Are you stubborn about the genre changes?

MikeEnRegalia wrote: bhikkhu wrote: Actually, I am just now mainly curious as to why people think metal is so unique. Art Rock was a collection of bands as dissimilar as Gentle Giant and Rush. The term Art Rock, for me anyway, was the original name for Progressive way back in the day. I know why that was such a mess. I helped put many of the bands in there. However, if Metal is just arbitrary, then by that logic, some of those bands would belong in other genres. But is that the case, or are they metal bands? This is reminding me of Iván's posts. Why do you both make such "binary" decisions - that things can be either completely one thing or completely another? In this case the answer is: both. These bands are both metal *and* prog. Theoretically we could decide that the distinction between rock and metal is not important. Then we could move all the bands in the metal genres to other genres. Dream Theater and Pain of Salvation would go to Symphonic Prog, Isis would go to Post Rock, Devin Townsend and Tool could fit in Heavy Prog, Unexpect and Arcturus go to Avant Prog, Blind Guardian go to Prog Folk. But somehow I doubt that this move would be received well by the community ... And frankly, the fact that it just absolutely doesn't make any sense to me has me concerned. I thought I had the format of all of this figured out, but now I find I was wrong. So far, no one has provided an explanation that proves the split necessary. This isn't really about metal. This just happens to be where this move took place. I would be just as confused if it had been done in Folk. Well, as long as you can't see the difference between prog metal and prog folk, your confusion will remain.

Who ever said that Prog Metal isn't prog? Of course they are both prog and metal. That is what makes them Prog Metal bands. And, as I have to keep constantly repeating, they are all prog Metal bands. No other band in any ohter sub-genre can be classified as such. So why aren't they still being kept under one heading? Which is exactly why I used something like Prog Folk as an example. All of the bands in that sub-genre have Prog and Folk in common. That is why they are under one heading. It's just so simple. If the diversity of Folk bands were to increase, they would still all be Prog Folk Bands. The diversity of Symphonic bands has increased dramatically. But they are all still Symphonic, so we are keeping them together, and creating distinctions within the sub-genre. Why? because they are all symphonic bands. This is all so basic, yet only a few other people see what I am talking about. And please don't tell me that Metal is just an arbitrary label. It's not. It is also a descriptive term for the music. Mike, I will pose the same challenge to you. All the bands in the new sub-genres have prog and metal in common. Can you name me a case of other sub-genres that have such a unique relationship with every single entry? Do you see why it makes no sense to me that these bands are in separate, unrelated sub-genres?

And as I said, this is not about metal. This is about logical organization. In the world of food, there is fruit. Under fruit, you find apples. Under apples, you have Macintosh, Granny Smith and Ida Reds. In a store, would you put the Granny Smiths by the bananas, the Macintosh by the grapes, and the Ida Reds by the oranges? No, you would have them all grouped together.

bhikkhu wrote: And as I said, this is not about metal. This is about logical organization. In the world of food, there is fruit. Under fruit, you find apples. Under apples, you have Macintosh, Granny Smith and Ida Reds. In a store, would you put the Granny Smiths by the bananas, the Macintosh by the grapes, and the Ida Reds by the oranges? No, you would have them all grouped together.

First of all: I'm sure I'd put the Macintosh in the computer department.

But I don't see what you're getting at with your fruit analogy. Nobody's suggesting to put metal bands where they don't belong. I'd say that what we're doing with metal here is similar to if in the fruit department there were several sub-departments all devoted to apples. Let's say that there is one sub-department for sweet apples (prog metal) and one for sour apples (tech/extreme prog metal).

I can't see why this would irritate any customer. Those who know their apples well would still find what they're looking for since they know whether their favorite type is sweet or sour. Those who are new to apples would see the distinction and also know immediately which department they would want to check out first, depending on their preference for sweet or sour.


Edited by MikeEnRegalia - October 30 2007 at 04:02

MikeEnRegalia wrote: bhikkhu wrote: And as I said, this is not about metal. This is about logical organization. In the world of food, there is fruit. Under fruit, you find apples. Under apples, you have Macintosh, Granny Smith and Ida Reds. In a store, would you put the Granny Smiths by the bananas, the Macintosh by the grapes, and the Ida Reds by the oranges? No, you would have them all grouped together. First of all: I'm sure I'd put the Macintosh in the computer department.But I don't see what you're getting at with your fruit analogy. Nobody's suggesting to put metal bands where they don't belong. I'd say that what we're doing with metal here is similar to if in the fruit department there were several sub-departments all devoted to apples. Let's say that there is one sub-department for sweet apples (prog metal) and one for sour apples (tech/extreme prog metal).I can't see why this would irritate any customer. Those who know their apples well would still find what they're looking for since they know whether their favorite type is sweet or sour. Those who are new to apples would see the distinction and also know immediately which department they would want to check out first, depending on their preference for sweet or sour.

You are exactly right. Except, the apples would be all together. You wouldn't have a display of one kind, then rows of peaches, and grapes, then another kind of apples, then pears and kiwi, and then more apples. You might see Granny Smith, an not notice the others, and assume that is the only kind they have.



Edited by bhikkhu - October 30 2007 at 04:49

bhikkhu wrote: You are exactly right. Except, the apples would be all together. You wouldn't have a display of one kind, then rows of peaches, and grapes, then another kind of apples, then pears and kiwi, and then more apples. You might see Granny Smith, an not notice the others, and assume that is the only kind they have.

I see your point. But the order in which the genres are displayed can easily be changed ... currently it happens to be alphabetically, but I agree that it would make sense to group them differently:

• Psychedelic/Space Rock
• Symphonic Prog
• Italian Symphonic Prog
• Eclectic Prog
• Prog Folk
• Canterbury Scene
• Jazz Rock/Fusion
• Krautrock
• RIO/Avant-Prog
• Zeuhl
• Progressive Electronic
• Indo-Prog/Raga Rock
• Heavy Prog
• Crossover Prog
  
  
• Neo Progressive
  
  
• Progressive Metal
• Tech/Extreme Prog Metal
• Experimental/Post Metal
  
  
• Experimental/Post Rock
  
  
• Various Genres/Artists
• Prog Related
• Proto-Prog
  

MikeEnRegalia wrote: bhikkhu wrote: You are exactly right. Except, the apples would be all together. You wouldn't have a display of one kind, then rows of peaches, and grapes, then another kind of apples, then pears and kiwi, and then more apples. You might see Granny Smith, an not notice the others, and assume that is the only kind they have. I see your point. But the order in which the genres are displayed can easily be changed ... currently it happens to be alphabetically, but I agree that it would make sense to group them differently: Psychedelic/Space Rock Symphonic Prog Italian Symphonic Prog Eclectic Prog Prog Folk Canterbury Scene Jazz Rock/Fusion Krautrock RIO/Avant-Prog Zeuhl Progressive Electronic Indo-Prog/Raga Rock Heavy Prog Crossover Prog Neo Progressive Progressive Metal Tech/Extreme Prog Metal Experimental/Post Metal Experimental/Post Rock Various Genres/Artists Prog Related Proto-Prog

So, then I guess you would have a special name for that group of three, just following neo. If so, I am guessing it would be Prog metal. Which is why I don't understand why they were split in the first place.

And before anyone takes a few steps back, and says it's because they are so different, I understand that. I am in full support of the three new subdivisions. I don't like Dream Theater, but I love Indukti. Why? Because they are so different. Yet they are both Prog Metal bands. Just because the differences needed clarification, did not make them cease to all be prog metal. I don't see why that all encompassing banner was dropped.





Edited by bhikkhu - October 30 2007 at 11:24

^ it's not a big deal. It's fun for those of us who do it, and it's helpful for newbies and everyone who wants to use the categories. Those who don't want them don't have to use them!

sleeper wrote: Bhikkhu, I have to ask, did you actually read my post? I made it quite plain that if we are going to group all the metal related bands together then we should group all the rock related bands together, after all, why should one sub genre get preferential treatment and not the other. I think the "problem" here is that you equate Prog Metal tob Symphonic prog, or Eclectic, or Ne etc. You shouldnt, you should equate it to Prog Rock, which is already firmly split, because leaving it as Prog Rock would be very unhealpful to people looking for bands related to other bands.

So are you saying that Prog Metal is u sub-genre of Rock, and not Prog? Then why is it here? I do want it to be helpful for finding similar bands. If you came here looking for bands similar to Indukti, you wouldn't go to Symphonic, you would go to Prog Metal. And from there you would look at the further subdivisions to find what you are looking for. I guess I need to say it yet again. I don't understand why the unifying title of Prog Metal needs to be removed.



Edited by bhikkhu - October 30 2007 at 16:10

sleeper wrote: No, I'm saying Prog metal is a sub genre of progressive music, just as Prog rock is. And if you dont think the unifying title of prog metal needs to be kept, than why dont we have the unifying title of prog rock?

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - October 30 2007 at 21:24

sleeper wrote:   Bhikkhu, I have to ask, did you actually read my post? I made it quite plain that if we are going to group all the metal related bands together then we should group all the rock related bands together, after all, why should one sub genre get preferential treatment and not the other. I think the "problem" here is that you equate Prog Metal tob Symphonic prog, or Eclectic, or Ne etc. You shouldnt, you should equate it to Prog Rock, which is already firmly split, because leaving it as Prog Rock would be very unhealpful to people looking for bands related to other bands.

Heavy metal (often referred to simply as metal) is a genre of rock music that developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s. With roots in blues-rock and psychedelic rock, the bands that created heavy metal developed a thick, heavy, guitar-and-drums-centered sound, characterized by highly amplified distortion and fast guitar solos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_metal_music

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: sleeper wrote: No, I'm saying Prog metal is a sub genre of progressive music, just as Prog rock is. And if you dont think the unifying title of prog metal needs to be kept, than why dont we have the unifying title of prog rock?   Read the banner, we have the unifying title of Progressive Rock!!!     If it's not clear, it says Prog Archives.com your ultimate PROG ROCK resource.   This is a Prog Rock site, if Prog Metal is not part of Prog Rock (Which I believe would be absurd to believe), then it doesn't belong here.

I'm really sorry if all this is too complex for you to understand.

But since I know you're a bright person I actually get the feeling that you're deliberately ignoring our reasoning.