New subgenres?!?!

Phish for Crossover Prog.

^^^ They already did that. It took them months to categorize each and every Art Rock band in there (see if you can count how much). Everything is set. Now they just need time to move the bands into their respective genre, that's all.

^^^ Oh. Well in that case, voice your opinions all you want! lol, I just assumed (and made an a$$ out of myself) that they were still swamped in work since the new subgenres look like they do now...

explodingjosh wrote: Shakespeare wrote: explodingjosh wrote: Yea guys I seriously doubt the people working on the changes are even listening to your opinion on which band belongs in which subgenre right now. Say whut, jimbo? (Schizoid, you have unleashed all hell with your thread.)   lol, I mean I'm sure they're busy enough just making the changes. We'll probably have to wait a while until we can start saying "hey this band belongs here".

Gotchya, Jo, I thought you meant that the admins and collabs didn't care about us, which obviously ain't da truth. They love us like their own.

Right?


Edited by Shakespeare - August 20 2007 at 17:58

A good idea, I'm not sure about the phrasing of the subgenres at all though.

I mean, heavy prog - as has been said, slightly ambiguous. And crossover prog just seems like an intermediary step really - I mean, surely progressive metal, progressive electronic, prog folk etc. are also crossover prog.

I'm of the opinion that crossover prog should probably be divided further if it remains a large category - perhaps not to the extent that we end up with a pronk category, but it's still a bit of a nebulous term which could encompass already extant subgenres on this site.

This all said, the idea is excellent and my problems are really with the names rather than anything else. I'm very thankful to the team for doing this and for making the effort of sorting all of the art rock bands and (presumably) scouring the prog-related category to shove stuff into crossover.

Art rock just had to go, it's almost invariably used (by my experience anyway) to mean what prog-related is on this site rather than what art rock was described as on here, so was slightly confusing. Perhaps prog-related should be renamed art rock?

Be patient guys, two of the members of the Art Rock Team are away for a week or so, so you may find nothing materializes until they return.

I still find a lot of ambiguity with the definitions though.  Crossover Prog to me, is bands like Taal and 4/3 de Trio (who I both believe are going to remain in Crossover), because their music incorporates many different styles.  It's nothing to do with how poppy they are, as far as I am aware.

I don't like the term Eclectic either.  Most prog bands are eclectic...


Edited by Geck0 - August 20 2007 at 18:22

heyitsthatguy wrote: i think progressive netal should have its own subgenre

and synphonic


Edited by Shakespeare - August 20 2007 at 18:28

I think it was good when they "accidently" had crossover prog for prog-related.

Other genre:Defies classification..for bands that defy classification

Seriously, let's relax a bit until the Art guys are finished putting everything in place. They put a heck of a lot of time and effort into this. There was also much discussion in the collaborator section. They should be commended. Art Rock was a huge mess. This wasn't just about splitting it up, they also found many bands that belonged in other existing sub-genres. This could only be done by looking at every single entry. These are three P.A. studs. They will explain everything in due time.