Suggestion to move bands from Related to Crossover

First of, I realize that this might be borderline in this particular forum, but given that a) I didn't find a better one, and b) genre discussions makes up a lot of what is taking time in here, I'll give it a try.

Background: Change in Prog Related
Most of the people here are familiar with the change in the criteria for Prog Related, which (IIRC) removed the word /OR behind AND in the two lines listed below:

Prog Related is the category that groups bands and artists that:
- Without being 100% Prog, received clear MUSICAL influence of this genre, AND
- Are widely accepted as MUSICALLY influential to the development of Progressive Rock by the community, AND
- Blend characteristics of Progressive Rock with mainstream elements creating a final product that despite not being part of the genre is evident that are close to Prog.

Needless to say, this was a significant change that narrowed the amount of artists/bands that could be added to the genre - whilst leaving artists/bands in the "new" genre although they under no circumstance fit the new description.

Consequence: Blurring of Genres
After a while, Crossover Prog seemed to take over some of the characteristics of the "old" Prog Related genre, with many bands being added that seemed borderline or even distant from the prog label, according to several participants in the debates of this forum (not me), much due to an openminded and inclusive Crossover team. This caused the two genres to grow somewhat similar, and "blur" into each other.

The adding of Tori Amos to the prog category Crossover illustrates this well: Amos is generally regarded as further from prog than her "godmother" Kate Bush - whilst the latter now dwells in a non-prog category.

In my opinion, it is therefore time to look at moving bands from PR to CP, leaving behind only bands that fit the new description (mostly because they are not musically influential to the development of progressive rock). My list below is probably way from long enough: It only includes bands/artists that I know quite well.

Suggested Artists to be Moved

• Absoluuttinen Nollapiste
• Always Almost
• Blackfield
• Bowie, David
• Bush, Kate
• Colonel Claypool's Bucket of Bernie Brains
• Geffen, Aviv
  
• Japan
• Journey
• King's X
• Mercury Rev
• Muse
• Parsons Band, Alan
• Phish
• Primus
• Queen
• Styx?
  

Another good example.

Move Anti-Depressive Delivery from Extreme to Heavy Prog.

 

Edited by toroddfuglesteg - August 18 2010 at 10:10

toroddfuglesteg wrote: Another good example. Move Anti-Depressive Delivery from Extreme to Heavy Prog.

Easy Livin wrote: Personally, I don't think bands should move en-masse from Prog related to crossover. the two genres should not be interchangeable, indeed they should be mutually exclusive. The first test for crossover, which is a full prog genre, is are they a prog band/artist? The answer must be yes.   The same test can be applied for prog related, but the answer must be no.   At the risk of appearing inflammatory, I'd say the initial post here really brings into question the wisdom of a recent crossover addition. Should they have actually been proposed for prog related? I'm not offering an opinion on this (for now), but I must admit I did anticipate some sort of backlash when I saw Ms Amos being added to a full prog genre.

You're not being inflammatory, but I believe you are wrong nontheless I didn't mean to question the addition of Tori Amos, which I support, but merely to point out that the limits seem to have moved.

I agree that the genres should be mutually exclusive. But today they are not, since it seems more or less to be random in which genre which artists with a similar legacy or style appear. This apparently happens because many artists in PR were added at a point in time when the genre criteria of PR were different - and when Crossover didn't even excist.


Edited by Desoc - August 18 2010 at 15:32

Excuse any digressions from the original topic as I don't wish to derail it. Prog-Related has become inconsistent according to the parameters since they changed, and I do expect that bands (especially borderline ones) have been accepted into Prog categories that would have probably gone to Prog Related if it was not so difficult to get in there due to the strict parameters. I think Desoc, you make great points, but I think, and I've suggested this before, that if's made clear in the Prog Related category that the parameters changed, but the later submissions must conform to current standards, then that would help.  Many acts have been moved from Prog Related to Crossover, and I expect that that will continue to happen slowly. The addition of Tori Amos, for instance, to Crossover, does, I think, set a precedent for Kate Bush in Crossover (she is a Kate Bush related artist).

I know I've pushed for ones in Prog categories that I might have suggested to Related first if it were not for the difficult entry requirements.  Prog or bust.

It's not easy determining what is definitely a Prog band/ artist -- not only because people have different Prog expectations, but also because acts vary from one album to the next. That said, I've often turned to Crossover for Prog "litmus tests" when considering if an act is suitable for PA while recognising myself, as they do, that it's often not really that simple (some easy Prog/ non-Prog divide).  There are albums in Prog Related that I consider to be fully Prog and many albums in Prog categories that are not Prog.  Also, there are many that fall in between. A team does its best to decide if an act sufficiently fits its category parameters, and if they think it right for PA, but not for their category, then they must suggest it to another category.

Personally, I don't think about whether a band/artist is Prog, I think on the album and individual compositions level.  One thing that is disagreed on is how much of the music must fit the prog parameters to be considerable.  Some say one album, others say more if there are large discographies. I am not about to deny acts with strong "prog" albums Prog category access, or consideration, just because they are not generally thought of as Prog first. In some cases, the "prog" part of the career may be much more obscure than, say, the non-prog part of the career.


Edited by Logan - August 18 2010 at 16:05

Desoc wrote: The adding of Tori Amos to the prog category Crossover illustrates this well: Amos is generally regarded as further from prog than her "godmother" Kate Bush - whilst the latter now dwells in a non-prog category.

you're assuming an artist is added to a given subgenre because of how they're 'generally regarded', but in fact that is a small part of the process and often not very helpful (or even accurate).  Also, "generally regarded as further from prog than her godmother Kate" seems glib and a bit derogatory to Amos, whose output has often been more progressive than Bush.

I hereby uphold my suggestion to move Kate Bush to Crossover. Having her in a non-prog category and both Tori Amos and now Björk in a prog category is not consistent. FTR I support both inclusions.

Since Epignosis mentioned it elsewhere, I will suggest that Brighteye Brison be moved from Prog Related to Crossover.