First off, let me say this is a great forum.  I can't believe I haven't found it until now!

 

OK as a newbie this might come across as a tad presumptuous, but I have to ask; is classifying music in ever more granular sub-genres really necessary, or indeed, healthy?

 

So here's my problem.  As a musician and writer I often find my inspiration in the oddest of things, and musically I've produced all sorts of things from jazz-fusion, through solo piano, orchestral classical to what probably borders on prog metal.  What this means is, I really have a hard time classifying what I do in any particular sub-genre.

 

As a listener and consumer of music my listening habits are even more eclectic.

 

When I really started to get into music properly (several long decades ago now ) I found myself drawn to what we call prog, I love the complexity, the attention it demands, the subtlety, all those great reasons that make this such a wonderful medium to explore.  Yet at the time, I was never aware that artists were particularly pigeonholed (not in the way we tend to do it today)

 

So I guess what I'm asking is, when did this desire to classify and sub classify really take hold?

 

Is this classification a good thing, or does it build artificial barriers?  When does space rock become progressive electronic?  When does progressive electronic become something else?  When does it stop being prog at all and become something more dare I say it: mainstream?

 

And what do others think?

 

by the way - did I mention this is a great forum?

 

Very good point! I especially agree with #1, I've always said it should be about the music more then the band.

 

As it's really about the practice of classify, rather than the actual classifications, I've moved this thread to the "Help us improve the site" section, where it probably sits better.

 

Excellent thoughts - when will they apply here?

 

 

'Canterbury' is indeed an ambiguous term when used at PA. From the psychedelic R'n'B of early Softs, Wilde Flowers, both earlier and later Gong, to the avante jazz fusion (well of) the Softs (again), Hatfield, Gilgamesh,  you seem to have the reference points used here . But the (UK) Spirogyra with their folk and Carol Grimes and Delivery with their blues, confuse the narrow minded attempt to to be over prescriptive. However, at one time I would have argued the inclusion fo Allan Holdsworth (as made in one of the main Canterbury fanzine, as well as Ed Macan's Rocking the Classics) as well as Bill Bruford (because, I once thought the musicians ought to come from a 15 mile radius of  the old cathedral city of Canterbury, and readily played on each other's albums). Now I care a lot less.

 

 

 

I think some use of sub-genres is necessary. For example, if you walk into FYE and ask asspants boy there about rock, he might direct you to Bon Jovi or Springsteen. If you tell him you want metal, he's gonna most likely hand you Korn or Slipknot. If you say black metal or death metal, you may actually get what you are looking for. A certain amount of definition for purposes of communicating a certain style is needed so you and people who you want to discuss music with are on the same wavelength. It is not unusual in the artworld to use subgenres when referring to putting something into its proper place of importance. Emperor, as another example, is not seemingly important in the realm of rock music overall-they did not score the huge record sales of the likes of the Beatles or Springsteen or U2, they do not have the followings of the Grateful Dead or Phish and I doubt highly you will ever hear anyone willing to put them in the Rock and Roll Hall of fame (in fact, I'd actually fight them being inducted because I think it is ridiculous to have a hall of fame for an ART! What's next? A Hall of Fame for Impressionists?). However, they made a huge impact on the Scandniavian music scene and defined a genre of music. So there is a place for sub-genres.

 

However, the sub-sub-sub genre stuff is asnnoying. I mean, do you really need to call something "proto-prog industrial neo death metalcore"?

 

OK Mike, I'll put it back in the PML meanwhile, on the basis that it is the music which is to be discussed. The early posts in the thread are more about the mechanics of sub-genres.

 

Lets's see how the thread develops.

 

Canterbury is special bacause it is linked to a musician crowd.

 

I once proposed Kevin Ayers in prog related, because the man is quite pop and does not have any jazz influences that seems to be the link of most canterbury bands >>> Caravan has a lot of Bossa Nova rhythms, before someone starts getting picky here. I was alsoiready to have moved CG's Delivery into prog-related >> theior only album is surprisingly uninteresting blues.

 

But if we start removing these canterbury artist-related, it willm be so small that we might as well get rid of the Canterbury category alltogether

 

Some would include Gong and Hillage inside Canterbury also.

 

 

Spirogyra is in prog folk as far as I know. Barbara Gaskin being the only link with the other groups. I still am quite doubtful that Bruford played on the SG albums as Ivàn says.

 

Total agreement, as well I suggest when doing a review, do e.g album content *****, Prog Content ****.

 

This would allow one to give e.g. early Beatles *****, but only * for prog content, vs their late stuff, which was *** in prog content, or late Genesis good marks for their pop stuff, but no marks for any prog content

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ivan Melger M gave a perfect example of Aphrodite's child 666 being on folk prog will never give any idea of the kind of music that is there. Art rock is so wide it means realy nothing and Kraurrock, Zeuhl and Itallian SP is just natinalities and not realy music style. even Fusion concludes on the same place Return to forever and David Cross that are very far from each other.

 

I believe that if you talk about an album rather than a band as Mikeenragelia proposed t iis more accurate but you still have to use all those terms.

 

I think the best way is to neglect the sub-genre system and describe each band to a well known band like is done in many cases (example : Trespass (ISR) is described as an ELP like music and eventhough I personall feel they are a mixture of Nice & Camel the idea of comparing to a known band is clear I hope).

 

However, at the end one should listen to decide if one likes or not.