Possible New Sub-Genre?

True, there are a few differences

Classic.  Just watched that episode last night and did a doubletake when he put that hat on....I thought, man that looks like LiquidEternity.

Spence, is your Av the dude from Firefly?

Wait a second... how about.... Art Rock. 

If there's ever a new genre to be added it should be Nu prog.But whether it does or not I don't really mind.

Conor Fynes wrote: I've been noticing alot of bands that have been melding modern sounds (by that, I mean prog thats influenced by new popular trends rather then 1970s prog/psychedelic etc...) with more experimental features and adopting a new sound and class of progressive rock. So far, I've seen alot of these bands (the Dear Hunter, Coheed and Cambria, Radiohead, dredg) fall into the Crossover Prog section, which is suitable enough, but this is the same genre that solo Peter Gabriel, The Moody Blues, and Supertramp are in.   I'm not saying that every new potential addition to Crossover should go to this new potential genre (Paul Cusick, for example is a brand new artist, and belongs right in Crossover) but there seems to be quite a difference in sounds.   The genre 'neo prog' was invented to cater to all of the prog bands sharing a new '80s prog' sound... Why should the modern prog artists of the 00's be treated any differently?

Although I agree with this to a limited extent, I've always thought hatching a separate genre based principally on its artists utilising digital technology completely facile. So why fall through the yawning trap-door a second time ?
Is there a school of painters named after the brand of oils they used ?
You cannot compare say, RPI to Neo-Prog as the former is demarcated by musical and indigenous elements irrespective of the technology deployed.
Somewhat unusually, I agree with Henry Plainview here when he refers (though not in a critical sense) to
neo-prog being considered tantamount to Symphonic + AOR. For me Neo-prog has always been Symphonic Division 2, filled with lesser talents who dreamed of entering the rarefied heights of classical 70's prog.(The Champions league, if you will) If it weren't transparent by now, I think Neo-prog a shrill imposter in the court of Prog. (but that's my separate issue)
I'm only familiar with one of the bands you cite (Dredg) and they are unequivocally an excellent plain vanilla rock band. (nothing more) The only noughties prog I've heard that melds modern trends on to prog with any credibility, would be someone like the Gourishankar ?
There are more than sufficient sub genres on PA to accommodate anything that the nascent artists of the noughties care to throw the way of PA for consideration. Perhaps that by itself, is a damning indictment of the dearth of originality in the current musical climate.

Desoc wrote: I did indeed see p0mt3's post, King By-Tor, and found it so little constructive that I was provoked into posting a reply  But thanks for repeating the heavy argument.

Windhawk wrote: Neo means new. And the Neo-Prog definition was revised earlier this year so that those artists treading new progressive ground could be included there - it seems both fitting and appropriate.

There are already several genres that are more or less exclusively for bands originating from certain time epochs and/or inspired by music from the same time epochs,

and even genres that are more or less exclusively for bands originating from certain countries and/or inspired by bands from the same countries,

so I really don't understand the arguments against a genre more or less exclusively for bands originating mainly from late 90s/early 00s and/or inspired by music from the same time.

There will be a wide variety of musical expressions in such a genre. How would that make it different from the genres already established?

Crossover is fine for me, but there does seem to be a strong movement of alternative based prog artists. I personally like the term alt-prog, since nu-prog sounds pretty derogatory IMO.