Neo-progressive, new guidelines

Yup. And I'm not criticizing - just reflecting back that I understand and sympathize with your points of view :-)

DaysBeforeTomorrow wrote: Categorization is necessary, but when you've broken the data (artists) down into so many categories that you have to debate where a band fit, you've gone too far. Just my humble opinion :-).

I'm a big fan of simplification myself. But as long as I make an effort at this place, I need to follow the rules here too. And I have yet to discover a site doing a better job for those who enjoy listening to and/or make prog than this site ;-)

In my ideal world we would have 5 main categories at a site like this, perhaps with a select few secondary descriptors. But somehow, I don't think that would ever have a chance of becoming a reality ;-)

progkidjoel wrote: This - Imagine going into a CD store without Genre sorting... On that note, JB HIFI (Australian CD retailer) have the worst genre selections ever! Marillion in "Heavy metal/Hard rock" in one store, and in "Urban Grooves" in another!? It has to be a joke! They also put Porcupine Tree in "World Music" in one store and "Popular/top 40" in another, which is literally ridiculous.

I don't really get the anti-genre sentiment. Humans have an innate want to categorize things - we've been doing it for centuries - and I think they're much more useful than detrimental. When you say symphonic prog, I have a general idea of what you are discussing. Yes, there are bands that transcend their genre or just flat out switch genres in the middle of their career, but I think those are the exception. Maybe not so much in prog, but in general, bands certainly stick to their genre. I don't see Rascal Flatts or Shania Twain playing anything but pop/country.

Although a tagging system might be better, a la last.fm and progfreak, but it's essentially a more exact system of genres and categorization.


Edited by Kestrel - August 12 2009 at 20:25

Windhawk wrote: I can understand and sympathize with those thoughts. But such categories have always been in place in music as far as I know. It was easier in the 70's of course, although it was somewhat confusing to find out what bands were art rock, prog rock, symphonic rock, pomp, AOR or hard rock.

Well, of course, I can't look at it from a prog fans point of view, and I can see that it helps to narrow the search, I do see that. It's probably inevitable that sub-genres appear.

I, for one, am beginning to feel like a piece of meat on the grocery store shelf. Our "prog" music has to be neatly packaged, pre-defined and properly labeled, to meet consumer need, or else no-one will get to hear it.

One one hand, I am happy that the support for prog music is there, where would we be without it!

No protests from me on that one. Most people seem to think that they should reside in Eclectic; and the Eclectic team here have a standing offer to move the band over to their part of the archives ;-)

For me it is most important that the band is in the databse here though *s*

sussexbowler wrote: Personally, I think that Neo-prog should be represented by bands that took up the Prog mantle in the nineties and noughties, and have taken it to where it is now. rumeni.

Personally I'd love to have more of the acts that took up the prog mantle in the 90's and noughties listed as neo - but that isn't my call.

But as for additions to the genre after this revision, you might want to take a listen to Chest Rockwell, Slow Motion Reign and Fractal. I believe we have samples of all the acts on their artists pages here as well.

I can guarantee that you won't find much Fishy or Gabrielly there *s*