| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
MarkOne 
Forum Groupie
Joined: August 18 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 90
|
 Topic: sub-genres? (or how we love to classify)
Posted: August 22 2006 at 06:45 |
First off, let me say this is a great forum. I can't believe I haven't found it until now!
OK as a newbie this might come across as a tad presumptuous, but I have to ask; is classifying music in ever more granular sub-genres really necessary, or indeed, healthy?
So here's my problem. As a musician and writer I often find my inspiration in the oddest of things, and musically I've produced all sorts of things from jazz-fusion, through solo piano, orchestral classical to what probably borders on prog metal. What this means is, I really have a hard time classifying what I do in any particular sub-genre.
As a listener and consumer of music my listening habits are even more eclectic.
When I really started to get into music properly (several long decades ago now  ) I found myself drawn to what we call prog, I love the complexity, the attention it demands, the subtlety, all those great reasons that make this such a wonderful medium to explore. Yet at the time, I was never aware that artists were particularly pigeonholed (not in the way we tend to do it today)
So I guess what I'm asking is, when did this desire to classify and sub classify really take hold?
Is this classification a good thing, or does it build artificial barriers? When does space rock become progressive electronic? When does progressive electronic become something else? When does it stop being prog at all and become something more dare I say it: mainstream? 
And what do others think? 
by the way - did I mention this is a great forum? 
|
 |
Australian
Prog Reviewer
Joined: June 13 2006
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 3278
|
Posted: August 22 2006 at 07:16 |
I completely see where you are coming from, and I agree that sometimes the borders between genres can be very hard to see. For example I've always thought Van Der Graaf Generator as a symphonic band but here they are under art rock. The difference between progressive music and mainstream alternative rock is getting alarmingly narrower with bands like The Mars Volta and Muse coming into popularity. Art rock is probably the widest genre of progressive music so your music may be art rock .
|
|
|
|
Supertwister
Forum Groupie
Joined: June 07 2006
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 83
|
Posted: August 22 2006 at 07:24 |
|
I don't go by the sub-genres as official myself, but if someone likes Genesis I could tell them where to head on progarchives. It's just like grouping different artists that have fairly similar aspects so no one's shooting in the dark for their own particular artists they like. That's just how I see it anyway, sort of like a recommendation system.
|
|
|
|
sleeper
Prog Reviewer
Joined: October 09 2005
Location: Entropia
Status: Offline
Points: 16449
|
Posted: August 22 2006 at 08:23 |
I like the idea of classification because, personally, it makes it easier to find bands/artists that are similer to those that you like (this of course depends on bands being properly classified ). However their are many bands, particularly in prog, that cover multipal genres, either throughout their discography or even on indavidual albums. This makes it near impossible to classify bands under a specific heading. My suggestion is take the genre's listed on this website as a rough guide to get the idea of the general sound of a band/artist, but dont stick to it religously.
|
Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21320
|
Posted: August 22 2006 at 09:15 |
This is my current approach: 1. Classify albums, not bands. For some albums it is even necessary to classify individual tracks. 2. Avoid "coined phrases" and non-descriptive labels. For example, "Canterbury" doesn't tell you what the music sounds like - unless you already know some Canterbury bands. 3. Use only simple, self-explanatory attributes to describe the music. 
|
|
|
|
cmidkiff
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 08 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 208
|
Posted: August 22 2006 at 10:28 |
 MikeEnRegalia wrote:
This is my current approach:
1. Classify albums, not bands. For some albums it is even necessary to classify individual tracks.
2. Avoid "coined phrases" and non-descriptive labels. For example, "Canterbury" doesn't tell you what the music sounds like - unless you already know some Canterbury bands.
3. Use only simple, self-explanatory attributes to describe the music.
|
Very good point! I especially agree with #1, I've always said it should be about the music more then the band.
|
|
cmidkiff
|
|
Easy Livin
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: February 21 2004
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 15585
|
Posted: August 22 2006 at 10:35 |
There's been a lot of discussion on this recently in various forms.
As it's really about the practice of classify, rather than the actual classifications, I've moved this thread to the "Help us improve the site" section, where it probably sits better.
|
|
Dick Heath
Special Collaborator
Jazz-Rock Specialist
Joined: April 19 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 12817
|
Posted: August 22 2006 at 10:36 |
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
This is my current approach:
1. Classify albums, not bands. For some albums it is even necessary to classify individual tracks.
2. Avoid "coined phrases" and non-descriptive labels. For example, "Canterbury" doesn't tell you what the music sounds like - unless you already know some Canterbury bands.
3. Use only simple, self-explanatory attributes to describe the music.
|
Excellent thoughts - when will they apply here?
'Canterbury' is indeed an ambiguous term when used at PA. From the psychedelic R'n'B of early Softs, Wilde Flowers, both earlier and later Gong, to the avante jazz fusion (well of) the Softs (again), Hatfield, Gilgamesh, you seem to have the reference points used here . But the (UK) Spirogyra with their folk and Carol Grimes and Delivery with their blues, confuse the narrow minded attempt to to be over prescriptive. However, at one time I would have argued the inclusion fo Allan Holdsworth (as made in one of the main Canterbury fanzine, as well as Ed Macan's Rocking the Classics) as well as Bill Bruford (because, I once thought the musicians ought to come from a 15 mile radius of the old cathedral city of Canterbury, and readily played on each other's albums). Now I care a lot less.
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21320
|
Posted: August 22 2006 at 10:40 |
Easy Livin wrote:
There's been a lot of discussion on this recently in various forms.
As it's really about the practice of classify, rather than the actual classifications, I've moved this thread to the "Help us improve the site" section, where it probably sits better. |
I always thought that discussing genres is a musical topic, just like discussing virtuosity or the meaning of the word "prog", which are classic Prog Music Lounge topics. But nevermind ... let's continue this discussion in the company of ad blocking software and broken links. 
|
|
|
|
darksinger
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: Durham, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 1091
|
Posted: August 22 2006 at 10:47 |
MarkOne wrote:
First off, let me say this is a great forum. I can't believe I haven't found it until now!
OK as a newbie this might come across as a tad presumptuous, but I have to ask; is classifying music in ever more granular sub-genres really necessary, or indeed, healthy?
So here's my problem. As a musician and writer I often find my inspiration in the oddest of things, and musically I've produced all sorts of things from jazz-fusion, through solo piano, orchestral classical to what probably borders on prog metal. What this means is, I really have a hard time classifying what I do in any particular sub-genre.
As a listener and consumer of music my listening habits are even more eclectic.
When I really started to get into music properly (several long decades ago now ) I found myself drawn to what we call prog, I love the complexity, the attention it demands, the subtlety, all those great reasons that make this such a wonderful medium to explore. Yet at the time, I was never aware that artists were particularly pigeonholed (not in the way we tend to do it today)
So I guess what I'm asking is, when did this desire to classify and sub classify really take hold?
Is this classification a good thing, or does it build artificial barriers? When does space rock become progressive electronic? When does progressive electronic become something else? When does it stop being prog at all and become something more dare I say it: mainstream?
And what do others think?
by the way - did I mention this is a great forum? |
I think some use of sub-genres is necessary. For example, if you walk into FYE and ask asspants boy there about rock, he might direct you to Bon Jovi or Springsteen. If you tell him you want metal, he's gonna most likely hand you Korn or Slipknot. If you say black metal or death metal, you may actually get what you are looking for. A certain amount of definition for purposes of communicating a certain style is needed so you and people who you want to discuss music with are on the same wavelength. It is not unusual in the artworld to use subgenres when referring to putting something into its proper place of importance. Emperor, as another example, is not seemingly important in the realm of rock music overall-they did not score the huge record sales of the likes of the Beatles or Springsteen or U2, they do not have the followings of the Grateful Dead or Phish and I doubt highly you will ever hear anyone willing to put them in the Rock and Roll Hall of fame (in fact, I'd actually fight them being inducted because I think it is ridiculous to have a hall of fame for an ART! What's next? A Hall of Fame for Impressionists?). However, they made a huge impact on the Scandniavian music scene and defined a genre of music. So there is a place for sub-genres.
However, the sub-sub-sub genre stuff is asnnoying. I mean, do you really need to call something "proto-prog industrial neo death metalcore"?
|
|
|
|
Easy Livin
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: February 21 2004
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 15585
|
Posted: August 22 2006 at 10:53 |
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
Easy Livin wrote:
There's been a lot of discussion on this recently in various forms.
As it's really about the practice of classify, rather than the actual classifications, I've moved this thread to the "Help us improve the site" section, where it probably sits better. |
I always thought that discussing genres is a musical topic, just like discussing virtuosity or the meaning of the word "prog", which are classic Prog Music Lounge topics.
But nevermind ... let's continue this discussion in the company of ad blocking software and broken links.
|
OK Mike, I'll put it back in the PML meanwhile, on the basis that it is the music which is to be discussed. The early posts in the thread are more about the mechanics of sub-genres.
Lets's see how the thread develops.
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21320
|
Posted: August 22 2006 at 11:12 |
^ thanks! I won't begin describing genre calculation algorithms ... I finished the algorithm on my website. What I'm now more interested in is which attributes are best to describe prog music - and that's a topic which is not exclusively linked to my website. A really difficult word is "symphonic" as in "Symphonic Prog Rock". Many people have many different opinions on what that word means in that context - which musical properties are required, which ones are optional ... which ones are contra-indicative? Such problems are the reason for my approach, which basically tries to split those information-ladden words into combinations of "simpler" words. Examples: "Symphonic" -> "Keyboard-Driven" + "Lush" + "Melodic" + "Influenced by Classical Music" "Space Rock" -> "Rock" + "Spacey" + "Psychedelic" + "Improvisational" "Avant Prog" -> "Rock" + "Experimental" + "Weird" See what I mean? The genre description becomes longer, but less ambiguous and more descriptive. Apparently the only problem is to find the right attributes ... Now that's my approach ... any comments, or other solutions?
Edited by MikeEnRegalia - August 22 2006 at 11:14
|
|
|
|
Sean Trane
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk
Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 20352
|
Posted: August 22 2006 at 11:15 |
Dick Heath wrote:
'Canterbury' is indeed an ambiguous term when used at PA. From the psychedelic R'n'B of early Softs, Wilde Flowers, both earlier and later Gong, to the avante jazz fusion (well of) the Softs (again), Hatfield, Gilgamesh, you seem to have the reference points used here . But the (UK) Spirogyra with their folk and Carol Grimes and Delivery with their blues, confuse the narrow minded attempt to to be over prescriptive. However, at one time I would have argued the inclusion fo Allan Holdsworth (as made in one of the main Canterbury fanzine, as well as Ed Macan's Rocking the Classics) as well as Bill Bruford (because, I once thought the musicians ought to come from a 15 mile radius of the old cathedral city of Canterbury, and readily played on each other's albums). Now I care a lot less.
|
Canterbury is special bacause it is linked to a musician crowd.
I once proposed Kevin Ayers in prog related, because the man is quite pop and does not have any jazz influences that seems to be the link of most canterbury bands >>> Caravan has a lot of Bossa Nova rhythms, before someone starts getting picky here. I was alsoiready to have moved CG's Delivery into prog-related >> theior only album is surprisingly uninteresting blues.
But if we start removing these canterbury artist-related, it willm be so small that we might as well get rid of the Canterbury category alltogether
Some would include Gong and Hillage inside Canterbury also.
Spirogyra is in prog folk as far as I know. Barbara Gaskin being the only link with the other groups. I still am quite doubtful that Bruford played on the SG albums as Ivàn says.
|
|
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword
|
|
sm sm
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 02 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 155
|
Posted: August 22 2006 at 12:22 |
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
This is my current approach:
1. Classify albums, not bands. For some albums it is even necessary to classify individual tracks.
2. Avoid "coined phrases" and non-descriptive labels. For example, "Canterbury" doesn't tell you what the music sounds like - unless you already know some Canterbury bands.
3. Use only simple, self-explanatory attributes to describe the music.
|
Total agreement, as well I suggest when doing a review, do e.g album content *****, Prog Content ****.
This would allow one to give e.g. early Beatles *****, but only * for prog content, vs their late stuff, which was *** in prog content, or late Genesis good marks for their pop stuff, but no marks for any prog content
|
|
Logan
Forum & Site Admin Group
Site Admin
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Points: 36667
|
Posted: August 22 2006 at 14:50 |
|
We can't even agree on a Prog definiton[s], let alone the often nebulous sub-categories. I like the idea of rating Prog content as long as people are wiling to stick to certain stated criteria for evaluation, and are willing to justify it.
One gets into problems with progressive (adjective) vs. Prog (noun) for instance.
Problematic though they are, I like the sub-categories as often they've proved a useful guide to me for finding grouped bands with similar styles/ influences/ approaches to music. However, it would be better to classify bands under various clear labels. And yes, ideally, each album would be classified by the sub-genre, but that would be a big task (require a massive site overhaul/ would require considerably more site content) and could make the site layout overly complicated (depending on how it's done).
|
|
Mandrakeroot
Forum Senior Member
Italian Prog Specialist
Joined: March 01 2006
Location: San Foca, Friûl
Status: Offline
Points: 5851
|
Posted: August 22 2006 at 15:28 |
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
This is my current approach:
1. Classify albums, not bands. For some albums it is even necessary to classify individual tracks.
2. Avoid "coined phrases" and non-descriptive labels. For example, "Canterbury" doesn't tell you what the music sounds like - unless you already know some Canterbury bands.
3. Use only simple, self-explanatory attributes to describe the music.
|
In fact it is difficult to establish if a group belongs alone to a specific sub genre. Forgetting it the King Crimson (has been too obvious to use them like example) I should say that the YES produced two Proto Prog albums, Then Symphonic albums, then Art Rock albums (in the meaning of not Symphonic [from "Relayer]). With "90125" produced albums Prog New Wave (than can please or no, like definition) and, at the end, returning to the Symphonic (or there is who says Neo Prog) in the 90's.
|
|
bsurmano
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 13 2005
Location: Croatia
Status: Offline
Points: 448
|
Posted: August 22 2006 at 17:30 |
|
What I see as a problem here, is the fact that because of non existing
of appropriate sub/genre numerous significant bands are not included in
PA. For example, there has been a lot of discussion recently about
opening a new sub/genre 'Prog blues rock' (or something like that)
which would enable induction of such brilliant bands as Allman Brothers
Band, Keef Hartley Band, Cream, Blind Faith, Peter Green's Fleetwood
Mac, Free etc. bands with blues roots but also with undisputable impact
on prog rock scene. On the other hand, there exists genre 'Jazz
rock/fusion' but one prominent jazz-rock band such as english group
'IF' is not included. Let's not forget that this site is called Prog ARCHIVES
and all mentioned bands (and many others) certainly made rock history
and in many ways traced the way or even were a basis for progressive
rock development. PA site without such giant names I personally
find somehow incomplete.
|
|
'Sundown,yellow moon, I replay the past
I know every scene by heart, they all went by so fast.....
Either I'm too sensitive or else I'm gettin' soft.'
Bob Dylan
|
|
Raiders757
Forum Newbie
Joined: February 25 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 13
|
Posted: August 22 2006 at 18:29 |
MarkOne wrote:
Is this classification a good thing, or does it build artificial barriers? |
I believe there is some good and a lot bad with all of this sub-genre mess that is going on in in all of rock music, not just prog. I believe there is an oversaturation of sub-genre's to be exact.
I listen to a lot of Metal music, as well as Prog Rock, and although sub-genre's can be helpfull in describing a band, it can also become hurtfull, as it can split the masses into niche groups. This in turn can hurt the genre across the board. It can cause people to become narrow minded about music, and only focused on what they think they like, instead of trying new things out. A lot of times a "label" will keep someone from checking a band out. A band one might like, but they don't even bother, thanks to how someone else labled said band. This is very common with the fans of Metal music. A sub-genre is nothing more than a label, and this over-labeling of music causes this sort of attitude in a lot people.
When you unite a genre of music under a broader umbrella, you have a more united fanbase that is apt to discover more, as they are less influenced by outside opinions and labels. Once you start dividing the genre up into sub-genres, you start dividing the fans as well. Soon the overall sales gets split up, and the genre as a whole has less of a noticeable impact on the retail side of things. This in turn effects up and comming bands, as well as older bands, as the split in sales makes for less larger acts to promote the genre in the commercial market place. This can cause some labels to look the other way, and not sign certain kinds of bands, becasue they think there isn't much interest in the genre anymore, as there isnt' a large number of huge acts being praised by the general public.
Once again Metal music is a good example. It had a commercial hey-day back in the 80's. Whether this is good or bad, is up for debat, but the fact is, fans of Metal music were more united in their cause(whatever it may have been), and this in turn made the genre more noticeable to more people.
As the decade rolled forward, new styles of Metal music started getting noticed, and so began the flood of sub-genres. This started to split the Metal masses up a little, and caused in-fighting amoung fans over what was better bla bla bla. It also helped form elitist attitudes(aka music snobs) amoung the fans. These sort of fans would buy nothing from a sub-genre they did didn't listen to, nor be willing to even check something different out. Move forward to now, and the Metal scene is drowning in it's own pool of sub-genres. There is so much in-fighting and narrow mindedness on Metal boards these days, that one can see this sub-genre craze has gotten way out of hand. Although Metal is still going strong, there aren't many bands that can represent or push the genre on a comercial level thanks to the fans not being as united, so most of the mainstream consider "real" Metal music pretty much dead. Well, other than the premanufactured sh*t bands that get airplay, but don't last long enough to have a real impact on anything.
I guess what I am saying, is a genre of music, be it Prog Rock or Metal, needs to have it's fans united as a whole in order to make a greater impact and get it more attention. The more we divide the fan-base, the more we hurt the music as a whole.
Just my two cents.
(Edited only to standardise the text size!)
Edited by Easy Livin - August 23 2006 at 03:42
|
|
|
|
omri
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 21 2005
Location: Israel
Status: Offline
Points: 1250
|
Posted: August 27 2006 at 15:59 |
Well Markone, I agree with the idea that we all tend to classify and sort way to much. It reminds me my previous job where they were so anxious to measure every little aspect of the work they never got the time or the energy to make any conclusions and better things (does my frastration easy to be seen ?).
Ivan Melger M gave a perfect example of Aphrodite's child 666 being on folk prog will never give any idea of the kind of music that is there. Art rock is so wide it means realy nothing and Kraurrock, Zeuhl and Itallian SP is just natinalities and not realy music style. even Fusion concludes on the same place Return to forever and David Cross that are very far from each other.
I believe that if you talk about an album rather than a band as Mikeenragelia proposed t iis more accurate but you still have to use all those terms.
I think the best way is to neglect the sub-genre system and describe each band to a well known band like is done in many cases (example : Trespass (ISR) is described as an ELP like music and eventhough I personall feel they are a mixture of Nice & Camel the idea of comparing to a known band is clear I hope).
However, at the end one should listen to decide if one likes or not.
|
|
omri
|
|
con safo
Prog Reviewer
Joined: March 17 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1230
|
Posted: August 27 2006 at 16:37 |
Classification is needed - to an extent. Of course putting two bands like Genesis,and say Can in the same sub genre would seema tad illogical .. but i do agree that genre's are getting out of hand- what with the emo-post-core-grune-garage-disco-rock and what have you. 
|
|
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
sub-genres? (or how we love to classify)
