Porcupine Tree...Heavy Prog?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Bands, Artists and Genres Appreciation
Forum Description: Discuss specific prog bands and their members or a specific sub-genre
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=43530
Printed Date: November 28 2024 at 07:32
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Porcupine Tree...Heavy Prog?
Posted By: Kazuzu
Subject: Porcupine Tree...Heavy Prog?
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 00:31
| I didn't noticed until now, that Porcupine Tree is now on the Heavy Prog section, so, what do people think about it?, they used to be on the Psychedelic/Space Rock section, and well, PT used to create such psychedelic and atmospheric music, but I always thought that they were more than Psych/Space Rock, now, they got moved to the Heavy Prog section, but I think they would fit better on the Crossover Prog or Eclectic Prog section, so, what do you think about this? |
Replies:
Posted By: Ghandi 2
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 01:00
|
They're practically an alt-rock/metal band now, so I think it fits. They used to be like PF, but they're not anymore. ------------- "Never forget that the human race with technology is like an alcoholic with a barrel of wine." Sleepytime Gorilla Museum: Because in their hearts, everyone secretly loves the Unabomber. |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 01:03
|
the AR family thought long and hard errr... heavy about it... and decided hard...err...heavy prog was the best 'fit' for them... really all to be said about it ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 01:17
I completely disagree.   ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 01:20
I optimistically agree.  
------------- 
|
Posted By: ghost_of_morphy
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 01:58
|
It just depends on what part of their career you look at. I really like the first few albums, so I think of them as space rock, but their more recent output certainly fits with heavy prog. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 02:02
|
outrageous decision... who's responsible for this? |
Posted By: ProgBagel
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 02:02
| They're keeping a pyschadelic touch to it still...I thought they were fine where they were. |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 02:19
|
I don't know... 50% they were Pink Floyd Mark X, 50% they are a mix of metal, alt, brit, AND psychedelic....They have NEVER been ZERO % psychedelic... but once they were ZERO % heavy.... (or less than 10%)... I don't know... I guess I prefered their old location. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 03:07
|
I don't mean to start the day on a confrontational note, but I'd like to point out a very simple thing to all of you. Do you really think such a decision was made lightly, or by people who don't have a clue of what PT are about? As Micky said, we had been discussing this move for months before we actually made it last week. Actually, if my memory serves me well, it was the Psyche team that first suggested it. Having lived longer than most of you, I am well aware that there can never be 100% agreement on anything. However, I wish people sometimes tried to understand that there may be other reasons behind a move than the wish to spite others. |
Posted By: Casartelli
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 03:54
Heavy Prog is fine with me, although I think Eclectic Prog might have fitted best. However, I think the same about Rush, so perhaps I should re-read the definitions. 
|
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 04:15
I don't think anyone questioning the integrity of the decision making process Raf, or the people who made it.
The general membership was not involved in those discussions though, so it is only fair that they should be allowed to talk about it now. It's not a personal issue, just a discussion about the music of a band who have crossed many genres.
|
Ghost Rider wrote:Posted By: andu
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 04:20
|
It's a great move! Sometimes bands define or re-define a stylistic area with their early output, which is not always the definitive one. And in this case it's correct for those bands to rest in that specific area. It is the case of Pink Floyd par excellence, but imo not also the case of Porcupine Tree. They were doing excellent space-rock at the beginning, but the genre remained untouched... not like what happened with Floyd's output from 1967-1969. ------------- "PA's own GI Joe!" 
|
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 04:29
|
Sorry, Bob, for sounding a bit on the aggressive side... I was, as we say in Italy, putting my hands forward, since I've seen other similar discussions turn ugly, or at the very least unpleasant. In the case of other bands, we had put up a poll in order to sound the membership's opinion, but as far as I can remember, they never went anywhere (I remember the cases of Jethro Tull and Traffic). This is why this time the discussion was conducted mainly at Collab level. |
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 04:34
I'll keep an eye open Raf, and make sure this thread remains constructive.
|
Posted By: progrules
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 06:42
| I read an opinion that said they are very versatile and not to be classified. In fact that's true. The first albums were very Spacy but through the years they experimented more and more and now you could indeed divide them in (almost) any section. But I still would be ok with Psychedelic/Space. |
Posted By: Balthe
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 06:48
|
This decision seems a bit out of synch with the way genres are usually being handled here. To me, it looks as if Porcupine Tree have been labelled according to the characteristics of their current musical incarnation, which I agree would be heavy prog. But, looking back at their discography, there is a clear red line of psychedelia/space rock - much more so than heavy prog or any other genre - running through their music, and they still pay homage to their psychedelic heritage even to this day. If it is to be made a consistent policy to re-tag bands' genres in accordance with only their latest incarnations and musical approaches, as seems to be the case here, would it also mean that Genesis, for example, should rightfully be changed from a symhonic prog band into a pop-rock band? Seeing how their latest 6 or 7 releases have been in that vein. Or that King Crimson be dubbed solely "heavy prog" for their latest efforts, completely overlooking their symphonic roots, their avant garde and jazz-influenced periods, etc. |
Posted By: andu
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 07:01
That is not the case. In the opinion of the teams, PT's period which happen to be latest is the one which defines their most original and influential contribution. This period can be from any period of the band's career and it doesn't need to be the largest, the most consistent or the best of their output; just the most original and influential. That's why you can't take Genesis out of Symphonic even though they spent more time doing pop-rock. They gave shape to Symphonic Rock in 1970-1972 and that's what counts. ------------- "PA's own GI Joe!"
|
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 07:08
|
This brings me back to my former post... People don't understand what happens behind the scenes, in the Collabs zone, and so think the decision was taken lightly. This is the main reason why things are decided at Collab level and not in the main forum... People often don't bother to read what has been written before they post, and are very quick at flinging accusations of inconsistency or what have you. When the AR team was still one, we suggested moving Pink Floyd to it due to the eclecticism of their output. The suggestion was rejected on the basis that PF were at their most influential when they played Psych-Space, even if they were at their most successful when they took a different direction. In the case of PT, it is exactly the same, only in reverse, which shows that there IS some consistency in the way we place bands, if one were only bothered to look for it. |
Posted By: Dick Heath
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 07:10
|
Reflects yet again the limitations here, not permitting multi-categorisation of bands/artists, to reflect changes with time and albums/performance. Further I would suggest new boxes to be included/completed when uploading an album, indicating what that album musically spans. This I would argue would limit much of this tedious debate, whilst giving a better reflection of what the musicians are and have been - our current guidance with rigid categorisation can be misleading for those who have not been exposed to an unfamiliar band's recordings before. ------------- The best eclectic music on the Web,8-11pm BST/GMT THURS. CLICK ON: http://www.lborosu.org.uk/media/lcr/live.php - http://www.lborosu.org.uk/media/lcr/live.php Host by PA's Dick Heath. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 07:25
|
I feel that sub-genre placement is a careful balance between the music and its association with other music within that sub. In this instance the perception of Porcupine Tree as a Psych band was unrepresentative of the perception that most PT fans have of them (ie most fans are post Deadwing fans, not Sky Moves fans). I would also add that this move was made with the agreement of both teams. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 07:27
|
Heavy Prog is certainly where the band are at now and I cant see the band changing that in the foreseeable future. |
Posted By: Balthe
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 08:05
|
I heartily agree with D. Heath's views on multi-categorization of bands. In the matter of Porcupine Tree: In my most humble opinion, focus has been removed from the by far most voluminous period of the band discography to a more recent period spanning over their latest two offerings, based on a purely subjective assessment. Even though I don't doubt that it was with the best of intentions, it was an unnecessary decision, and it makes it seem as though the band's genre is defined by a very narrow margin. Generally - and this applies to all bands that might end up in the same situation - this could confuse newcomers who come to the archives looking for genre [x], stumble upon a band labelled as such, and then encounter a lot of genre [y]. I acknowledge the hard work put into the genre index by the collaborator's team, and since it seems that some people here get VERY touchy when a layman pokes his nose into collaborator's affairs, I shall only say that it's not my intention to undermine or offend your decisions  I'm only giving my 2 cents here. |
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 08:07
Hey, don't think this idea was not presented up the Collaborators Lounge at all. Quite the contrary, actually. But, despite technically eclectic, it was decided that Porcupine Tree's heaviness in music is a characteristic that always blended, whether with the psychedelic great music, with the pop-alternative new orientations, or with this new-metallic skins. (which brings me to one of T's posts: when was PT "ZERO Heavy"?!?!)-------------
|
Posted By: Casartelli
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 08:15
Thanks for your reaction, Ricochet. It was only after my post that I read the whole discussion about the importance of when a band was at its most influential over the importance of what a band actually performed. In that sense I'm not completely convinced yet: are The Pineapple Thief and the likes mostly resemblant of the heavy aspects in PT's music?
On the other side, if the relevant period of PT, in this meaning, is limited to the last three albums, shouldn't one of the metal categories be more appropriate? Or is Heavy Prog in the end more a kind of compromise between those different thinkings?
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 08:23
I agree with Tony in that it is highly likely that PT will remain as they have currently been with the last three albums and not return to the Psyche days of their first three (I cannot see the Stupid Dream or Lightbulb Sun phase as Psych or Heavy Prog albums - they are closer to Eclectic or Crossover IMO).
To paraphrase Mr Wilson - He's Moved On. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Balthe
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 08:29
|
Had the genre change been suggested prior to Deadwing, dare I say there
would have been close to zero support for it, which leads me to believe
that the enthusiasm and commercial craze surrounding the latest two
releases have caused the shift to happen too hastily, overlooking the
clear red line of space/psychedelia existent in PT's music throughout
their discography, even throughout their "pop" years with "Stupid Dream" and "Lightbulb Sun". Due to the progressive nature of Porcupine Tree, along with, unsurprisingly, a great part of the archives (where are they 5 years from now?), this could lead to periodic re-labeling of genres and attempts to pidgeonhole bands, instead of trying to find a better way of representing them in the grand scheme. |
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 08:36
The last three albums haven't become the most relevant period of PT, but they've changed well enough PT's music and script, so a different definition than Psychedelic/Space Rock to be approached. Metal is a subject within their style, you can't say no, yet calling PT metal is a bit exaggerate. -------------
|
Posted By: andu
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 08:37
Multiple Tagging is a work-in-progress project if I remember well M@x' last message he sent to the people through his vicars, so let's be optimistic. 
------------- "PA's own GI Joe!"
|
Posted By: Casartelli
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 08:39
| It's not too unlikely that PT will change within the next (few) release(s): in the past there usually were two or three relatively similar albums and then a spin-off following the direction: On The Sunday Of Life and Up The Downstair were followed by the start of I.E.M.. Signify, Stupid Dream and Lightbulb Sun were followed by the start of Blackfield which kept more or less the same vein (and is also quite successful now). Now we have In Absentia, Deadwing and Fear Of A Blank Planet... high time for a new offspring and SW treating us on something completely new. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 08:45
If you look at this purely from a timeline view, then the early Psyche period is arguably shorter than the current period. You must also consider their impact and relavence on the current nature pf prog over whatever they achieved as a Psyche band. This was not a hasty judgement based upon popularity.
 absolutely, and the Teams will address that when it happens. Hopefully multi-tagging will be around then.
As much as I hate to say this, (and no one can predict what SW will do next), I think commercial success will affect this - he may turn his back on this success and do something completely different. However, all of his side projects are still active (including No-man, who still reside in Psychedelic/Spacerock). ------------- What? |
Posted By: darkmatter
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 08:48
| It looks like a good move to me, it reflects their change in direction over their last three albums. I don't think it's too big of a deal though, they're still on this website. |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 08:56
If you are referring to me by that remark, you could have said it clearly. I am sorry if you thought it was motivated by arrogance, which is a flaw I really don't possess (though of course I have many others). Personally, I don't see it as 'poking one's nose' in private affairs, not at all... I just tend to overreact when it is somehow implied that our decisions are not taken with due consideration, since in the past some people have reacted in much worse ways. As I have already said, on occasion there have been polls put up in the main forum in order to sound the membership's opinion about a possible move of a big-name act. Unfortunately, such polls have always turned out to be useless, because no consensus was ever reached, and what happened was that the band in question stayed where it was. Jethro Tull, for instance, are still in Prog-Folk, even if only a small percentage of their vast output is classifiable as such, and their presence in that subgenre tends to damage other band's visibility. |
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 09:19
|
I have no issues with this change, and I look forward to the times of multi-tagging. As it has been discussed ad nauseum elsewhere, the subgenres are an extremely useful tool but due to the nature of many prog rock bands it is very difficult to include them in a subgenre that covers all of a band's output. ------------- 
|
Posted By: ProgBagel
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 09:42
| What about Genesis's output in the past 20 years...prog-related would be the most linient thing to say about it. Why not move them there then? |
Posted By: andu
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 10:05
Had you read the whole thread, you wouldn't ask this... ------------- "PA's own GI Joe!"
|
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 10:20
 from me as well, what is this, another discussion by which the prog genre's definitions are badly understood?  -------------
|
Posted By: Eetu Pellonpaa
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 11:37
This was discussed in our team thread. I was personally for the ecletic due their many style elements, and also highly absent from the discussions sweating with concrete walls and paints at my home, but I don't a see a reason for drama in this thing.
|
Posted By: ProgBagel
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 11:45
Sorry, I didn't have the time to .
|
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 11:53
I think David was humoring and you missed his humorous idea...  (or?  )-------------
|
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 12:38
|
Can someone please lay out how the decision was arrived at. I know PT were going to be moved from Psychedelic at some point; with their current career path it was inevitable. But I feel now that the psychedelic years are now overlooked. I feel it's trading one poor categorization for another. Without tagging, it's impossible to pidgeonhole Porcupine Tree, so why even make the move anyway? ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Lonely Progger
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 12:47
|
I don't see the difference between Heavy Prog and Progressive Metal, is it just a question of the amount of distortion ? they both use powerchords and they are both based on heavy metal, but the prog metal we know DT and others are mostly based on Iron Maiden & Mettalica which aren't only heavy metal but also a lot of punk which makes them different to Led Zeppelin who are really considered the first to play the heavy metal we all know.Is this the main distinction between Heavy Prog & Progressive Metal?
I'm thinking aloud here so i'm mixing myself up a bit because i don't understand the difference between heavy prog & Progressive Metal the definitions being a bit vague.
Progressive Metal seems to be a genre were everything goes being 90's onwards if there not part of any other main genre so is Progressive metal going to be decomposed like Art Rock? i can see it allready has a bit, but is going to go any further ?
From what i haveunderstood bands are put into their genres according to their most influentiel and "Best (This being subjectif)" Albums so if PT suddenly became very more Experimental/Post metal and very mainstream and propagated prog a lot would they be moved there,without taking notice of their Psych/Space and heavy prog years ?
I don't mean to critisize I realise that the admins job isn't easy with the genres and everything, i have trouble with so i've simplified things by putting genres by decade on my Itunes Library,so i know there won't be any heavy metal in stuff like Psych/space from the 70's or in neo prog from the 80's. ------------- Lost in the south of france: " Le rock progressif ? C'est quoi cette connerie? " |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 12:58
Andrew, you are a SC, so you can look at the posts in the Psyche Team thread. The discussions in the Collab zone are public and open to everyone. Perhaps we made a mistake in not having a poll or something like that, but every one of us has a life outside PA, and sometimes it tends to intrude and take our minds off site matters. This is all I can say now. Hopefully David, Ruben, Eetu and the others will confirm what I said, or add their point of view to mine. |
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 12:59
If and when you have time, you could search our topics in the Collaborators Lounge, we've discussed PT's better place with lots of fervour. The thing is, PT turned from its psychedelic aura years ago, and it's no mere alternative style they've tried since. Therefore, first of all, the band has experimented a different style that the psychedelic one, which was attribute to PT as a whole. On the other hand, you can't say PT's newest style(s) are marginal, incidental or shallow ones. Therefore, however great the psychedelic period was, PT has become a band of rock (instead of psych) and of different emulated styles. Now, since the Eclectic idea has fallen off, Heavy Rock sounds just fine.  -------------
|
Posted By: Rottenhat
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 13:04
|
I think it is very hard to pinpoint ANY band to just ONE musical style.
How about the way bands are categorised in Allmusic? There we have multiple styles for every band.
http://www.allmusic.com - www.allmusic.com
For example: Porcupine Tree is there in the following categories:
Ambient
Prog Rock/Art Rock
Experimental/Post Rock
Experimental
Rock
I know that is i probably hard to rebuild the PA site to work with multiple categories...
Rottenhat
------------- Language is a virus from outer space. -William S. Burroughs |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 13:07
| @ Rottenhat: this is what we mean by 'multi-tagging'. Personally, I am very much in favour of the idea, but then I am not the site's webmaster. I think that sooner or later it will be implemented, but we should all be patient. |
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 13:11
|
I'm in favor of tagging albums, not just artists. But multi-tagging...a bit too much for this site's conventions...Nevertheless, let's not drift from the main subject, because, after all, no genre up here is so straight and fix, it doesn't allow multi-tag bands...
-------------
|
Posted By: Eetu Pellonpaa
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 13:13
Yeah, remember, I have no sense of humor.
 |
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 13:20
| Tagging at album level is one of mailto:M@xs - M@x's objectives. |
Posted By: Hamfari
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 14:13
|
I like the heavy prog def. better than psych./space(which I found weird) it is only valid for their first 3-4 albums. That brings me to a subject others have mentioned, bands sometimes cross genres, why can´t they be both heavy prog and psych/space. Is it too complicated if albums were associated w. part. genres? If it were done the site would be perfected. I hope it will be possible. Bands change over the years, some little but some drastically, so one genre doesn´t always say that much about a band.
Anyway PT definitions:
Allmusic says:
http://wc09.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:226 - Ambient http://wc09.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:374 - Prog-Rock/ Art Rock http://wc09.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:831 - Experimental http://wc09.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:2682 - Post-Rock/ Experimental http://wc09.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:4437 - Experimental Rock
wikipedia says:
------------- Nobody needs to go anywhere else. We are all, if we only knew it, already there. |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 14:17
This is exactly why many people here support multi-tagging per album. It would probably put paid to the endless genre-based squabbles, though it may spark off others. In any case, most prog bands have changed genre over the course of their career, especially if they have been active for a number of years. For bands such as those, we try to choose the 'period' that best represents them, or which was most influential. It's not easy, and of course prone to disagreement... but this is what happens in art, which is not a hard science, and therefore can't be expected to be exact. |
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 14:19
|
I'm interested in multi-tagging just to see what an album like "Invisible Touch" gets.
|
Posted By: Hamfari
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 14:27
|
80´s prog.... Gay prog? (no sorry gay ppl) ... regressive prog?
Yeah that´s the best choice. Of course definitions can never be 100% exact, if they were, every band in each genre would sound practically the same. I respect PA´s efforts to categorize, it´s a difficult task. But we must never stop to strive for perfection in doing that ;) I´m sure all the smart music lovers here will help to develop the site and create useful discussions furthering the progress of this best music site of the internet ------------- Nobody needs to go anywhere else. We are all, if we only knew it, already there. |
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 14:34
It is already the most "Tagged" album on the site.  As in tagged with a left hook.-------------
|
Posted By: Eetu Pellonpaa
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 14:36
........ |
Posted By: Hamfari
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 14:42
|
mailto:M@x - M@x FTW!
anyway, Steven Wilson himself was quite dissatisfied w. being labeled progressive rock a few years ago, said he could understand the need to categorize like that though, he would only say that PT played "Porcupine Tree Music". He was probably influenced a bit by the british media who dislike "prog-rock" on the grounds that it´s... something in the like of.... over-serious pompous self-indulgent instrumental w**king...
He seems to be more content w. the term now though. ------------- Nobody needs to go anywhere else. We are all, if we only knew it, already there. |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 16:22
He didn't shy away from coming here and promoting his albums.... ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 16:24
 people should read that.... and understand that.... ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Hamfari
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 16:25
|
He didn´t? Hehe... didn´t know that. Didn´t think he would need to, they aren´t really a ... "struggling band" that need promotion by bandmembers (in this century at least) ------------- Nobody needs to go anywhere else. We are all, if we only knew it, already there. |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 16:31
as I will...since to be honest... I was the one who brought this up... well before the split with the idea of moving them to the old AR ... I asked Eetu earlier this year to consider it... he said the psych team wanted to wait till the next album to see which direction they took... all the while recoginizing that they had turned from S-R Psyche. After FOABB and with the AR split.... we brought this back up... in August or September if I remember right... and waited this long till everyone was on the same page. Those discussions were open to any collab or P-R . If you didn't notice... you weren't reading what was going on. Those collab areas are frequented, with regularity, by a small percentage of our collabs. It's all there.... you just have to pay attention.. otherwise... accept the decision which was made by those who care enough to contribute. ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Man With Hat
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 17:19
|
I'll just say I disagree with the move. No reason to waste time explaining why...not going to change anything.
Please let all constructive conversation continue now. ------------- Dig me...But don't...Bury me I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect. |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 17:27
PT was always a rock band. I don't know how you differentiate between Psychedelic/Space Rock and rock.  Does an album have to have only sitar and acoustic guitars to be psychedelic? And anything protruding into a rock style should be removed from Psyche/SR? Also, nothing in the Heavy Prog definition would indicate bands like The Mars Volta and Porcupine Tree belong there. It indicated mainly 70s rock bands, most of which I've never heard so I'll grant that to you, but no mention of modern bands at all, and nothing that applies to bands like PT or TMV. If you have something else in mind with Heavy Prog, revamp the definition to meet what you're trying to do, because I'm confused here.Raf: I did also look through the Psyche Team thread, but I don't have time to wade through pages with only getting minor hints at the already discussed decision. It would be much more convenient to link me to the page, or at least give me some idea of where the argument was. Better yet, post the argument (or link me and I will post it) also members of the regular forum can see it too. Or rather I do have time, but after the first 3 or so pages, I thought this would be the easier option. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 17:40
Stoney, I didn't put a ceasure between Psychedelic Rock and Rock, I just mentioned that, after their great psychedelic period, Porcupine Tree quickly lose both a quality and a full interest in psychedelic. Instead, much of their style continues down a great display of rock music (with all the pop, concept, metal, hard, etc. etc. etc.) ingredients. Again, even with Signify and Sky Moves Sideways being top notch examples (and psychedelic ones), it's good not to consider PT a band that was prolific in that period, since all the rest of the music counts just as much. My response would continue longer, but, now, let me say I find it harsh to take words like psych and Heavy rock so accentuated. Heavy Rock is after all a sub-genre, not a fix-bulb music. By this I mean that PT has a lot of qualities for Heavy Prog, including the best of all: heavy music. With the new category of Heavy Prog, PT simply has, in my eyes, a better and fuller place. About Heavy Prog's definition, I'm not leader, I'm not specialist, you can talk with Dave and Raff. -------------
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: November 16 2007 at 23:17
Eetu I was joking... I should have used a smiley, sorry |
Posted By: moreitsythanyou
Date Posted: November 17 2007 at 11:02
|
Good to see them out of psychadelic. That was a huge mistag. Personally, I think they'd be better in Eclectic or XOver but this works too. -------------  <font color=white>butts, lol[/COLOR] |
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: November 17 2007 at 15:36
| I would put PT in Crossover, but Heavy Prog is fine. |
Posted By: Fight Club
Date Posted: November 17 2007 at 16:16
|
I think we need an "Alternative Prog" section. A lot of artists that everyone seems to have trouble classifying would probably fit in, including Porcupine Tree.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Spydrfish
Date Posted: November 18 2007 at 03:44
|
PT are definitely not psychedelic/Space rock anymore, though calling them "Heavy prog" isn't really an appropriate genre for them. They seem to be too heavy at times on their recent albums for prog rock, but not enough for Prog metal, Though they have had too many non heavy albums to fit under "Heavy prog" (Rush is the same actually, But they are put under it) . Overall, I don't think they should, though I am actually not sure what they should go under since they have had so many different sounds.
------------- This Space For Rent |
Posted By: The Whistler
Date Posted: November 18 2007 at 03:45
|
Put 'em in Art Rock! ------------- "There seem to be quite a large percentage of young American boys out there tonight. A long way from home, eh? Well so are we... Gotta stick together." -I. Anderson |
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: November 18 2007 at 04:03
Well that's what we've done! Art Rock splitting into Heavy, Eclectic and Crossover...remember? -------------
|
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: November 18 2007 at 04:04
Rico, it's useless... I wonder why we continue doing what we do.
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: November 18 2007 at 04:45
|
cause it's fun! I'm still baffled why people think Rush aren't heavy prog... to this day they mostly do guitar-based, hard progressive rock.. some poppy songs here and there don't make them Xover or Eclectic.. nor do albums that happen to be popular (i.e. Moving Pictures) |
Posted By: spacemetal
Date Posted: November 18 2007 at 15:50
|
At their proggiest, they were psych/space. At their peak in popularity, they are something that may fit in "heavy prog". I don't really have much of an opinion about it though... |
Posted By: PinkPangolin
Date Posted: November 18 2007 at 19:30
|
As a huge Pink Floyd fan, and my wife telling me I was living in the past, and wanting to get to know some bands who I could actually go and see live - I was on the hunt for a new band that played like-Floyd type music - as I had worn out all my old PF albums. In this I stumbled across your website a couple of years ago just looking for reviews on PF albums. Your website was very insistent that Porcupine Tree were the most Floyd-like and with the Psych/ Space Rock category it definitely helped me to find them. What a great discovery - I've never looked back - and I've loved all their albums spacey or metally I don't care. I don't really feel they fit with Rush or the Mars Volta - great bands, but not really comparable to PT. I guess they are much more heavy now, though I'm not sure what the difference between Heavy Prog and Prog-metal is. I feel a little disappointed however that some old Pink Floyd fans like me won't discover them now like me, because of that change. On the other hand, I guess it's a compliment to this great band - not being able to decide what category they are - as they are so diverse - ranging from beauty to psychedelia to awesome power. |
Posted By: kenmartree
Date Posted: November 26 2007 at 06:24
| I don't really care because I would have discovered PT eventually anyway but... I'm another Pink Floyd fan that fould PT on progarchives and found them in psych/space genre. ditto all the last post for me. People need to remember that all bands are unique and genres are an attempt to catigorize them, nothing more. For me PA is a place to find new music that I like and now on the forum to realize that other people share my taste since nobody I know has heard of PT before I introduced them. PT are one of the biggest bands in prog, period. no matter what genre or multi-tag you throw at them. |
Posted By: dante.dio
Date Posted: November 26 2007 at 22:28
|
With the release of FOABP, PT has shown that they're playing a different style of music than we heard on Stupid Dream and Lightbulb Sun, to name a couple. In fact, I believe Steve Wilson has even said that PT is moving more in the metal direction and away from experimental psych prog. Their music is still great, but IMHO, is slowly losing some of the prog-elements that first drew me to them in the first place. They still put on a great show though! Saw them live in Toronto this past May! ------------- ----Progressive Rock---- is ---Music For Musicians--- |
Posted By: Hamfari
Date Posted: November 26 2007 at 22:54
|
IMO they are moving again to more prog since the Stupid Dream/Lightbulb sun era. The latest album had prog aspects, a theme album is very prog, and Anesthetize was too, the other songs to a lesser extent. incorporating metal elements in their music can make it prog as well as incorporating psychedelic elements Anyway it´s interesting to see how they have evolved and will evolve in the future. ------------- Nobody needs to go anywhere else. We are all, if we only knew it, already there. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: November 26 2007 at 22:56
^ thanks for the positivity  |