New Category, Post metal/ Sludge or Doom

debrewguy wrote: The T wrote: I much rather prefer just two genres: "obscure" bands and "unobscure" or "sold-out, commercial, not-so-prog-because-of-success" bands.... In that way, symphonic will have its representatives in both genres... art rock will have representatives in both genres.... Zeuhl and Rio will have representatives only in the "obscure" (read intellectual) genres, while metal, for some strange reason, will be entirely in the second genre, even though some of their artists have to work in fast food restaurants in order to pay the mortgage on their cheap wal-mart guitars.... Seems a good idea. But might I suggest that we change "intellectual" to "elitist snot" genre Or we could divide them into popular & not popular. But then, some around here would argue that more than one fan is too many to qualify a band for inclusion in the "not popular" genre

i actually like the tag idea, if thats a possibility and if we're thinking of the same thing. keep the genres as they are (or were as in the case of art rock though that'd be too late to change now) and add a "tag" that describes the sound of the band. or related bands. any thoughts?


Edited by keiser willhelm - September 21 2007 at 09:27

fair enough. i guess just liked the idea  because then i wouldnt have to spend the time reading all those  band biographies ;) 
what three categories would you choose?

Mategra wrote:  Metal isn't  real Prog.

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

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.

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: ^ 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).

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