Abolish Neo Prog as a genre?

"Neo Prog" is primarily an outdated term applied to 80s bands after punk and disco, and was used at that time. But now, it bears no relevance, and is contradictory to a function of ProgArchives--namely that bands should be categorized according to sound and not according to time period or national movements. Now, many Neo Prog bands have the same sound (I'll get to that in a minute) but this is an ad hoc adjustment to justify the misnomer of the name. Therefore, the name applied to this music needs to change. But what is this music?

What baffles me sometimes is how people draw the line between modern "symphonic" prog and modern "neo prog." No one has properly explained A) how the bands in this genre are symphonic in nature and B) why it is even appropriate to apply a classical concept to rock music. it seems to me that Neo Prog has been narrowly defined by the sound of the bands in the 80s, even though the term implies a time period and not a sound. It seems blatantly obvious that Neo Prog has been defined as having a guitar-bass-keyboard-drums-singer style, and that any variation in this setup will result in an "upgrade" (or "reclassification" if you want your truth without the unsaid meanings). How else can one justify Spock's Beard as symphonic if not because they use an organ from time to time?

As the situation is now, Neo Prog is thought of as a second-class genre if not outright treated as one. Some things you just can't change. Some people will think anything that is memorable is not prog enough, and some don't like their prog to have any solidified beat or keyboards. But Neo Prog is a sham of a genre right now, and it is because of the narrowly defined requirements of it. It just so happens that these requirements aren't enjoyed by many prog fans, and so it's an easy target.

From where I'm sitting, I see no really good reason to have Neo Prog and Symphonic prog separate genres.

ouch.. I wouldn't touch this with a ten foot pole

I think no change should be made. I would say the "neo prog" name really defines a style, doesn't it? I mean, i have like 30 neo-prog cds (as categorized by PA), and I can easily tell them apart from the more than 50 I have from symphonic prog... Maybe it's because of the genre-names that my brains is influenced and makes the connection, but I honestly think differences can bemade.

My solution is (and always has been) to abolish the whole concrete genres things and implement the tag system. That way, everybody is happy and no one has an excuse to argue about anything.

I think Neo is to Symphonic as Zeuhl is to Avant.
It's a distinct style that could fit in the larger genre but is distinct enough to stand on its own.

I have never considered Neo-Prog as simply defining a time period. For me, it has its own distinctive sound and style which, while having similarities with Symphonic, is significantly different.

 ^ what he said

^ I wrote most of the definition we have for Neo Prog, and I'm mulling whether or not it was just a bunch of bullsh*t.

Well, let me know before HT, Ivan and myself go any further in cleaning it up.

E

I think this is probably not the best forum for this topic, though I easily see why it was moved. This is not a serious suggestion, because I'd be disillusional to think it would actually happen. It's more of something to get people thinking