Suggestion to move bands from Related to Crossover
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Site News, Newbies, Help and Improvements
Forum Name: Help us improve the site
Forum Description: Help us improve the forums, and the site as a whole
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=70445
Printed Date: February 24 2025 at 14:28
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Suggestion to move bands from Related to Crossover
Posted By: Desoc
Subject: Suggestion to move bands from Related to Crossover
Date Posted: August 18 2010 at 06:18
|
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
|
Replies:
Posted By: Marty McFly
Date Posted: August 18 2010 at 08:57
|
Interesting proposal, but also difficult one. I can see your point and I agree with some of things you're saying, but so far, without further discussion, I think that even we wanted, we can do nothing. ------------- There's a point where "avant-garde" and "experimental" becomes "terrible" and "pointless," -Andyman1125 on Lulu  Even my |
Posted By: toroddfuglesteg
Date Posted: August 18 2010 at 10:02
|
Another good example. Move Anti-Depressive Delivery from Extreme to Heavy Prog.
|
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: August 18 2010 at 12:36
|
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.
|
Posted By: The Truth
Date Posted: August 18 2010 at 14:15
I agree with this, they're just about everything but extreme prog metal. ------------- http://blindpoetrecords.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow">  
|
toroddfuglesteg wrote:Posted By: Marty McFly
Date Posted: August 18 2010 at 14:51
We all still can remember people rioting when Crossover team added Nine Inch Nails. Well, now it's Tori Amos. I voted yes, given on impression all these albums by her gives me. It's not my turn now to decide whether Kate Bush is Crossover or not. I just evaluated Tori's work and decided, based on Crossover music I know and I heard, that Ms. Amos is Crossover. Nothing more. ------------- There's a point where "avant-garde" and "experimental" becomes "terrible" and "pointless," -Andyman1125 on Lulu Even my |
Posted By: Desoc
Date Posted: August 18 2010 at 15:30
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. |
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: August 18 2010 at 15:56
|
The definitions may have been modified, but the basic tenets of each genre remain. In the case of crossover, this came about as a sub-set of Art rock because that genre was becoming to big. I guess therefore another test for that genre will be is it art rock? Any artist in any prog genre though must first and foremost be considered to be a prog artist. Careful consideration was given to all the additions to prog related, and the conclusion was that they were not prog artists, indeed a good number were rejected by various genre teams. I don't think as a site we can subsequently deem them to be prog if there output reamins substantially the same.
I do understand the point you are making Desoc, and it is well made. As I've said in another thread though, I have a concern that we are casting the prog net too wide now.
|
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: August 18 2010 at 15:59
|
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. |
Posted By: Tapfret
Date Posted: September 29 2010 at 01:54
|
I am in agreement for Queen. Styx and Kings X a distant maybe. The rest....not feelin' it.
------------- https://www.last.fm/user/Tapfret" rel="nofollow">  https://bandcamp.com/tapfret" rel="nofollow - Bandcamp |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: September 29 2010 at 04:24
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. |
Posted By: Windhawk
Date Posted: September 29 2010 at 05:27
Indeed. Notions -often- heralded by people who have read a great deal about what journalists think about the artists that haven't thoroughly explored the artists themselves beyond the level of their most popular singles/albums. The same people that will get thoroughly shocked by reading that a band like UFO are talked about in the history of space rock ;-) ------------- Websites I work with: http://www.progressor.net http://www.houseofprog.com My profile on Mixcloud: https://www.mixcloud.com/haukevind/ |
Posted By: Desoc
Date Posted: December 08 2010 at 16:41
| 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. |
Posted By: Desoc
Date Posted: December 08 2010 at 16:45
| Bumping this thread made me notice Windhawk's last comment - I interpret it as aimed at a general audience and not at me, but I feel I have to remark that owning close to complete discographies of both artists, I stand by the view that Bush's output is more progressive than Amos', regardless of what the general audience should think. But I appreciate and understand the differing opinions. |
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: December 08 2010 at 16:50
|
Since Epignosis mentioned it elsewhere, I will suggest that Brighteye Brison be moved from Prog Related to Crossover. ------------- 
|