Announcing the Prog-Metal split

Nice!

If I cared at all about prog metal, I'd be pretty darn happy.

I'm happy to announce that M@x has approved of the PM team's proposal to split Prog Metal into three separate categories:

1. Progressive Metal
   - Classic Progressive Metal
   - Modern (Eclectic) Progressive Metal
   - Prog Power Metal
   
2. Extreme/Tech Prog Metal
   - Avant-Garde Prog Metal
   - Progressive Thrash Metal
   - Progressive Death Metal
   - Progressive Black Metal
   - Progressive Technical Metal
   - Prog Metal Fusion
   
3. Experimental/Post-Metal
   - Experimental Metal
   - Art Metal
   - Post Sludge Metal
   - (Eclectic) Post Metal

The sub genres of these three new genres will *not* be implemented as clickable genres, but they're useful to understand which band goes where. But the new genre definitions which I'm preparing will contain descriptions and key albums for all of them.

Edit: I added this "FAQ" section to answer questions asked in this thread (and elsewhere):

• Q: I don't agree with the new genre definitions ... where do I send complaints to?
  A: You can post them here. The current definitions are only a first draft, and they are currently being worked at. Please be patient while we're trying to sort them out ... this is a work done in stages:
  
  1.) writing preliminary definitions
  2.) implementing the split and moving most of the bands
  3.) improving the definitions and fine-tune the band lists.
  
  
• Q: Opeth aren't Post-Metal ... what are they doing in Experimental/Post-Metal?
  A: All the new categories are combinations of various styles/types of music. The "/" in the label means "and/or", so "Experimental/Post-Metal" means "Experimental (Prog) Metal and/or Post-Metal". Grouping them together doesn't mean that they represent one homogenous style.
  We simply had to find a compromise between creating too many new categories and keeping all the bands in one big category, so we chose to combine some of the categories which "get along" well. In a nutshell we made these combinations: classic+power+melodic (Prog Metal), technical+avant+extreme+fusion (Tech/Extreme), experimental+art+post (Experimental/Post).
  
• Q: Does the introduction of new categories mean that the band admission procedure of the PMT will change ... will you become more inclusive?
  A: No, definitely not.  Bands from all the subgenres listed above are already in the archives, and the standards for band admissions will not be affected by the split.
• Q: Will there be further splits of these three categories in the future?
  A: I don't think that's likely. Over the last two years there has been much discussion about how to split the genre, and this is the result. *Maybe* at some point in the future the band lists of the new genre might indicate further splits, but the more categories there are the more difficult it becomes to decide which band to put where, and more cases of bands arise which really belong to several categories equally.
• Q: I'm only seeing two new categories with none or only a few band entries ...
  A: We'll shortly move most of the bands to their new homes ... please try to be patioent. After these first moves it will probably take a while longer until all the moves are final ... there will be many discussions among the PM team members, and of course you're all welcome to post suggestions or complaints, as long as they're constructive.
• Q: Is not progressive tech metal a little redundant? It should just be tech metal and drop the progressive part.
  A: If we dropped the word "Prog" from that label then people would read it and think it contained non-prog "Technical Metal" bands. I think there is a fine line between progressive technical and non-prog technical bands ... not all technical bands are automatically prog, and that's why the word must stay. An example for non-prog technical bands would be - most Death Metal bands actually. If you look at bands like Cryptopsy, Nile or related bands like In Flames, Children of Bodom etc. then it's clear that they're quite technical, yet they aren't prog.
• Q: I was surprised not to see Opeth in Extreme metal... but in Experimental/Post... what? I mean Edge of Sanity is in Extreme and they surely are the band that has more things in common with Opeth than any other band in this site.
  A: Actually I think that Edge of Sanity aren't really similar to Opeth except for the vocals. Of course Opeth would also fit in Extreme/Tech *because* of the vocals, but we tried to make a musical distinction. I know that Mikael himself has called his music Death Metal in interviews. But not *all* Death Metal influenced bands must automatically go to Extreme/Tech. Likewise there are a few Black Metal influenced bands which make more sense in Experimental/Post, like for example Agalloch.
• Q: What about Sieges Even and/or Zero Hour ... they're quite technical, shouldn't they go to Extreme/Tech?
  A: Sieges Even are one of the classic prog metal bands and will stay in Progressive Metal. It should be noted that of course many bands from Progressive Metal get quite technical at times. But if you compare Sieges Even, Zero Hour or Dream Theater to bands like Meshuggah, Cynic or Spiral Architect it should be evident that they're much more melodic, well-rounded in terms of influences and generally less extreme and more accessible, and that's why they belong in Progressive Metal. What I said here will also be added to the genre descriptions soon.
• Q: Opeth and Tool are in Post/experimental?!?!?!?!?! BAD move! Lets keep them in PM so the other bands can shine!
  A: Obviously many of the bands in Extreme/Tech and Experimental/Post are dramatically underreviewed. Currently they're outshined by Opeth and Tool who are simply much more well known, but you can change that easily by writing reviews!
  

Edited by MikeEnRegalia - October 24 2007 at 02:29