Edit: My announcement seems to have caused some confusion and opposition among a few members (especially the Baldies). Let me just point out that I by no means meant prog-metal is the only genré that needs to be reworked; on the contrary, I think other genrés like symphonic and art-rock need an overhauling too; but these are genrés I feel not competent for.

I have been busy in the last few days thinking about how Prog Metal can be categorized. Have a look at this chart:

http://ratingfreak.com/home/progarchives/progmetalchart/subgenres.xhtml - http://ratingfreak.com/home/progarchives/progmetalchart/subgenres.xhtml

I created this thread to gather feedback ... tell me what you think about the idea of splitting the genre. I'd appreciate any feedback, especially on the bands that aren't yet categorized, but of course also if you think that a band belongs to a different category. However, I'm not asking IF I should do this ... I have discussed this with the admins and I will proceed.

So, tell me what you think about it! 

BTW: Currently I'm planning to introduce three categories instead of Prog Metal:

• Orchestral/Power
• Neo/Symphonic
• Avant/Experimental

IMO it makes sense to combine Orchestral/Power and Neo/Symphonic, because many bands are borderline. So if you feel that a band which is categorized as Neo but is in fact Symphonic, that is not as important right now than if a Symphonic band is in fact Power.

Edit: Thanks to king16, TheProgtologist and Useful_Idiot for your help !

Edit: the following is a post from page 4 of the thread ... I added it to this post as well.

There was a discussion about this some time ago - is Prog Metal a sub genre of Prog Rock or not? Well, yes and no.

This diagram is just a rough sketch - the Prog Rock box is meant to contain all Prog Rock genres, I simply didn't have enough space, and the bands are just random picks. The point is the relation between Rock, Prog Rock, Metal and Prog Metal.

At least this is how I think about it. Prog Metal is not a normal subgenre of Prog Rock ... It is a "sub genre" of Metal, which is a sub genre of Rock. Another way of putting this is that many (nearly all) sub genres of Prog Rock are also present within Prog Metal.

So in essence we COULD (I'm not saying that we SHOULD) clone most of the genres we have:

• For Neo Prog Rock we COULD add Neo Prog Metal
• For Symphonic Prog Rock we COULD add Symphonic Prog Metal
• For Jazz-Rock we COULD add Jazz-Metal
• for Folk Prog Rock we could add Folk Prog Metal
• ...

OR

• We could move the Prog Metal bands into the Prog Rock genres. Neo Prog Metal bands would be moved to Neo Prog Rock, Symphonic Prog Metal bands would be moved to Symphonic Prog Rock etc.. Man Overboard suggested this, and I liked the idea.

But IMO both these approaches aren't sensible. The first would introduce far too many genres, and the second would alienate people who don't like metal, and even with all the similarities Metal based bands still often are very different from Rock based bands, so you can't really throw them in the same genre. But Metal IS a sub genre of Rock, so there definitely is a connection.

Mike, that way of meting neo with symphonic etc is IMO far better.... Sometimes its quite hard 2 Judge weather a band is symphonic or Neo... The strangest thing is that people have their own definitions of the word symphonic & neo in music... This is gonna be damn hard 2 pull of...

But still quite a good idea... Maybe I'll try 2 make my won.... How bout:

1. Virtuostic (Dt & stuff)
2. Extreme (Meshuggah, Opeth)
3. Experimental (Fantomas)
4. Neoclassical/Orchestral/Symphonic (Symph X, Therion)
5. Damn.. maybe some  melodic?

Ow God this is gonnna hit a dead end....

Ed: looks nice ... it kind of looks like my categorization - if you replace virtuose with symphonic. At first I had much more categories ... space, epic, doom, gothic. But I want to keep this simple ...

About Neo Prog: I'm not an expert here ... but I asked some knowledgeable colleagues, most notably TheProgtologist.

Please leave the bands argument outta here!

We are trying 2  create prog metal sub genres, not argue bout the progressiveness of band over & over again...

Ed_The_Dead wrote: Please leave the bands argument outta here! We are trying 2  create prog metal sub genres, not argue bout the progressiveness of band over & over again...

....Thanks Ed,I couldn't have said it better myself.

Crushed Aria wrote: Whatever you do do not use that list ... >_> they called Dillenger Escape Plan avant-garde.

A LOT of work was put into this,don't blow it off so easily.

We listened to songs and samples from every single band on that list.

yargh wrote: This site is already over-categorized to its detriment -- why add to the problem?

It would only be two more categories, and they will provide a better introduction to prog metal for newbies. Prog Metal is a very diverse genre, much more so than the other prog genres except Symphonic Prog Rock and Krautrock, which also need an overhaul.

Crushed Aria wrote: Whatever you do do not use that list ... >_> they called Dillenger Escape Plan avant-garde.

If you look at the description of the Avant/Experimental category,you should realize the TDEP fit it to a T.

Im all for it and i think Ed's list is pretty good at spliting up prog metal

BTW- didnt know there was a neo metal

sleeper wrote: Im all for it and i think Ed's list is pretty good at spliting up prog metal BTW- didnt know there was a neo metal

The splits and sub-genres have already been made.There were a lot more,but they have been whittled down,and some combined.

yargh wrote: This site is already over-categorized to its detriment -- why add to the problem?

Can't believe it, I agree 100% with Yargh.

We are going too far with this metal thing, if we are doing this why don't add:

1. Gothic Symphonic: Par Lindh, Anglagard, etc.
2. Classic & Baroque Symphonic: Yes, Genesis, Camel, etc.
3. Romantic/Modern influenced Symphonic: ELP, Le Orme, The Nice.
4. British Folk Progressive: Renaissance, Jethro Tull, etc.
5. Greek Folk/Symphonic Progressive: Aphrodite's Chid, etc
6. Latin Folk Progressive: Los Jaivas and a couple of bands more.
7. USA Folk/Country/Symphonic  Progressive: Kansas, Proto Kaw, etc.
8. USA Psychedelia: The Doors, Santana, Zappa
9. British Psychedelia: Moody Blues, Pink Floyd, etc.

For wxample, British, USA, Celtic, Latin and Greek Folk Prog bands are more differentb among them than any metal band.

British Psychedelia is absolutely different to USA/San Francisco Psychedelia, there are 100 more reasons to separete them, but probably it's not the newest fashion as Prog Metal.

We could go for ever and ever, why so much work for a genre like Prog' Metal which is barely Progressive? (With a few exceptions).

This is a Prog place for Prog music, Prog Metal is only a sub-genre more, noit the main reason of Prog Archives to exist, or are we trying to gain more members by using metal?

I know it's a lot of work, but for what? to please only the Prog Metal fans?

 Iván

Crushed Aria wrote: TheProgtologist wrote: Crushed Aria wrote: Whatever you do do not use that list ... >_> they called Dillenger Escape Plan avant-garde. If you look at the description of the Avant/Experimental category,you should realize the TDEP fit it to a T. The reason they do not belong there is because they are not metal, that site doesn't know sh*t as to how to categorize the different bands. Solefald, Transcending Bizarre?, etc should be in Avant-garde not DEP, who are hardcore. That list is so full of fallacies anyways, AGALLOCH under orchestral. No. Agalloch are folk metal. If you include power in there you may as well include death metal as bands like Death went all Prog. Death later in their career. You honestly should not classify Prog. Metal as it is too difficult a thing to do anyways.

Well,the purpose of all this is to try categorize the bands.

And Death aren't in the archives.

I'm not criticizing your work either, I know it's very hard job,  but this is turning into a mainly Prog' Metal site.

The only category with 3 or 4 sub-genres will be Prog Metal.

Have you ever read the polls about which is your favorite genre? In all the cases Symphonic has won by far and If I'm not wrong Prog Metal wasn't even near, why should this barely Prog whose limits with plain metal are almost invisible should have three sub-genres.

Has any Prog sute done this ever?

I know many Metalheads will try tu crucify me plus other guys who are probably passing through a teenage metal stage, but I believe this site should be kept Prog with a sub-genre for each category.

Iván

Crushed Aria wrote: Please you guys. Do not even attempt to categorize Prog. Metal bands unless you know a thing about Metal first. Borknagar is not f**king power metal they are folk/viking, jesus. Orphaned Land, if I am correct the band that released Mabool, are prog. rock not metal. v_v. EDIT: I know Death isn't in the archives, but if you are going to allow general power metal into it you had let Death metal in as there is a definate Progressive death presence in bands like Death, Massacra, Lykathea Aflame, etc.

You know what?You don't have to be so aggressive and demeaning about it.

WTF have you done lately?

Very easy to sit back and criticize.

ivan_2068 wrote: I'm not criticizing your work either, I know it's very hard job,  but this is turning into a mainly Prog' Metal site. The only category with 3 or 4 sub-genres will be Prog Metal.

Not 3 or 4 additional genres - we'll have 3 instead of 1, that's two additional genres. BTW: Prog Rock has far more genres ... 13, to be precise. That's 13 vs 3, no danger here.

ivan2068 wrote: Have you ever read the polls about which is your favorite genre? In all the cases Symphonic has won by far and If I'm not wrong Prog Metal wasn't even near, why should this barely Prog whose limits with plain metal are almost invisible should have three sub-genres.

I said more than once that Symphonic Prog Rock needs to be divided, Krautrock as well - and many people think this way. Go ahead!

ivan_2068 wrote: Has any Prog sute done this ever? I know many Metalheads will try tu crucify me plus other guys who are probably passing through a teenage metal stage, but I believe this site should be kept Prog with a sub-genre for each category. Iván

Why should this website not do something innovative which other prog websites haven't done?

ivan_2068 wrote: I'm not criticizing your work either, I know it's very hard job,  but this is turning into a mainly Prog' Metal site. The only category with 3 or 4 sub-genres will be Prog Metal. Have you ever read the polls about which is your favorite genre? In all the cases Symphonic has won by far and If I'm not wrong Prog Metal wasn't even near, why should this barely Prog whose limits with plain metal are almost invisible should have three sub-genres. Has any Prog sute done this ever? I know many Metalheads will try tu crucify me plus other guys who are probably passing through a teenage metal stage, but I believe this site should be kept Prog with a sub-genre for each category. Iván

Prog-Metal is just the start,Symphonic will get a makeover too.We had to start somewhere and it just so happened that Mike was prepared to donate his spare time to this venture.He has the full support of the Admin Team and all the people involved in this should be applauded.

Crushed Aria wrote: Maybe I have not done anything to help this site out, but ... I do think I have every right to correct "ignorance" towards a musical genre. You guys are better off not adding these categories at all.

What's your point about the "Avant-Gard" bands anyway? Most bands in that genre are just unusual, extreme or experimental, I explained it in the table heading.

Tony R wrote: ivan_2068 wrote: I'm not criticizing your work either, I know it's very hard job,  but this is turning into a mainly Prog' Metal site. The only category with 3 or 4 sub-genres will be Prog Metal. Have you ever read the polls about which is your favorite genre? In all the cases Symphonic has won by far and If I'm not wrong Prog Metal wasn't even near, why should this barely Prog whose limits with plain metal are almost invisible should have three sub-genres. Has any Prog sute done this ever? I know many Metalheads will try tu crucify me plus other guys who are probably passing through a teenage metal stage, but I believe this site should be kept Prog with a sub-genre for each category. Iván Prog-Metal is just the start,Symphonic will get a makeover too.We had to start somewhere and it just so happened that Mike was prepared to donate his spare time to this venture.

Still I can't understand, many times some members (Including myself) talk about sub-genres, and we recieve a lot of answers from people that doesn't care for genres or don't want to be labeled.

I believe Symphonic is OK, the same for Folk and Prog Metal.

He has the full support of the Admin Team and all the people involved in this should be applauded.

One thing why I come  here is because I always felt free to give my opinions and often disagreed with Adm's opinion, but always been encouraged by them to write with freedom (Never disrespected anybody), does this means I can't give my opinion any more?

Iván

ivan_2068 wrote: Tony R wrote: ivan_2068 wrote: I'm not criticizing your work either, I know it's very hard job,  but this is turning into a mainly Prog' Metal site. The only category with 3 or 4 sub-genres will be Prog Metal. Have you ever read the polls about which is your favorite genre? In all the cases Symphonic has won by far and If I'm not wrong Prog Metal wasn't even near, why should this barely Prog whose limits with plain metal are almost invisible should have three sub-genres. Has any Prog sute done this ever? I know many Metalheads will try tu crucify me plus other guys who are probably passing through a teenage metal stage, but I believe this site should be kept Prog with a sub-genre for each category. Iván Prog-Metal is just the start,Symphonic will get a makeover too.We had to start somewhere and it just so happened that Mike was prepared to donate his spare time to this venture. Still I can't understand, many times some members (Including myself) talk about sub-genres, and we recieve a lot of answers from people that doesn't care for genres or don't want to be labeled. I believe Symphonic is OK, the same for Folk and Prog Metal. He has the full support of the Admin Team and all the people involved in this should be applauded. One thing why I come  here is because I always felt free to give my opinions and often disagreed with Adm's opinion, but always been encouraged by them to write with freedom (Never disrespected anybody), does this means I can't give my opinion any more? Iván

Absolutely not Ivan.

All I am trying to say that Mike hasnt just gone ahead with this-he has Max's approval and that of the Admins.We know there are differing opinions about the relevance of sub-genres.We also know that other genres need "tidying up," we are just waiting for collaborators to volunteer.

As for discussing this and even disagreeing-no problem Ivan-your comments are always welcome.

Nazgul wrote: Stupid Idea! IMHO. I have only two subgeneries: It's good,or I dislike it. That's all BTW I wonder wich subgeneries in Yours opinion is new album of Riverside

Well, personally I think that Riverside could well be classified as Neo Prog Rock, especially their new album. But they also fit in Neo Prog Metal. Borderline symphonic. 

Ok. I think that someone says DT, or Opeth......ect....
Everyone witch hear their music knows what it  is about

^

I think he is saying that just because someone is familiar with a band doesnt necessarily make them an expert at categorizing them...........ok,so I put my own spin on it.

I think that a few of the people contributing to this discussion need to get a sense of perspective..this kind of over-reaction "upsets me dearly".

Tony R wrote:   Ok. I think that someone says DT, or Opeth......ect.... Everyone witch hear their music knows what it  is about ^ I think he is saying that just because someone is familiar with a band doesnt necessarily make them an expert at categorizing them...........ok,so I put my own spin on it. I think that a few of the people contributing to this discussion need to get a sense of perspective..this kind of over-reaction "upsets me dearly".

Same here Tony.It gets a little upsetting having hours and hours and hours of hard work just ripped to shreds by people.

"Same here Tony.It gets a little upsetting having hours and hours and hours of hard work just ripped to shreds by people."

But it was pointless work.  There is absolutely no need to subdivide the genre of prog-metal into any groupings at all; this is a parsing of minutae of the most needless variety.  "Prog-Metal" itself is a "genre" that a number of the bands this site includes wouldn't even consider *themselves.*  What is the point of inventing further subgenres, which will only serve to confuse?  Many bands fit very uncomfortably into the general subgenres of prog that this site already uses (Jethro Tull as a prog-folk band -- that's a good one), because 1) their catalogs have some semblance of diversity, and 2) a lot of genres are really just artificial categories to begin with.  Squeezing the prog metal bands into tiny little subcategories that will ultimately be of little use to anyone doesn't seem like a very good idea, regardless of how many hours it took.   

When I listen to  Prog-Metal bands I hear differences as wide as the whole spectrum of Prog itself.Prog-Metal is just a catch-all genre and needs clarifying and expanding.

Any one easily offended or confused by "sub-genres" should just ignore them.For instance,I've managed to ignore Zeuhl for a near-lifetime without any kind of weird side affects like shouting or the urge to stamp my feet...

goose wrote: Tony R wrote: I've managed to ignore Zeuhl for a near-lifetime without any kind of weird side affects like shouting or the urge to stamp my feet... That's what happens when you don't ignore it!

No that usually results in bouts of wailing and gnashing of teeth.

"Any one easily offended or confused by "sub-genres" should just ignore them"

Doesn't that defeat the purpose of *having* them?  Somebody well-versed in prog-metal doesn't need to invent sub-genres, and somebody who doesn't know the genre well will just be confused by the artificiality of the whole thing. Of course there are lots of different "sounds" in prog metal.  Why not just leave it at that and let the reviews speak for themselves?  Why engage in the counterproductive exercise of forcing this stuff into subcategories? Like I already stated, the general division of progressive itself has already made for a good amount of inaccurate categorizations.  Why take a flawed model and make it more flawed?  

yargh wrote: "Any one easily offended or confused by "sub-genres" should just ignore them" Doesn't that defeat the purpose of *having* them?  Somebody well-versed in prog-metal doesn't need to invent sub-genres, and somebody who doesn't know the genre well will just be confused by the artificiality of the whole thing. Of course there are lots of different "sounds" in prog metal.  Why not just leave it at that and let the reviews speak for themselves?  Why engage in the counterproductive exercise of forcing this stuff into subcategories? Like I already stated, the general division of progressive itself has already made for a good amount of inaccurate categorizations.  Why take a flawed model and make it more flawed?

OK,Yargh-let me deal with a few of your questions

Why take a flawed model and make it more flawed?  

Because we are anally-retentive? Or maybe we want to make it less flawed...

somebody who doesn't know the genre well will just be confused by the artificiality of the whole thing.

How do you know something is artificial if you are not familiar with it in the first place?

Of course there are lots of different "sounds" in prog metal.

There are lots of "different sounds" in all types of music,so why dont we just call it "music" and have done with it?

I believe there will always be people out there who will always say "black" if someone else is saying "white". It's the easy way out....

I'm not taking the easy way out, I offered an alternative model:  not doing any subcategories and letting the reviews speak for themselves.  Your statment that my opinions on the matter are bourne of simple contrarian impulses is an insult.  I offered a superior method of organization than the one you are proposing, and you are deliberarely choosing the inferior route.  I explained why creating more subgenres is an inferior route, yet you are apparently choosing the lesser model, regardless.  This certainly can't be the product of anal-retentiveness, since anal-retentiveness implies the application of excessive effort for a likely minimal amount of gain.  This is an example of excessive effort to produce negative gains.  There are a lot of terms one can use for that, but anal-retentiveness isn't one of them.        

Some of the first members here know that I always refer to sub-genres which IMO help to understand the differences whithin Prog Rock bands, for example almost everybody considers King Crimson Symphonic, but I can't find a single connection between any Post ITCOTCK album wiyh for example Yes and Genesis.

But honestly, in the case of Prog Metal, all the bands have the same basic influence which is metal, we're adapting Metal Sub-Genres to Progressive Rock, it means we're creating sub-genres of a sub-genre.

Of course it's a hard work, I admire the work Mike, Bryan  and everybody involved in this project has done, it's a hell of a job, (I haven't even heard about at least 75% of the bands mentioned), but each and every band have something in common, all form part from the metal genre.

Each time I mention Classic Prog' to refer to bands like ELP, The Nice or Le Orme due to the enormous influence of a determined classical era (Late Romantic/Early Modern) some people even laughed,

When I mentioned Dutch Euro Prog (I believe Prog Archices doesn't even recognize Euro Prog or Kosmische -Hope it's well written, if notor the term is misused Dallas Bryan will correct me ), I recieved a very nice and well elaborated PM (Won't mention the name of the member who sent it because he may have his reasons to keep it private) where he disagreed with my opinion (Still waitting for your reply my friend, you know who you are, and I enjoyed your PM).

So I believe we're going too far, my opinion is that there should be one sub-genre for each genre that has influenced Prog.

• 1 for Symphonic
• 1 for those bands influenced by symphonic (Neo Prog)
• 1 for Folk
• 1 for Psychedelia (Maybe in this case 2 because USA Psychedelia is different to British Psychedelia)
• And of course 1 for metal.

If not we should add 1 sub-genre for each classical era (At least Medieval/Gothic, Baroque, Classic, Romantic, Modern/Copntemporary) or add a folk sub-genre for each region or country, because Celtic/British Folk is absolutely different to Greek, USA Folk/Country, Latin American, Nordic, etc).

And all we would have achieved is too make things even more complex.

But this is only my opinion.

Tony wrote:

Absolutely not Ivan. All I am trying to say that Mike hasnt just gone ahead with this-he has Max's approval and that of the Admins.We know there are differing opinions about the relevance of sub-genres.We also know that other genres need "tidying up," we are just waiting for collaborators to volunteer. As for discussing this and even disagreeing-no problem Ivan-your comments are always welcome.

Thanks Tony, I always knew the open criteria of the Adm's and PA staff, was only making a point.

BTW: Count with me when you need help with other sub-genres whith which I'm more familiar, because wouldn't feel comfortable giving an opinion if I'm not willing to help.

Iván

Hi prog fans,

Here for information.... metal music combining progressive metal (Pioneers: Queensryche, Fates Warning, Dream Theater)

 - Orchestral / symphonic metal (Pioneers: Savatage, Rage and notable bands: Nightwish, Edenbridge, Kamelot, Dark Moor, Rhapsody, Therion)

- Gothic metal (Pioneers: Paradise Lost, Theater Of Tragedy, The 3rd And The Mortal)

- Power metal (Pioneers: Helloween, Gamma Ray, Blind Guardian)

Red color : my preference

Other Sub-genres :

- Traditional & heavy metal (Pioneers: Iron Maiden, Black Sabbath, Judas Priest, Manilla Road)
- Thrash (Pioneers: Metallica, Slayer, Megadeth, Anthrax, Sodom)
- Death metal (Pioneers: Possessed, Slayer, Death)
- Black metal (Pioneers: Mayhem, Dark Throne, Satyricon, Burzum, Emperor, Enslaved)
- Doom metal (Pioneers: Black Sabbath, Candlemass, St. Vitus)
- Folk metal (Pioneers: Skyclad)
- Viking metal (Pioneers: Bathory)

ProgLucky (founder of ProgArchives)

Ulver982 wtote:

If prog metal isn't split it up into sub-genres, then why split up prog rock?

Have you read what you said Ulver???????

If Prog Rock wasn't split in subgenres, SOMETHING CALLED PROG METAL WOULDN'T EXIST!!!!!!!!!!!

Prog Metal is already a sub-genre of Progressive Rock, but you made my point proving with this post that SOME  people (like you) believe in Prog Metal as something different to Progressive Rock instead of being a part of it, as if Prog Metal was some kind  extra or "supra" sub-genre different to every one else, that the rules applied to each sub-genre shouldn't apply to Prog Metal because it's something different.

Unless of course that you believe Prog Metal is a genre different to Progressive Rock, in which case this wouldn't be the place for it being a Progressive Rock site.

• You can divide a genre in sub genres for better understanding:

Progressive Rock, Classical Music, Folk, Jazz and even Metal ARE GENRES BY OWN RIGHT, each one has a lot of subgenres, in the case of Progressive Rock:

Every band influenced by THE GENRE DEFINED AS Classical Music  is contained in Symphonic Prog'

Every band influenced by THE GENRE DEFINED AS Folk is part of Progressive Foilk.

Every band inluenced by THE GENRE DEFINED AS Jazz is part of a sub-genre called Fusion.

Every band influenced by THE GENRE DEFINED AS METAL should be part of a sub-genre called PROG METAL.

ALL THE ABOVE MENTIONED ARE SUB-GENRES OF PROGRESSIVE ROCK.

• But YOU CAN'T (Or shouldn't, because it's obvious you can) divide sub genres into NEW SUB-SUB-GENRES.

Because you're giving to Prog Metal a higher standart than the rest of sub genres or if you decide to create sub genres from each sub genre, you will make a mess that nobody will understand.

So now we will have sub-sub-genres.

Opinions like your's Ulver982, are the ones that don't help to close the gap between Progheads and Prog Metal fans.

Iván

Ivan:

There was a discussion about this some time ago - is Prog Metal a sub genre of Prog Rock or not? Well, yes and no.

This diagram is just a rough sketch - the Prog Rock box is meant to contain all Prog Rock genres, I simply didn't have enough space, and the bands are just random picks. The point is the relation between Rock, Prog Rock, Metal and Prog Metal.

At least this is how I think about it. Prog Metal is not a normal subgenre of Prog Rock ... It is a "sub genre" of Metal, which is a sub genre of Rock. Another way of putting this is that many (nearly all) sub genres of Prog Rock are also present within Prog Metal.

So in essence we COULD (I'm not saying that we SHOULD) clone most of the genres we have:

• For Neo Prog Rock we COULD add Neo Prog Metal
• For Symphonic Prog Rock we COULD add Symphonic Prog Metal
• For Jazz-Rock we COULD add Jazz-Metal
• for Folk Prog Rock we could add Folk Prog Metal
• ...

OR

• We could move the Prog Metal bands into the Prog Rock genres. Neo Prog Metal bands would be moved to Neo Prog Rock, Symphonic Prog Metal bands would be moved to Symphonic Prog Rock etc.. Man Overboard suggested this, and I liked the idea.

But IMO both these approaches aren't sensible. The first would introduce far too many genres, and the second would alienate people who don't like metal, and even with all the similarities Metal based bands still often are very different from Rock based bands, so you can't really throw them in the same genre. But Metal IS a sub genre of Rock, so there definitely is a connection.

Citanul wrote: I'm not entirely certain about some of the Avant/Experimental bands.  Anathema and The Gathering both started out as doom/death bands, but have evolved to the point where there's very little actual metal in their music.  Having said that, I'm not quite sure where else they would go.  Veni Domine are more of a doom metal band, and probably are better suited to the Power category.

For bands like The Gathering it is important to see where their focus is. They started as a Death Metal band, but very quickly let go of that. The first 2 albums with Anneke had a slight gothic touch, but aren't really gothic ... they quickly evolved into something which I would call "Post Metal". They've been doing that since 3 albums now, are very succcessful with that, and I think they should be judged rather by that than by their debut album.

This shows how difficult it is to make these genre determinations ... you really need to think.

About Veni Domine: Are they extreme? Bands based on Black/Death/Doom metal should be in the Experimental category - for now. I'm working on this ... 

MikeEnRegalia wrote: About Veni Domine: Are they extreme? Bands based on Black/Death/Doom metal should be in the Experimental category - for now. I'm working on this ...

 Actually they sound like a Darker,Heavier version of early FATES WARNING.

 Their first 2 albums are Progressive Metal masterpieces!!

BaldFriede wrote: As a former computer programmer, the idea of splitting up genrés into several sub-genrés does not appeal to me at all; this is analogous to the outdated concept of hierarchical databases. We would wind up with funny thngs like having a metal sub-genré "symphonic" and a symphonic sub-genré "metal".

I'm not seing that ... nobody is talking about sub-subgenres (except Ivan). The genres will remain a flat list, only Prog Metal will be replaced by 3 or 4 separate genres (which all have "Metal" in their name).

BaldFriede wrote: Hence the much better solution is to allow a band to belong to more than one sub-genrés (which is analogous to the much more modern concept of a relational database). Take it from a former computer programmer whose job used to be to organise data.

How would that solve the problem? Would you be comfortable with all the bands which I classified as "Symphonic Prog Metal" being put into the Symphonic Prog Rock category?

Friede:

You are talking about the problem of trying to model 1:n relationships with a hierarchical structure. I know that that's not possible, but it doesn't apply here.

But I agree with you that it would be cool if bands (or rather albums) could belong to several genres. It is a concept which I called "Tagging" ... I talked about it two months ago. Sadly I know that it would be a really HUGE job to implement it - I doubt that it's possible, if you take into account that the archives don't have a full-time team of software developers.

BTW: I still think that it wouldn't be good to mix the prog metal bands with the prog rock bands ... this would happen if all the symphonic prog metal bands were simply put into Symphonic Prog Rock AND Metal.

I like Mike(enregalia)'s drawchart. It's very close (not to say the same) to my own understanding of the rock thing. I also agree with those who argue in the favour of not too many sub categories. It makes me remember an example I was given at school:

A guy sits down in a café and calls the waiter:

Sir?

Give me a Coke!

Yes Sir. A regular or a diet Coke, Sir?

A regular!

A light or a standard regular, Sir?

A standard regular!

A large or a small standard regular, Sir?

The hell of it! Give me a seven-up!

Too many sub-categories kill the sorting. Oh! And what about "Art Rock" in the draw chart? Diluted in symphonic?

As a conclusion, I would classify all metal bands integrating obvious prog elements in one single subgenre: prog metal, and classify all modern prog bandsin one single subgenre as well: modern prog. Then we could define some key bands of each classification an refer to them in the reviews to help the discoverer making an opinion on what he may expect to hear. Exactly like when we precise symphonic prog bands to sound more like Yes, or Genesis, or Camel. All are in the same genre but the references in the reviews help defining the style.

That's just my two cents (of euro)

What on earth is a light regular coke then?

Mike,

first of all: nice diagram!

second:

- I don't know that much about prog metal, but wouldn't it be logic to pair "symphonic" with "orchestral" - I mean: 'in the beginning' a symphony was an extended orchestral piece. Doesn't that make sense? You could then add "epic" to "power"? And what about "gothic" (proglucky's post was completely ignored)

- The "neo" bit I don't really get; what's "neo" about these bands? DT sounds a bit like neo-prog, but they were one of the first prog-metal bands. So why neo-prog-metal? I think I am missing something here

- To call "symphonic" sort of a combination of "neo" and "avant" goes a bit too far maybe? I mean I've heard Queensryche: not very avant-garde. PoS are maybe a little avant. The rest of the bands I don't know

anyways, great job, but please explain these things, or I'm lost

J

BaldFriede wrote: An example: Let's say we have the (fictitious) bands The Undead Walkers and Slinky Hairspray. The Undead Walkers play prog-metal with some symphonic and fusion elements, so they would belong to the genrés prog-metal, symphonic and fusion, without any sub-genrés. Slinky Haispray play avantgarde with some metal elements, so they would go into this two genrés. No awkward sub-genré splitting necessary, which would just make the whole thing too complex. And, as I pointed out, you will wind up with a metal sub-genré in symphonic and a symphonic sub-genré in metal the way you plan it.

With that concept, wouldn't the symphonic bands end up in half a dozen genres?  A like Pain of Salvation is Prog Metal, Fusion, a bit of Neo, Post, Experimental, Folk and Ethno.

Personally I think it's best to put a band - or album - in one genre only. There will always be a predominant genre for a band, and if a Neo Prog band also toyed with Fusion or Folk at one point ... it's not enough for me to say "They're also a Folk band". You would have to add comments for all these associations - maybe introduce levels, like "80% Neo, 20% Folk". That can be done ... the question is whether we want to go there.

No, move genre classification from the bands to the albums would be more than enough IMO. The bands/artists can then either be associated with the predominant genre of their discography - or you list all of the genres of their albums, which would be more informative,  but also more difficult to implement.

Could we not just keep the sub category listening but when you accessed the bands info page you would have a listing over the various music elements of the band

like Jethro tull

Have elements of:

Fusion, symphonic, folk and metal

Joren wrote: Mike, first of all: nice diagram! second: - I don't know that much about prog metal, but wouldn't it be logic to pair "symphonic" with "orchestral" - I mean: 'in the beginning' a symphony was an extended orchestral piece. Doesn't that make sense? You could then add "epic" to "power"? And what about "gothic" (proglucky's post was completely ignored)

Symphonic Prog and Orchestral Metal are not quite the same ... Symphonic Prog applies the concepts of classical song writing - polyphony, counterpoint, etc - to Rock (or in this case Metal). Orchestral Metal (Also confusingly referred to as "Symphonic Metal") is merely fusing classical music with Metal.

About Gothic Metal: It is contained in Orchestral Metal, as it is a very similar genre ... there are many bands which are Orchestral, Gothic and Power. That's why I want to combine these genres.

About ProgLucky: I surely don't ignore him ... I've PMed him.

Joren wrote: - The "neo" bit I don't really get; what's "neo" about these bands? DT sounds a bit like neo-prog, but they were one of the first prog-metal bands. So why neo-prog-metal? I think I am missing something here

I'll leave the answer to Neo Prog experts ... I'm not a big fan of Neo Prog. But I know some modern Neo Prog bands like Arena and IQ, and if you add a little more metal you'll get a sound similar to Vanden Plas, Threshold ... and Dream Theater. Obviously I'm not talking about Train of Thought here ... But Images & Words, Awake, ACOS, FiI, ... and Octavarium.

Joren wrote: - To call "symphonic" sort of a combination of "neo" and "avant" goes a bit too far maybe? I mean I've heard Queensryche: not very avant-garde. PoS are maybe a little avant. The rest of the bands I don't know anyways, great job, but please explain these things, or I'm lost

Queensryche is really proving to be difficult. Their first two albums are quite experimental and extreme. Mindcrime sounds more similar to Power Metal. Empire and Hear in the Now Frontier are Neo Progish. Promised Land is very unusual ... a mix of Neo Prog and Avant-Garde, the most interesting one for traditional prog fans IMO.

Because of that diversity I placed them in Symphonic, but the situation will greatly improve when we can apply genres on the album level. 

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Joren wrote: Mike, first of all: nice diagram! second: - I don't know that much about prog metal, but wouldn't it be logic to pair "symphonic" with "orchestral" - I mean: 'in the beginning' a symphony was an extended orchestral piece. Doesn't that make sense? You could then add "epic" to "power"? And what about "gothic" (proglucky's post was completely ignored) Symphonic Prog and Orchestral Metal are not quite the same ... Symphonic Prog applies the concepts of classical song writing - polyphony, counterpoint, etc - to Rock (or in this case Metal). Orchestral Metal (Also confusingly referred to as "Symphonic Metal") is merely fusing classical music with Metal. About Gothic Metal: It is contained in Orchestral Metal, as it is a very similar genre ... there are many bands which are Orchestral, Gothic and Power. That's why I want to combine these genres. About ProgLucky: I surely don't ignore him ... I've PMed him. Joren wrote: - The "neo" bit I don't really get; what's "neo" about these bands? DT sounds a bit like neo-prog, but they were one of the first prog-metal bands. So why neo-prog-metal? I think I am missing something here I'll leave the answer to Neo Prog experts ... I'm not a big fan of Neo Prog. But I know some modern Neo Prog bands like Arena and IQ, and if you add a little more metal you'll get a sound similar to Vanden Plas, Threshold ... and Dream Theater. Obviously I'm not talking about Train of Thought here ... But Images & Words, Awake, ACOS, FiI, ... and Octavarium. Joren wrote: - To call "symphonic" sort of a combination of "neo" and "avant" goes a bit too far maybe? I mean I've heard Queensryche: not very avant-garde. PoS are maybe a little avant. The rest of the bands I don't know anyways, great job, but please explain these things, or I'm lost Queensryche is really proving to be difficult. Their first two albums are quite experimental and extreme. Mindcrime sounds more similar to Power Metal. Empire and Hear in the Now Frontier are Neo Progish. Promised Land is very unusual ... a mix of Neo Prog and Avant-Garde, the most interesting one for traditional prog fans IMO. Because of that diversity I placed them in Symphonic, but the situation will greatly improve when we can apply genres on the album level.

Okay I understand now. And you're the expert

I only have "Empire" from Queensrÿche

Good luck with this job!

I dont envey you Mike as this splitting Prog Metal into different genres is beginning to look like a lot of hastle.

I dont think that i can make any real sugestions as my knoledge on the bredth of progressive music as a hole is sadly limited (I have a pitifuly small CD collection, for the momet)

sleeper wrote: I know it would be considerably harder to do but i did like Mikes idea of classifying albums instead of bands. That would unfortunatly mean a lot of work as thats tens of thousends of albums from the bands that are currently on this site. Maybe the admin team could get all the collaberaters to helpwith this (i would ask to join in but i dont know enough albums to rearly make any difference at all).

Yep that would be a good idea as many have VERY different albums also so you can see what elements that are in the albums...becuase forexample damnation by opeth is not that metlallish as other opeth albums...although it perhaps would show in reviews it would be alot easier to just show a classification of what genres the album pop into instead of reading every review there is about the album

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ it would not be that much work - the albums could be categorized automatically by the artist/band genre, so we would only have to take care of the "exceptions".

I think the big problem would be that you would get a lot of arguments over what albums go where as reading posts and reviews on this site it seems clear that there is a lot of disagreement over sum bands and some of their albums inparticiular.

sleeper wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ it would not be that much work - the albums could be categorized automatically by the artist/band genre, so we would only have to take care of the "exceptions". I think the big problem would be that you would get a lot of arguments over what albums go where as reading posts and reviews on this site it seems clear that there is a lot of disagreement over sum bands and some of their albums inparticiular.

I know ... I can already see people arguing whether some Pink Floyd albums are Psychedelic or Space Rock, King Crimson albums are Art Rock, Symphonic Prog, RIO/Avant-Prog or Prog Metal ...

sleeper wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ it would not be that much work - the albums could be categorized automatically by the artist/band genre, so we would only have to take care of the "exceptions". I think the big problem would be that you would get a lot of arguments over what albums go where as reading posts and reviews on this site it seems clear that there is a lot of disagreement over sum bands and some of their albums inparticiular.

Well i dont think there are many that disagree over the musical styles an album touches, Atleast as long as the person doing the work har clear definitons of the genres and as long as it does not get too specific

maidenrulez wrote: sleeper wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ it would not be that much work - the albums could be categorized automatically by the artist/band genre, so we would only have to take care of the "exceptions". I think the big problem would be that you would get a lot of arguments over what albums go where as reading posts and reviews on this site it seems clear that there is a lot of disagreement over sum bands and some of their albums inparticiular. Well i dont think there are many that disagree over the musical styles an album touches, Atleast as long as the person doing the work har clear definitons of the genres and as long as it does not get too specific

That's exactly the problem. There is no consensus, no "clear" definition of the genres, and both genres on album levels or applying multiple genres would mean to get more specific.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: maidenrulez wrote: sleeper wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ it would not be that much work - the albums could be categorized automatically by the artist/band genre, so we would only have to take care of the "exceptions". I think the big problem would be that you would get a lot of arguments over what albums go where as reading posts and reviews on this site it seems clear that there is a lot of disagreement over sum bands and some of their albums inparticiular. Well i dont think there are many that disagree over the musical styles an album touches, Atleast as long as the person doing the work har clear definitons of the genres and as long as it does not get too specific That's exactly the problem. There is no consensus, no "clear" definition of the genres, and both genres on album levels or applying multiple genres would mean to get more specific.

Well specific i meant forexample describing it as metal rather than get in to Death/black/white/grind/doom etc etc...and so...there will ofcourse be someone that disagrees but atleast the generall mass would be able to agree that JT has elements of Folk,fusion, symphnic or metal forexample and what Tull albums wich has the clearest influences from these respective genres

MikeEnRegalia wrote: maidenrulez wrote: sleeper wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ it would not be that much work - the albums could be categorized automatically by the artist/band genre, so we would only have to take care of the "exceptions". I think the big problem would be that you would get a lot of arguments over what albums go where as reading posts and reviews on this site it seems clear that there is a lot of disagreement over sum bands and some of their albums inparticiular. Well i dont think there are many that disagree over the musical styles an album touches, Atleast as long as the person doing the work har clear definitons of the genres and as long as it does not get too specific That's exactly the problem. There is no consensus, no "clear" definition of the genres, and both genres on album levels or applying multiple genres would mean to get more specific.

I can see that that is also causing a major problem in creating the replacment genres for Prog metal and even if you do manage to complete it there is always going to be at least a few people that will disagree with you (Ivan for one it looks like)

I will try to listen to every bit of feedback ... but in the end I will decide what's best and move on, because otherwise we might as well continue arguing forever.

BTW: It's only categories ... people are free to ignore them anyway. On the frontpage all that will change is the genre displayed beneath the album cover.

maidenrulez wrote: Well if ye need help organizing genres on albums and such ye know who to call

Right now I have enough trouble categorizing the prog metal bands ... any feedback is welcome!

BTW: I updated the table:

http://uneasy-listening.com/elements/apps/mreviews/https/ProgMetal.html - http://uneasy-listening.com/elements/apps/mreviews/https/Pro gMetal.html

I split the experimental genre ... ProgLucky's post hinted me towards the more extreme bands from Black Metal / Death Metal ... we might be seeing more of them in the future, so a separate genre might make sense after all.

Probably some more bands in the Extreme/Experimental genre need to be moved to Avant/Unusual ... any thoughts?

MikeEnRegalia wrote: maidenrulez wrote: Well if ye need help organizing genres on albums and such ye know who to call Right now I have enough trouble categorizing the prog metal bands ... any feedback is welcome!

Well you could have had symphonic prog wich is stuff like Dream theater, POS and Symphony X

And for the bands wich is in reality more power metallish, with more simpler song structures( A metal versiom of neo-prog?) stuff you could have made up one genre

And for the bands that are more into death/doom/black metal stuff you could have had one genre

And for the more avante garde bands you could have one genre

Thats all ye need...4 genres basically...i dont have any good names for them however

maidenrulez wrote: But i think we should have a list for the musical styles that the band are into like i suggested as forexample Jethro tull has loads of different styles going on..afterall they won a grammy for best metal album in 89

the category was HARD ROCK/metal,

so they were the Hard rock part there

maidenrulez wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: maidenrulez wrote: Well if ye need help organizing genres on albums and such ye know who to call Right now I have enough trouble categorizing the prog metal bands ... any feedback is welcome! Well you could have had symphonic prog wich is stuff like Dream theater, POS and Symphony X And for the bands wich is in reality more power metallish, with more simpler song structures( A metal versiom of neo-prog?) stuff you could have made up one genre And for the bands that are more into death/doom/black metal stuff you could have had one genre And for the more avante garde bands you could have one genre Thats all ye need...4 genres basically...i dont have any good names for them however

I have 4 genres, and they're just as you describe them. With the exception that Symphony X are in the Power genre, and that the Avant-Garde genre also contains "unusual" bands.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: maidenrulez wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: maidenrulez wrote: Well if ye need help organizing genres on albums and such ye know who to call Right now I have enough trouble categorizing the prog metal bands ... any feedback is welcome! Well you could have had symphonic prog wich is stuff like Dream theater, POS and Symphony X And for the bands wich is in reality more power metallish, with more simpler song structures( A metal versiom of neo-prog?) stuff you could have made up one genre And for the bands that are more into death/doom/black metal stuff you could have had one genre And for the more avante garde bands you could have one genre Thats all ye need...4 genres basically...i dont have any good names for them however I have 4 genres, and they're just as you describe them. With the exception that Symphony X are in the Power genre, and that the Avant-Garde genre also contains "unusual" bands.

Yep avant-garde/experimental and stuff like that...so whats the problem then?

maidenrulez wrote: Also "softer" prog metal bands could come in under the power metal category

What do you mean by "softer" ... bands like Dead Soul Tribe?