Should Art Rock Be A Sub-Genre On PA?

tamijo wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Neo Prog should stay, that's behind any doubt, there's no other genre that represents Symphonic (Genesis mostly)  oriented Prog of the 80's. Iván No but there is no genre represention Jazz/Rock, Avant Prog, Heavy prog ect, of the 80's either, and that is just why Neo prog is a bit strange, because it is just Symp. prog from later than 79.

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - June 16 2012 at 10:15

ExittheLemming wrote: [QUOTE=infocat] One person's opinion.  The following sub-genres should be axed; or made into sub-sub-genres.  I foresee the following: . Rock Progressivo Italiano - Merge mostly into Symphonic Prog.

Everybody who's been here a long time knows that I fought (and lost) the fought against Italian Symphonic that turned into RPI, because I believed that if they were here, there was no justification to keep French Theatric Symphonic or Andaluz Prog away, as a rule i don't believe in regional genres.

infocat wrote: One person's opinion.  The following sub-genres should be axed; or made into sub-sub-genres.  I foresee the following: RIO/Avant-Prog - Rename Avant Prog.  RIO is a sub-sub-genre. Krautrock - Merge mostly into Psychedelic/Space Rock; maybe some Avant Prog. Rock Progressivo Italiano - Merge mostly into Symphonic Prog. Zeuhl - Merge mostly into Avant Prog. Canterbury Scene - Split out as appropriate!  This was never really a genre.  As the name indicates, it was a "scene". Indo-Prog/Raga Rock - Prog Folk?  I have no idea... Neo-Prog - Merge into Symphonic Prog and some Crossover Prog. Interestingly enough I think having the three metal groups split as they are is appropriate. All that being said, I would be all for Art Rock for bands/artists like Kate Bush, Tori Amos, maybe Radiohead, etc.

I think some of your misgivings about the validity of some of the sub genres may be justified but what is more valuable about your quoted list is how effectively all those sub genres accurately reflect the widely acknowledged pivotal developments in the history of Progressive Rock over the last 50 years.  Simplification is fine as an aid to clarity and understanding yes, but Hamlet loses much of it's depth, sophistication and resilience if tackled by Sylvester Stallone: To be or what?

We already have perfectly adequate categories for the inclusion of Bush, Amos and Radiohead. (why put old wine in new bottles?) I do agree that RIO appearing on the front of Avant Prog might be considered superfluous. Were you to excise Krautrock you would merely remove a hugely important pot-pourri of European styles which would benefit precisely no-one with even a passing interest in the gestation and lineage of the Progressive movement.

I also happen to believe that the music of the so-called Canterbury Scene, Zeuhl and RPI has a distinct and unique flavour deserving of standalone status. Yes, there are broad similarities with other established sub genres but assimilating them elsewhere does not do justice to a conflation of localised events that forged an inimitable and discernible musical signature. Rather than dumbing down our beloved music into a disingenuous primer, we should instead be celebrating the divergence and variety of Prog which stubbornly refuses to be shoe-horned into any old ill fitting slipper. We shall not go the ball but who gives a f*ck? (I've got nothing to wear anyway)


Edited by ExittheLemming - June 16 2012 at 01:51

^ what difference does it make, the artists are here

Textbook wrote: I'm aware this this subject is probably DOA because admin is (completely undertstandably, it's a huge job) reluctant to fool about with the sub-genres as it would involve so much reorginisation, but it strikes me that art rock, though not "progressive rock", is "progressive" and has a home here.

you have it reversed; Art Rock was reorganized from a vague and barely extant style into three descriptive subgenres that members or guests unfamiliar with the nebulous "Art Rock" could understand and reference.

Textbook wrote: Further art rockers are either not on the site at all or included controversially.

I don't follow; Yes they are on the site, have been for a long time, and have been less controversial than acts as Zeppelin, Maiden or Metallica.

Textbook wrote: Art rock is more or less soft-avant-garde

Not really; Art rock may have been influenced by, among other things, what was then considered Avant-garde but the two were and are quite different.

darkshade wrote: If you think PA has too many sub-genres, take a stroll over to JazzMusicArchives, PA's sister site.

I like what they did there though.
Three primary subs and a solid set of subs under those so that there will probably never be the need for a discussion about adding any.


Edited by Slartibartfast - June 15 2012 at 15:49

Sheavy wrote: frippism wrote: I for one think we should be cutting down genres instead of adding new ones. Bands in RPI, Zheul, Indo Prog (c'mon), and maybe even Krautrock, could be divided into the other PA sub-genres, IMHO.   .  I only think RPI should. Since most of those bands can fit into other Prog genres.     I think that PA should get a genre that includes composers who had a massive influence on Prog. (Stockhausen, Varese etc..)

All in favor of progressive hip-hop?

lazland wrote: frippism wrote: I for one think we should be cutting down genres instead of adding new ones. Bands in RPI, Zheul, Indo Prog (c'mon), and maybe even Krautrock, could be divided into the other PA sub-genres, IMHO. There are some on the site who agree with you wholeheartedly. I am one. There are others who would probably cut off your balls and sell them to the devil for suggesting such a thing. I don't think there will ever be a consensus on the issue.

 

http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=64405