Are there any plans to add a "New Prog" genre...

not a new one... but possibly moved into existing subs.. like.. hahha.. art rock

I've already run across one in AR similar the what this guy is talking about . Alon... I thought it was prog... but you know how I think... I had Rico give me a 2nd opinion. Prog it is. The door is ajar.. the question is whether to open it.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Morda wrote: ... on the site? There seems to be an increasing number of indie/alternative bands in particular that are cropping up and incorporating prog influences into their music. Bands such as Dungen, Pure Reason Revolution, Mew, The Mars Volta, Mystery Jets etc. and to a lesser extent bands like Muse and the Decemberists (their last album only). Prog seems to be becoming a fashionable influence to have (when My Chemical Romance does a volte-face and changes from doing fairly bad emo to music inspired by Bowie and Queen and Linkin Park (not exactly my favourite band) cites King Crimson as an influence...) recently and new prog seems to be a growing subgenre. Certainly, I feel, one worth an inclusion in the site, as I think that dividing these bands up is rather arbitary. So ... are there any plans, or is there any possibility of this being added? What you describe in the second paragraph is what I call "Progressive Alternative Rock" ... most of the bands from the first paragraph too, except for The Mars Volta which are "New Art Rock".

his point is... ahhh let Steve Hillage sum it up....

to paraphrase him.. I don't have the exact quote in front of me..

' the conservative nature of what is called progressive rock today is bullsh*t'

point taken.... prog today is not the prog of yesteryear.... I've tried in vain to express that in the collab areas..


Edited by micky - February 10 2007 at 14:06

Looks/sounds to me as if the 'prog' label is going the same route as the 'R&B' label. I can't imagine Muse and King Crimson being in the same (sub)genre of 'prog' - just as I can't accept the fact that the Rolling Stones were R&B in the 60s and Beyoncé is called R&B now.

One difference though: I can enjoy KC and Muse in the first case, but I can't stand Beyoncé in the second... 

I would just like to chip in again, as it seems as though people seem to be thinking I'm talking about modern prog in general. I genuinely think that it'd be a good idea to seperate them apart, but seemingly my view is not the popular one at the moment, I just want to clarify my position. (some people are getting what I'm talking about, but I think that others think I just mean modern prog)

What I am proposing is a category for "new prog" which is a term that has cropped up in the last year or so specifically to refer to a fusion of alternative or indie rock and prog, bands which are not catering solely to the prog scene who still incorporate elements of prog. The term has been used in the media. (granted, mainstream media, so take with a pinch of salt: http://arts.guardian.co.uk/filmandmusic/story/0,,1841206,00.html#article_continue, http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/whats_on/listings/article718881.ece).

This is as opposed to it being simply modern progressive music which would currently be in art rock or symphonic prog which I'd agree would be best to still be kept in the most applicable subgenre for the band (much as I would like to see Spock's Beard, Porcupine Tree and co. in the top 40 of a category!).

I would say that as new prog is a fusion genre that there are going to be some bands in it that are much closer to alternative than prog and vice-versa, so I don't think that "Muse is not a prog band" is a good reason to not add this genre. Yes, some bands which perhaps would not otherwise make the cut into this site would get in, but they'd be under new prog and therefore people would not necessarily expect them to be full-blown prog. Of course, I'm not the one calling the shots on the site, so this boils down to being my opinion.

And regarding style, I would say that these bands are of a similar style to a degree (alternative/prog), but really, some of the other subgenres don't really have a uniform style either. I don't see why it's a big deal even if new prog doesn't have one (which, as I have said, I think it does, at least as much as a fusion of two ill-defined genres can be (both alternative and prog don't really have a uniform sound)). Art rock as used on the site is essentially "miscallaneous", post-rock is quite possibly the most nebulous genre ever (and contains several distinct styles within it), avant-prog is all rather experimental (hence the name) but in terms of style there is little to link all of the bands together (as is my experience, anyway).

I don't want to argue too vehemently about this, I just want to put forward the idea, as I think that new prog is somewhat different from traditional prog. I also think that because most of these new prog bands are in art rock a lot of these bands are being lambasted for being too different from "traditional prog". Maybe that's just me. Certainly The Mars Volta, which I would call new prog (though I'm not a fan), seems to have gone down well here.

I just want to get people thinking about this and to see what people think. Particularly the site owners, as they ultimately hold the veto.

Angelo, quite possibly when prog has been around for as long as R&B has that may be the case! Regardless, I think that the definition of prog has shifted over time - hence the distinction between art rock and symphonic prog. Though I prefer to use art rock to mean the borderline between prog and the mainsteam, myself.

R&B is a genre that desperately needs subgenres, certainly I always mentally distinguish rhythm and blues (very early stuff, actually blues based) from R&B (later stuff, like the Rolling Stones) from RnB (the latest stuff, which is mostly quite bad, imo).

I don't see your point there Micky. I'm don't think we should change the rules as we go along. Complexity if an integral part  of prog. If "Modern prog" requires a different definition, it ain't prog, it is a genre which happens to use the same word in its name.

I always believed that sub-genres are based in style, influences and moods rather than in national or chronological terms.

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - February 11 2007 at 13:09

I find that over creating sub-genres is problematic.

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - February 11 2007 at 17:34

I think that the majority rule seems to be saying "no" to this, so I will drop this, it's not exactly a huge deal. I wanted to put the idea across, as I felt that the time was right. I'll just state why I felt that it was worth doing it, and then I'll accept it and leave this topic (I don't want this to turn into one of those topics where there's one person just going "Yeah ... but ..." when everyone else is disagreeing).

Angelo, the reasons why I feel that TMV being accepted in Art Rock is not a reason to preclude this are two fold:

i) Some new prog is alternative with prog influences. Some new prog is prog influenced by alternative rock. So, some of it would count as prog anyway (TMV and PRR being examples) and others would only count if you accept new prog as a subgenre of prog (such as Muse or Mystery Jets). It's a bit like with jazz fusion, some bands are jazzy enough to qualify as jazz proper, other bands are simply other styles of music with a jazz influence and can only be counted as jazz if you accept jazz fusion to be a subgenre.
ii) Art rock seems to be used for anything which doesn't fit into any of the other subgenres on the site, so, to be fair, if we hadn't got, say, Indo-Prog or Zeuhl (to use some of the smaller subgenres) on the site, all that would be in those genres would fit in in art rock. But, yes, it is true that most of new prog would fit into either "art rock" or "prog-related" - I felt that it's worth its own genre because it's a movement as such, with some degree of a uniform style.

Of course, it doesn't really matter that much, as I have said, I just wanted to get the idea into the open because I think that some of the bands (except TMV) shoved into art rock get scathed a bit much because people aren't expecting the alternative influences, and I also think that distinguishing between new prog and the rest of prog may be a useful thing in order to not put off any potential proggers who get interested in the music from these new bands.

What I mean by that is essentially, these bands will gain followings, some of them may well become huge given time, and I think that inevitably, some of their fanbase will decide to explore this large influence on their favourite bands. The problem is that the "prog-related" section has a lot of bands which could probably be definitively said to be not prog. On the other hand the other genres have an awful lot of music which is simply rather inaccessible to someone used to mainstream music (even symphonic prog, art rock and prog metal, probably the more accessible subgenres - I know that it was a while before I could appreciate King Crimson, Gentle Giant or VDGG). I feel that new prog would work as a ladder for this new generation of proggers, bridging the sometimes vast gap between prog-related and the actual real prog. I believe that having this intermediate, proggier than prog-related (well, sometimes) but perhaps not full-blown prog listed seperately will allow these potential new fans to persevere and gain a true appreciation of the genre rather than to listen to ELP or whatever straight off the bat, think "what the hell is this sh*t?" and then hate the genre. A school of prog as it were, some walled garden where fledgling proggers can indulge in some more radio-friendly styles and work their way up to more full-blown prog.

You could argue that that's the purpose of prog-related, I would perhaps agree to an extent but feel that it's inadequete for the task, as I think this intermediate step is very important for opening up prog to a new audience. Besides which, are people more likely to search for "new prog" (assuming the name becomes accepted and well-known, which it has to a degree, but not totally) or "prog related"? Certainly I have got a couple of friends interested in prog via bands like Dungen but I think that if I showed them some of the symphonic prog bands even they would be put off prog.

Ivan, that is more or less what the term means (it absolutely does NOT mean 90s onwards prog or 2000 onwards prog) but it's a continuum, some of the bands are, as you said, alternative bands with prog influences, but others are closer to prog bands with alternative influences. It's not really about having my favourite bands in the archives - out of the new prog bands the only two which I would consider to be in my favourite bands are Dungen and PRR, both of which are probably proggy enough to count without having this new subgenre.

I just see it as being a new movement which generally sounds different from the rest of the body of prog, and, as I said, a stepping stone for potential fans of prog to ease themselves into the genre.

I think I may have been somewhat adversarial in this post, certainly it was not my intention. I would like to thank everyone for hearing me through, even though the majority opinion seems to be against my suggestion.

Certainly, looking at Ivan's last line, I feel that this is a new form of progressive music being formed (which is why I'm proposing this and not "modern prog" in general) and one that is already shedding the negative image of prog in the world at large and certainly one which I think will lead to many more fans of prog coming out of the woodwork. But perhaps it has not proved itself to be this to others, perhaps it never will. I'm going to stop posting in this topic now (unless someone specifically directs me) but I think that it will be worth reconsidering this in maybe a year or so's time, when we can see whether this scene has grown. (either in size and notability or grow more prog-influenced (don't forget that prog was the music media's whipping boy for a time, it takes balls to be an indie band and to adopt prog, it takes even more balls to admit it, I think that as prog becomes a fashionable influence to have, that it's entirely possible that these bands will get more proggy))

... I just saw Ivan's most recent post. A valid argument, those are ... slightly too many subgenres there. However, I'm not suggesting adding 50 or so subgenres, I'm not suggesting breaking prog metal into "pure prog metal" "prog power metal" "prog death metal" "prog folk metal" "prog black metal" etc. I'm suggesting adding one more genre because I feel that it is distinct from the rest. You could use the slippery slope argument, but I think given the amount of resistance given to the suggestion of ONE new genre I doubt that fifty or so more are just going to slip in at the same time.

Easy Livin wrote:

Wow, if we had all those sub-genres, ti would keep the forum debates going for 100 years!