New Category, Post metal/ Sludge or Doom

ok, when you mentioned paradise lost, they maybe just made  two electronic driven albums like host ane one second, but with their latest effort in requien they are back to their old  goth/doom style

to many categories are mentioned here. you can not simply divide  prog metal into melodic prog, power prog , technical death .math prog .. it will cause total chaos , one band do not simply play for ex. power prog  or post metal, some of  the bands varied in their style ,experiment with new ideas , diversity in their music. that' s prog about , diversity.i agree that doom metal has very much in common with prog metal, but we cannot simply label all doom bends  as prog metal, doom metal bands follow strict line,do not change style, it is  what it is ,from the very first to the last album (ok, there are exceptions to this, of course), so we cannot just put  for ex. my dying  bride, paradise lost, katatonia, solitude aeternus, ...here , they belong to doom genre and should stay there. 

sleeper wrote: ^The problems with your examples, Gamemako, is that Canterbury and Italian Symphonic Prog were established in the late 60's and 70's, along with Krautrock, as independant styles of music that grew up alongside the rest of prog, they are not genres created by this site but have been recognised for 30+ years, who are we to disregard that? Plus, I believe that ISP isa  bit of a mis-nomeaner in that not all bands are symphonic and that the genre should be known as Rock Progressive Italiano (RPI), at least thats what I recall reading from our resident expert micky so I'll bow down to his superior knowledge here.

I'd like to make one thing clear, in Micky's absence: the name ISP should have been changed a long time ago into RPI. The bands included in the subgenre are in most cases anything but symphonic, as in the case of Area. The subgenre was created because the prog movement in early Seventies Italy was probably the biggest in Europe,  and one of the most influential, especially in places like Japan and South America. I know because I was there at the time... My first introduction to prog, at the ripe old age of 11, was through RPI.

I'll tell Micky to insist for a name change, because lots of people don't understand that RPI is a category very much similar to Canterbury and Krautrock, and has nothing to do with a national division of symphonic prog.

MonkeyphoneAlex wrote: Italian symph is in it's own genre because it has an entirely different sound than other symphonic bands.  Listen to Premiata Forneria Marconi or Banco Del Mutuo Soccorso and then listen to The Flower Kings and tell me they belong together.

Anglagard versus Yes versus Spock's Beard.

Then listent to Aton's and tell me why it shouldn't be in Symphonic Prog.

//EDIT: Removed clutter quotes.


Edited by Gamemako - October 01 2007 at 09:03

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ care to elaborate?

Certainly.

We're looking for threads that run among the groups. We're looking for looking for general traits. We're not looking for absolute miniscule genres to put everything into. I don't see why we need italian symphonic prog or canterbury scene or any of the new genres. What has been done, in my opinion, is the division into subgenres and re-listing as full genres. Prog metal may contain an eclectic mix of styles, but that doesn't mean you need to call it fifteen genres. It's prog metal. From there you can list subgenres, but you don't need them everywhere.

My suggestion is to take that top navbar and kill off at least half of those genres and integrate them into other genres. From there, you can subdivide as necessary for any genre. But making more and more and more and more genres is just silly. You're just going to get more problems with genre-benders (go ahead, put Dark Suns into one -- you'd have to decide between their first and second albums).

In my opinion (you're free to disagree as I'm sure you do), we should kill off the clutter and have a small number of large genres which can be narrowed (note the word can -- I will get to that in a moment) to more specific subgenres (i.e. click the name to go to the prog metal page which has all prog metal, and from there you can navigate to the avant-garde only and whatnot). Another benefit of this is that people will be able to explore the genres more fully. Honestly, I'm relatively unfamiliar with italian symphonic prog because I rarely navigate my way to that page. Sounds to me like symphonic prog, and the description says:

"Indeed so much progressive music has emerged and continues to emerge from Italy that some people believe it belongs in its own sub-genre."

I can't disagree more with this view. You can make it a subdivision of symphonic prog, but it doesn't need its own area. It's still just symphonic prog. And if it were in the symphonic prog page, I'd have quite a bit more exposure to it.

To reiterate my point, I think we should consolidate the genres and make subdivisions to those genres. I would probably never have checked uneXpecT if it were in some obscure avant-death section (granted, I knew the band before it was listed here, but the point is that you may occasionally want to stray from your comfort zone to access new music -- the smaller we make the genres, the less you see from other genres, and the less inclined you may be to experience other styles).

Prog Matal needs to be broken up.  Having 5 brand new genres, however, will get confusing.  I think the breakup should be done gradually.  Perhaps we could decide on 4 or 5 new genres, and make one each month, and then whatever's left over in prog metal will be melodic prog.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: genres are not about bands which are "alike" ... they're about bands which share similar traits.

Which is precisely why we don't need so many genres.

My suggestion would be to consolidate and subdivide.

We don't need more than six or seven major prog genres. From there, you can subdivide them (prog metal -> speed/power/tech/death/extreme/football/sludge/symphonic/cheesy/epic/avant-garde/minimalist metal) and not have a horrible mess for a navbar. We don't need genres like proto-prog and Canterbury Scene. They can be merged and left as subgenres.

This is prog, people. No two bands are going to be alike.

I'm truely fed up with all these sub-genres.

Mategra wrote:  Metal isn't  real Prog.