Forum Home Forum Home > Progressive Music Lounges > Prog Bands, Artists and Genres Appreciation
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Why are Porcupine Tree listed as "heavy prog?"
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedWhy are Porcupine Tree listed as "heavy prog?"

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Author
Message
Snow Dog View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 22 2010 at 16:10
Originally posted by himtroy himtroy wrote:

We can't say crossover anymore?  We have to say Xover?  What is this, text messaging?

No one is forcing anyone to say crossover or Xover...say what you like. But if I want to shorten a word or an album title or a band name. Then I will if I feel so inclined.
Back to Top
ergaster View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 30 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 294
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 22 2010 at 17:58
Originally posted by Prog_Traveller Prog_Traveller wrote:

Sorry folks but I don't get it. On this website Porcupine Tree are listed as "heavy prog." They started out as a psychedelic/ space rock kind of band so I think if anything they should be under that category. Do we list Yes or Genesis as crossover bands or prog related? No they are listed as symphonic prog. OK you might argue and say that PT are most well known as a heavy prog band. Maybe maybe not. I think most of the hardcore fans of the band knew them when they were more in the Pink Floyd direction and that is when they really became accepted in the prog community. Their later heavier albums are less prog and shouldn't be considered the essence of what the band was or even is. Sure, they have heavy moments but they always have. Feel free to debate me. I don't expect the category to be changed but I just wanted to make my point. I think it's one of the reasons why the categories don't work so well on here. Many bands can easily fit under more than one category so maybe that's something to look into. 


Maybe they oughta have subcategories for bands like Porcupine Tree. 

At any rate,  I'm not sure it's helpful to categorize a band like them, who change directions routinely, by what they started out as.  They aren't that now.  To stick them under "space rock" would make no sense to a newbie like me, who first heard Fear of a Blank Planet--I would be forced to conclude that the folks on Prog Archives don't know what the heck they are doing because they clearly don't know what "space rock" is.  Wink

And really, for a fan, it is irrelevant when they became "accepted"; it comes down to whether you like them or not.  I was astonished that they'd been around so long without my having a clue, but for me the "essence" of the band is not what style you can lump them under at what point in time, but what made you sit up and take notice in the first place.  If it speaks to whatever internal musical cues that drive your preferences, it doesn't really matter what label is stuck on it.  I mean, I'm a prog fan not because I think prog is the "best" music, but because if you add up all the kinds of music I like and have liked the best, most fall under that particular label.  Porcupine Tree included. 

But no, I don't think calling them 'space/psychedelic' would be useful now.




Edited by ergaster - September 22 2010 at 17:59
We have done the impossible, and that makes us mighty.
Captain Malcolm Reynolds

Reality rules, Honor the truth
Chemist99a R.I.P.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.211 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.