New subgenres?!?!

Angelo wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: 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). But you do allow them to be specified Besides, you can do the same on PA, by just using the alphabetical index.

That would give you all bands starting with a certain letter, not all bands within a certain base genre.

But yes, you've mentioned one of the key aspects of my website: It *allows* you to be very specific, but you don't *have to* be, and even if someone assigns specific genres and tags the input can still be used for unspecific browsing/queries.

Hirgwath wrote: Is there any hope for crossover prog being renamed "pop prog"? It seems to fit the genre description better, and crossover prog sounds too artificial. I think that the site's genres are way too confused between specific scenes and specific sounds (such as the Canterbury Scene and Progressive Electronic). Maybe it's time to pick one option: historical genre names or genre names based on the music.

1. You would limit mainstream influences to POP and there are hundreeds of other mainstream genres.
2. Pop - Prog is a natural contradiction, there's not such thing, there is Prog with some POP elements but normally blends R&B, Jazz, Rock & Roll, etc.

Iván

I'm not outraged, I just disagree. The difference between Rush and Meshuggah is greater than production value. While I agree that a lot of early heavy prog bands influenced metal (Rush, Heep, Purple), it's wrong to combine the two. Besides, prog metal's probably the next genre to be divided because of the various bands that fall into metal.

Heavy prog is primarily blues based, while prog metal takes more cues from classical music. Deep Purple is the closest one to prog metal because of its pioneering use of classical themes, but Rush, Heep, and Atomic Rooster simply took the blues of Cream, Hendrix, etc. and added some of the early prog sound of KC, Yes, and ELP (admittedly much of that is classical but I've never found anything neo-classical in Rush's, UH's, or AR's music).

Jimbo wrote: Atkingani wrote: memowakeman wrote: I know there are a lot of things to do with this new genres, but please someone move Paatos from heavy Prog, why are they in Heavy prog? Could someone explain this  please?   See the sub-genre description, Memo... they are considered an example of the "heavy prog". To move them to another sub-genre, the description must change first. Well, time to change the description then. Seriously though, I agree with memo. When I think of Paatos, words such as atmospheric, mellow, trip-hop, alternative/art rock etc... spring to mind. Surely not heavy. Anekdoten would've made much more sense.

laplace wrote: not convinced by 1800iareyay's description. I thought that it was stylistically obvious that prog metal unfolded out of Rush and the heavy blues and NWOBHM scenes because we can point to Fates Warning and Queensryche as descendants. prog metal isn't so far away from High Tide as people would assert. however, the extreme side of prog metal shouldn't be buried in heavy prog. there ceases to be a similarity between Atheist and Led Zep ;P

NWOBHM mixed the blues-based metal of Sabbath and Budgie and punk. The result was something faster and more aggressive. Soon after, Judas Priest and Iron Maiden (the champions of NWOBHM) incorporated neo-classical structures, which became the basis for modern prog metal. I'm not saying it's apples and oranges; the two share obvious similarities, but I don't see the point of taking the handful of bands in heavy prog and relocating all of prog metal instead of just keeping Rush and Heep where they were. Yes, prog metal owes volumes to Rush, but they took from the complex time signatures, not the blues base. This is all my opinion obviously and is in no way concrete, and I wouldn't throw a fit if the two were mixed, but personally I think metal is distinct enough (especially if Italy can have their own genre simply for being Italian).


Edited by 1800iareyay - August 23 2007 at 12:47

Plus, as 1800iareyay said, it is extremely difficult to detect blues influence in music like Dream Theater, Opeth, Shadow Gallery, and Ayreon.

laplace wrote: not convinced by 1800iareyay's description. I thought that it was stylistically obvious that prog metal unfolded out of Rush and the heavy blues and NWOBHM scenes because we can point to Fates Warning and Queensryche as descendants. prog metal isn't so far away from High Tide as people would assert. however, the extreme side of prog metal shouldn't be buried in heavy prog. there ceases to be a similarity between Atheist and Led Zep ;P

Seconded.

^ I don't think it's ridiculous, it's just not the case for every prog metal band. But there are quite a few metal bands which are seriously implementing classical music, and lots which are clearly influenced.


Edited by MikeEnRegalia - August 23 2007 at 13:04

Jean, I don't think it's a criterion, but neoclassical sounds abound in most of the top dogs of prog metal. Opeth uses more jazz, the rest of the big names either use classical structures or just flat out transcribe existing classical works. Blind Guardian, Epica, Symphony X, and a lot more do this. I'm not saying it's a centerpiece, but significantly more metal bands use neoclassicism over the blues of 70s hard rock