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 18:44
|
I don't think its a bad idea, but it doesn't seem to be categorising bands musically, but rather by time of formation.
I mean, Blackfield, The Mars Volta and Anathema couldn't be more different. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 18:53
Yup. I think the name is problematic. What are some alternate names you could propose for such a category? ------------- ...that moment you realize you like "Mob Rules" better than "Heaven and Hell" |
Posted By: topofsm
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 19:14
But they all incorporate some sort of alternative 90s or 00s sounds into their music. Plus you not every band in every category sounds too much alike. Zappa, Mr. Bungle, and Univers Zero don't sound alike at all either. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 19:26
------------- What? |
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 19:47
| I like the idea, although the list is probably not complete, and I agree that the name should be different. |
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 21:00
|
If the majority of the bands that would go in that genre are already listed on this site are prog-related, how can you call it a true progressive genre? We would simply be watering down the definition of prog even further, and I can't support that. I understand the impulse to use it as a subset of Crossover, even if I hate the name and don't think it's necessary, but if a band would not fit under the current guidelines, which seems to be the case since many of the bands listed aren't even in prog-related, then why should we add them just because they're slightly progressive alt-rock? What does PA gain by making Muse "full prog" when they're clearly not, and if they ever do become prog we have Crossover for them?
And only post-rock and prog are actually prog, so how is that combination relevant to us?
------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: November 30 2009 at 23:46
| Olde Prog |
Posted By: Evolutionary Sleeper
Date Posted: December 01 2009 at 00:18
|
I agree with Henry, I think it's completely unnecessary.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Tarquin Underspoon
Date Posted: December 01 2009 at 00:20
|
I dunno. This seems like a weakly connected collection of bands that have little in common musically, as Joel said.
Cool idea, but.....sorry. I think you lost me at Opeth. ------------- "WAAAAAAOOOOOUGH! WAAAAAAAUUUUGGHHHH!! WAAAAAOOOO!!!" -The Great Gig in the Sky |
Posted By: Marty McFly
Date Posted: December 01 2009 at 03:57
|
It's hard to deny that there's a (not so) small share of truth in his arguments and list he made up.
------------- There's a point where "avant-garde" and "experimental" becomes "terrible" and "pointless," -Andyman1125 on Lulu  Even my |
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: December 01 2009 at 13:27
|
While, as an avant fan, I would agree with some additions that some would consider controversial, those borderline cases are chipping away at the definition of rock for the sake of including progressive music. This would be chipping away at the definition of progressive for the sake of including rock music. ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: J-Man
Date Posted: December 01 2009 at 17:32
|
We've had thread after thread about this "nu-prog" subgenre on the site. While I do ultimately think it would be a good addition to the site, I don't believe it is necessary. After all just "adding a new sub-genre" is easier said than done. We would need one of our members to write a detailed description for the genre, we would need to get a volunteer genre team, we would need to move existing bands into that sub-genre, and we would have to add new bands. To go through all of that trouble really seems almost pointless for such a small improvement to the site. Just my two cents. -Jeff ------------- 
Check out my YouTube channel! http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime |
Posted By: Desoc
Date Posted: December 02 2009 at 05:02
|
Splendid job, CitizenErased. As in previous threads, I support the idea. Some of the categorisation of newer bands on PA is somewhat illogical, IMO. And Jeff, this wouldn't be a "small improvement" as I see it, but a large sign that PA have a dynamic attitude toward the factual evolvement of music genres. Being structurally conservative and lagging behind reality (not saying that anyone in particular does, but the site should be aware of the danger) is not what I view as a progressive spirit :) |
Posted By: Citizen Erased
Date Posted: December 02 2009 at 10:24
You say, we've had thread after thread. Surely then, the people that are prepared to write descriptions etc are us aka the ones who started the threads. ------------- And lo, the mighty riffage was played and it was good
<a href="www.last.fm/user/jonzo67" targe |
Posted By: Marty McFly
Date Posted: December 02 2009 at 10:58
But you have to say that these people often have just idea, not will to finish it. You would be able to do something from it, but even you would be (maybe) surprised how much of hard work it is. It's completely normal ,everyone would be. ------------- There's a point where "avant-garde" and "experimental" becomes "terrible" and "pointless," -Andyman1125 on Lulu Even my |
Posted By: Citizen Erased
Date Posted: December 02 2009 at 16:00
|
Ah well, I'll have a go at some of it anyway if people are up for it. Obviously I wouldn't expect the responsibility to be given to me when I'm shy of 50 posts though. ------------- And lo, the mighty riffage was played and it was good
<a href="www.last.fm/user/jonzo67" targe |
Posted By: Conor Fynes
Date Posted: December 02 2009 at 22:30
If so many people are suggesting it as part of the site, then why does it keep getting ridiculed?
Contrary to what most br00tal Symphonic prog fans might want, prog rock keeps developing as time goes on, and the site should reflect that.
|
Posted By: LiquidEternity
Date Posted: December 03 2009 at 00:20
|
The site does reflect that. The primary issue here seems to be a question of paradigms. Do we sort bands into genres based on chronological connections or by musical connections? We have some of both (proto-prog, for example, on the chronological side). I personally think it is unwise to create a time-based category for a time period that is currently in progress. Where is it going to go? What is it going to do? It might completely fizzle into the other categories, leaving us with a genre that merely reflects our best guess at its time of inception. I don't think the argument that since neo-prog is its own category, another current category is reasonable justified--all neo-prog bands sound the same. It's a sonic connection as much as it is a chronological one. I'm kidding, I think. Actually, I have no idea how serious I am with that. Anyways. For what my opinion is worth, I say a genre based entirely on when it exists should cover a time period that is finished and not one that is currently ongoing. Yes, we're in prog's third wave. Is it going to grow? Shrink? Disappear and leave no one the sadder? There is absolutely no way to tell. Besides, there's this strain of arrogance to this generation (my generation, and me, as I'm a child of the 90s as it were) where we want to label everything we do new and modern and post- whatever came before us, because we've all risen above what's come before and blah blah blah. New musical ideas are introduced, yes, but on the whole, genres are not changing very much. The fact that some of these bands are frequently labeled post-prog is silly. Calling it new prog is assuming that everything before it is to be considered old and everything after it falls into its category (and, yes, I dislike the title neo-prog as well). I hope that's coherent. It's late, I'm sleepy, and my Russian homework kicked my butt. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: December 03 2009 at 00:46
|
Even though the words mean the same thing, neo prog is different from new prog, I think, because neo implies a homage to the past, while new is more self-consciously revolutionary. For example, neo-classical architecture is a revival of classical forms with some modern twists. This also describes neo-prog. "New prog" doesn't have much relationship with symphonic prog (or any prog, I would argue),
so it's sort of acrurate if you're overthinking it. Or maybe less. I don't know.
Large numbers don't make it a good idea. ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: December 03 2009 at 00:48
|
Modern Prog? I guess it describes both the time and musical style, I think it conveys more than New Prog anyway. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: December 03 2009 at 04:27
As I pointed out in my list of threads the subject of New Prog has come up many times, but if you read those threads chronologically you see that they are an idea in development, not (as Wilki or Q or Mojo would have you believe) a done deal - there is still a need to isolate the characteristics of New Prog that make it a subgenre separate from Alt Rock or Dream Pop or Neopsyche or whatever, to determine the advantages of taking selected bands out of Tech Metal, Neo Prog, Crossover, Heavy prog, Psyche/Space, Post Rock and Prog Related and grouping them together with a random selection of Alt/Indie bands, to see whether this is a real subgenre or just lazy journalism, to see whether the idea is worth refining down to a subset of what the "world" calls New Prog that better fits our brief.
------------- What? |
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: December 03 2009 at 07:38
So what happens to bands in a "Modern prog" genre in 20 years time?
(assuming PA is still going then).
|
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: December 03 2009 at 12:14
|
Well said Dean, and Spence.
And Chopper, good point. I guess in 20 years you have to create "Newer, More Modern Prog" sub-genre.  ------------- ...that moment you realize you like "Mob Rules" better than "Heaven and Hell" |
Posted By: Conor Fynes
Date Posted: December 04 2009 at 12:44
| Kay, don't get me wrong; I think the title 'New/Nu Prog' is really stupid, but if a better, more fitting title came along (that describes the 'category' in mind) we should really look into it. I would be more than happy to help put it together if that did come to pass. |
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: December 04 2009 at 12:59
I thought of that, but then I thought we could worry about that in 20 years. |
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: December 04 2009 at 19:04
|
You have to think ahead when you name things. Even if we're not still around, you have to act as if your name will stick forever. If you're not acting like that, you're not putting enough effort into it. Of course the rock world may still be stuck on alt-rock then, so it may not be issue, but you have to consider that somebody might think of something clever and revolutionize the world! It's been quite a while since we had a new genre, so it's about time somebody thinks of something. ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: Citizen Erased
Date Posted: December 05 2009 at 09:03
|
I'd rather the world be stuck on alt-rock (which it isn't) than R&B which it seems to be at the moment. In my opinion, rock music is the only place where progressively influenced bands are actually popular at the moment. Look at Hip-Hop. The best, most successful rappers make what MC Lars calls "Generic Crunk Rap" with banal lyrics, hideous production and R&B producers. The best Hip-Hop (Sage Francis, Non-Prophets etc) are scarcely heard of. It's the same with mainstream pop music as a whole. The best pop music was catchy, memorable and didn't get too annoying after repeated listens (think The Beatles). Today, virtually anything is passed off as a hit - like The Ting Tings' song That's Not My Name. I don't think they even go beyond two notes throughout the whole song. Oh, and they have hideous R&B production as well... However in rock music, some of the most successful bands ARE experimenting. In the UK, Radiohead, Muse, Biffy Clyro, Elbow, even Coldplay - you may dislike some of these bands I mentioned, but they are experimenting with their sound and are very successful at the moment. That's a reason why I find New Prog important, it sums up a lot of mainstream as well as experimental music. As for a different tag, perhaps a change would be good, but New Prog is pretty fixed in many journalists' heads now and I dunno if changing it on here would make too much difference. Perhaps Alternative Prog? Or is that already a genre? ------------- And lo, the mighty riffage was played and it was good
<a href="www.last.fm/user/jonzo67" targe |
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: December 05 2009 at 09:56
|
I would definately say the mainstream rock world is still stuck on alt-rock. I can't think of a single popular rock song that isn't in some way tinged with alt-rock, can you? Even something like James Blunt's You're Beautiful is acoustic alt-rock. Overall, yes, hideous dance-pop is more popular, but that's the way it's always been. The Beatles are the extreme aberration of pop music actually being listenable. But it's interesting that you think a "hit" is something decided by some outside force and not by the listeners. I don't understand it either, but people actually like to listen to The Ting Tings! I'm confused by your thought that Coldplay are experimental. On their previous albums they used a bunch of piano (hey Ben Folds Five and almost every acoustic rock song ever), and on their new one Brian Eno convinced them to hire an orchestra, so what? I'll grant you that it's rare these days to hear an orchestra so heavily dominating a pop rock song, but they're still playing the same boring alt-rock chords.------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: December 05 2009 at 10:53
Changing things here does have some effect on "the outside world" - probably not as much as some folks would like to think, but enough. New Prog is fixed in the minds of some journalists, along with a list of bands they think fit the terminology, and that's the problem for me - a percentage of those bands would not pass for Prog by our standards and for that they should not be added to our database even if we specifically create a new category. One of the problems we had with Art Prog (and I guess Avant Pop) was too many suggeste bands were not Prog.
If (a very big IF) a new category then I hink a new name with our definition and our list of bands is essential - of course any band that fits that new category would most certainly fit one of the exisiting subgenres ... and they do. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Windhawk
Date Posted: December 05 2009 at 12:32
|
The main problem with this so-called new prog is that it isn't new at all. It's just a matter of adding recent musical expressions or unusual musical blends with already existing stylistic expressions. Now - for some the various genres are time capsules. To some extent that is the situation with symphonic already; vintage symphonic music is symphonic while the symphonic bands incorporating more recent musical expressions gets tossed into the Neo category. Personally I'm against this conservationist approch to genres though. Genres should evolve rather than encapsulating the expressions of a particular period of time. A Nu/New/Alt prog genre, would only, as far as I can tell, serve as a limited descriptor of a partcular blend of stylistic elements popular right now, and in a few years it would be extinct as the variety of those blends will have been used up and other variations will start appearing. Until we get a true musical innovation, a new stylistic expression like progressive metal once was for instance, there shouldn't be a need for a new genre. Variations of genres already present should be added to the genres in question. Which they also are to a fair degree ;-) ------------- Websites I work with: http://www.progressor.net http://www.houseofprog.com My profile on Mixcloud: https://www.mixcloud.com/haukevind/ |
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: December 07 2009 at 00:02
|
So I don't get it, does that this mean every band from every conceivable
genre that formed since the late 80s (minus avant garde perhaps) is now "new prog"? Someone tell me how the f**k Opeth, The Fall of Troy and The Samuel Jackson Five are lumped into the same genre, because I don't get it. They don't sound remotely alike. And Minus the Bear has been one of my top 25 favorite bands of the last 9 months or so and I know their records inside out backwards. Math rock elements, yes, indie rock, definitely, experimental rock, kinda, but prog rock? NO and I'm not going to allow subjective opinion of how much I enjoy their music to get in the way of the objective fact they are not a prog rock band by any stretch of the imagination. And come to think I'm not even sure what experimental means anymore. Coldplay are experimental? Seriously? Have people not heard stuff like Sun City Girls, bands that actually properly experimented with new things and ideas, rather than tacking on an orchestral sound and calling it experimental? Good mother of christ. I really don't see what's so experimental about a band like Coldplay who have not ever brought anything new to the table (as HP pointed out, the orchestral thing and piano melodies are NOT new). But funny how when a band does something new, it's just strange, too out there, weird and ultimately it seems most of us have completely forgotten that was exactly what the spirit of experimentality was all about and that simply rehasing those same old piano melodies and putting it in your pop rock really shouldn't be considered experimental. |
Posted By: The Sleepwalker
Date Posted: December 07 2009 at 04:38
|
I don't think "new prog" would be a good genre to search nd discover new bands in a certain style. For example, if I'm looking for a band like Radiohead I don't want to find a band like Opeth. Many of these bands don't have much in common. I think this whole thing unnecessary as most of these bands are fine in the subgenre where they are now in my opinion. Opeth obviously is very technical music which combines death metal with 70's prog influences. What's wrong with them being in tech/extreme prog metal? Radiohead has made some pretty experimental and innovative music, but also have a clear mainstream influence, What's wrong with them being in crossover prog? Riverside plays a very original and progressive form of metal. What's wrong with them being prog metal?\ Some bands are a bit more difficult to label due to changes in style or whatever. Porcupine Tree for example is heavy prog now. IMO they would be fine in crossover prog, due to the mainstream influences, but I'm not wanting to get off-topic here. My point is that all existing subgenres offer bands a place that nearly always suits them pretty good. We're not going to delete all existing subgenres to create a subgenre called "classic prog" or something either, are we? Oh by the way, I don't see how Coldplay are experimental. They are among the most unoriginal bands I've ever heard, and to me most of there music sounds pretty much the same. Viva La Vida might have an orchestra, but how is that experimental? They are just another pop band in my opinion.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Citizen Erased
Date Posted: December 07 2009 at 17:42
|
Come on guys. The subject of how experimental Coldplay are wasn't the topic. I agreed that perhaps an alternative name to New Prog might be needed but looking at how so many bands are structured on here, something needs to be done to group a lot of these bands. People ask how "Opeth and Radiohead" can be in the same group for example. On the other hand, look at Prog Related. It's the exact same problem. ------------- And lo, the mighty riffage was played and it was good
<a href="www.last.fm/user/jonzo67" targe |
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: December 07 2009 at 17:58
------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: The Sleepwalker
Date Posted: December 08 2009 at 09:05
-------------
|
Posted By: Desoc
Date Posted: December 08 2009 at 09:15
|
First of all: Mixing Opeth into this was clearly a mistake. The list suggested by the original poster should be taken as just that - a suggestion, not the definite answer. If this should be a reality now or in the future, let's stick to the old formula: Create a genre team of competent people and allow them to make decisions after having had their discussions. The difference between Opeth and Radiohead is not what this is about. I think it's more about the difference between i.e. Rush and Uriah Heep on one side, and The Mars Volta and Porcupine Tree on the other side, who all are lumped into Heavy Prog although clearly belonging to quite different traditions. More names and genres could be mentioned, and many already have.
No, you're using strawmen. It's a question of a different kind of organization, taking into account that the world does in fact evolve.
|
Posted By: The Sleepwalker
Date Posted: December 08 2009 at 09:24
-------------
|
Posted By: Citizen Erased
Date Posted: December 08 2009 at 10:57
As specified in the opening post, New Prog (or whatever we shall call it), refers specifically to alt bands with progressive structures in modern music. Opeth are obviously and clearly prog metal.
Cheers, precisely.
Exactly, it's something I'm suggesting this sub-genre could solve. ------------- And lo, the mighty riffage was played and it was good
<a href="www.last.fm/user/jonzo67" targe |
Posted By: The Sleepwalker
Date Posted: December 08 2009 at 11:56
What do you want to solve?  Prog related bands aren't prog, but are related to prog. This could be either influential to prog bands or influenced by prog bands, but in the end they're not prog. Do you mean that you want prog related to disappear and combine prog and prog related bands into one subgenre? -------------
|
Posted By: progkidjoel
Date Posted: December 08 2009 at 15:01
I don't get it. Like Henry said before, you want to solve the problem of prog-related (IE, the problem of having a load of bands who receive small prog influences or have some prog overtones, etc) by pushing all of those bands into a genre called new prog? That doesn't seem like its solving the problem in the slightest, but rather clumping it into another sub genre, and, by doing so, removing pretty much all of the musical placement association and replacing it with something based on time... -------------
|
Posted By: Desoc
Date Posted: December 08 2009 at 15:16
| I'm sure people could discuss forever which bands deserve to be in Prog Related and which deserve to be either further in or further out, but just for the reference: "solving the problem of Prog Related" was never my agenda, and I don't think I've read many other people who are calling for a new genre and who argues that loads of Prog Related bands should be "inside". My issue is mainly with bands already "inside" the ordinary prog categories as a whole but "outside" in terms of their place in the category in question. |
Posted By: Citizen Erased
Date Posted: December 09 2009 at 16:01
|
This is sort of heading on a tangent. I didn't say I think that ALL Prog Related bands should be in New Prog. I posted a list in the first post of at least 50 bands that would automatically be considered for this genre though. It's not a bad basis for a start. These are all suggestions guys of course. ------------- And lo, the mighty riffage was played and it was good
<a href="www.last.fm/user/jonzo67" targe |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: December 09 2009 at 16:28
------------- What? |
Posted By: Desoc
Date Posted: December 09 2009 at 16:52
Ah, right, um, no. The count is actually Crossover: 12 Eclectic: 1 Experimental/post: 6 Heavy prog: 6 Neo: 1 Post/math: 2 Prog folk: 1 Prog metal: 1 Psych/space: 5 Related: 2 Tech/Extreme: 1 Not in: 16 (Sorry, couldn't resist  )In other words: In 36 - Related 2 - Out 16 The argument about this being a conspirative way of lumping loads of Related and Not Even Related bands inside, seems a bit blown up. Again, have anybody claimed this list to be the definite answer? (Also: I didn't do a search on this, but many of the "Not in" bands were completely new to me, and I usually try to pay attention to what bands are being discussed in the "Suggest new bands/artists" section...) |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: December 09 2009 at 19:12
------------- What? |
Posted By: Citizen Erased
Date Posted: December 18 2009 at 15:51
Which bands among those mentioned are not progressive? Surely we're not operating under the notion that prog is exclusively bands with 6 min+ songs. Many of the bands mentioned cram more into 4/5 minute songs than many do in 20 - messing about with structures, time signatures etc in the process. ------------- And lo, the mighty riffage was played and it was good
<a href="www.last.fm/user/jonzo67" targe |
Posted By: progkidjoel
Date Posted: December 18 2009 at 16:33
|
This just isn't going to work and it's not needed.
I love Tool. Let's say I just got their first album and loved it, so I decide to check out some other bands in the new prog subgenre. My finger lands on The Decemberists, although they don't even sound slightly similiar. Next up I get The Fall of Troy. Same problem again. Then The Mars Volta. Then Radiohead. Do you see what I'm getting at? Am I getting anywhere whatsoever with my search for similar artists, which, if they existed, should by all logic fall under the same sub-genre if they're considered to be progressive? But then, Tool magically appear in a genre called Experimental / Post-metal  Whilst having a look through, I find a band called The Pax Cecilia, and although they aren't too similar as far as music goes, they're surely a lot more similar to Tool than 90% of the artists who've been pulled out of a carefully selected place and clumped into this new prog.
Also, are we now going to clump all 70's artists into one sub-genre, call it old prog and add a whole lot of 70's bands who wouldn't make the normal criteria for PA into this new genre? -------------
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: December 18 2009 at 17:07
If any of the 16 bands in that list that are not already here can fit into an existing PA subgenre (excluding Prog Related and Proto Prog) then suggest them and we will put them on the list of 70+ bands we are currently evaluating for Crossover. ------------- What? |