Porcupine Tree...Heavy Prog?

andu wrote: ProgBagel wrote: What about Genesis's output in the past 20 years...prog-related would be the most linient thing to say about it. Why not move them there then? Had you read the whole thread, you wouldn't ask this...

from me as well, what is this, another discussion by which the prog genre's definitions are badly understood?

What about Genesis's output in the past 20 years...prog-related would be the most linient thing to say about it. Why not move them there then?

Balthe wrote: I acknowledge the hard work put into the genre index by the collaborator's team, and since it seems that some people here get VERY touchy when a layman pokes his nose into collaborator's affairs, I shall only say that it's not my intention to undermine or offend your decisions I'm only giving my 2 cents here.

If you are referring to me by that remark, you could have said it clearly. I am sorry if you thought it was motivated by arrogance, which is a flaw I really don't possess (though of course I have many others). Personally, I don't see it as 'poking one's nose' in private affairs, not at all... I just tend to overreact when it is somehow implied that our decisions are not taken with due consideration, since in the past some people have reacted in much worse ways.

As I have already said, on occasion there have been polls put up in the main forum in order to sound the membership's opinion about a possible move of a big-name act. Unfortunately, such polls have always turned out to be useless, because no consensus was ever reached, and what happened was that the band in question stayed where it was. Jethro Tull, for instance, are still in Prog-Folk, even if only a small percentage of their vast output is classifiable as such, and their presence in that subgenre tends to damage other band's visibility.

Balthe wrote: Had the genre change been suggested prior to Deadwing, dare I say there would have been close to zero support for it, which leads me to believe that the enthusiasm and commercial craze surrounding the latest two releases have caused the shift to happen too hastily, overlooking the clear red line of space/psychedelia existent in PT's music throughout their discography, even throughout their "pop" years with "Stupid Dream" and "Lightbulb Sun".

Multiple Tagging is a work-in-progress project if I remember well M@x' last message he sent to the people through his vicars, so let's be optimistic. 

Had the genre change been suggested prior to Deadwing, dare I say there would have been close to zero support for it, which leads me to believe that the enthusiasm and commercial craze surrounding the latest two releases have caused the shift to happen too hastily, overlooking the clear red line of space/psychedelia existent in PT's music throughout their discography, even throughout their "pop" years with "Stupid Dream" and "Lightbulb Sun".
Due to the progressive nature of Porcupine Tree, along with, unsurprisingly, a great part of the archives (where are they 5 years from now?), this could lead to periodic re-labeling of genres and attempts to pidgeonhole bands, instead of trying to find a better way of representing them in the grand scheme.

Ricochet wrote: Casartelli wrote: 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. Hey, don't think this idea was not presented  up the Collaborators Lounge at all. Quite the contrary, actually. But, despite technically eclectic, it was decided that Porcupine Tree's heaviness in music is a characteristic that always blended, whether with the psychedelic great music, with the pop-alternative new orientations, or with this new-metallic skins. (which brings me to one of T's posts: when was PT "ZERO Heavy"?!?!)

I heartily agree with D. Heath's views on multi-categorization of bands.
In the matter of Porcupine Tree: In my most humble opinion, focus has been removed from the by far most voluminous period of the band discography to a more recent period spanning over their latest two offerings, based on a purely subjective assessment. Even though I don't doubt that it was with the best of intentions, it was an unnecessary decision, and it makes it seem as though the band's genre is defined by a very narrow margin.
Generally - and this applies to all bands that might end up in the same situation - this could confuse newcomers who come to the archives looking for genre [x], stumble upon a band labelled as such, and then encounter a lot of genre [y].
I acknowledge the hard work put into the genre index by the collaborator's team, and since it seems that some people here get VERY touchy when a layman pokes his nose into collaborator's affairs, I shall only say that it's not my intention to undermine or offend your decisions I'm only giving my 2 cents here.

I feel that sub-genre placement is a careful balance between the music and its association with other music within that sub. In this instance the perception of Porcupine Tree as a Psych band was unrepresentative of the perception that most PT fans have of them (ie most fans are post Deadwing fans, not Sky Moves fans). I would also add that this move was made with the agreement of both teams.

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.