A problem with prog sub-genres and styles

I must admit I feel underwhelmed rather than overwhelmed by most of the classifications...

I don't think I over analyse anything - I can go far deeper if you'd like. On the contrary, I feel that most people don't spend enough time analysing music that is simply made to be analysed as well as enjoyed in its own right.

...and I'd like to see booty shaking to some of the more complex Prog Rock - especially in 13/8...

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:   Hey Prog Chick, did you tread the question?   Youhave voted that Sub-Genres are NOT UNUSEFUL in other words yoiu voted that SUB-GENRES ARE USEFUL.   Progressive Rock as almost no other genre is to feel, but also to understand, that's why most people say they hated a determined album but after listening it 100 times or 10 years they love it.   POP is just to feel and shake your booty, but Prog is a combination of intelect and emotion, we care about it, we analyze the influences, the sounds the timming, at least those of us who really care.   This poll was a cheap trick of [COLOR=#000000">Zavgorodny[/COLOR"> (the 21 posts noob who is against the sub-genres and wants to change in a couple of days what it took us years to build,  so don't blame us) and  created this Poll trying to make all people vote that Sub-genres are worth nothing.   But it's hard to trick progheads, because we're used to combine feelings and understanding, we explore the posibilities and reach a conclusion.   But most people except you noticed the the trick, that's why the votes are 39 to 7, but don't worry lets leave it 38 to 8  being that you were surprised. eight=17 alt=LOL src="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley36.gif" width=17 align=absMiddle>   Iván

      It's not hard to trick me so late at night!!!

(obviously!!!)

I still stand by what I said tho........... over analysis is not good for music, To feel and "shake your booty" well thats no bad thing?
All this "my music is cleverer than your music" stuff, and analysis and "our fans are more intellectual/serious than your fans" stuff is just little boys in the woods seeing who can pee highest up the tree..........

sometimes "shaking you booty" is what you need to do!

I like what cert1fied said "if you out music in boxes the souns gets muffled"

prog-chick wrote: It;s amazing to see 37 "no" votes (at time of posting) against just seven "yes" votes, yet most of the responses are saying they agree......... are the "NO" voters a timid bunch? I voted "NO" Boxes are not useful, I own albums that could at varying points fit into a dozen or more subgenres, yet the fans of 11 probably wont get to hear them because they are billed as the "wrong" sub genre! Boxes are only good for putting shoes in, or maybe small trinkets.............or taking a cat to the vet.......you get the idea! As far as it helping to "analyse" the music...........sheeesh! get some daylight! Music is the expressiion of emotion, it is sometihng to be FELT not analysed. It is to stir, or rowse, or make you laugh or dance, it can make you cry, or mourn, it makes you FEEL................if you analyse it you take away it's essence and beauty, it is reducing a living being into an lab experiment. and that my friends is a very sad way to listen to music! it's been a long day! P-C

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - May 16 2006 at 03:09

imoeng wrote: For me, i just listen what I like, then I search the information of the band.. man, people have to "listen" to music...

quoted for truth.

I heard most people rejecting certain bands because of their categorization and that's sad

It;s amazing to see 37 "no" votes (at time of posting) against just seven "yes" votes, yet most of the responses are saying they agree......... are the "NO" voters a timid bunch?

I voted "NO"

Boxes are not useful, I own albums that could at varying points fit into a dozen or more subgenres, yet the fans of 11 probably wont get to hear them because they are billed as the "wrong" sub genre!

Boxes are only good for putting shoes in, or maybe small trinkets.............or taking a cat to the vet.......you get the idea!

As far as it helping to "analyse" the music...........sheeesh! get some daylight! Music is the expressiion of emotion, it is sometihng to be FELT not analysed. It is to stir, or rowse, or make you laugh or dance, it can make you cry, or mourn, it makes you FEEL................if you analyse it you take away it's essence and beauty, it is reducing a living being into an lab experiment. and that my friends is a very sad way to listen to music!

it's been a long day!

P-C

 I think he is not trying to say that there shouldn't be categories, he is saying that prog categories should be organized better in his point of view. He is trying to ask if you like the categories as they are now, or if it should be different categories, for example only time-bassed categories, or only geographyical cattegories, but not both at the same time.

In my opinion categories are good by now, i would only eliminate the Italian Symphonic category as Ivan proposed, it's true that Italian Symphonic groups have their own unicque sound that differences them from the rest of the Symphonic scene, but it is still symphonic prog, italian symphonic is kind of a subcategory of symphonic, like french IMO.  

Edited by Rorro - May 15 2006 at 13:07

Yes!

Zavgorodny wrote: Problem. Typical & commonly used definitions of prog music sub-genres and sub-styles are useless.

1. Is there any web site or bibliographical Prog material that doesn't consider sub genres?
2. How could a person who doesn't know much about prog but loves Genesis and hates Jazz will avoid buying Romantic Warrior an album with a cover that reminds more of Rick Wakeman than of a Fusion band?
3. How would any person find similar bands to the ones that he/she really like if there were not sub-genres?
4. How can you lump Genesis, King Crimson, Mahavishnu, Henry Cow and Pink Floyd in one sack named Progressive Rock if none of them have almost anything in common? (If I had a dollar for each toime I was asked this I would be rich)
5. Do you know that Classical Music (Understood as orchestral works from the late Gothic to the XIst Century have genres (Gothic, Renaissance, Baroque, Classic, Romantic, Post Romantic, Modern)?
6. Do you know that Heavy Metal has sub genres (Death, Viking, Classical, etc)? 
7. Do you know that Jazz has sub-genres (Classic, Free Jazz, Fusion, Latin Jazz, etc)?
8. How would you analyze the influences and the common points of different bands if you don't join them with those that are similar?
9. How would you understand the evolution of Prog Rock (Of courseif you care) if it wasn't for Sub-Genres?
10. How can you even attempt to understand the wide range of influences that Prog Rock has recieved if it wasn't divided by sub-genres?

Zavgorodny wrote: Because you get nothing good if you use geographical (Canterbury, Italian), time-based (proto-, neo-) and stylistic (symphonic, metal) criteria simultaneously.

sleeper wrote: Of cause their usefull, without them PA would be totaly chaotic when defining the predominant sound of a band.

Subgenres are very useful as terms of communication and very brief and rough description of music.