Porcupine Tree for Eclectic?

Still, I can't see them ever as a metal band. Even in the incident, there was alot of stuff that was not metal at all. They are not considered a metal band. Metal as just an ingredient in their newfound mixing pot.

They would personally fit best in Crossover or Eclectic (concerning such a wide range of styles, wider than most bands on the site) although Psychedelic and Heavy both fit different parts of their career.

I could never see them in Progressive Metal though. That would essentially be judging a band based on a few minutes of their expansive discography?!

Unfortunately they're too Eclectic for Crossover. 

^ Well, then I submit that PT - even on their latest albums - use elements of Psych/Space Rock, Heavy Prog, Crossover Prog and Avant-Prog.

^ Are there specific elements that would suggest eclectic? I used to think that "eclectic" simply means that they use a broad range of styles.

^ well exactly. No band can be moved unless both teams agree.

inrainbows wrote: A Person wrote: Windhawk wrote: As long as HP feels they belong where they are, they will stay. If HP would like to move the band, Neo wouldn't mind having them. Read the last three or so paragraphs of the revised Neo definition to see why. I think that Neo would suit them better than eclectic, or HP for that matter. I don't think so, not even close, can't they stay where they are ? Please .... They're great , so what's the point for moving them?

Exactly. PT is fine where they are, and there's no sense in moving them.

Nope. They fit fine in Heavy Prog. They might be prog metal if we're pushing it, but they're fine where they are. As for eclectic or neo, not even close.

Hope this helps,
-Jeff

Windhawk wrote: As long as HP feels they belong where they are, they will stay. If HP would like to move the band, Neo wouldn't mind having them. Read the last three or so paragraphs of the revised Neo definition to see why.

I think that Neo would suit them better than eclectic, or HP for that matter.

p0mt3 wrote: 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.

Just for the record: the people who post at ProgEars are not the kind of people who would get banned, here or otherwise. The general membership there is made up of older prog fans, some of whom have grown up with the genre, much as I have, and who are into discussing music. As to PA being well-known, well... I am sorry to have to disabuse you, but when Micky and I went to NEARfest in June, we met quite a lot of blank stares from the people to whom we mentioned PA.

I don't believe it is fair to say that those who don't like the site do so because of sour grapes. Personally, I think that a continuous flow of destructive criticism is a bad thing, but denying the existence of problems that may drive people away (I know, because I have left on several occasions) is equally damaging. In my humble opinion, when on an 'in-depth, resourceful archive' there are still many missing or inadequate bios, unreviewed albums, and incomplete album data, there is more reason for worry than the placement of Porcupine Tree or whatever.



fixed quote box.


Edited by Tony R - September 25 2009 at 07:48