Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: lazland wrote:   So, to go on what you said in a previous post elsewhere, for example, Genesis would have SEBTP, Foxtrot & etc tagged as symphonic, whilst Abacab would be prog-related. You know I don't agree with you regarding Genesis, but I state the above for illustrative purposes. By the contrary, I offered to start a task, adding secondary genres to band's albums. They would stay in Symphonic, be in correlative order by bands only that some albums would have a secondary tag bellow the Symphonic one . The Symphonic Team was ready to do that, but we needed a small extra slot in the band pages, it would look like this: FOXTROT Genesis  •  Symphonic Prog Secondary Genres: ------------- In this case, no secondary genre is required, because the album is mainly Symphonic INVISIBLE TOUCH Genesis  •  Symphonic Prog Secondary genres: Crossover - POP In this case a second tag as shown could be required as shown. We never received the green light, and we were willing to do this as a team, this wouldn't affect the Crossover Team because the album will remain with all Genesis albums in Symphonic. But believe me, even if we did this, people would protest Why Crossover if it's pure Pop? Why Pop if it's Prog? Why not Eclectic? People will always be ready to protest (Specially the ones who never did anything for PA - not talking about any member in particular, just about guys who come, make a rating without a review and still protest), but I think this would help and could be done by our team in Symphonic as a test. Iván

Dean wrote: I think secondary genres is an over-complex way of album tagging - we just need to be able to tag each album with a list of genres/styles - MMA and JMA have this and while I don't know "how" they do it, it does seem to work, so I see no reason not to do it here and no reason why we need to do it differently.

lazland wrote: Dean wrote: I think secondary genres is an over-complex way of album tagging - we just need to be able to tag each album with a list of genres/styles - MMA and JMA have this and while I don't know "how" they do it, it does seem to work, so I see no reason not to do it here and no reason why we need to do it differently. I have to admit, I haven't been on either for a long time, but I just went onto MMA to have a look, and chose Metallica as an example, and the albums are listed in their respective sub-genres perfectly well, and it also looks very good. Have MMA & JMA been able to do this because they are relatively new sites and are able, so to speak, to do this afresh, whereas we would have to go back over god knows how many albums? Whether it is your's or Ivan's suggestion (and both are very good, although I tend towards yours as it is, IMO, easier), I do think bit is about time we started to get a move on with changing things.

We don't need to go back over 36,819 albums - they would all default to the home subgenre and in most cases be pretty near right ... if 5% needed "fixing" that would only be 2000 albums - un morceau de gâteau!

Textbook wrote:   WHERE'S GLENN BRANCA etc

Sheavy wrote: Textbook wrote:   WHERE'S GLENN BRANCA etc   Harmonium said he was accepted for Prog Related...?

No he didn't - Alex said Branca had been cleared for addition but didn't say where. As a member of the Prog Related team I can assure you he wasn't cleared by us, so it's not Prog Related and ProgFreak shows him as rejected by Psyche/Space and RIO/Avant.

The assumption that tagging albums is better than tagging artists is erroneous, and the notion that someone is confused or put off to find, say, Duke as part of a Symph band's catalog is also presumptuous.   People get it; they see that PA classes bands by general musical history and understand this may include material not traditionally thought of a 'This' or 'That'.   Pop artists go in different directions too; would you categorize Graceland or Paul Simon as being partly "World Music" or "African Vocal" just because of a single record ?.  Certainly not, that would be silly, inaccurate, and not helpful at all.





Edited by Atavachron - June 18 2012 at 20:33

Progressive hip-hop exists mostly in theory for now, but it probably will exist as an actual genre one day. There is a scattering of artists you could call progressive hip-hop (El-P's new album Cure For Cancer concludes with a full-blown progressive rap song) but enough to build a genre around. It would never exist as a genre on here regardless due to entrenched snobbery.

Your examples are perfectly correct David. However, (there's always a "however"), The Wall isn't Psyche/Space Rock, War Child isn't Folk Rock, Hergest Ridge isn't Crossover Prog and Heritage isn't Tech/Extreme Metal.

Dean wrote: Your examples are perfectly correct David. However, (there's always a "however"), The Wall isn't Psyche/Space Rock, War Child isn't Folk Rock, Hergest Ridge isn't Crossover Prog and Heritage isn't Tech/Extreme Metal.

Again, my point; though The Wall may not be Psych/Space, Pink Floyd are (sorry to Floydheads, but they were Psych Rock that got arty, and were to the end); though Warchild (not to mention Minstrel) is not folkrock, essentially Jethro Tull are, or were for a very, very long and formative time;   don't know Hergest Ridge so I can't speak to it.

Yes I get it, what I'm saying is tagging systems are musicologically incorrect when they individually tag albums --  RYM is wrong, and the more tags they allow thrown on the wronger they shall be.







Edited by Atavachron - June 19 2012 at 01:54