Artists considered prog on here but not elsewhere

In theory I could understand why some people would think some subgenres don't belong here. I don't necessarily think any subgenres should be removed but I could see separate websites for progressive electronic, post rock, jazz rock/fusion and prog metal (all three of those prog metal subgenres combined into one for one big prog metal site). I do think, however, if prog metal were not included on this site it would probabably have at least 20 percent fewer members. 

Progishness wrote: AFlowerKingCrimson wrote: In theory I could understand why some people would think some subgenres don't belong here. I don't necessarily think any subgenres should be removed but I could see separate websites for progressive electronic, post rock, jazz rock/fusion and prog metal (all three of those prog metal subgenres combined into one for one big prog metal site). I do think, however, if prog metal were not included on this site it would probabably have at least 20 percent fewer members.  More or less the sub genres I had in mind that probably belong in their own space. It is JR/F I have the biggest problem with, tho if *Santana are going to be here, they probably belong in prog related [IMHO]. *one of my all time favourite bands

Edited by AFlowerKingCrimson - June 09 2021 at 10:34

Also it should be noted that all the musicians are not happy to be called as prog. Last year, Symphony X's bass guitar player Michael LePond declared that he is not happy that Symphony X's music is categorised as prog metal. He says that their music changed over time, and thinks that it is a hindrance for them to appeal to a larger metal listener audience. I, as a prog metal listener, am very well aware that we are deemed as the snobs and elitists of the metal world by many. So LePond has a valid point, methinks.

Edited by Shadowyzard - June 09 2021 at 11:25

^ This is a deep issue methinks... On the one hand, you're right. There are so many great bands that couldn't secure a good place within their genres, and Symphony X is not one of them. On the other hand, I think Symphony X is moderately, if not hugely, underrared. Also I sometimes imagine how would Symphony X be assessed if there were no metal sub-genres, but only definitions like, "a band incorporating darkly atmospheric elements in their music", "a band with supreme technical prowess," etc. I don't think I'm guilty of prog-snobbery, but unfortunately prog connotes a sense of elitism for most people.

Cristi wrote: Shadowyzard wrote: ^ This is a deep issue methinks... On the one hand, you're right. There are so many great bands that couldn't secure a good place within their genres, and Symphony X is not one of them. On the other hand, I think Symphony X is moderately, if not hugely, underrared. Also I sometimes imagine how would Symphony X be assessed if there were no metal sub-genres, but only definitions like, "a band incorporating darkly atmospheric elements in their music", "a band with supreme technical prowess," etc. I don't think I'm guilty of prog-snobbery, but unfortunately prog connotes a sense of elitism for most people. Symphony X are quite famous, in the progressive metal realm, only Dream Theater and Opeth are more famous. Power metal fans love their music. I do not see them complaining being called progressive metal. I don't think they care...

But I explicitly informed you that LePond is complaining... This is not debatable, as he expressed this himself.

In the prog metal realm, Symphony X is indeed one of the most famous and prominent bands, but not so much exhaustively in the main metal genre. LePond seems to believe that they deserve more, and them being called prog metal is a hindrance to that. I don't back his statement up, but I think this is a plausible argument.

nick_h_nz wrote: Cristi wrote: TheLionOfPrague wrote: I'm 29 and I don't see those bands as prog, NiN is industrial rock and Sigur Ros post rock. You can ask fans of those bands and they might not be into prog at all. And they will hardly mention prog if you ask the genre of music they make. I think stuff like Supertramp, Moody Blues, Radiohead, early Queen, etc, might be debated or fall into "crossover" prog, but those artists are simply a different genre.   NIN has gone beyond industrial, they did ambient/electronic, atmospheric music, I don't mind them being here on PA. As for Sigur Ros, post rock is a prog subgenre, isn't it? No problem for them being on PA or being considered a prog band. What am I missing here?  Just the usual boring old argument about what is or isn’t prog. As usual people going for the anecdotal “no one I know” argument to “prove” something isn’t prog. Or the “most people that listen to it wouldn’t think it were prog” as “evidence” something isn’t prog. It’s all quite laughable. Not because people get so hung up on what they think is or isn’t prog, but because in this instance it is about something on PA not being prog. As far as I’m aware, a band still has to be recognised and acknowledged as being prog outside PA for inclusion in the archives. Not only that, but they have to be “prog enough” to be included in the archives, which is why the opposite of the OP is the truth - there are many bands recognised as prog that are not in PA. I very much doubt there are any bands in PA that are NOT recognised as prog outside the archive - despite what any one individual thinks. It’s irrelevant if a large chunk of their fans have never thought of the band or artist as prog. I as listening to prog music for years before knowing it was recognised as prog music. You most definitely don’t need to know something is prog to enjoy the music and be a fan. But, and I will keep going back to NIN and Sigur Rós, because they keep getting brought up, it is easy to see that they are recognised as being prog. Both have featured in Prog magazine, and though someone earlier mentioned that being in Prog doesn’t mean they are prog, that’s splitting hairs. Prog magazine has always featured bands that are on the edges of prog, but has also always acknowledged that (“it’s prog, Jim, but not as we know it”, etc.), so the argument that just because NIN and Sigur Rós appear in prog doesn’t mean they are prog doesn’t hold much water - particularly when they have appeared in the magazine on more than one occasion (which is definitely not the norm for bands that are more “controversially” prog). I get that a lot of people here don’t use FB, but there is a huge prog community on FB, and so, so, so, many prog pages and groups. Again, NIN and Sigur Rós appear frequently on prog pages and in prog groups. Their albums are reviewed by pages like The Prog Mind, Progressive Music Planet, and The Progressive Aspect, and their respective websites. I have never, and would never, try and find something prog about everything I listen to. I don’t really care what is or is not prog when it comes to what I listen to. I never have. Again, I listened to a lot of prog for years, without even knowing it was prog. I really don’t understand why people get so hung up on the word. If something is in PA, then it has been recognised as prog outside PA, and recognised as prog by PA collaborators. Any argument that something is not prog within PA is therefore down to the individual making it. It’s actually quite offensive and insulting, if you think about it - because you are denigrating the work of volunteers who are working to make this site as inclusive as possible. Over the years I have seen a lot of bands and artists I think are prog rejected, but I have never seen a band or artist accepted that isn’t recognised as prog outside PA. I definitely don’t agree with every rejection by collaborators, but it is far easier to be rejected than accepted into PA, so it’s incredibly short-sighted, and potentially downright right, to suggest that something has been accepted that shouldn’t have been. (And that has been my thought for years, while I have been a collaborator myself only for a couple of months.)

oh well, thanks for the info...I gave myself more credit for being rebellious than was warranted. 

^ I agree. I watched Stargate (1994) once. There was a shapeshifting scene... It scared the bejesus out of me. But it is not a horror film.

Or Batman (1989) is no horror film, but has been the movie that scared me the most.

Same can be said about anything. A white singer that has the typical throat ability of a black singer is not a black singer.

OK, I'll stop my bizarre examples. 

I feel like both of you guys are either missing my point, or twisting it. It’s not about what I consider prog, or about the difference between prog and progressive. It was merely a recognition that one of the pre requisites to be included in PA is that the artist or band is considered prog outside PA. Clannad was presented as an example of a band supposedly not considered prog outside PA (irrelevant of whether or not they are prog), and I replied that (rightly or wrongly) PA is not the only place that recognises Clannad as prog. All I was arguing, if you can even call it that, is that you can’t suggest Clannad should not be in PA because they are not considered prog elsewhere - as they are (again, rightly or wrongly).