Neo-progressive, new guidelines

Actually, the old definition had stronger ties grasping back to symphonic than the new one. The opening three paragraphs of the new one are more or less unchanged from the past version; while the latter three replaces paragraphs detailing what was outlined in the first three with descriptions that opens up quite a lot of new ground/new possibilities for the genre. Including what has been coined Nu-prog (sic) by some.

Would the genre get more respect if we found a thousand unknown obscure Neo bands ?
Sometimes I wonder if that's pre-requisite for admittance in to that special club of "artistes" .

ProgressivexGrooves wrote: Dear Windhawk and Neo Prog team . Thanks for this inspiring read - keep up the good work !

Thanks for the feedback - it is appreciated :-)

sussexbowler wrote: Personally, I think that Neo-prog should be represented by bands that took up the Prog mantle in the nineties and noughties, and have taken it to where it is now. rumeni.

Personally I'd love to have more of the acts that took up the prog mantle in the 90's and noughties listed as neo - but that isn't my call.

But as for additions to the genre after this revision, you might want to take a listen to Chest Rockwell, Slow Motion Reign and Fractal. I believe we have samples of all the acts on their artists pages here as well.

I can guarantee that you won't find much Fishy or Gabrielly there *s*

No protests from me on that one. Most people seem to think that they should reside in Eclectic; and the Eclectic team here have a standing offer to move the band over to their part of the archives ;-)

For me it is most important that the band is in the databse here though *s*

One one hand, I am happy that the support for prog music is there, where would we be without it!

I, for one, am beginning to feel like a piece of meat on the grocery store shelf. Our "prog" music has to be neatly packaged, pre-defined and properly labeled, to meet consumer need, or else no-one will get to hear it.

Well, of course, I can't look at it from a prog fans point of view, and I can see that it helps to narrow the search, I do see that. It's probably inevitable that sub-genres appear.

Windhawk wrote: I can understand and sympathize with those thoughts. But such categories have always been in place in music as far as I know. It was easier in the 70's of course, although it was somewhat confusing to find out what bands were art rock, prog rock, symphonic rock, pomp, AOR or hard rock.

I don't really get the anti-genre sentiment. Humans have an innate want to categorize things - we've been doing it for centuries - and I think they're much more useful than detrimental. When you say symphonic prog, I have a general idea of what you are discussing. Yes, there are bands that transcend their genre or just flat out switch genres in the middle of their career, but I think those are the exception. Maybe not so much in prog, but in general, bands certainly stick to their genre. I don't see Rascal Flatts or Shania Twain playing anything but pop/country.

Although a tagging system might be better, a la last.fm and progfreak, but it's essentially a more exact system of genres and categorization.


Edited by Kestrel - August 12 2009 at 20:25