Porcupine Tree...Heavy Prog?

I didn't noticed until now, that Porcupine Tree is now on the Heavy Prog section, so, what do people think about it?, they used to be on the Psychedelic/Space Rock section, and well, PT used to create such psychedelic and atmospheric music, but I always thought that they were more than Psych/Space Rock, now, they got moved to the Heavy Prog section, but I think they would fit better on the Crossover Prog or Eclectic Prog section, so, what do you think about this?

the AR family thought long and hard errr... heavy about it...

and decided hard...err...heavy prog was the best 'fit' for them... really all to be said about it

I optimistically agree. 

outrageous decision... who's responsible for this?

I don't know... 50% they were Pink Floyd Mark X, 50% they are a mix of metal, alt, brit, AND psychedelic....They have NEVER been ZERO % psychedelic... but once they were ZERO % heavy.... (or less than 10%)... I don't know... I guess I prefered their old location.

Edited by The T - November 16 2007 at 02:21

Heavy Prog is fine with me, although I think Eclectic Prog might have fitted best. However, I think the same about Rush, so perhaps I should re-read the definitions.

It's a great move! Sometimes bands define or re-define a stylistic area with their early output, which is not always the definitive one. And in this case it's correct for those bands to rest in that specific area. It is the case of Pink Floyd par excellence, but imo not also the case of Porcupine Tree. They were doing excellent space-rock at the beginning, but the genre remained untouched... not like what happened with Floyd's output from 1967-1969.

I'll keep an eye open Raf, and make sure this thread remains constructive.

This decision seems a bit out of synch with the way genres are usually being handled here. To me, it looks as if Porcupine Tree have been labelled according to the characteristics of their current musical incarnation, which I agree would be heavy prog.
But, looking back at their discography, there is a clear red line of psychedelia/space rock - much more so than heavy prog or any other genre - running through their music, and they still pay homage to their psychedelic heritage even to this day.
If it is to be made a consistent policy to re-tag bands' genres in accordance with only their latest incarnations and musical approaches, as seems to be the case here, would it also mean that Genesis, for example, should rightfully be changed from  a symhonic prog band into a pop-rock band? Seeing how their latest 6 or 7 releases have been in that vein. Or that King Crimson be dubbed solely "heavy prog" for their latest efforts, completely overlooking their symphonic roots, their avant garde and jazz-influenced periods, etc.

This brings me back to my former post... People don't understand what happens behind the scenes, in the Collabs zone, and so think the decision was taken lightly. This is the main reason why things are decided at Collab level and not in the main forum... People often don't bother to read what has been written before they post, and are very quick at flinging accusations of inconsistency or what have you.

When the AR team was still one, we suggested moving Pink Floyd to it due to the eclecticism of their output. The suggestion was rejected on the basis that PF were at their most influential when they played Psych-Space, even if they were at their most successful when they took a different direction. In the case of PT, it is exactly the same, only in reverse, which shows that there IS some consistency in the way we place bands, if one were only bothered to look for it.