| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
P.H.P. 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 01 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 334
|
 Posted: October 29 2007 at 10:58 |
 Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
A Subdivision of Metal sub-genres woyuld only work if you divide the site in three super genres, lets say Propgressicve Rock . Fusion ansd Metal.
Otherwise we are creating a priviledge sub-genre.
BTW: It's incredible to say that there's not such diversity in other genres, in Symphonic for example, we have a whole lot of bands mostly from Eastern Europe that play in the border of Symphonic and Folk.
We have other huge group of bands that have Avant or experimental sounds, mainly in the first years of this century and in United States.
Or will somebody dare to tell me that Yes, Renaissance and Shadow Circus have more in common than most Prog Metal bands
Darqdean wrote:
| The point that Mike and Micky are making is that Metal is not a single point function, the diversity of styles within Metal is as broad, if not broader, than the various styles within Prog. |
You have forgotten something Darq, this is not a Metal site but a Prog one.
In a Metal site you can make all the sub-genres you want, there's even a sub-genre of Metal called Prog Metal, but only one.
Prog Archives isd a PROG SITE and all the diversity if Metal sub-genres is not of our main concern, we must care more for the diversity of PROG.
All Prog Metal bands should be together as one more voice in the chorus, but now there are several genres with the same range and one with three sub-genres for it.
This is absurd IMHO.
Iván |
For the 830001947178201 time...WELL SAID IVÁN!  Finally a respected special collaborator said it!!  why it's so hard for others to note this site is going off-target?? 
|
 |
P.H.P.
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 01 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 334
|
Posted: October 29 2007 at 11:04 |
Slartibartfast wrote:
Sometimes you just gotta ignore all the categories and just enjoy the music. I didn't quite like the art rock split at first. I found that almost always liked groups in that category when I checked them out. As far as the metal goes. Though I think some metal can be prog I think there has been a bit of a stepping over the line here. But hey, there's stuff I think of as prog that will never be accepted here.
|
Exactly, and I would add, a fair bit waaaay beyond that line...  ....and yes, you could think whatever you want about a band you think is Prog, but never accepted here, it's just your oppinion and you can't present it as a truth... 
|
|
Tapfret
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: August 12 2007
Location: Bryant, Wa
Status: Offline
Points: 8581
|
Posted: October 29 2007 at 12:10 |
bhikkhu wrote:
My whole point is actually quite simple, and I am amazed that there are so few people who see it. All of the bands in these new sub-genres have two things in common. They are all Progressive, and they are all Metal. Can you make the kind of blanket statement about any other two sub-genres? |
Of course you can. Most of the bands, in any of the subs, have a heck of a lot more than 2 things in common with bands in other sub-sets. That doesn't change because the names change. Gentle Giant isn't any less or more related to ELP because they are no longer have the same nomenclature. You seem to be all hung up on the term 'metal', regardless of how dissimilar many of the sub-genre bands are. Sure, it worked great back in the day when the only PM bands were Dream Theater, Watchtower and Fates Warning. But the sub-genre has expanded, just as many others have. You can say "Metal, Metal, Metal!" until you are blue in the face, it doesn't make Dysrhythmia and Dream Theater fit together any better in the same sub-set.
|
|
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: October 29 2007 at 12:42 |
[QUOTE=MikeEnRegalia] We already have such a priviledged sub genre ... it's called "Prog Rock".
Yes, these bands are much more similar to each other than for example Dream Theater, Death and Isis.
That's what you believe not being involved in the Symphonic business, bands as After Crying or Karda Estra for example, could be in Folk or in Symphonic, Kamdsas could easily be in Eclectic, Steve Hackett could be in Avant or Eclectic.
Wrong distinction. It should not be "Prog vs. Metal", but "Rock vs. Metal", and in that comparison it should be obvious to everyone that the site is still focused on Rock. It's 13+ genres vs. 3!
This is not a VS thing Mike, that's what people is trying to make bellieve to have an argument, our reaction would be the same in the case of Folk, Fusion oor any other sub-genre
"only one" ... why are you always trying to over-regulate stuff?
Sorry Mike, the only one trying tio over regulate things are youu, just pay a visit to to your site and you will find bands with 5, 6 or more tags, that's iover regulating IMHO.
Prog Archives isd a PROG SITE and all the diversity if Metal sub-genres is not of our main concern, we must care more for the diversity of PROG.
no, we have one genre (Prog Rock) with about 12 sub genres, another one (Prog Metal) with 3 sub genres and another genre (Jazz-Rock/Fusion) with no sub genres. Seems perfectly fine to me.
Again, if Prog Metal is a sub-genre of Prog Rock, then it belongs here, if it's a different Genre with it's own rules and own sub-divisions, it doesn't belong here.
I'm sure Prog Metal is a sub-genre of Prog Rock, not a different entity with it's own sub-genres and for that reason belongs here, but as one sub-genre..
Iván [QUOTE]
|
|
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: October 29 2007 at 12:58 |
|
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
|
magnus
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 19 2006
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 865
|
Posted: October 29 2007 at 13:08 |
|
Seems to me like some people need to aqcuire a better understanding of how wide a range of bands a term such as "progressive metal" actually includes... When 1 prog subgenre suddenly has 500+ bands, it's only natural that it gets split into more accurate subgenres.
Sticking all prog metal bands into one category seems to me as useful as making a category for bands who use guitars in their music.
|
The scattered jigsaw of my redemption laid out before my eyes
Each piece as amorphous as the other - Each piece in its lack of shape a lie
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: October 29 2007 at 13:36 |
|
I'd just like to remind everyone that the question is about your willingness to accept others' revisions of genres you had firmly in your mind before, not the validity of band/movements as prog or not and other tangent discussions.
|
|
|
|
sleeper
Prog Reviewer
Joined: October 09 2005
Location: Entropia
Status: Offline
Points: 16449
|
Posted: October 29 2007 at 14:15 |
To answer Stonie original questione, the way the genres are currently
split is how I have envisioned the divisons of progressive music (yes,
I mean music not rock as only about half to 2/3 of the genres are
Rock)pretty much since I joined hereand discovered how diverse prog
really is. Its a case of the site matching the way I think.
As to the ongoing discussion about the PM split, it was definitely
needed, after all we never had Symphonic, Neo, Folk, Canterbury, RPI,
Heavy, Crossover and Eclectic all all grouped under the unwhieldy
title of Prog Rock, because thats exactly what it is. Please people,
let us remember that this is a site dedicated to Prog, not one specific
aspect of that, whether it be Rock, Metal, Electronic, Avent-Garde,
Jazz-rock/Fusion. From those five main parts (there maybe more, I cant
be bothered with cross checking with the front page at the moment) Rock
and Metal are clearly the most diverse, and about the only difference
between the two is the (usually) heavier guitar distortions and a few
specifics in the drumming (as with prog in general, these are rules
that a good many bands wont necesarilly follow). Is that enough to
demand these bands be artificially grouped together in a specific,
one-size-fits-all sub-genre? Ivan and Bhikkhu have been making the case that they are all linked by metal, but having a genre were Kayo Dot and Dream Theater are placed together makes as much sense as having a genre were Genesis and Universe Zero are grouped together. DT nad KD are completely different, just as UZ and Genesis are. Its also been said that PM has been given special treatment, well if thats the case then rock certainly has been given special treatment since the websites inception (as near as I can tell, anyway) so its just evening things out. Hell, if we wanted to really even it out then there should be about 5 or 6 metal related sub-genres instead of the 3 we have at the moment, but that would be unecassery as PM hasnt reached that level of diversety with enough bands, yet. Just speaking my mind here.
|
Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005
|
|
Raff
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 29 2005
Location: None
Status: Offline
Points: 24429
|
Posted: October 29 2007 at 14:29 |
Norbert wrote:
I think the term Art Rock should be kept for VDGG, KC and GG and other bands which are now under the bizarre name eclectic. Frankly, I don't like the term eclectic very much. Maybe the other two subspecies should be called Light Art Rock and Heavy Art Rock.
But these are mainly about the terms, I agree that so many bands were difficukt to handle under one umbrella, but art is still a more nice term than eclectic.
|
Norbert, you are entitled to your opinion, but so am I, and the name Eclectic happens to be my brainchild, so I'm inclined to be naturally defensive when it comes to it. Anyway, I think I've repeated ad nauseam why the split happened... It wasn't because we were bored one day and decided to play a word game. As to 'light' and 'heavy' art rock, it would've been a wonderful way to have us team members spend our days explaining to site members that the bands in those two subs were 100% prog. I'm sorry to sound confrontational, especially to such a nice person as you, but the name Art Rock is NOT coming back. We had valid reasons to effect a change, even if I can understand that some may have an attachment to said name.
Edited by Ghost Rider - October 29 2007 at 14:31
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: October 29 2007 at 17:00 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
You have forgotten something Darq, this is not a Metal site but a Prog one.
|
I have forgotten many things over the years Iván, but that wasn't one of them. 
The paragraph that opened with the sentence you quoted went on to explain that there are many flavours of Metal, which naturally leads to many flavours of Prog Metal. I was making a statement about Prog Metal being divisions of Prog and Metal. If you interpretted that as a statement only about Metal then I appologise for my confusing style of writing.
The split of Prog Metal is coincident with Prog boundaries, the bands within each of the new subs are still Prog bands.
|
|
What?
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21206
|
Posted: October 29 2007 at 17:12 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
We already have such a priviledged sub genre ... it's called "Prog Rock".
Yes, these bands are much more similar to each other than for example Dream Theater, Death and Isis.
That's what you believe not being involved in the Symphonic business, bands as After Crying or Karda Estra for example, could be in Folk or in Symphonic, Kamdsas could easily be in Eclectic, Steve Hackett could be in Avant or Eclectic.
I know many, many symphonic bands and albums ... of course there is a huge bandwidth of styles, but not something like Dream Theater and Death, or Symphony X and Meshuggah ... or Kayo Dot and Kamelot.
Wrong distinction. It should not be "Prog vs. Metal", but "Rock vs. Metal", and in that comparison it should be obvious to everyone that the site is still focused on Rock. It's 13+ genres vs. 3!
This is not a VS thing Mike, that's what people is trying to make bellieve to have an argument, our reaction would be the same in the case of Folk, Fusion oor any other sub-genre
That's what's bothering me - you're desperately trying to make it appear like all the genres are the same ... they're not.
"only one" ... why are you always trying to over-regulate stuff?
Sorry Mike, the only one trying tio over regulate things are youu, just pay a visit to to your site and you will find bands with 5, 6 or more tags, that's iover regulating IMHO.
Prog Archives isd a PROG SITE and all the diversity if Metal sub-genres is not of our main concern, we must care more for the diversity of PROG.
Prog Metal is a part of Prog ... I find it offensive when people say "Metal vs. Prog".
no, we have one genre (Prog Rock) with about 12 sub genres, another one (Prog Metal) with 3 sub genres and another genre (Jazz-Rock/Fusion) with no sub genres. Seems perfectly fine to me.
Again, if Prog Metal is a sub-genre of Prog Rock, then it belongs here, if it's a different Genre with it's own rules and own sub-divisions, it doesn't belong here.
Again, this is wrong. The world is not as simple as you want it to be. Fortunately, I might add.
I'm sure Prog Metal is a sub-genre of Prog Rock, not a different entity with it's own sub-genres and for that reason belongs here, but as one sub-genre.. Perhaps I really shouldn't expect flexibility from a lawyer ... 
Iván |
Edited by MikeEnRegalia - October 29 2007 at 17:12
|
|
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46833
|
Posted: October 29 2007 at 17:23 |
sleeper wrote:
To answer Stonie original questione, the way the genres are currently
split is how I have envisioned the divisons of progressive music (yes,
I mean music not rock as only about half to 2/3 of the genres are
Rock)pretty much since I joined hereand discovered how diverse prog
really is. Its a case of the site matching the way I think.
As to the ongoing discussion about the PM split, it was definitely
needed, after all we never had Symphonic, Neo, Folk, Canterbury, RPI,
Heavy, Crossover and Eclectic all all grouped under the unwhieldy
title of Prog Rock, because thats exactly what it is. Please people,
let us remember that this is a site dedicated to Prog, not one specific
aspect of that, whether it be Rock, Metal, Electronic, Avent-Garde,
Jazz-rock/Fusion. From those five main parts (there maybe more, I cant
be bothered with cross checking with the front page at the moment) Rock
and Metal are clearly the most diverse, and about the only difference
between the two is the (usually) heavier guitar distortions and a few
specifics in the drumming (as with prog in general, these are rules
that a good many bands wont necesarilly follow). Is that enough to
demand these bands be artificially grouped together in a specific,
one-size-fits-all sub-genre? Ivan and Bhikkhu have been making the case that they are all linked by metal, but having
a genre were Kayo Dot and Dream Theater are placed together makes as
much sense as having a genre were Genesis and Universe Zero are grouped
together. DT nad KD are completely different, just as UZ and
Genesis are. Its also been said that PM has been given special
treatment, well if thats the case then rock certainly has been given
special treatment since the websites inception (as near as I can tell,
anyway) so its just evening things out. Hell, if we wanted to really
even it out then there should be about 5 or 6 metal related sub-genres
instead of the 3 we have at the moment, but that would be unecassery as
PM hasnt reached that level of diversety with enough bands, yet.
Just speaking my mind here.
|
not surprised this thread is still going strong... it shouldn't be though... if you simply read that post ^.
Great post.... and this thread really has run it's course I
think. How many times can the same people offer the same
reasoning.. and the same people the same rebuttals.
On to another subject for me.... the split happened.... and damn
near everyone here sees the merits of it. Another couple of pages of
the same discussion isn't changing anyone's mind hahhahah
Edited by micky - October 29 2007 at 17:25
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
bhikkhu
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 06 2006
Location: A² Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 5109
|
Posted: October 29 2007 at 17:35 |
Tapfret wrote:
bhikkhu wrote:
My whole point is actually quite simple, and I am amazed that there are so few people who see it. All of the bands in these new sub-genres have two things in common. They are all Progressive, and they are all Metal. Can you make the kind of blanket statement about any other two sub-genres? |
Of course you can. Most of the bands, in any of the subs, have a heck of a lot more than 2 things in common with bands in other sub-sets. That doesn't change because the names change. Gentle Giant isn't any less or more related to ELP because they are no longer have the same nomenclature. You seem to be all hung up on the term 'metal', regardless of how dissimilar many of the sub-genre bands are. Sure, it worked great back in the day when the only PM bands were Dream Theater, Watchtower and Fates Warning. But the sub-genre has expanded, just as many others have. You can say "Metal, Metal, Metal!" until you are blue in the face, it doesn't make Dysrhythmia and Dream Theater fit together any better in the same sub-set.
|
I didn't say some of the bands. I said all of the bands. Name me two other sub-genres where every entry shares this kind of relationship. And you are correct. Dysrhythmia and Dream Theater do not fit in the same subset. The same subset of Prog-Metal, that is.
Edited by bhikkhu - October 29 2007 at 18:24
|
|
|
|
Tapfret
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: August 12 2007
Location: Bryant, Wa
Status: Offline
Points: 8581
|
Posted: October 29 2007 at 19:59 |
bhikkhu wrote:
Tapfret wrote:
bhikkhu wrote:
My whole point is actually quite simple, and I am amazed that there are so few people who see it. All of the bands in these new sub-genres have two things in common. They are all Progressive, and they are all Metal. Can you make the kind of blanket statement about any other two sub-genres? |
Of course you can. Most of the bands, in any of the subs, have a heck of a lot more than 2 things in common with bands in other sub-sets. That doesn't change because the names change. Gentle Giant isn't any less or more related to ELP because they are no longer have the same nomenclature. You seem to be all hung up on the term 'metal', regardless of how dissimilar many of the sub-genre bands are. Sure, it worked great back in the day when the only PM bands were Dream Theater, Watchtower and Fates Warning. But the sub-genre has expanded, just as many others have. You can say "Metal, Metal, Metal!" until you are blue in the face, it doesn't make Dysrhythmia and Dream Theater fit together any better in the same sub-set.
|
I didn't say some of the bands. I said all of the bands. Name me two other sub-genres where every entry shares this kind of relationship. And you are correct. Dysrhythmia and Dream Theater do not fit in the same subset. The same subset of Prog-Metal, that is.
|
Prog Metal is just a label, just like Art Rock was just a label. Go to Tower Records (if you can find one that survived) and you will find that all albums on the Magna Carta label are in the metal section. That does not mean that Cairo, Attention Deficit and Magellan are metal. Somebody just decided to categorize bands that they had not heard for lack of a better place to put them. I would not venture to say that PA is anywhere close to being that arbitrary, but Dysrhythmia and Dream Theater, again, have little to do with eachother outside of the fact that there weren't any further classes to put them in. There is not a single viable term to put both of those bands in, period. Have you forgotten that Art Rock was split for the same reasons? Does somebody need to put the term Art Rock at the end to remind you? Eclectic Art Rock? Crossover Art Rock?
So no, I cannot say that there are two sub-genres where all of the bands share the same characteristics. Nor can I say it about the 3 new genres, regardless of what gets tacked onto the end of the name.
|
|
|
|
Tapfret
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: August 12 2007
Location: Bryant, Wa
Status: Offline
Points: 8581
|
Posted: October 29 2007 at 20:03 |
micky wrote:
sleeper wrote:
To answer Stonie original questione, the way the genres are currently split is how I have envisioned the divisons of progressive music (yes, I mean music not rock as only about half to 2/3 of the genres are Rock)pretty much since I joined hereand discovered how diverse prog really is. Its a case of the site matching the way I think.
As to the ongoing discussion about the PM split, it was definitely needed, after all we never had Symphonic, Neo, Folk, Canterbury, RPI, Heavy, Crossover and Eclectic all all grouped under the unwhieldy title of Prog Rock, because thats exactly what it is. Please people, let us remember that this is a site dedicated to Prog, not one specific aspect of that, whether it be Rock, Metal, Electronic, Avent-Garde, Jazz-rock/Fusion. From those five main parts (there maybe more, I cant be bothered with cross checking with the front page at the moment) Rock and Metal are clearly the most diverse, and about the only difference between the two is the (usually) heavier guitar distortions and a few specifics in the drumming (as with prog in general, these are rules that a good many bands wont necesarilly follow). Is that enough to demand these bands be artificially grouped together in a specific, one-size-fits-all sub-genre? Ivan and Bhikkhu have been making the case that they are all linked by metal, but having a genre were Kayo Dot and Dream Theater are placed together makes as much sense as having a genre were Genesis and Universe Zero are grouped together. DT nad KD are completely different, just as UZ and Genesis are. Its also been said that PM has been given special treatment, well if thats the case then rock certainly has been given special treatment since the websites inception (as near as I can tell, anyway) so its just evening things out. Hell, if we wanted to really even it out then there should be about 5 or 6 metal related sub-genres instead of the 3 we have at the moment, but that would be unecassery as PM hasnt reached that level of diversety with enough bands, yet.
Just speaking my mind here. |
not surprised this thread is still going strong... it shouldn't be though... if you simply read that post ^.
Great post.... and this thread really has run it's course I think. How many times can the same people offer the same reasoning.. and the same people the same rebuttals.
On to another subject for me.... the split happened.... and damn near everyone here sees the merits of it. Another couple of pages of the same discussion isn't changing anyone's mind hahhahah
|
Wait! I just changed my mind. 
Not really, point taken, I'm done.
|
|
|
|
bhikkhu
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 06 2006
Location: A² Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 5109
|
Posted: October 29 2007 at 20:17 |
|
Actually, I am just now mainly curious as to why people think metal is so unique. Art Rock was a collection of bands as dissimilar as Gentle Giant and Rush. The term Art Rock, for me anyway, was the original name for Progressive way back in the day. I know why that was such a mess. I helped put many of the bands in there. However, if Metal is just arbitrary, then by that logic, some of those bands would belong in other genres. But is that the case, or are they metal bands?
And frankly, the fact that it just absolutely doesn't make any sense to me has me concerned. I thought I had the format of all of this figured out, but now I find I was wrong. So far, no one has provided an explanation that proves the split necessary. This isn't really about metal. This just happens to be where this move took place. I would be just as confused if it had been done in Folk.
Edited by bhikkhu - October 29 2007 at 20:30
|
|
|
|
Tapfret
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: August 12 2007
Location: Bryant, Wa
Status: Offline
Points: 8581
|
Posted: October 29 2007 at 23:21 |
bhikkhu wrote:
Actually, I am just now mainly curious as to why people think metal is so unique. Art Rock was a collection of bands as dissimilar as Gentle Giant and Rush.... However, if Metal is just arbitrary, then by that logic, some of those bands would belong in other genres ...
|
Eureka!
Sorry, I said I was done.
|
|
|
|
bhikkhu
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 06 2006
Location: A² Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 5109
|
Posted: October 29 2007 at 23:26 |
Tapfret wrote:
bhikkhu wrote:
Actually, I am just now mainly curious as to why people think metal is so unique. Art Rock was a collection of bands as dissimilar as Gentle Giant and Rush.... However, if Metal is just arbitrary, then by that logic, some of those bands would belong in other genres ... |
Eureka!
Sorry, I said I was done.
|
I don't think you understood. Other existing genres. In other words, you are saying they are something other than metal bands.
|
|
|
|
bhikkhu
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 06 2006
Location: A² Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 5109
|
Posted: October 29 2007 at 23:27 |
bhikkhu wrote:
Tapfret wrote:
bhikkhu wrote:
Actually, I am just now mainly curious as to why people think metal is so unique. Art Rock was a collection of bands as dissimilar as Gentle Giant and Rush.... However, if Metal is just arbitrary, then by that logic, some of those bands would belong in other genres ... |
Eureka!
Sorry, I said I was done.
|
I don't think you understood. Other existing genres. In other words, you are saying they are something other than metal bands. But, they are metal bands, no?
|
|
|
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21206
|
Posted: October 30 2007 at 03:07 |
bhikkhu wrote:
Actually, I am just now mainly curious as to why people think metal is so unique. Art Rock was a collection of bands as dissimilar as Gentle Giant and Rush. The term Art Rock, for me anyway, was the original name for Progressive way back in the day. I know why that was such a mess. I helped put many of the bands in there. However, if Metal is just arbitrary, then by that logic, some of those bands would belong in other genres. But is that the case, or are they metal bands?
This is reminding me of Iván's posts. Why do you both make such "binary" decisions - that things can be either completely one thing or completely another? In this case the answer is: both. These bands are both metal *and* prog. Theoretically we could decide that the distinction between rock and metal is not important. Then we could move all the bands in the metal genres to other genres. Dream Theater and Pain of Salvation would go to Symphonic Prog, Isis would go to Post Rock, Devin Townsend and Tool could fit in Heavy Prog, Unexpect and Arcturus go to Avant Prog, Blind Guardian go to Prog Folk. But somehow I doubt that this move would be received well by the community ...
And frankly, the fact that it just absolutely doesn't make any sense to me has me concerned. I thought I had the format of all of this figured out, but now I find I was wrong. So far, no one has provided an explanation that proves the split necessary. This isn't really about metal. This just happens to be where this move took place. I would be just as confused if it had been done in Folk.
Well, as long as you can't see the difference between prog metal and prog folk, your confusion will remain.
|
Edited by MikeEnRegalia - October 30 2007 at 03:08
|
|
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Are you stubborn about the genre changes?
