New subgenres?!?!

Tapfret wrote: ...post-neo-industrial-sasquatch-crossover-penguin loving-heavy metal-Ukranian folk dance prog......

Yes, I know that band you're talking about, they're from my town

Tapfret wrote: Wow it is absolutely awesome how little I care about more pointless names to pigeon whole bands, some of whom have ludicrously little to do with progressive anything.  Proto-prog, avant-garde prog, post-neo-industrial-sasquatch-crossover-penguin loving-heavy metal-Ukranian folk dance prog......  (edit: I just noticed that the previous poster is in Ukraine, not directed at you specifically, let's change it to heavy metal-Sri Lankan folk dance prog) It's like the other day and I asked who the band was on some guys t-shirt, when he told me I asked him if they were metal. His snide reply was, "No! They're *black* metal" ....WHO CARES?!?!  Simplify man! From now on I think I'm going to just have 2 genres, "music I like" and "the rest of the crap".    If somebody asks me, I might give some descriptives like, "Their kind of jazzy", "...bluesy...", "...heavy...", "...all over the place..."

Ghandi 2 wrote: Although I first I was angry VDGG were Crossover (until I figured it out), it mostly makes sense now, although I still kind of get that feeling that we're just making sh*t up. ;-) Nobody was talking about Crossover back then, and I don't like imposing genres retroactively, but on the other hand it is a excellent compromise to micky's Rush for prog-related campaign. :)   Haha, cham, if I were a collab I would fight with you! Maybe one day I'll get around to writing all those reviews...   Based on their latest output, I think PT would fit very well in Crossover. :P

VdGG will be put into eclectic; they are only temporarily in "crossover", where all artists labeled "art rock "landed (and a few artists formerly labeled "symphonic" too, because that was where VdGG had been put formerly)


Edited by BaldJean - August 21 2007 at 03:38

they had been in symphonic for a long time at least, but they fitted their like a warthog among a bunch of piglets

I think that CROSSOVER PROG isn't synonymous of ART ROCK.  Rather it is what I call "NOT SYMPHONIC PROG".  

I read well the new category?  

Kotro wrote: Bah, call it what you like, the system still sucks anyway. Labeling, if any, should be for albums, not artists.

I completely agree. labeling artists means we don't allow them to change their style, which is plainly ridiculous

Am I the only one who's not keen on the idea of a math rock subgenre? From my knowledge of the bands usually term I'm pretty sure that most of them would fit neatly into experimental/post-rock. I mean, most of the bands I think are definitely of the style that should be on this site, but I just think that the subgenre's a little superfluous, really.

Plus I hate the term "math rock". Not the music (in fact I saw Battles on Saturday), just the term.

Prog-jester wrote: hell yeah! It's nice to refresh the old Archives system!!! What about Indie/Alternative Prog now? OCEANSIZE, AMPLIFIER, RADIOHEAD, DREDG, THE MARS VOLTA, THE AMBER LIGHT, SLINT, TOOL, A PERFECT CIRCLE, AND YOU WILL KNOW US BY THE TRAIL OF DEAD, THE DECEMBERISTS, THE SECRET MACHINES, BARK PSYCHOSIS, BAUER, COHEED AND CAMBRIA, YOUTHMOVIES, THREE, PAATOS, GAZPACHO, PURE REASON REVOLUTION, SIGUR ROS, PINEAPPLE THIEF, LIS ER STILLE...

Of the bands I know in that list (all but 6), most of them would fit under the genre name "New Prog" which is being used in the media now - which was something I tried to push for a while back but was basically told there was no need for it. Which I totally disagree with, as it's a growing subgenre, and a particular fusion of note and as Wikipedia has deemed it notable enough to not delete the article into oblivion and remove all references to it in the main prog rock article...

I don't think that Sigur Rós, Slint and Tool would be in the subgenre (the first two are definitely post-rock and the third is more prog metal than new prog) and I'm unsure that A Perfect Circle or And You Will Know Us By The Trail of Dead... would really qualify.

Good idea though, and I thoroughly support it, even though as someone whose posts aren't even into the triple digits I doubt my voice counts for much.

Edited by Morda - August 21 2007 at 06:38

BaldJean wrote: Kotro wrote: Bah, call it what you like, the system still sucks anyway. Labeling, if any, should be for albums, not artists. I completely agree. labeling artists means we don't allow them to change their style, which is plainly ridiculous

At least if albums were labelled instead of artists there would be much less conflicting cases.

Norbert wrote: There are already more than enough subgenres in my opinion. For me the following would be enough: Progressive Rock(including Art, Symphonic and Folk) Progressive Metal Jazz Rock/Fusion/Canterbury RIO/Avant/Zeuhl   Frankly I could live without electronic, and "Unkrautrock". But I guess others couldn't.

that's how I have my mp3s arranged, with a fifth folder for space rock. =) I don't see it going down well with the present genre teams, though.

Morda wrote: Of the bands I know in that list (all but 6), most of them would fit under the genre name "New Prog" which is being used in the media now - which was something I tried to push for a while back but was basically told there was no need for it.

Yep, exactly! I've been with this issue too few months ago and recieved little positive reaction. Maybe, there's not enough New/Modern/Indie/Alternative/Whatever-you-call-it Prog bands for a genre, but I believe in necessity of it's existance.
TOOL is Metal, but not in usual sense of the word - not Heavy or Alternative if you ask me - and both SLINT and SIGUR ROS can remain in Post-Rock, yes...

Do you know, what your login means in informal Russian/Ukrainian?