Porcupine Tree for Eclectic?

I understand the attraction of multi-tagging but I also suspect it would not be a cure all, could end up being a bit of a mess, and would eliminate a certain democratic tension we have here; a healthy push & push-back that provides engagement and an active, intentional evaluation process rather than some people assigning tags without end or limitation.  This is not meant as a knock to those who practice multitagging, I just don't think it's the savior.   And besides, it's not as fun.




     

Edited by Atavachron - September 25 2009 at 02:25

Raff wrote: They've already been moved once, from Space/Psych to HP. I don't see how anyone would really benefit from this game of ping-pong. This obsession with the 'perfect fit' is what is keeping dozens of up-and-coming prog bands out of the site, as well as having PA ridiculed around the internet. As a long-time member of this site, I don't like to see comments such as the ones I saw in a thread at Progressive Ears - unfortunately, they were quite true for the most part. Anyway, while I agree that some form of categorization is useful (libraries would be impossible to use without categories), I can't help feeling that for some members it has become more important than the music itself.

Not that I totally disagree, Raff, but please keep in mind that we are probably the largest and most well-known Prog site on the net right now, and anybody who puts us down for one reason or another is most likely the fox grumbling about the sour grapes. I'm willing to bet that most complaints about this site comes from many people who have started trouble here, then gotten banned. There is no logical reason to dislike a website such as this one, since its main purpose is to be an indepth, resourceful archive, and I think we do that better than anyone.

Any other problems a person may have with us is not a good enough reason to stop coming here.



Now, on to the PT thingy . . .

I personally don't think they should have ever been moved from where they were originally. Now all it's done is ignite yet another argument for them to be moved once again. Space-Rock and Eclectic both suit them far better than 'Heavy Prog' in my opinion, but it's just my opinion, and I'm not concerned enough with it to ask the admins to do another pointless action, when what we should be concerned with is all of the new additions to the site. My God, some people fight tooth-and-nail just to get a certain artist added, yet we now have the audacity to complain that a band that has already made it in is now in the wrong place?

Just be happy with PT being here at all, and realize that not everybody is going to be happy with where they are located.

I think it wasn't such an error considering where PT was going to in the "Deadwing" era... But if you see their discography as a whole, the band seems a good fit for eclectic. And I would predict that with the band in that genre nobody would want to move them again. That's the advantage of that genre, being "eclectic". All a band has to be is a combination of styles and it'll become difficult to argue against it being there.

I would have thought Crossover for PT, but it doesn't really matter to me.

^Certainly not at you Raff... It was not addressed at you. But for people who come here and only bash the thread, without adding at least one dime of an idea about the topic... How much time they have that they waste it so blatantly...

Yes.. we got it... You laugh at ridiculous threads. You're independent and intelligent. You're hip, modern. You're young.  

I seriously don't understand the need to turn this into a discussion about categorizations. The one thing that looks already exaggerated is perhaps that everytime PT release something new, a "PT for Eclectic" thread is born. But the OP's post was fairly honest, he didn't say "The Incident now puts PT in a whole different light, we must now put them in Eclectic", he pointed towards the band's walkthrough, a view from which the suggestion makes sense.

If one wishes to criticize the act of suggesting/discussing changes instead of the suggestion/call for a discussion itself, or read about others criticizing it (here or on other sites), that's fine to do, but I hardly see the result of it. Furthermore, there's a line between refining or correcting, and trying to squeeze everything into perfect fits. We all know the genres aren't perfect & not every band in them fits or is even certified as a "best possible/plausible fit". I barely see where the rush for a "perfect fit" philosophy was even suggested.

To add, many suggestions of moving a band were made so far, by all sorts of people, of all ranks, without even a third of them getting these "oh, such silly categorizations" reactions, but rather being dealt with in orderly fashion. Does it count that, this time, it's about the assumably more controversial Porcupine Tree? Therefore, since it only happens with the big cases (like Jethro, Zappa, now PT), I think the generalized criticism and express of discontent towards "suggestions/discussions related to genre placement" reveal its flaws.

Now, putting my team member hat on, I must honestly say that I have a duty to take this suggestion into consideration and offer a reply. And so do my colleagues.

Raff wrote: Mike, you can believe what you want, but the people were not laughing at the database structure. The fact that you like categorizing music does not mean everyone else agrees with you. I have always supported the division in genres, but when I see that it takes precedence over more important things, then I get a bit shirty. Anyway, I don't see any point in pursuing the discussion, or repeating things I have already said. I just wish that, for once, you had some faith in my ability to read and understand what people say on other forums. Edit: quote from a post taken from the thread "It Ain't Prog If It Ain't Got...": Madprophet wrote: I blame in part the Progressive Rock Archives website - a great resource, but a silly categorizing of bands into sub-sub-sub categories. Perhaps it is human to want to categorize, but here it does music that yearns to be free to have it's own identity a disservice, and overated and obnoxious metal bands like Mastodon do early Progressive Rock a disservice by attempting to pass itself off as part of the evolving "progress" of music or even it's end product. This was Madprophet's first post, and, while I don't agree at all with his comments on Metal bands, I would like to point out that he is someone who believes we are going a bit too far with the categorization.

Why do you take such posts seriously at all? Most people have many complaints, but very little constructive input to offer ... I see no point in trying to please everyone.

BTW: Of course I trust you to be able to read and understand posts properly. But please consider this: Many of the genre discussions at PA arise from the problem that an artist can only be in one genre, due to the limitations of the database. Porcupine Tree fit in Psych/Space, Eclectic and Heavy. If it was possible to assign those three genres to PT I'm pretty sure that we would not be having this discussion right now. So even though people might not complain about the database structure directly, many of the complaints concerning genre discussions are indirectly caused by it.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ why all that sarcasm and criticism? Would this become a better place if people were forbidden from discussion genres? This thread was started by a member who joined this website about 6 months ago ... he didn't participate in all the genre discussions of the last couple of years. Still he found it important to discuss why PT are in Heavy Prog. The fact that you are, in a way, "burnt out" on those topics doesn't change their relevance. If new members ask those questions, IMO they should be taken seriously. And I still maintain what I said above: Other websites reacted by making their database structure less rigid - if people are laughing about PA it might be for a number of reasons. The antiquated database structure is just as likely a reason as are the genre discussions resulting from that structure.

Mike, you can believe what you want, but the people were not laughing at the database structure. The fact that you like categorizing music does not mean everyone else agrees with you. I have always supported the division in genres, but when I see that it takes precedence over more important things, then I get a bit shirty. Anyway, I don't see any point in pursuing the discussion, or repeating things I have already said. I just wish that, for once, you had some faith in my ability to read and understand what people say on other forums.

Edit: quote from a post taken from the thread "It Ain't Prog If It Ain't Got...":

Madprophet wrote: I blame in part the Progressive Rock Archives website - a great resource, but a silly categorizing of bands into sub-sub-sub categories. Perhaps it is human to want to categorize, but here it does music that yearns to be free to have it's own identity a disservice, and overated and obnoxious metal bands like Mastodon do early Progressive Rock a disservice by attempting to pass itself off as part of the evolving "progress" of music or even it's end product.

This was Madprophet's first post, and, while I don't agree at all with his comments on Metal bands, I would like to point out that he is someone who believes we are going a bit too far with the categorization.


Edited by Raff - September 24 2009 at 06:43

It would be more funny if people all over the Internet weren't laughing at us.... A few years ago I got into a fight with the people on an Italian prog website exactly for the same reason. And things have not changed a bit, on the contrary. But hey, if you think that fighting over subgenres is more important than talking about bands or artists that rely on us for exposure, who am I to say anything?