Forum Home Forum Home > Progressive Music Lounges > Prog Polls
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Are you stubborn about the genre changes?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedAre you stubborn about the genre changes?
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 11>
Poll Question: Regarding new categories (crossover prog, etc)
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
5 [7.35%]
22 [32.35%]
41 [60.29%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21206 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 02 2007 at 08:21
Originally posted by Iván Iván wrote:



My question is: Wasn't it easier to make something more transparent like:
 
Progressive Rock sub-genres:
 
  1. Canterbury
  2. Crossover
  3. Eclectic
  4. Progressive Metal
    1. Classical (or whatever) Prog Metal
    2. Experimental/Post Metal
    3. Tech/Extreme prog Metal
  5. Neo Prog
  6. Symphonic
  7. Etcetera

That would had reched the same purpose and not create this ambiguous situation when we don't know if prog Metal is a sub-genre, a parallel entity to Prog Rock or a supra division of Prog Rock.

You could had even created all the new divisions you required, 10 or 20 if you required.



Actually it would look more like this:

  1. Progressive Rock
    1. Canterbury
    2. Crossover
    3. Eclectic
    4. Symphonic
    5. etc.
  2. Progressive Metal
    1. Classical (or whatever) Prog Metal
    2. Experimental/Post Metal
    3. Tech/Extreme prog Metal
  3. Neo Prog
  4. Fusion
And you're asking why we didn't it this way? Simple: Because M@x won't implement hierarchical genres. So we did the same as has been done for Prog Rock: To simply list all the sub genres on the same level for the time being, until M@x has the time to implement hierarchical genres or simply manages to divide the list into several departments in the website navigation.
Recently listened to:
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21206 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 02 2007 at 08:17
Originally posted by Certif1ed Certif1ed wrote:

 
Prog Metal is about using progressive techniques in the writing.
 
Prog Rock is about a progressive style of writing.
 
Maybe that's a subtle difference to some, but to me, it's like a void between the two styles.

I see what you mean, and I even agree to some extent. But I doubt that it's that extreme ... not all Prog Rock bands use progressive songwriting approaches all the time, and not all Prog Metal bands use simplistic songwriting techniques all the time. Furthermore I'd like to say that IMHO you put the bar way too high by using the "top of the heap" Prog Rock albums like Foxtrot, CttE or Dark Side of the Moon as benchmark for all prog. I doubt that more than 10% of all the Genesis fans among the users of this website even have the background in musical theory required to understand what separates those albums from the rest.

BTW: Have you listened to Heaven's Cry yet? I really think you would appreciate their music.Smile
 
This doesn't exclude any kind of crossover existing, of course - nothing is absolute in music - and also doesn't exclude any kind of relationship or claim that one is somehow better than the other.

Yet in your reviews there appears to be a clear separation ... if you compare your reviews of the top prog rock albums to those of the top prog metal albums. It appears to me like whenever you review a prog metal album you're being very thorough in picking the things you don't like, and when you review your favorite prog rock albums you focus on the good qualities. Of course this might only be my subjective impression ... 
 
But apart from the prefix and exchanged surface ideas, the two musical genres have very little in common. If people want to judge based on appearances only, that's fine for them - but personally, I find it unsatisfying.

I agree that they have little in common ... I would prefer seeing them on the same level to putting them in a "sub-genre of" relationship. But clearly Prog Metal would not have existed if it wasn't for the classic Prog movement in the 70s.

What I don't understand is why if you agree that they have little in common you still want to apply the same criteria on them?
Recently listened to:
Back to Top
Certif1ed View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 02 2007 at 07:41
FWIW, I don't see Prog Metal as a subgenre of Prog Rock at all - the two are simply not fundamentally related, except from the Rock root.
 
Prog Metal did not come down the same path as modern Prog - it came directly down the parallel metal branch, which has always been borrowing ideas and techniques from Prog Rock - the two are fundamentally different types of music, once you get away from the rock root.
 
Prog Metal is about using progressive techniques in the writing.
 
Prog Rock is about a progressive style of writing.
 
Maybe that's a subtle difference to some, but to me, it's like a void between the two styles.
 
This doesn't exclude any kind of crossover existing, of course - nothing is absolute in music - and also doesn't exclude any kind of relationship or claim that one is somehow better than the other.
 
But apart from the prefix and exchanged surface ideas, the two musical genres have very little in common. If people want to judge based on appearances only, that's fine for them - but personally, I find it unsatisfying.
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
Back to Top
Seyo View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 08 2004
Location: Bosnia
Status: Offline
Points: 1320 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 02 2007 at 05:46
I am "a bit" stubborn. Actually, being a minimalist by philosophical attitude, I am against creating new "genres", definitions, categories, drawers, cupboards, boxes.... Dead
I think the fewer genres, the better. I would like instead to see individual albums having tags or labels explaining a particular "sub-genre" or style of music.
Wink
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 31 2007 at 20:27
Originally posted by darqdean darqdean wrote:

 
nope. 5 people out of 63 agree with you. Possibly...
 
The topic of this thread, "Are you stubborn about the genre changes?", has been bugging me since it's inception because of the ambiguity of Stonebeard's Poll Question: Regarding new categories (crossover prog, etc)
  • Totally
  • A bit
  • Not at all
First off, I can be "Totally" stubborn about agreeing with the splits or I can be "Totally" stubborn about disagreeing with them - In fact I can be stubborn about lots of things related to the "new categories" - As you may have noticed everyone involved in the discussions attached to this Poll are immensely  stubborn regardless of the view-point they are supporting.
 
So, the Poll is ambiguous - however, I think most of us assumed it was meant the way you have interpretted it, but perhaps some people did not. Wink
 
Secondly I don't get how you can be "A bit" stubborn, but that aside, I also don't see how you can count "a bit" stubborn as being "disagree with this split" - the best you can count is 7.9% disagree, 31.75% don't care and 60.32% agree,
 
Also, from Stonebeards initial post it appears he is not asking whether you agree or approve of the splits but he is asking whether you take any notice of them (at all).
 
 
 
Two things, about the being stubborn with the genre changes, we can only guess if people disagree with the Art Rock split or with the Metal split when marking the option a bit.
 
I doubt it's about the Art Rock split, because it's clearly evident that bands like Rush, Supertramp and Gentle Giant have nothing inn common, so the category of Art Rock was completely wide and vague, with almost nothing in common, while all the bands in the three new sub-genres have something in common, they are all Prog metal-.
 
But again we can only guess.
 
Mike wrote:
Quote Then please note for future reference that I think that prog metal can both be seen as a  sub genre of prog rock and as a separate genre on the same level. The situation is simply more complex than expressions like "sub genre of" can describe.
 
That's my problem, or it's a sub-genre or it's not, but the change has already been made and we only expressed our opinions..
 
My question is: Wasn't it easier to make something more transparent like:
 
Progressive Rock sub-genres:
 
  1. Canterbury
  2. Crossover
  3. Eclectic
  4. Progressive Metal
    1. Classical (or whatever) Prog Metal
    2. Experimental/Post Metal
    3. Tech/Extreme prog Metal
  5. Neo Prog
  6. Symphonic
  7. Etcetera

That would had reched the same purpose and not create this ambiguous situation when we don't know if prog Metal is a sub-genre, a parallel entity to Prog Rock or a supra division of Prog Rock.

You could had even created all the new divisions you required, 10 or 20 if you required.
 
But, we will have to wait for M@X to create some different structure that clears all this doubts.
 
Already expressed my opinion and I stand on it, but for the moment it's futile to continue, we will have to live with this situation.
 
Iván
            
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 31 2007 at 19:55
Clap
 
"And this would seem to be as good as any other place to sing it till I'm blue in the face" LOL


Edited by darqdean - October 31 2007 at 19:55
What?
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21206 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 31 2007 at 19:52
I guess we'll simply ... have to be happy with what we have to be happy with.Smile
Recently listened to:
Back to Top
Tony R View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: July 16 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 11979 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 31 2007 at 19:48
Originally posted by bhikkhu bhikkhu wrote:

Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:



Originally posted by MikeEnRegalia MikeEnRegalia wrote:


The three new genres are technically sub genres of Prog Metal, so I don't see any problem. All the genres being displayed on the same level is a technical limitation of the PA database, nothing else.
Bingo...  plus, at least they each include the word 'metal', something we deemed inappropriate for the Art split


That is all I have been asking. Everyone was acting like I was insane for suggesting that these bands belong together. The solution I would have preferred would be to do it like the schools in Symphonic. Perhaps M@X will eventually make the necessary technical changes to make the hierarchy possible.




Of course he will. However Mike will agree with me when I say that Max months are like everyone else's yearsWink

So give it a couple of months...Tongue
Back to Top
bhikkhu View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 06 2006
Location: A˛ Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 5109 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 31 2007 at 19:47
Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:



Originally posted by MikeEnRegalia MikeEnRegalia wrote:


The three new genres are technically sub genres of Prog Metal, so I don't see any problem. All the genres being displayed on the same level is a technical limitation of the PA database, nothing else.
Bingo...  plus, at least they each include the word 'metal', something we deemed inappropriate for the Art split


That is all I have been asking. Everyone was acting like I was insane for suggesting that these bands belong together. The solution I would have preferred would be to do it like the schools in Symphonic. Perhaps M@X will eventually make the necessary technical changes to make the hierarchy possible.


a.k.a. H.T.

http://riekels.wordpress.com
Back to Top
Tony R View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: July 16 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 11979 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 31 2007 at 19:46
Yes, less than 10% disagree totally with the genre changes.

Big props to progressive forum members!Star
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 31 2007 at 19:43
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

 
Yes, we are a minority, but not a slight minority, read this poll,. 40% of the voters disagree with this split, so not only HT and me have a different opinionn, 4 of each 10 agree with us.
 
nope. 5 people out of 63 agree with you. Possibly...
 
The topic of this thread, "Are you stubborn about the genre changes?", has been bugging me since it's inception because of the ambiguity of Stonebeard's Poll Question: Regarding new categories (crossover prog, etc)
  • Totally
  • A bit
  • Not at all
First off, I can be "Totally" stubborn about agreeing with the splits or I can be "Totally" stubborn about disagreeing with them - In fact I can be stubborn about lots of things related to the "new categories" - As you may have noticed everyone involved in the discussions attached to this Poll are immensely  stubborn regardless of the view-point they are supporting.
 
So, the Poll is ambiguous - however, I think most of us assumed it was meant the way you have interpretted it, but perhaps some people did not. Wink
 
Secondly I don't get how you can be "A bit" stubborn, but that aside, I also don't see how you can count "a bit" stubborn as being "disagree with this split" - the best you can count is 7.9% disagree, 31.75% don't care and 60.32% agree,
 
Also, from Stonebeards initial post it appears he is not asking whether you agree or approve of the splits but he is asking whether you take any notice of them (at all).
 
Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:

...This poll can also apply to genres that you may recognize but ProgArchives does not at all. In essence, do you let this "prog community" define the boundaries of genres, or do you do it yourself.
 
...and that does not have a "Totally" "A Bit" "Not At All" answer.Smile
 
 
What?
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21206 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 31 2007 at 19:43
^ exactly. Granted, the alphabetical sorting of the genres doesn't help - but as I said on page 5 of this endless thread, this could eventually be changed. And it really doesn't affect the split itself.
Recently listened to:
Back to Top
Atavachron View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65266 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 31 2007 at 19:40
Originally posted by MikeEnRegalia MikeEnRegalia wrote:


The three new genres are technically sub genres of Prog Metal, so I don't see any problem. All the genres being displayed on the same level is a technical limitation of the PA database, nothing else.


Bingo...  plus, at least they each include the word 'metal', something we deemed inappropriate for the Art split








Edited by Atavachron - October 31 2007 at 19:41
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21206 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 31 2007 at 19:31
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Well Mike, Fantiomas was once in Prog Metal, but it was mioved wityh the approval of Prog Metal and Rio/Avant, I believe there was a reason for that.
 
BTW: I'm not insulting your intelligence neither changing your words, I'm quoting you word by word as I always do.

You're quoting my words out of context, discarding half of what I said and turn the rest to your advantage.
 
By the contrary, replying your posts is a sign of respect, if believed you were a stupid or didn't believed in your intelligence, I wouldn't evebn care for answering you., if I take the time to read your post, make an argumebnt and reply to it, it'sn because I respect your opinions, even if we disagree.

Then please note for future reference that I think that prog metal can both be seen as a  sub genre of prog rock and as a separate genre on the same level. The situation is simply more complex than expressions like "sub genre of" can describe.

If you disagree with that - fine. But don't try to make it look like my posts support your point of view.
 
As HT, I don't believe t6he new categorioes, sub-sub genres or whatever should dissapear, but I beluieve they should be under Prog Metal which is the mother sub-genre for all the different conceptions and specific divisions of Prog Metal.
 
Iván

The three new genres are technically sub genres of Prog Metal, so I don't see any problem. All the genres being displayed on the same level is a technical limitation of the PA database, nothing else.
Recently listened to:
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 31 2007 at 19:26
Well Mike, Fantiomas was once in Prog Metal, but it was mioved wityh the approval of Prog Metal and Rio/Avant, I believe there was a reason for that.
 
BTW: I'm not insulting your intelligence neither changing your words, I'm quoting you word by word as I always do.
 
By the contrary, replying your posts is a sign of respect, if believed you were a stupid or didn't believed in your intelligence, I wouldn't evebn care for answering you., if I take the time to read your post, make an argumebnt and reply to it, it'sn because I respect your opinions, even if we disagree.
 
As HT, I don't believe t6he new categorioes, sub-sub genres or whatever should dissapear, but I beluieve they should be under Prog Metal which is the mother sub-genre for all the different conceptions and specific divisions of Prog Metal.
 
Iván
            
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21206 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 31 2007 at 19:03
I'm sick of you turning around the words in my mouth. I have better things to do than let you insult me here over and over.

Edit: Ok, you're not insulting me personally ... you're insulting intelligence and common sense in general.

And for the record: http://web.archive.org/web/20050120185247/www.progarchives.com/Progressive_rock_discography_LIST.asp?letter=f


Edited by MikeEnRegalia - October 31 2007 at 19:16
Recently listened to:
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 31 2007 at 18:38
Originally posted by MikeEnRegalia MikeEnRegalia wrote:

Originally posted by Iván Iván wrote:

 
Being that my blue is being used I will have to change it for red.

Mike, I don't know where you took this chart but it's incomplete, misleading and mostly wrong, lets start

Thanks - I made the chart myself.Wink
 
Then that chart is expressing your perspective, with which you know I don't agree, and that's the reason of this long thread. Wink 

The Psychedelic connection is ignored, something even a newbie in Prog knows.
Yes, I'm the most stupid person in the world ... either that or the chart is not supposed to be complete. Another possibility would be the boxes 3d effect suggests that there are many more genres. But then again that would get in the way of making a fool out of me, so you ignored these possibilities.

I never said you were stupid Mike (you know we may disagree bit we always respected our opinions), but Psychedelia should be between Rock and Prog, because that's where most Progressive Rock started.

The Psyche/Space Rock we have as a sub-genre is a different thing fronm the Psychedelic movement from the late 60's in San Francisco and Great Britain.

Symphonic is not the first Prog genre, Canterbury, Psyche and proto Prog appeared forst.
Who said that Symphonic was the first genre?

It's implied in that chart, because it's at the top.

Most of the modern Prog bands are not modern at all, as a fact there's not a division of Progressive Rock and Modern Progressive rock, and if ity existed, uit would be around 1978 when teh first generation of Prog entered in crisis.
Surely there's a difference, and while there is no genre called "Modern Prog Rock", every proghead knows what's meant by it ... Echolyn, Spock's Beard and The Flower Kings started that phase in the 90s.

This is new for me Mike, I thought the resurrection of SYMPHONIC (not modern Prog, a term that doesn't exist) started with in 1991, but the term Modern Prog is absolutely ambiguous.

For some people modern could start in the 80's with NEO PROG (as you know neo means new, which can be considered a synonym of Modern in this case), while for others it may start in the 90's with the creation of the Art Rock Society in Sweden and for a third group it may start in the 21st Century. 
That's the problem when we use terms that don't exist to define things that are already defined.

Fantomas ios not a prog metal band, it has much more elements of Avant garde than of Prog Metal.
Thanks for reminding me ... I'll talk to the RIO/Avant guys about Fantomas, Mr. Bungle and Sleepytime Gorilla Museum. Now that we have the new genres, they might be moved back. You've been here long enough to know that they've been in Prog Metal a few years ago. But of course that's another thing you conveniently ignore.

Lets see what Rio Avant has to say, i believe they are not a Prog Metal band. About Fantomas, if I'm not wrong they were added because Bryan and myself asked for their inclusion becauise when we joined PA they were not in the Archives, and i never remember them being in Prog Metal, about Sleepytime Gorilla Museum, I know nothing or said nothing.

This chart puts Prog metal in the same level as Modern Prog (A non existing category and you know that Mike), but only indicates is both a sub-genre of Progressive Rock and a sub-genre of Progressive metal.
Prog Metal is a sub genre of Prog Rock. Prog Metal is also a sub genre of Metal. Metal is a sub genre of Rock.

Clap That's what HT and I have been saying ad nauseam, Prog Metal is a sub-genre of Prog Rock and for that reason in  the same level as Symphonic, eclectic, Neo Prog etc, Your words, not mine. Wink
 
For that same reason, there's no justification to split them as there is no reason to split other sub-genres except Art Rock which was a CATEGORY (I remember that, I wrote the definition) and grouped bands from different sub-genres and almost nothing in common.
The world is complicated ... get used to it.Wink
 
The world is simple, we tend to make it complicate over-qualifying things.

Iván




Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - October 31 2007 at 18:40
            
Back to Top
bhikkhu View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 06 2006
Location: A˛ Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 5109 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 31 2007 at 18:28
Originally posted by MikeEnRegalia MikeEnRegalia wrote:

^ and there we go again ... I'm getting dizzy!


Oh come on Mike. You Just showed how the three new subs can all be classified as Prog Metal. But as it is, they exist independently, just like Symph, Neo, and Folk. You couldn't put any of the other subs together under one banner in the same way (other than prog). This is why it bothers me. As independent subs, they are not shown as branches from the same tree.

In case anyone is wondering, I an not saying the new subs should be eliminated, and have it all put back together again. I am saying that the three new subs should remain, and be grouped under Prog Metal.

Edited by bhikkhu - October 31 2007 at 18:39
a.k.a. H.T.

http://riekels.wordpress.com
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21206 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 31 2007 at 18:21
^ and there we go again ... I'm getting dizzy!
Recently listened to:
Back to Top
bhikkhu View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 06 2006
Location: A˛ Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 5109 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 31 2007 at 18:19
Well, at least now you see what I was getting at. I understand that things are evolving, and many of these bands are not typical, but they are still Prog Metal. That is why not having the overall sub-genre bothers me. If I were to come here as a newbie, and see three subs for something that can be classified under a broader title, yet none of the others carry this distinction, I would be a bit confused.
a.k.a. H.T.

http://riekels.wordpress.com
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 11>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.197 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.