darkshade wrote: If you think PA has too many sub-genres, take a stroll over to JazzMusicArchives, PA's sister site.

I like what they did there though.
Three primary subs and a solid set of subs under those so that there will probably never be the need for a discussion about adding any.


Edited by Slartibartfast - June 15 2012 at 15:49

^ what difference does it make, the artists are here

Textbook wrote: I'm aware this this subject is probably DOA because admin is (completely undertstandably, it's a huge job) reluctant to fool about with the sub-genres as it would involve so much reorginisation, but it strikes me that art rock, though not "progressive rock", is "progressive" and has a home here.

you have it reversed; Art Rock was reorganized from a vague and barely extant style into three descriptive subgenres that members or guests unfamiliar with the nebulous "Art Rock" could understand and reference.

Textbook wrote: Further art rockers are either not on the site at all or included controversially.

I don't follow; Yes they are on the site, have been for a long time, and have been less controversial than acts as Zeppelin, Maiden or Metallica.

Textbook wrote: Art rock is more or less soft-avant-garde

Not really; Art rock may have been influenced by, among other things, what was then considered Avant-garde but the two were and are quite different.

infocat wrote: One person's opinion.  The following sub-genres should be axed; or made into sub-sub-genres.  I foresee the following: RIO/Avant-Prog - Rename Avant Prog.  RIO is a sub-sub-genre. Krautrock - Merge mostly into Psychedelic/Space Rock; maybe some Avant Prog. Rock Progressivo Italiano - Merge mostly into Symphonic Prog. Zeuhl - Merge mostly into Avant Prog. Canterbury Scene - Split out as appropriate!  This was never really a genre.  As the name indicates, it was a "scene". Indo-Prog/Raga Rock - Prog Folk?  I have no idea... Neo-Prog - Merge into Symphonic Prog and some Crossover Prog. Interestingly enough I think having the three metal groups split as they are is appropriate. All that being said, I would be all for Art Rock for bands/artists like Kate Bush, Tori Amos, maybe Radiohead, etc.

I think some of your misgivings about the validity of some of the sub genres may be justified but what is more valuable about your quoted list is how effectively all those sub genres accurately reflect the widely acknowledged pivotal developments in the history of Progressive Rock over the last 50 years.  Simplification is fine as an aid to clarity and understanding yes, but Hamlet loses much of it's depth, sophistication and resilience if tackled by Sylvester Stallone: To be or what?

We already have perfectly adequate categories for the inclusion of Bush, Amos and Radiohead. (why put old wine in new bottles?) I do agree that RIO appearing on the front of Avant Prog might be considered superfluous. Were you to excise Krautrock you would merely remove a hugely important pot-pourri of European styles which would benefit precisely no-one with even a passing interest in the gestation and lineage of the Progressive movement.

I also happen to believe that the music of the so-called Canterbury Scene, Zeuhl and RPI has a distinct and unique flavour deserving of standalone status. Yes, there are broad similarities with other established sub genres but assimilating them elsewhere does not do justice to a conflation of localised events that forged an inimitable and discernible musical signature. Rather than dumbing down our beloved music into a disingenuous primer, we should instead be celebrating the divergence and variety of Prog which stubbornly refuses to be shoe-horned into any old ill fitting slipper. We shall not go the ball but who gives a f*ck? (I've got nothing to wear anyway)


Edited by ExittheLemming - June 16 2012 at 01:51

ExittheLemming wrote: [QUOTE=infocat] One person's opinion.  The following sub-genres should be axed; or made into sub-sub-genres.  I foresee the following: . Rock Progressivo Italiano - Merge mostly into Symphonic Prog.

Everybody who's been here a long time knows that I fought (and lost) the fought against Italian Symphonic that turned into RPI, because I believed that if they were here, there was no justification to keep French Theatric Symphonic or Andaluz Prog away, as a rule i don't believe in regional genres.

tamijo wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Neo Prog should stay, that's behind any doubt, there's no other genre that represents Symphonic (Genesis mostly)  oriented Prog of the 80's. Iván No but there is no genre represention Jazz/Rock, Avant Prog, Heavy prog ect, of the 80's either, and that is just why Neo prog is a bit strange, because it is just Symp. prog from later than 79.

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - June 16 2012 at 10:15

infocat wrote: One person's opinion.  The following sub-genres should be axed; or made into sub-sub-genres.  I foresee the following: RIO/Avant-Prog - Rename Avant Prog.  RIO is a sub-sub-genre. Krautrock - Merge mostly into Psychedelic/Space Rock; maybe some Avant Prog. Rock Progressivo Italiano - Merge mostly into Symphonic Prog. Zeuhl - Merge mostly into Avant Prog. Canterbury Scene - Split out as appropriate!  This was never really a genre.  As the name indicates, it was a "scene". Indo-Prog/Raga Rock - Prog Folk?  I have no idea... Neo-Prog - Merge into Symphonic Prog and some Crossover Prog. Interestingly enough I think having the three metal groups split as they are is appropriate. All that being said, I would be all for Art Rock for bands/artists like Kate Bush, Tori Amos, maybe Radiohead, etc.

I rather like the idea of creating sub-categories under a category name, but could be problematic (RIO and Avant Prog generally and much Crossover could, for instance, be under the greater category Eclectic Prog, but it would present problems.  Indo-Prog could be under Prog-Folk.  I'd rather albums in it be tagged, say, Indo Prog, Prog Folk, and Psych). You mention Canterbury Scene as not really being a genre, but on can say the same of R.I.O. being a movement, though it has come to represent a broader meaning.  And Henry Cow  is linked to the Canterbury Scene (before RIO was inaugurated, I would say that Henry Cow's early albums were Canterbury Scene sounding).  There is style that one can associate with Canterbury Scene.   While I would still keep the main categorical heading for the bands, ideally this site would have album tagging and he ability to search for albums using multiple category tags (the ones we have plus some others such as Chamber Rock).  I'm not keen on calling the categories sub-genres.  Instead I would rename it Categories.  Some categorical names were made-up for organisational purposes.  I wouldn't call Eclectic, for instance, a sub-genre, but it is a useful category. 

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: ... Also have strong doubts about Zeuhl, that's a one band genre being that IMO no Zeuhl band sounds remotely as Magma....

Funny you mention that since I read another post from today that said:

Moshkito wrote: ]Fascinating to say the least, but I have to admit that no other "zeuhl" music group has ever caught my fancy ... somehow too many of them just did not sound original at all, and mostly were like copies for me. I'll just have to get zeuhl'd over I guess!

Although Magma developed the term Zeuhl, I don't think that they need sound very much like Magma to sound Zeuhl.  Lots of them sound at least remotely like Magma to me.  I recognise the Zeuhl sound (a lot of from the bass guitar style) when I hear it and find the categorisation useful.  It's also a scene, in a sense, with lots of interlocking musicians (two major scenes being From france originally and later the Japanese ones).  Magma and Zao are the two main ones for me from France.

^ I agree that Indo-Prog should stay.  In my case I meant that if one had sub-sub "genre" categories, it would be possible to place Indo-Prog generally under Prog Folk, as Prog Folk can encompass "world or ethnic music".  Pelt is terrific, by the way.  All are great that you mentioned, but I haven't any Pelt albums and must remedy that.  It's a shame that so few seem into the music there as there is fantastic music in that category.

I think the site realised quite some time ago that albums, not artists, should be sorted by genre but by then it was already such a monumental task to go back and individually label every single album, that everyone knew it would never be done.

"sophisticated, unconventional and adventurous rock music with thought provoking subject matter does not Progressive Rock make."

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Logan wrote: Textbook wrote: I think the site realised quite some time ago that albums, not artists, should be sorted by genre but by then it was already such a monumental task to go back and individually label every single album, that everyone knew it would never be done. What other sites got when tagging special band oriented genres is: [quote=GEPR] Gentle Giant Influenced Gentle Giant were an island unto themselves and created a startlingly complex music that involved more elements than I have time to describe here. This include bands heavily influenced by them. Oldfield Progressive I don't know what else to call this type of music since it was so innovative. Mike Oldfield, an incredible musician and composer created a form of music that combined everything form hard rock to Celtic music and did it with such style and verve that it actually became popular. Usually written like Symphonic prog and was also quite bombastic yet more sensible. Bands Mike Oldfield, Jean-Pascal Boffo, Sung Woo Lee, etc. Zappa Music If you listen to Frank Zappa, you know what I mean. Not typically quoted as being "progressive" but deserves to be included here maybe more than some of these others. Quite individual. Bands Mothers of Invention/Frank Zappa, Captain Beefheart, Floh De Cologne, etc. http://www.gepr.net/gepr_styles.html   They had to step back and create another set of genres, because this was chaotic Now imagine the chaos if we were to do it band by band. Iván