Suggested Sub-Genre: New Prog

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

J-Man wrote: 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.

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.

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.

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.

Modern Prog? I guess it describes both the time and musical style, I think it conveys more than New Prog anyway.


Edited by A Person - December 03 2009 at 01:06

A Person wrote: Modern Prog? I guess it describes both the time and musical style, I think it conveys more than New Prog anyway.

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.

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.

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.

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 ;-)