revamp the genres

Hehe, funny thing is that there is only ONE Indo/Raga Prog from India :-)

http://www.progarchives.com/top-prog-albums.asp?ssubgenres=35&syears=&scountries=93&sminratings=1&smaxratings=0&sminavgratings=1&smaxresults=100&x=91&y=4#list

All the rest are from mostly States, Kingdom and Germany

Edited by Marty McFly - December 03 2010 at 06:12

I agree with you about Canterbury scene. I partly agree about Kraut and Indo but I've seen people argue that they are stylistic, not a nationality thing, though I've also seen people go "Well the thing is this artist's music is Krautrock but they're not German so we can't put them there" so it does have his problems.

Okay, I guess you're right. Once we get rid of RPI, how about Krautrock and Indo? And hey, Canterbury isn't even a country, it's got to go. 

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Textbook wrote: I know this has been said before but I really think RPI needs to be abolished as a categorisation. There's just no basis for a country being a genre and it looks ridiculous. Can't believe it, but I agree with you A genre is defined by a style not by a territorial demarcation, we are lumping Symphonic, Neo Prog, Eclectic, Fusion, Crossover, etc bands in one sack called RPI only because the authors are for the same country. There's no more reason (except number of bands), to have RPI  than too have: French Theatric Symphonic Latin American Andean Prog Scandinavian Prog (This one with sub-sub-genres) 90's Symphonic Swedish Prog Metal Scandinavian Death Metal Netherlands Symphonic etc, etc, etc. This caused problems with my good friend Micky (that we solved after the great RPI wars ), but still I believe this is absurd. Iván

A very interesting investment in time and effort by Moris, some time ago

RPI is there because, even though a lot of it could be categorised as symphonic, eclectic, and the rest, it had, and has, a very distinctive Italian flavour.

However, there is actually an argument, going on from the post Ivan made, to categorise music by countries/continents, rather than sub genres.

"Classic" 70's prog such as Genesis, yes, VDGG, Crimson, camel, and the rest were, by and large, very English in their outlook.

Scandinavian prog, which I love, has a very distinctive sound.

I would argue that US prog such as Echolyn, Kansas, and others also have sounds which are peculiarly American in flavour. Recent stuff such as The Decemberists is basically American folk with a prog flavour.

I actually don't think there is much sense in having a separate neo prog category. What we call neo started off as 1980's new wave of prog, undoubtedly influenced by the classic bands, but to describe, for example, Marillion as such now makes no sense at all. They are a very English band who have sounded bugger all like Genesis since about 1984.

In addition, the excellent wave of Polish prog coming out, again, retains a distinctive identity all of its own, no matter what sub genre we place artists in.

We tie ourselves up in knots on the site about sub genres, and it can be exceptionally frustrating at times. I recently wrote an article about the Mars Hollow album, and mentioned that it was pure symphonic prog to my ears. The specialists on that team obviously disagreed, but therein lies the problem with sub genres.

I think it might be time for a major rethink, and countries to split artists might be a way forward.

I'll go watch telly now

Textbook wrote: I agree that this needs to be done. My biggest problem is that Italy is a genre which has never made the slightest bit of sense to me.

^ let's have discussions about discussions...............really the genre's look fine

You are forgetting the most important

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - November 30 2010 at 13:03

This has been debated ad nauseum. Categorization of music is always an imprecise affair. Adjustments are made (I applaud the move of Kayo Dot to avant) in a fluid and ongoing manner.