New subgenres?!?!

Heavy prog..  I whuld like a sub gener like Ultra prog or Uber prog for bands like VdGG & KC who both play in a complet diffrent league.

BaldJean wrote: strangely however, VdGG have been put into "Crosover Prog". I wonder how they fit the definition, especially when they have been listed as example band for "Eclectic Prog". Here the definitions: Crossover Prog definition Crossover Prog contains progressive rock music that, though 100% progressive, may have a musical connection to popular music-- whether it be the lack of emphasis on extended compositions, or an influence from mainstream music in addition to classical, jazz and folk. Compositions, however, still exhibit a high degree of sophistication, sometimes outright complexity, and the musicianship and virtuosity is often on a par with established Prog acts. Much like their kin in the established prog sub-genres, these groups will incorporate many major parts of what defines prog rock: the fusing of rock with the structures and discipline of more traditional musics, the use of syntheisizers and new technologies, intelligent thematics, and the expansion of the form. The defining characteristics of Crossover Prog are a pop music influence that is largely vacant in typical prog rock. Songs tend toward shorter, more concise presentations though still reach beyond the typical verse, bridge, chorus pattern. The harmonic, melodic, and rhythmic structures may be more easily digested in Crossover while not losing the musical integrity that a prog listener expects. Whereas Prog Related bands are generally commercial groups with certain prog elements or players that were involved in prog acts, Crossover Prog artists are predominantly progressive with elements of popular music. The most representative examples for this genre include The MOODY BLUES, SUPERTRAMP, DREDG, CINEMA SHOW, RADIOHEAD. Eclectic Prog definition The term 'eclectic' in the context of progressive rock describes a summation of elements from various musical sources, and the influences and career paths of bands that take from a wide range of genres or styles. While progressive music can be, in a larger sense, eclectic, the 'Eclectic Prog' term is specially meant to reference bands that trespass the boundaries of established Progressive Rock genres or that blend many influences. Eclectic Prog combines hybrids of style and diversity of theme, promoting many elements from different sources. The Eclectic category recognizes bands that evolved markedly over their career (in a progressive, evolutionary way), or have a plural style without a clear referential core. The basic features lie within the music's variety, rich influences, art tendencies and classic prog rock elements. Among the representative bands are KING CRIMSON, VAN DER GRAAF GENERATOR, and GENTLE GIANT. so how come VdGG have been put into "Crossover Prog"?

Edited by Sean Trane - August 21 2007 at 10:27

Edited by Alucard - August 21 2007 at 14:21

Kotro wrote: Bah, call it what you like, the system still sucks anyway. Labeling, if any, should be for albums, not artists.

You don't know how often I've thought this! Especially when reviewing Pink Floyd, King Crimson, Jethro Tull etc. PIPER is totally different from WISH, COURT totally different from BEAT, and BENEFIT totally different from WOOD. But not to worry. These are just SOME OF OUR MAJOR BANDS!

Prog-jester wrote: Morda wrote: Of the bands I know in that list (all but 6), most of them would fit under the genre name "New Prog" which is being used in the media now - which was something I tried to push for a while back but was basically told there was no need for it. Yep, exactly! I've been with this issue too few months ago and recieved little positive reaction. Maybe, there's not enough New/Modern/Indie/Alternative/Whatever-you-call-it Prog bands for a genre, but I believe in necessity of it's existance. TOOL is Metal, but not in usual sense of the word - not Heavy or Alternative if you ask me - and both SLINT and SIGUR ROS can remain in Post-Rock, yes... Do you know, what your login means in informal Russian/Ukrainian?

Give it time, I suppose! I think that if a lot of fans get introduced to the rest of the body of prog by these bands that there'd be more support for it. Or if it really takes off moreso than it already has (haven't really been keeping up - I've a huge backlog of bands to get and have been purposely trying to avoid new bands for a while until I've got it cleared) it'd be the same.

I think it'd be very useful to have it as a distinct genre - provides an avenue for those not into prog to slowly immerse themselves in it. Help to spread the word :)

I do get what you mean with Tool, they do kind of straddle genres a bit! It's not really a big deal, unless something's really wrong (something like Tool being placed as a zeuhl band) - we should see if anyone else is keen on the idea of having this new subgenre.

Morda is mouth isn't it? :) I think that's what it is, it's nice to have my name mean something, even if it's unintentional!

Tapfret wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: I invite everyone who's interested in genre per album to help me categorising the albums on my website ... who knows, maybe one day the data might be used to implement album per genre in the archives.     Hmm... I am having trouble detecting whether your post is indicating cheerful resolve or sarcasm.

I'm not being sarcastic ... although I admit that I somewhat doubt that genre per album will be implemented any time soon in the archives. I'd love to see more users rating and tagging albums on my website though, and it would not only support my website but also create a collective database of album genres which would be helpful as a reference when finally genre per album will be implemented here.


Edited by MikeEnRegalia - August 21 2007 at 12:07

Shakespeare wrote: Schizoid, you have unleashed all hell with your thread.

Tapfret wrote: Kotro wrote: Bah, call it what you like, the system still sucks anyway. Labeling, if any, should be for albums, not artists.   'tis true, calling Genesis post-1980 anything with prog in it (unless progressively more wealthy) would be a falsehood.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: chamberry wrote: BaldJean wrote: Kotro wrote: Bah, call it what you like, the system still sucks anyway. Labeling, if any, should be for albums, not artists. I completely agree. labeling artists means we don't allow them to change their style, which is plainly ridiculous The problem is that it'll take an excruciating amount of time to label 15,500+ albums and there are many factors that can prevent us like out-of print albums, export albums among others. It's too much. Depends on how you do it. If genre per album was to be implemented, we could simply set the genre of all albums to that of the artist ... and then simply go through the albums and change those which seem inappropriate. This work could be divided by genre.

It's still the same amount of work. We'll still have to get every single album of every single band for it to work properly.

It's a great idea, but too much work.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: BTW: Tell me one Prog site (respectable of course) that doesn't use sub.genres,

Well ... my website kind of qualifies, since you can use it not caring for sub genres at all (you can browse it using base genres only).