Prog Polls - Are you stubborn about the genre changes?

Print Page | Close Window

Are you stubborn about the genre changes?

Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Polls
Forum Description: Create polls on topics related to progressive music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=43011
Printed Date: November 26 2024 at 09:18
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com

Topic: Are you stubborn about the genre changes?

Posted By: stonebeard
Subject: Are you stubborn about the genre changes?
Date Posted: October 27 2007 at 17:06

Not to belittle the Genre Teams' work, but I don't really update my perception of where a band is now in relation to where it was when I first noticed them. For example, I think of Mike Oldfield as Art Rock, when now he is in Crossover Prog. I'm sure the genres probably make more sense now, but I don't really give notice to the new categories the bands are under. The concept of categorization is a bit arbitrary anyway. This poll can also apply to genres that you may recognize but ProgArchives does not at all. In essence, do you let this "prog community" define the boundaries of genres, or do you do it yourself.

Be civil as always. Wink

-------------
http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!

Replies:

Posted By: cynthiasmallet
Date Posted: October 27 2007 at 17:13

Couldn't give a rats TBH

-------------
Would you like to watch TV, or get between the sheets, or contemplate the silent freeway, would you like something to eat?

Posted By: moreitsythanyou
Date Posted: October 27 2007 at 17:26

I know everyone has the best intentions, but some of it is overkill. Like Crossover was needed, but most of the others weren't necessary. It's nothing to lose sleep over, just pointless overclassification. It's been done and I'm more than fine with it. I didn't feel like there was a need for it, but if others want to make more genres, that's their decision and I'm fine with it.

-------------

<font color=white>butts, lol[/COLOR]

Posted By: micky
Date Posted: October 27 2007 at 17:41

the changes.. those done.. and those proposed are done for one reason.. and one reason only... to help people navigate the murky waters of prog. It is up to site visitors whether to use them as guides or not.. and guides are exactly what they are. Unless we had a sub for each band.. we could never accurately pigeonhole.. the un-pigeonable hahhahah. They are guides nothing more ... I hope most know that but the few that see the various subgenres as some sort of high temples of 'insert various musical quanitifier' prog purity.

-------------
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip

Posted By: reality
Date Posted: October 27 2007 at 17:45

I do not like genres, I do not like the term Prog, I just like music!

Posted By: russellk
Date Posted: October 27 2007 at 18:08

I use a far more sophisticated classification method. I have two categories, separated by a semi-permeable membrane: stuff I like and stuff I don't.

I take micky's point, though. The categories aren't for the experienced proghead, but for the newbie. And they cause endless debate because so many of them cross whatever boundaries we try to impose on them.

Posted By: ProgBagel
Date Posted: October 27 2007 at 18:18

I have enjoyed every genre change thus far...it's wonderful.

Posted By: micky
Date Posted: October 27 2007 at 18:40

russellk wrote:

I use a far more sophisticated classification method. I have two categories, separated by a semi-permeable membrane: stuff I like and stuff I don't.

I take micky's point, though. The categories aren't for the experienced proghead, but for the newbie. And they cause endless debate because so many of them cross whatever boundaries we try to impose on them.

the debates are completely pointless to be honest.... some of the forum understands the current subs are just guides and not reflective of the career as a whole.. while others are actually concerned about stupid sh*t like like sticking round bands into square holes like whether Zappa belong in eclectic, J-R or RIO based upon..scores and scores of different albums for example. A case in point of the failure and stupidity of seeing these subs, interpreting them as anything other than a guide. I often joke.. but is true.. that you can just as easliy put Yes in Xover as much as put them Symphonic.. or even put them in eclectic... along with the other 95% of the bands here that fit the definition.

The primary overriding concern is.... listener expectation.. not musical masterbation trying to interpet all this completely musically.. that which every other member here might see differently.

-------------
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip

Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: October 27 2007 at 18:41

russellk wrote:

I take micky's point, though. The categories aren't for the experienced proghead, but for the newbie. And they cause endless debate because so many of them cross whatever boundaries we try to impose on them.

I absolutely disagree, the sub-genres, categories and styles are not for the newbie who comes with knowledge of one or two bands he like, the sub-genres are for the experienced Proghead who wants to research more than the average fan and investigate influences, sounds and styles.

Yes, I like to research for influences, eras, sounds, schools, because I’m a fan of Progressive Rock, but the new user wants to find some bands and gives a damn for 20 artificial divisions, he knows all the bands related to Metal are in prog Metal, and wants to find that.

Take for example the Prog Metal newbie, he comes knowing Dream Theater and maybe Symphony X, he doesn’t know or care about Experimental Post Metal, Tec/Extreme Prog Metal, he just wants to find bands that are similar, he goes to any other Prog site and finds all of them under Prog Metal, one after the other in alphabetical order, then he comes here and has to dig into three sub-genres that don’t make sense for him, I an afraid he/she will get bored and leave for a simpler place where he can find all the bands together.

It’s already done and we must accept it and respect the work done by the PM team, but I believe that this is not a positive change.

When I started to listen Prog I liked Genesis, Yes, Jethro Tull, Pink Floyd, PFM, ELP and a couple more bands, I call them all Progressive Music (The term Rock was added later and it’s more accurate), then I discovered neo Prog, that Jethro Tull was Prog Folk or Pink Floyd Psyche/Space Rock, I understand them because I seen the change, but a new guy who comes here and finds three Prog Metals, a Prog Related and a Prog Crossover will have a salad bar in his head.

Genres should be wide and simple, the simpler, the better, I read people complaining about other sites who have almost 100 sub-genres, we’re going the same way.

So lets be sincere, this changes are positive in some cases, but don’t say they are directed for the newbie who will navigate in an endless sea of genres, this multiple sub-genres are for the Proghead who eats, dreams and breathes Progressive Rock, and he’s the only one who will care to investigate the slight difference between crossover and Prog Related.

I really wish this is for good, but I have my doubts, I believe in wider and simple sub-genres, the less and easy to find, the better.

Iván

-------------

Posted By: P.H.P.
Date Posted: October 27 2007 at 18:55

I agree, well said Iván.

maybe the changes in metal or "post" sections are intended to "justify" being too much inclusive and really objectable many times...or to just make it look like if it was "normal" or widely accepted by Prog-heads... Confused

Posted By: micky
Date Posted: October 27 2007 at 19:01

P.H.P. wrote:

I agree, well said Iván.

maybe the changes in metal or "post" sections are intended to "justify" being too much inclusive and really objectable many times...or to just make it look like if it was "normal" or widely accepted by Prog-heads... Confused

Ivan's post was well stated and was valid in his concerns and points...

yours though... reeks of stirring sh*t up. The problem isn't the genre teams... it is those who can't accept others have different notions of what is.. and is not prog. The site is inclusive. We all want everyone to stay and be happy though LOL

We all have our different visions of the site... but all are made with the best interests in the site in mind... not trying to justify inclusions that some might find objectionable.

-------------
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip

Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: October 27 2007 at 19:08

PHP, you seem to be a very traditional progger, which is not bad in itself. A lot of ProgArchives' additions have been very controversial, and no one will agree on everything. Also, if the site owners (who lurk in the shadows, carrying on with their "lives" and such) want a band in, they're in. I believe this was the case with Zep and the Beatles. But note their categories; they're considered related (tricky term) to prog, or highly influential to it. The site has an inclusive position (sometimes I personally wonder if too inclusive), but no decisions are made irrationally. We trust collabs who know controversial artists well to be as little biased as possible in their input for additions. No one want to make the site look like a joke by adding his favorite artists by the most meager of connections.

-------------
http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!

Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: October 27 2007 at 19:09

Let's try and prevent the Report Button from getting red hot tonight please people.

It's Midnight here in the UK and I'm trying to watch South Park.

Smile

Posted By: P.H.P.
Date Posted: October 27 2007 at 19:16

stonebeard wrote:

PHP, you seem to be a very traditional progger, which is not bad in itself. A lot of ProgArchives' additions have been very controversial, and no one will agree on everything. Also, if the site owners (who lurk in the shadows, carrying on with their "lives" and such) want a band in, they're in. I believe this was the case with Zep and the Beatles. But note their categories; they're considered related (tricky term) to prog, or highly influential to it. The site has an inclusive position (sometimes I personally wonder if too inclusive), but no decisions are made irrationally. We trust collabs who know controversial artists well to be as little biased as possible in their input for additions. No one want to make the site look like a joke by adding his favorite artists by the most meager of connections.

You spotted very good points I missed...I've been thinking and seeing those 2 last lines for some time now...I think some people could find pleasure or something doing that...

Posted By: Dim
Date Posted: October 27 2007 at 19:26

I dont know why people have to make it seem like new genres are bad, with the recent metal brake up, more bands will be recognizized and appreciated.

In the old PM genre there was none of these bands in the top twenty:

Isis

Death

Anathema

Atheist

Kayo Dot

Deadsoul tribe ect ect..

Those bands will be recognized faster and popularity will grow.

-------------

Posted By: micky
Date Posted: October 27 2007 at 19:34

schizoid_man77 wrote:

I dont know why people have to make it seem like new genres are bad, with the recent metal brake up, more bands will be recognizized and appreciated.

that should be the point here shouldn't it. Never quite understood the problem with new subs either. I find it funny to be be worried more about how this site looks to others... rather than the people who actually come here and use our site hahhaha. Come here to try to find new prog bands and explore prog. If having 500 bands tucked into one large sub-genre makes it easier for those down the ladder a bit to be recognized and appreciated.. I'll eat my hat. Splitting them up might not gain them legions of fans here.. but it WILL make them easier to find at least. That my friends.. is a good change.

my two cents. Just a difference in seeing things of course

-------------
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip

Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: October 27 2007 at 19:52

think of it this way; you walk into a record shop that has music in thoughtful and knowledgeable sections instead of all mixed together, say it has a large metal section with Tech, Experimental and traditional progmetal sub-sections where right away you discover several things you'd been interested in... then you go to a record shop that lumps rock, pop, metal, psych, punk, and classic prog all together, and you realize you would've never found that copy of Skullgrid if you had to look through all the other stuff in the second record shop. Which place will earn your respect, and where are you more likely to go next time?

Posted By: Dim
Date Posted: October 27 2007 at 19:53

The first one!

-------------

Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 27 2007 at 20:13

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

If someone comes here, knowing Dream Theater and maybe Symphony X, then the recent change means that he will be able to find similar bands more easily. That's what the whole thing is all about. And when he's ready for the more unusual stuff he moves on to the two new categories.

It’s already done and we must accept it and respect the work done by the PM team, but I believe that this is not a positive change.

Time will tell ... in the meantime we might begin creating schools like you did in Symphonic Prog. Smile

What I don't understand about those who constantly criticise genres: If you don't like them, why don't you simply browse the A-Z list? It's not like you *have* to use them.

Genres should be wide and simple, the simpler, the better, I read people complaining about other sites who have almost 100 sub-genres, we’re going the same way.

Another example of demagogy (look it up at wikipedia Wink ) ... a mild one but still. We create 2 new genres and it took us about 2 years to get there. There is no danger of new genres being created every day.

My advice to a newbie regarding the three PM genres would be this: Focus on the main Progressive Metal genre to discover what PM originally was like and how these bands and their successors developed, and then explore the two other genres to find out about the more experimental metal bands which made their music progressive in more unusual ways.

I really wish this is for good, but I have my doubts, I believe in wider and simple sub-genres, the less and easy to find, the better.

Iván

Perhaps we can get M@x to implement pages which combine genres, for example one which lists all metal genre bands, another one which lists both post rock and post metal, another one which lists RIO/Avant, Krautrock and Zeuhl, one which lists Eclectic Prog and Symphonic Prog etc.. This way we can have the best of both worlds ... people who want specific lists can use the genres, the others can use the combined pages.

Think outside the box!!!! Smile

-------------
https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:

Posted By: micky
Date Posted: October 27 2007 at 20:25

Atavachron wrote:

think of it this way; you walk into a record shop that has music in thoughtful and knowledgeable sections instead of all mixed together, say it has a large metal section with Tech, Experimental and traditional progmetal sub-sections where right away you discover several things you'd been interested in... then you go to a record shop that lumps rock, pop, metal, psych, punk, and classic prog all together, and you realize you would've never found that copy of Skullgrid if you had to look through all the other stuff in the second record shop. Which place will earn your respect, and where are you more likely to go next time?

don't know whether to kiss you David ( probably not a good idea LOL

) or envy you.

well said.... much better than I could say hahhaha... Clap

-------------
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip

Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: October 27 2007 at 20:54

For me, one of the pluses of the splitting of Prog-Metal is that many of the bands weren't related at all. To your average Arcturus or Isis fan, a Dream Theater or Pain Of Salvation CD is a $15 frisbee - and vice versa.

-------------
What?

Posted By: P.H.P.
Date Posted: October 27 2007 at 20:57

MikeEnRegalia wrote:

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Hmm...I think to be able to understand Prog Metal you must understand Prog Rock first, because Prog Metal is "son" of Prog Rock, and in the case of that newbie, I just can't do other thing than just recommending him/her some good Prog Rock instead!! LOL

Posted By: Chris S
Date Posted: October 27 2007 at 21:53

The mutual but unequal transfusion of molecules through a semi - permeable membrane until equally dispersed - " Osmosis" applies to our passion of prog too!!!

-------------
<font color=Brown>Music - The Sound Librarian

...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR]

Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: October 28 2007 at 01:33

MikeEnRegalia wrote:

You won't be always there to give him ann advise, plus most of the newbies visit the site once or twice, if they don't find it friendly enough, they never come back.

And believe me, three Prog Metals is irrational, there should be only one as every other genre, but that is past, it's done and we need to hope the best for Prog Archives

Time will tell ... in the meantime we might begin creating schools like you did in Symphonic Prog. Smile

Haven't done it yet and will take some time because of some breaking news that I'm not authorized to tell yet.

What I don't understand about those who constantly criticise genres: If you don't like them, why don't you simply browse the A-Z list? It's not like you *have* to use them.

Hey, I don't criticize genres, I'mhead of one team, I'm in favoutr of genres, I don't agree with three Prog Metals, three Symphonics or Three Neo Progs, that's a different story.

So we should create ficticious genres every day? There's no reason to expand the genres, it's ilogic, the genres have to be created whebn there's a reason i don't believe there's a reason for three Prog Metals, but i may be wrong

Why not Prog Metal kept as one strong sub-genre, and several schools inside, it's simpler and rational...Or is Prog metal a super genre that deserves more sub-genres than the rest?

Remember the phrase "Divide et Vinces" (You can find it also uin Wikipedia ). i believe in solid, strong and unified sub-genres rather than in weak, divided and with no reason to support that division.

Perhaps we can get M@x to implement pages which combine genres, for example one which lists all metal genre bands, another one which lists both post rock and post metal, another one which lists RIO/Avant, Krautrock and Zeuhl, one which lists Eclectic Prog and Symphonic Prog etc.. This way we can have the best of both worlds ... people who want specific lists can use the genres, the others can use the combined pages.

This may be done in a small site as your's Mike, but Prog Archives is too big and already has a method that has brought success and reliability.

Think outside the box!!!! Smile

Yes, it's a good idea to think a bit outsisde the box, but it's also useful to think a bit in this box called Prog Archives.

Iván

-------------

Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: October 28 2007 at 04:47

darqdean wrote:

For me, one of the pluses of the splitting of Prog-Metal is that many of the bands weren't related at all. To your average Arcturus or Isis fan, a Dream Theater or Pain Of Salvation CD is a $15 frisbee - and vice versa.

Kudos to you, Dean Clap

... I experienced that yesterday evening, when I started listening to the MP3s on the Tech/Extreme Metal page. In the past, every time I'd tried to listen to those tracks, I ended up being frustrated by the incredible diversity of the bands listed, which didn't allow me to really 'make sense' of the wider subgenre of PM. On the other hand, yesterday I was able to appreciate the subtle (or even more evident) differences amongst the bands belonging to that particular sub, instead of being overwhelmed by music that was far too diverse to be classified together.

David's metaphor of the music store is, in my very humble opinion, extremely fitting... I know that every time I go to a mainstream store I have a hard time finding what I may be interested in, because everything going under the handle of 'international pop-rock' is lumped together.... from Yes to Frank Sinatra. LOL

Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: October 28 2007 at 10:32

The Art split was needed because of the diversity of styles. The split of metal doesn't make sense to me from of point of sheer logic. Why couldn't the diversity of the bands have been dealt with within the existing sub-genre? They are all still Metal bands. And it seems some of the supporters know this without realizing it.

micky wrote:

Atavachron wrote:

think of it this way; you walk into a record shop that has music in
thoughtful and knowledgeable sections instead of all mixed together,
say it has a large metal section with Tech, Experimental and
traditional progmetal sub-sections where right away you discover
several things you'd been interested in... then you go to a
record shop that lumps rock, pop, metal, psych, punk, and classic prog
all together, and you realize you would've never found that copy of Skullgrid
if you had to look through all the other stuff in the second record
shop. Which place will earn your respect, and where are you more
likely to go next time?

don't know whether to kiss you David ( probably not a good idea LOL

) or envy you.

well said.... much better than I could say hahhaha... Clap

And sometimes they don't.

Not related at all? They aren't all Metal bands?

Oh well. Like I said it is a matter of logic for me, and I am a bit anal about these things. If I see a crooked picture, I have to straighten it. Life goes on.

-------------
a.k.a. H.T.

http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com

Posted By: micky
Date Posted: October 28 2007 at 10:38

sure HT... they are all metal bands... and all sound the same right? All have the same style? Let's just drop all the prog bands that were 'rock' in the same sub-genre while we are at it.

-------------
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip

Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 28 2007 at 10:52

MikeEnRegalia wrote:

You won't be always there to give him ann advise, plus most of the newbies visit the site once or twice, if they don't find it friendly enough, they never come back.

That's why we'll continue to improve the genre definitions which are always there.

And believe me, three Prog Metals is irrational, there should be only one as every other genre, but that is past, it's done and we need to hope the best for Prog Archives

See below ...

Why not Prog Metal kept as one strong sub-genre, and several schools inside, it's simpler and rational...Or is Prog metal a super genre that deserves more sub-genres than the rest?

Yes, I do think that Prog Metal is a different situation than most of the other genres. It can benefit from a split because during the last 25 years metal bands have discovered more and more different ways or styles to make their music progressive. With about 500 bands a split is a good thing even from a pure numerical standpoint, and except for a handful of bands which are "between the chairs" the three new categories are proving to be quite consistent and logical.

I would support a split of the Symphonic Prog genre too ... if you can find a way to split the genre into a small number of genres which are roughly equally sized and without any major inconsistencies. We found such a solution for prog metal and implemented it ... it wasn't a matter of splitting our genre "at any cost".

There are many reasons, and most fans of the genre support them.

This may be done in a small site as your's Mike, but Prog Archives is too big and already has a method that has brought success and reliability.

I fail to see why this shouldn't be implemented ... it doesn't require any change in the structure of the website. Just a few additional pages, or even simply a slight change to the current top 100 chart page (introducing checkboxes so you can select more than one genre).

Think outside the box!!!! Smile

Yes, it's a good idea to think a bit outsisde the box, but it's also useful to think a bit in this box called Prog Archives.

Iván

Agreed ... it doesn't make much sense to think outside the box which is defined by what M@x would really implement. But we can think on the fringes ...

-------------
https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:

Posted By: micky
Date Posted: October 28 2007 at 10:57

^ if that doesn't get you in the X-mas spirit.. what will.

-------------
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip

Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: October 28 2007 at 11:04

micky wrote:

LOL

sure HT... they are all metal bands... and all sound the same right?
All have the same style? Let's just drop all the prog bands that
were 'rock' in the same sub-genre while we are at it.

No they don't all sound the same. I never said that. I have stated many times that the diversity of the bands needed to be addressed. But, since they are all still Metal bands, that diversity should have been addressed within the overall heading of Prog Metal.

-------------
a.k.a. H.T.

http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com

Posted By: micky
Date Posted: October 28 2007 at 11:07

bhikkhu wrote:

micky wrote:

LOL

sure HT... they are all metal bands... and all sound the same right?
All have the same style? Let's just drop all the prog bands that
were 'rock' in the same sub-genre while we are at it.

this is a prog site... not a metal site... I don't care if they are metal or not. Neither apparantly do many others... it is the prog that matters.. not labels like metal.

-------------
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip

Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: October 28 2007 at 11:13

I basically just go with the flow, so, just a bit. The sub genres are there for you to explore or ignore. But if metal metaltastisizes any more this may become a metal prog site. (I read the new sub genre's definitions, the danger is there LOL

) Hopefully things will settle down with the split. Big%20smile

-------------
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: October 28 2007 at 11:18

micky wrote:

bhikkhu wrote:

micky wrote:

LOL

sure HT... they are all metal bands... and all sound the same right?
All have the same style? Let's just drop all the prog bands that
were 'rock' in the same sub-genre while we are at it.

No they don't all sound the same. I never said that. I have stated
many times that the diversity of the bands needed to be addressed. But,
since they are all still Metal bands, that diversity should have been
addressed within the overall heading of Prog Metal.

this is a prog site... not a metal site... I don't care if they
are metal or not. Neither apparantly do many others... it
is the prog that matters.. not labels like metal.

Exactly, but we do have classifications. And you are right. It is not a Metal site. If it was, the separate sub genres would make more sense. It's a matter of logic Micky. You group somilar things together. That is why we are a Progressive site. We group Progressive bands together. Within that, we have created sub-genres for those that have more things in common than others. And conversely, to separate those that don't have as much in common.

You go to mall to shop. You are looking for a dress shirt. You find a clothing store. The store has a dress and a casual department. If the variety of dress shirts increases, they don't start creating separate departments for them.

-------------
a.k.a. H.T.

http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com

Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: October 28 2007 at 13:01

MikeEnRegalia wrote:

That's why we'll continue to improve the genre definitions which are always there.

Definitions that won't be read if the site is too complex and not friendly, for me three Prog Metals create confusion.

Yes, I do think that Prog Metal is a different situation than most of the other genres. It can benefit from a split because during the last 25 years metal bands have discovered more and more different ways or styles to make their music progressive. With about 500 bands a split is a good thing even from a pure numerical standpoint, and except for a handful of bands which are "between the chairs" the three new categories are proving to be quite consistent and logical.

Why different? What makes it so special? Every genre is as important as all the others and some are pretty much more complex than Metal, all the bands in this genres have the Metal component, all should be together.

We have almost 400 bands in Symphonic and I'm sure we will pass the 500 soon, but all are Symphonic and that's the main point.

I would support a split of the Symphonic Prog genre too ... if you can find a way to split the genre into a small number of genres which are roughly equally sized and without any major inconsistencies. We found such a solution for prog metal and implemented it ... it wasn't a matter of splitting our genre "at any cost".

Well, the Symphonic split wion't happen, we believe all Symphonic bands belong together, we even believe Italian Symphonic bands belong in Symphonic, but this is a decision taken above and we have to accept them.

There are many reasons, and most fans of the genre support them.

Mopst of the fans? The majority always keep silent to keep the peace, only some of us feel we should express our opinions when we thing something is not right for the site, but again, we can only talk because this has been decided.

Agreed ... it doesn't make much sense to think outside the box which is defined by what M@x would really implement. But we can think on the fringes ...

I rather think in the box itself, there's where the important issues arre, but agaion this is only theorical, because the Prog metal issue has been decided, only time will tell.

Iván

-------------

Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 28 2007 at 13:10

"Why different? What makes it so special? Every genre is as important as all the others and some are pretty much more complex than Metal, all the bands in this genres have the Metal component, all should be together."

Sorry, but I don't think that any of the other genres was comparable to prog metal as far as stylistic bandwidth is concerned. Imagine that Symphonic, RIO, Eclectic Prog and Post Rock were combined ... would that be a good thing?

-------------
https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:

Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: October 28 2007 at 14:06

MikeEnRegalia wrote:

"Why
different? What makes it so special? Every genre is as important as all
the others and some are pretty much more complex than Metal, all the
bands in this genres have the Metal component, all should be together."Sorry, but I don't think that any of the other genres was comparable to prog metal as far as stylistic bandwidth is concerned. Imagine that Symphonic, RIO, Eclectic Prog and Post Rock were combined ... would that be a good thing?

No, but they don't all have a common thread, such as all being Metal bands.

-------------
a.k.a. H.T.

http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com

Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: October 28 2007 at 14:31

I like the metal split, but I would rather the new categories be organised as subcategories of the Prog Metal category (click on Prog Metal and then have a further chance to click on the subcategories. The "Prog Metal" list of bands as it stands could be renamed Traditional, Conventional, Typical, or Generic Progressive Metal -- don't know what name is best, but... whatever, not important to my point).

Of course I want multi-tagging as a further development, but I could see this category/ sub category approach working for the old art rock category.. though I'd tweak the master category name.

-------------
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXcp9fYc6K4IKuxIZkenfvukL_Y8VBqzK" rel="nofollow - Duos for fave acts

Posted By: micky
Date Posted: October 28 2007 at 14:33

bhikkhu wrote:

No, but they don't all have a common thread, such as all being Metal bands.

silly me... how about all being rock bands as a common thread... a category as mushy and wide as metal...

-------------
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip

Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 28 2007 at 14:44

^ thanks!

Actually this is the typical error ... to some people Prog Metal can only be either a sub genre of prog rock like all the others or something completely different from prog rock - so different that it doesn't really belong here. Jazz-Fusion is in the same situation ... it's very different from the other Prog Rock genres. Neo Prog is another special genre, theoretically it could be split into Symphonic Neo Prog and the rest. I'm not suggesting that though, since there aren't enough bands in the genre to justify a split and the differences between them are not *that* big.

-------------
https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:

Posted By: P.H.P.
Date Posted: October 28 2007 at 14:47

For me, the only way Metal can be Prog is if it's a sub-genre of Prog Rock, strongly influenced by it, otherwise it only is what has been called "Technical Metal", IMO.

Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 28 2007 at 14:56

P.H.P. wrote:

For me, the only way Metal can be Prog is if it's a sub-genre of Prog Rock, strongly influenced by it, otherwise it only is what has been called "Technical Metal", IMO.

What about metal bands which were strongly influenced by Jazz-Rock/Fusion?

The point is that modern metal came to full bloom in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and by that most of the original Prog Rock genres had been around for a long time. Some metal bands were jazz-rock influenced, others were avant-garde ... some liked neo prog, some liked symphonic prog etc.. This is how a genre can be closely tied to prog rock, but still not be an ordinary sub genre.

-------------
https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:

Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: October 28 2007 at 22:21

micky wrote:

bhikkhu wrote:

MikeEnRegalia wrote:

"Why
different? What makes it so special? Every genre is as important as all
the others and some are pretty much more complex than Metal, all the
bands in this genres have the Metal component, all should be together."Sorry,
but I don't think that any of the other genres was comparable to prog
metal as far as stylistic bandwidth is concerned. Imagine that
Symphonic, RIO, Eclectic Prog and Post Rock were combined ... would
that be a good thing?

No, but they don't all have a common thread, such as all being Metal bands.

silly me... how about all being rock bands as a common thread... a category as mushy and wide as metal...

I think you are missing my point. Everything here is Prog, but we have subdivided it to show commonalities. All the bands in the Metal sub-genres have metal in common. This is something the other sub-genres do not have. Where there are commonalities with other bands, such as Electronic, or Symphonic, we put them together. But for some reason Metal has been deemed to be a special case.

-------------
a.k.a. H.T.

http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com

Posted By: micky
Date Posted: October 28 2007 at 22:26

bhikkhu wrote:

micky wrote:

bhikkhu wrote:

MikeEnRegalia wrote:

"Why
different? What makes it so special? Every genre is as important as all
the others and some are pretty much more complex than Metal, all the
bands in this genres have the Metal component, all should be together."Sorry,
but I don't think that any of the other genres was comparable to prog
metal as far as stylistic bandwidth is concerned. Imagine that
Symphonic, RIO, Eclectic Prog and Post Rock were combined ... would
that be a good thing?

No, but they don't all have a common thread, such as all being Metal bands.

silly me... how about all being rock bands as a common thread... a category as mushy and wide as metal...

HT... those you mentioned are subs based on a sound. for the very large part... metal is no sound... just a tag someone throws at a group. Just as much as being called a rock group ...or a pop group. I think the whole point that the PMT was making .. is the only commonality between all those groups in PM is that they are labelled as metal... to group them together just based on that .. .would indeed be the same as taking all the rock groups that were prog.. and putting them all together. Regardless of musical differences beyond a rock quotient.

-------------
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip

Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: October 28 2007 at 22:35

micky wrote:

HT... those you mentioned are subs based on a sound. for
the very large part... metal is no sound... just a tag someone throws
at a group. Just as much as being called a rock group ...or a pop
group. I think the whole point that the PMT was making .. is the
only commonality between all those groups in PM is that they are
labelled as metal... to group them together just based on that ..
.would indeed be the same as taking all the rock groups that were
prog.. and putting them all together. Regardless of musical
differences beyond a rock quotient.

Metal doesn't have a distinct sound? That's news to me. I guess I better have someone else go through my collection so I will be able to tell which ones are Metal, and which ones aren't.

-------------
a.k.a. H.T.

http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com

Posted By: micky
Date Posted: October 28 2007 at 22:38

bhikkhu wrote:

Metal doesn't have a distinct sound? That's news to me. I guess I better have someone else go through my collection so I will be able to tell which ones are Metal, and which ones aren't.

hahahhah.... put away fhose Raff and Cinderella albums LOL

seriously though...going through the samples of the 3 new subs... I think the PMT nailed it. They don't sound alike. Good enough for me brother LOL

Have a good night HT Tongue

-------------
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip

Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: October 28 2007 at 22:42

micky wrote:

bhikkhu wrote:

Metal doesn't have a distinct sound? That's news to me. I guess I
better have someone else go through my collection so I will be able to
tell which ones are Metal, and which ones aren't.

hahahhah.... put away fhose Ratt and Cinderella albums LOL

seriously though...going through the samples of the 3 new subs... I
think the PMT nailed it. They don't sound alike. Good
enough for me brother LOL

Have a good night HT Tongue

No, I said my collection, not yours.

-------------
a.k.a. H.T.

http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com

Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: October 28 2007 at 22:47

The point that Mike and Micky are making is that Metal is not a single point function, the diversity of styles within Metal is as broad, if not broader, than the various styles within Prog. So, if you permutate all the Metal Styles with all the Prog Styles you get an alarming number of Prog Metal styles (I don't think we've had Zeuhl-Black Metal yet, but it's only a mater of time...).

Grouping all these styles of PM under one banner is not helpful to a PM fan because it does not follow that they will like all styles of Metal just because it's Metal - In non-prog Metal I do not like the sub-genre of Power Metal (and its sub-subgenre Battle Metal) and would avoid any Prog Metal band that based their music around that subgenre.

I agree with many of the posts here that say that the three subs should be grouped together under a PM banner, but the site (and hence the archive database) is not hierarchical - it is flat - i.e. the sub-genres are not organised in a parent-child relational tree.

-------------
What?

Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: October 28 2007 at 22:54

bhikkhu wrote:

The Art split was needed because of the diversity of styles. The split of metal doesn't make sense to me from of point of sheer logic. Why couldn't the diversity of the bands have been dealt with within the existing sub-genre? They are all still Metal bands. And it seems some of the supporters know this without realizing it.

micky wrote:

Atavachron wrote:

think of it this way; you walk into a record shop that has music in
thoughtful and knowledgeable sections instead of all mixed together,
say it has a large metal section with Tech, Experimental and
traditional progmetal sub-sections where right away you discover
several things you'd been interested in... then you go to a
record shop that lumps rock, pop, metal, psych, punk, and classic prog
all together, and you realize you would've never found that copy of Skullgrid
if you had to look through all the other stuff in the second record
shop. Which place will earn your respect, and where are you more
likely to go next time?

don't know whether to kiss you David ( probably not a good idea LOL

) or envy you.

well said.... much better than I could say hahhaha... Clap

And sometimes they don't.

fair enough H.T., but my opinion as to whether or not Progmetal is a part of Metal or a part of Prog has little to do with the unanimous judgment of a team of experts that a separation is important

Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: October 28 2007 at 23:15

darqdean wrote:

The point that Mike and Micky are making is that Metal is not a single point function, the diversity of styles within Metal is as broad, if not broader, than the various styles within Prog. So, if you permutate all the Metal Styles with all the Prog Styles you get an alarming number of Prog Metal styles (I don't think we've had Zeuhl-Black Metal yet, but it's only a mater of time...).

I disagree. If that were not the case, then these would all be divisions of Rock in general, not just Prog.

-------------
a.k.a. H.T.

http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com

Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: October 29 2007 at 00:39

A Subdivision of Metal sub-genres woyuld only work if you divide the site in three super genres, lets say Propgressicve Rock . Fusion ansd Metal.

Otherwise we are creating a priviledge sub-genre.

BTW: It's incredible to say that there's not such diversity in other genres, in Symphonic for example, we have a whole lot of bands mostly from Eastern Europe that play in the border of Symphonic and Folk.

We have other huge group of bands that have Avant or experimental sounds, mainly in the first years of this century and in United States.

Or will somebody dare to tell me that Yes, Renaissance and Shadow Circus have more in common than most Prog Metal bands

Darqdean wrote:

The point that Mike and Micky are making is that Metal is not a single point function, the diversity of styles within Metal is as broad, if not broader, than the various styles within Prog.

You have forgotten something Darq, this is not a Metal site but a Prog one.

In a Metal site you can make all the sub-genres you want, there's even a sub-genre of Metal called Prog Metal, but only one.

Prog Archives isd a PROG SITE and all the diversity if Metal sub-genres is not of our main concern, we must care more for the diversity of PROG.

All Prog Metal bands should be together as one more voice in the chorus, but now there are several genres with the same range and one with three sub-genres for it.

This is absurd IMHO.

Iván

-------------

Posted By: Tapfret
Date Posted: October 29 2007 at 01:21

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

A Subdivision of Metal sub-genres woyuld only work if you divide the site in three super genres, lets say Propgressicve Rock . Fusion ansd Metal.

Otherwise we are creating a priviledge sub-genre.

We have other huge group of bands that have Avant or experimental sounds, mainly in the first years of this century and in United States.

Or will somebody dare to tell me that Yes, Renaissance and Shadow Circus have more in common than most Prog Metal bands

Darqdean wrote:

The point that Mike and Micky are making is that Metal is not a single point function, the diversity of styles within Metal is as broad, if not broader, than the various styles within Prog.

You have forgotten something Darq, this is not a Metal site but a Prog one.

In a Metal site you can make all the sub-genres you want, there's even a sub-genre of Metal called Prog Metal, but only one.

Prog Archives isd a PROG SITE and all the diversity if Metal sub-genres is not of our main concern, we must care more for the diversity of PROG.

All Prog Metal bands should be together as one more voice in the chorus, but now there are several genres with the same range and one with three sub-genres for it.

This is absurd IMHO.

Iván

The problem, as I have stated before, is that anything with a hint of a low-bottom distorted guitar automatically becomes "metal". The assertion that they don't belong is exactly what you get about these bands on metal sites. "This is a METAL site, not a PROG site", they say and go on to ridicule them as pretentious(sound familiar?). I am more content with broader subdivisions than throwing a huge blanket over Gordian Knot and Martyr and saying they are the same thing. *That* is trully absurd. I can't say Shadow Circus has anything in common with Yes or Renaissance since I have never heard Shadow Circus. But I can say that Yes and Renaissance have way more in common than Coprofago and Shadow Gallery. And from a structural point of view, Yes has more in common with Opeth than they do with UK, despite being in the same sub.

I'm not huge on making vast quantities of sun-genres, but if you are going to do it, it has to be done in a realistic manner.

-------------
https://www.last.fm/user/Tapfret" rel="nofollow">

https://bandcamp.com/tapfret" rel="nofollow - Bandcamp

Posted By: Tapfret
Date Posted: October 29 2007 at 01:27

bhikkhu wrote:

darqdean wrote:

I disagree. If that were not the case, then these would all be divisions of Rock in general, not just Prog.

Its either flat or a very short tree. As a matter of fact, its more like a shrubbery... or better yet, turf.

-------------
https://www.last.fm/user/Tapfret" rel="nofollow">

https://bandcamp.com/tapfret" rel="nofollow - Bandcamp

Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: October 29 2007 at 01:30

Tapfret wrote:

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

A Subdivision of Metal sub-genres woyuld only work if you divide the site in three super genres, lets say Propgressicve Rock . Fusion ansd Metal.

Otherwise we are creating a priviledge sub-genre.

We have other huge group of bands that have Avant or experimental sounds, mainly in the first years of this century and in United States.

Or will somebody dare to tell me that Yes, Renaissance and Shadow Circus have more in common than most Prog Metal bands

Darqdean wrote:

The point that Mike and Micky are making is that Metal is not a single point function, the diversity of styles within Metal is as broad, if not broader, than the various styles within Prog.

You have forgotten something Darq, this is not a Metal site but a Prog one.

In a Metal site you can make all the sub-genres you want, there's even a sub-genre of Metal called Prog Metal, but only one.

Prog Archives isd a PROG SITE and all the diversity if Metal sub-genres is not of our main concern, we must care more for the diversity of PROG.

All Prog Metal bands should be together as one more voice in the chorus, but now there are several genres with the same range and one with three sub-genres for it.

This is absurd IMHO.

Iván

I'm not huge on making vast quantities of sun-genres, but if you are going to do it, it has to be done in a realistic manner.

I think you are taking our opposition to the split as some kind of insult to the Metal bands, or an assertion as we view them as all being the same. This is not the case. I do believe the difference between the bands in Prog Metal need to be clarified. But I also believe that the significance of their relationship to each other should remain intact.

-------------
a.k.a. H.T.

http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com

Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 29 2007 at 04:11

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

A Subdivision of Metal sub-genres woyuld only work if you divide the site in three super genres, lets say Propgressicve Rock . Fusion ansd Metal.

Otherwise we are creating a priviledge sub-genre.

We already have such a priviledged sub genre ... it's called "Prog Rock".

We have other huge group of bands that have Avant or experimental sounds, mainly in the first years of this century and in United States.

Or will somebody dare to tell me that Yes, Renaissance and Shadow Circus have more in common than most Prog Metal bands

Yes, these bands are much more similar to each other than for example Dream Theater, Death and Isis.

Darqdean wrote:

The point that Mike and Micky are making is that Metal is not a single point function, the diversity of styles within Metal is as broad, if not broader, than the various styles within Prog.

You have forgotten something Darq, this is not a Metal site but a Prog one.

Wrong distinction. It should not be "Prog vs. Metal", but "Rock vs. Metal", and in that comparison it should be obvious to everyone that the site is still focused on Rock. It's 13+ genres vs. 3!

In a Metal site you can make all the sub-genres you want, there's even a sub-genre of Metal called Prog Metal, but only one.

"only one" ... why are you always trying to over-regulate stuff?

Prog Archives isd a PROG SITE and all the diversity if Metal sub-genres is not of our main concern, we must care more for the diversity of PROG.

All Prog Metal bands should be together as one more voice in the chorus, but now there are several genres with the same range and one with three sub-genres for it.

Iván

-------------
https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:

Posted By: Tapfret
Date Posted: October 29 2007 at 05:06

bhikkhu wrote:

Tapfret wrote:

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

(Stuff)

Darqdean wrote:

(some other stuff)

(yet more stuff)

I'm not huge on making vast quantities of sun-genres, but if you are going to do it, it has to be done in a realistic manner.

I might need a little clarification on who falls into the context of "our opposition". My statement is directed toward Ivan's position that prog metal is getting some kind of special consideration. In particular, the statement "Prog Archives is a PROG SITE and all the diversity if Metal sub-genres is not of our main concern, we must care more for the diversity of PROG" Sounds pretty exclusionist to me, especially when we know that other sub-genres have had splits. In fact, it is pretty irrelevant whether a genre gets special treatment. What is important is that people have the opportunity to explore bands that they might like based on a common ground. I have already stated examples where that would not happen with a single PM sub. I agree with you that the relationship should stay, however, there are a few (like Gordian Knot as an easy example) that really don't fit in any metal genre. There are likely many who won't go near a genre labeled anything-metal that would miss out on something they might enjoy. It is pretty clear, from my own perspective and obviously the perspective of those with the power to make this change, that the same problem existed within the sub-genre. It is my understanding that the same issues were prevelant with the Art Rock sub.

-------------
https://www.last.fm/user/Tapfret" rel="nofollow">

https://bandcamp.com/tapfret" rel="nofollow - Bandcamp

Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: October 29 2007 at 05:42

Tapfret wrote:

It did indeed - this is why, in the first months of this year, we suggested the split that was made effective at the end of summer. Though I and my teammates are well aware that many site members do not agree with the split, or even just with the names we found for the three new subgenres, the situation was untenable - and not just for us who were in charge of the sub.

The name, for one thing, wasn't clear, as witnessed by the numerous threads about why KC were in Art Rock (does it mean they're not prog?), and the diversity of the 400+ plus bands included in AR was overwhelming. As our priority has always been making things as user-friendly as possible, it was clear there was no other solution than a split. What happened with PM was exactly the same. Since I've been exploring more and more of the genre, I've come to realise the amount of diversity within it was comparable to what we had in AR, and that having 500+ very diverse bands all lumped together wasn't going to help anyone find their way.

Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: October 29 2007 at 08:07

Tapfret wrote:

bhikkhu wrote:

Tapfret wrote:

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

(Stuff)

Darqdean wrote:

(some other stuff)

(yet more stuff)

I'm not huge on making vast quantities of sun-genres, but if you are going to do it, it has to be done in a realistic manner.

But Art Rock didn't have any common characteristic to bind the bands together. It was more of a clearing house for bands that didn't fit anywhere else. Metal is getting special treatment, because we now have three subs that are metal, on the same level as all the others. It is as if you are saying that those new sub-genres have as little in common with each other as Electronic and Folk. But yet, they are all still Metal bands.

-------------
a.k.a. H.T.

http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com

Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: October 29 2007 at 08:23

Sometimes you just gotta ignore all the categories and just enjoy the music. I didn't quite like the art rock split at first. I found that almost always liked groups in that category when I checked them out. As far as the metal goes. Though I think some metal can be prog I think there has been a bit of a stepping over the line here. But hey, there's stuff I think of as prog that will never be accepted here.

-------------
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: October 29 2007 at 08:40

My whole point is actually quite simple, and I am amazed that there are so few people who see it. All of the bands in these new sub-genres have two things in common. They are all Progressive, and they are all Metal. Can you make the kind of blanket statement about any other two sub-genres?

-------------
a.k.a. H.T.

http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com

Posted By: Norbert
Date Posted: October 29 2007 at 09:15

I think the term Art Rock should be kept for VDGG, KC and GG and other bands which are now under the bizarre name eclectic. Frankly, I don't like the term eclectic very much. Maybe the other two subspecies should be called Light Art Rock and Heavy Art Rock.

But these are mainly about the terms, I agree that so many bands were difficukt to handle under one umbrella, but art is still a more nice term than eclectic.

Posted By: P.H.P.
Date Posted: October 29 2007 at 10:58

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

A Subdivision of Metal sub-genres woyuld only work if you divide the site in three super genres, lets say Propgressicve Rock . Fusion ansd Metal.

Otherwise we are creating a priviledge sub-genre.

We have other huge group of bands that have Avant or experimental sounds, mainly in the first years of this century and in United States.

Or will somebody dare to tell me that Yes, Renaissance and Shadow Circus have more in common than most Prog Metal bands

Darqdean wrote:

The point that Mike and Micky are making is that Metal is not a single point function, the diversity of styles within Metal is as broad, if not broader, than the various styles within Prog.

You have forgotten something Darq, this is not a Metal site but a Prog one.

In a Metal site you can make all the sub-genres you want, there's even a sub-genre of Metal called Prog Metal, but only one.

Prog Archives isd a PROG SITE and all the diversity if Metal sub-genres is not of our main concern, we must care more for the diversity of PROG.

All Prog Metal bands should be together as one more voice in the chorus, but now there are several genres with the same range and one with three sub-genres for it.

This is absurd IMHO.

Iván

For the 830001947178201 time...WELL SAID IVÁN! Clap

Finally a respected special collaborator said it!! Smile

why it's so hard for others to note this site is going off-target?? Ermm

Posted By: P.H.P.
Date Posted: October 29 2007 at 11:04

Slartibartfast wrote:

Sometimes you just gotta ignore all the categories and just enjoy the music. I didn't quite like the art rock split at first. I found that almost always liked groups in that category when I checked them out. As far as the metal goes. Though I think some metal can be prog I think there has been a bit of a stepping over the line here. But hey, there's stuff I think of as prog that will never be accepted here.

Exactly, and I would add, a fair bit waaaay beyond that line... Unhappy

....and yes, you could think whatever you want about a band you think is Prog, but never accepted here, it's just your oppinion and you can't present it as a truth... Tongue

Posted By: Tapfret
Date Posted: October 29 2007 at 12:10

bhikkhu wrote:

My whole point is actually quite simple, and I am amazed that there are so few people who see it. All of the bands in these new sub-genres have two things in common. They are all Progressive, and they are all Metal. Can you make the kind of blanket statement about any other two sub-genres?

Of course you can. Most of the bands, in any of the subs, have a heck of a lot more than 2 things in common with bands in other sub-sets. That doesn't change because the names change. Gentle Giant isn't any less or more related to ELP because they are no longer have the same nomenclature. You seem to be all hung up on the term 'metal', regardless of how dissimilar many of the sub-genre bands are. Sure, it worked great back in the day when the only PM bands were Dream Theater, Watchtower and Fates Warning. But the sub-genre has expanded, just as many others have. You can say "Metal, Metal, Metal!" until you are blue in the face, it doesn't make Dysrhythmia and Dream Theater fit together any better in the same sub-set.

-------------
https://www.last.fm/user/Tapfret" rel="nofollow">

https://bandcamp.com/tapfret" rel="nofollow - Bandcamp

Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: October 29 2007 at 12:42

[QUOTE=MikeEnRegalia]
We already have such a priviledged sub genre ... it's called "Prog Rock".

Yes, these bands are much more similar to each other than for example Dream Theater, Death and Isis.

Wrong distinction. It should not be "Prog vs. Metal", but "Rock vs. Metal", and in that comparison it should be obvious to everyone that the site is still focused on Rock. It's 13+ genres vs. 3!

This is not a VS thing Mike, that's what people is trying to make bellieve to have an argument, our reaction would be the same in the case of Folk, Fusion oor any other sub-genre

"only one" ... why are you always trying to over-regulate stuff?

Sorry Mike, the only one trying tio over regulate things are youu, just pay a visit to to your site and you will find bands with 5, 6 or more tags, that's iover regulating IMHO.

Prog Archives isd a PROG SITE and all the diversity if Metal sub-genres is not of our main concern, we must care more for the diversity of PROG.

no, we have one genre (Prog Rock) with about 12 sub genres, another one (Prog Metal) with 3 sub genres and another genre (Jazz-Rock/Fusion) with no sub genres. Seems perfectly fine to me.

Again, if Prog Metal is a sub-genre of Prog Rock, then it belongs here, if it's a different Genre with it's own rules and own sub-divisions, it doesn't belong here.

I'm sure Prog Metal is a sub-genre of Prog Rock, not a different entity with it's own sub-genres and for that reason belongs here, but as one sub-genre..

Iván

[QUOTE]

-------------

Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: October 29 2007 at 12:58

P.H.P. wrote:

Exactly, and I would add, a fair bit waaaay beyond that line... Unhappy

....and yes, you could think whatever you want about a band you think is Prog, but never accepted here, it's just your oppinion and you can't present it as a truth... Tongue

Well, I'd have to make a good case for those particular artists.

-------------
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Posted By: magnus
Date Posted: October 29 2007 at 13:08

Seems to me like some people need to aqcuire a better understanding of how wide a range of bands a term such as "progressive metal" actually includes... When 1 prog subgenre suddenly has 500+ bands, it's only natural that it gets split into more accurate subgenres.

Sticking all prog metal bands into one category seems to me as useful as making a category for bands who use guitars in their music.

-------------
The scattered jigsaw of my redemption laid out before my eyes
Each piece as amorphous as the other - Each piece in its lack of shape a lie

Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: October 29 2007 at 13:36

I'd just like to remind everyone that the question is about your willingness to accept others' revisions of genres you had firmly in your mind before, not the validity of band/movements as prog or not and other tangent discussions.

-------------
http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!

Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: October 29 2007 at 14:15

To answer Stonie original questione, the way the genres are currently split is how I have envisioned the divisons of progressive music (yes, I mean music not rock as only about half to 2/3 of the genres are Rock)pretty much since I joined hereand discovered how diverse prog really is. Its a case of the site matching the way I think.

As to the ongoing discussion about the PM split, it was definitely needed, after all we never had Symphonic, Neo, Folk, Canterbury, RPI, Heavy, Crossover and Eclectic all all grouped under the unwhieldy title of Prog Rock, because thats exactly what it is. Please people, let us remember that this is a site dedicated to Prog, not one specific aspect of that, whether it be Rock, Metal, Electronic, Avent-Garde, Jazz-rock/Fusion. From those five main parts (there maybe more, I cant be bothered with cross checking with the front page at the moment) Rock and Metal are clearly the most diverse, and about the only difference between the two is the (usually) heavier guitar distortions and a few specifics in the drumming (as with prog in general, these are rules that a good many bands wont necesarilly follow). Is that enough to demand these bands be artificially grouped together in a specific, one-size-fits-all sub-genre? Ivan and Bhikkhu have been making the case that they are all linked by metal, but having a genre were Kayo Dot and Dream Theater are placed together makes as much sense as having a genre were Genesis and Universe Zero are grouped together. DT nad KD are completely different, just as UZ and Genesis are. Its also been said that PM has been given special treatment, well if thats the case then rock certainly has been given special treatment since the websites inception (as near as I can tell, anyway) so its just evening things out. Hell, if we wanted to really even it out then there should be about 5 or 6 metal related sub-genres instead of the 3 we have at the moment, but that would be unecassery as PM hasnt reached that level of diversety with enough bands, yet.

Just speaking my mind here. Smile

-------------
Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005

Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: October 29 2007 at 14:29

Norbert wrote:

I think the term Art Rock should be kept for VDGG, KC and GG and other bands which are now under the bizarre name eclectic. Frankly, I don't like the term eclectic very much. Maybe the other two subspecies should be called Light Art Rock and Heavy Art Rock.

But these are mainly about the terms, I agree that so many bands were difficukt to handle under one umbrella, but art is still a more nice term than eclectic.

Norbert, you are entitled to your opinion, but so am I, and the name Eclectic happens to be my brainchild, so I'm inclined to be naturally defensive when it comes to it. Anyway, I think I've repeated ad nauseam why the split happened... It wasn't because we were bored one day and decided to play a word game. As to 'light' and 'heavy' art rock, it would've been a wonderful way to have us team members spend our days explaining to site members that the bands in those two subs were 100% prog.

I'm sorry to sound confrontational, especially to such a nice person as you, but the name Art Rock is NOT coming back. We had valid reasons to effect a change, even if I can understand that some may have an attachment to said name.

Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: October 29 2007 at 17:00

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

You have forgotten something Darq, this is not a Metal site but a Prog one.

I have forgotten many things over the years Iván, but that wasn't one of them.

The paragraph that opened with the sentence you quoted went on to explain that there are many flavours of Metal, which naturally leads to many flavours of Prog Metal. I was making a statement about Prog Metal being divisions of Prog and Metal. If you interpretted that as a statement only about Metal then I appologise for my confusing style of writing.

The split of Prog Metal is coincident with Prog boundaries, the bands within each of the new subs are still Prog bands.

-------------
What?

Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 29 2007 at 17:12

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

We already have such a priviledged sub genre ... it's called "Prog Rock".

Yes, these bands are much more similar to each other than for example Dream Theater, Death and Isis.

That's what you believe not being involved in the Symphonic business, bands as After Crying or Karda Estra for example, could be in Folk or in Symphonic, Kamdsas could easily be in Eclectic, Steve Hackett could be in Avant or Eclectic.

I know many, many symphonic bands and albums ... of course there is a huge bandwidth of styles, but not something like Dream Theater and Death, or Symphony X and Meshuggah ... or Kayo Dot and Kamelot.

Wrong distinction. It should not be "Prog vs. Metal", but "Rock vs. Metal", and in that comparison it should be obvious to everyone that the site is still focused on Rock. It's 13+ genres vs. 3!

This is not a VS thing Mike, that's what people is trying to make bellieve to have an argument, our reaction would be the same in the case of Folk, Fusion oor any other sub-genre

That's what's bothering me - you're desperately trying to make it appear like all the genres are the same ... they're not.

"only one" ... why are you always trying to over-regulate stuff?

Sorry Mike, the only one trying tio over regulate things are youu, just pay a visit to to your site and you will find bands with 5, 6 or more tags, that's iover regulating IMHO.

Prog Archives isd a PROG SITE and all the diversity if Metal sub-genres is not of our main concern, we must care more for the diversity of PROG.

Prog Metal is a part of Prog ... I find it offensive when people say "Metal vs. Prog".

I'm sure Prog Metal is a sub-genre of Prog Rock, not a different entity with it's own sub-genres and for that reason belongs here, but as one sub-genre..

Perhaps I really shouldn't expect flexibility from a lawyer ... Wink

Iván

-------------
https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:

Posted By: micky
Date Posted: October 29 2007 at 17:23

sleeper wrote:

To answer Stonie original questione, the way the genres are currently split is how I have envisioned the divisons of progressive music (yes, I mean music not rock as only about half to 2/3 of the genres are Rock)pretty much since I joined hereand discovered how diverse prog really is. Its a case of the site matching the way I think.

As to the ongoing discussion about the PM split, it was definitely needed, after all we never had Symphonic, Neo, Folk, Canterbury, RPI, Heavy, Crossover and Eclectic all all grouped under the unwhieldy title of Prog Rock, because thats exactly what it is. Please people, let us remember that this is a site dedicated to Prog, not one specific aspect of that, whether it be Rock, Metal, Electronic, Avent-Garde, Jazz-rock/Fusion. From those five main parts (there maybe more, I cant be bothered with cross checking with the front page at the moment) Rock and Metal are clearly the most diverse, and about the only difference between the two is the (usually) heavier guitar distortions and a few specifics in the drumming (as with prog in general, these are rules that a good many bands wont necesarilly follow). Is that enough to demand these bands be artificially grouped together in a specific, one-size-fits-all sub-genre? Ivan and Bhikkhu have been making the case that they are all linked by metal, but having a genre were Kayo Dot and Dream Theater are placed together makes as much sense as having a genre were Genesis and Universe Zero are grouped together. DT nad KD are completely different, just as UZ and Genesis are. Its also been said that PM has been given special treatment, well if thats the case then rock certainly has been given special treatment since the websites inception (as near as I can tell, anyway) so its just evening things out. Hell, if we wanted to really even it out then there should be about 5 or 6 metal related sub-genres instead of the 3 we have at the moment, but that would be unecassery as PM hasnt reached that level of diversety with enough bands, yet.

Just speaking my mind here. Smile

not surprised this thread is still going strong... it shouldn't be though... if you simply read that post ^.

Great post.... and this thread really has run it's course I think. How many times can the same people offer the same reasoning.. and the same people the same rebuttals.

On to another subject for me.... the split happened.... and damn near everyone here sees the merits of it. Another couple of pages of the same discussion isn't changing anyone's mind hahhahah

-------------
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip

Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: October 29 2007 at 17:35

Tapfret wrote:

I didn't say some of the bands. I said all of the bands. Name me two other sub-genres where every entry shares this kind of relationship. And you are correct. Dysrhythmia and Dream Theater do not fit in the same subset. The same subset of Prog-Metal, that is.

-------------
a.k.a. H.T.

http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com

Posted By: Tapfret
Date Posted: October 29 2007 at 19:59

bhikkhu wrote:

Tapfret wrote:

Prog Metal is just a label, just like Art Rock was just a label. Go to Tower Records (if you can find one that survived) and you will find that all albums on the Magna Carta label are in the metal section. That does not mean that Cairo, Attention Deficit and Magellan are metal. Somebody just decided to categorize bands that they had not heard for lack of a better place to put them. I would not venture to say that PA is anywhere close to being that arbitrary, but Dysrhythmia and Dream Theater, again, have little to do with eachother outside of the fact that there weren't any further classes to put them in. There is not a single viable term to put both of those bands in, period. Have you forgotten that Art Rock was split for the same reasons? Does somebody need to put the term Art Rock at the end to remind you? Eclectic Art Rock? Crossover Art Rock?

So no, I cannot say that there are two sub-genres where all of the bands share the same characteristics. Nor can I say it about the 3 new genres, regardless of what gets tacked onto the end of the name.

-------------
https://www.last.fm/user/Tapfret" rel="nofollow">

https://bandcamp.com/tapfret" rel="nofollow - Bandcamp

Posted By: Tapfret
Date Posted: October 29 2007 at 20:03

micky wrote:

Wait! I just changed my mind.

Not really, point taken, I'm done.

-------------
https://www.last.fm/user/Tapfret" rel="nofollow">

https://bandcamp.com/tapfret" rel="nofollow - Bandcamp

Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: October 29 2007 at 20:17

Actually, I am just now mainly curious as to why people think metal is so unique. Art Rock was a collection of bands as dissimilar as Gentle Giant and Rush. The term Art Rock, for me anyway, was the original name for Progressive way back in the day. I know why that was such a mess. I helped put many of the bands in there. However, if Metal is just arbitrary, then by that logic, some of those bands would belong in other genres. But is that the case, or are they metal bands?

And frankly, the fact that it just absolutely doesn't make any sense to me has me concerned. I thought I had the format of all of this figured out, but now I find I was wrong. So far, no one has provided an explanation that proves the split necessary. This isn't really about metal. This just happens to be where this move took place. I would be just as confused if it had been done in Folk.

-------------
a.k.a. H.T.

http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com

Posted By: Tapfret
Date Posted: October 29 2007 at 23:21

bhikkhu wrote:

Actually, I am just now mainly curious as to why people think metal is so unique. Art Rock was a collection of bands as dissimilar as Gentle Giant and Rush.... However, if Metal is just arbitrary, then by that logic, some of those bands would belong in other genres ...

Eureka!

Sorry, I said I was done.

-------------
https://www.last.fm/user/Tapfret" rel="nofollow">

https://bandcamp.com/tapfret" rel="nofollow - Bandcamp

Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: October 29 2007 at 23:26

Tapfret wrote:

Eureka!

Sorry, I said I was done.

I don't think you understood. Other existing genres. In other words, you are saying they are something other than metal bands.

-------------
a.k.a. H.T.

http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com

Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: October 29 2007 at 23:27

bhikkhu wrote:

Tapfret wrote:

Eureka!

Sorry, I said I was done.

I don't think you understood. Other existing genres. In other words, you are saying they are something other than metal bands. But, they are metal bands, no?

-------------
a.k.a. H.T.

http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com

Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 30 2007 at 03:07

bhikkhu wrote:

Actually, I am just now mainly curious as to why people think metal is so unique. Art Rock was a collection of bands as dissimilar as Gentle Giant and Rush. The term Art Rock, for me anyway, was the original name for Progressive way back in the day. I know why that was such a mess. I helped put many of the bands in there. However, if Metal is just arbitrary, then by that logic, some of those bands would belong in other genres. But is that the case, or are they metal bands?

This is reminding me of Iván's posts. Why do you both make such "binary" decisions - that things can be either completely one thing or completely another? In this case the answer is: both. These bands are both metal *and* prog. Theoretically we could decide that the distinction between rock and metal is not important. Then we could move all the bands in the metal genres to other genres. Dream Theater and Pain of Salvation would go to Symphonic Prog, Isis would go to Post Rock, Devin Townsend and Tool could fit in Heavy Prog, Unexpect and Arcturus go to Avant Prog, Blind Guardian go to Prog Folk. But somehow I doubt that this move would be received well by the community ... Wink

And frankly, the fact that it just absolutely doesn't make any sense to me has me concerned. I thought I had the format of all of this figured out, but now I find I was wrong. So far, no one has provided an explanation that proves the split necessary. This isn't really about metal. This just happens to be where this move took place. I would be just as confused if it had been done in Folk.

Well, as long as you can't see the difference between prog metal and prog folk, your confusion will remain.

-------------
https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:

Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: October 30 2007 at 03:38

MikeEnRegalia wrote:

bhikkhu wrote:

Actually, I am just now mainly curious as to why people think metal is so unique. Art Rock was a collection of bands as dissimilar as Gentle Giant and Rush. The term Art Rock, for me anyway, was the original name for Progressive way back in the day. I know why that was such a mess. I helped put many of the bands in there. However, if Metal is just arbitrary, then by that logic, some of those bands would belong in other genres. But is that the case, or are they metal bands?
This is reminding me of Iván's posts. Why do you both make such "binary" decisions - that things can be either completely one thing or completely another? In this case the answer is: both. These bands are both metal *and* prog. Theoretically we could decide that the distinction between rock and metal is not important. Then we could move all the bands in the metal genres to other genres. Dream Theater and Pain of Salvation would go to Symphonic Prog, Isis would go to Post Rock, Devin Townsend and Tool could fit in Heavy Prog, Unexpect and Arcturus go to Avant Prog, Blind Guardian go to Prog Folk. But somehow I doubt that this move would be received well by the community ... Wink

And frankly, the fact that it just absolutely doesn't make any sense to me has me concerned. I thought I had the format of all of this figured out, but now I find I was wrong. So far, no one has provided an explanation that proves the split necessary. This isn't really about metal. This just happens to be where this move took place. I would be just as confused if it had been done in Folk.
Well, as long as you can't see the difference between prog metal and prog folk, your confusion will remain.

Who ever said that Prog Metal isn't prog? Of course they are both prog and metal. That is what makes them Prog Metal bands. And, as I have to keep constantly repeating, they are all prog Metal bands. No other band in any ohter sub-genre can be classified as such. So why aren't they still being kept under one heading? Which is exactly why I used something like Prog Folk as an example. All of the bands in that sub-genre have Prog and Folk in common. That is why they are under one heading. It's just so simple. If the diversity of Folk bands were to increase, they would still all be Prog Folk Bands. The diversity of Symphonic bands has increased dramatically. But they are all still Symphonic, so we are keeping them together, and creating distinctions within the sub-genre. Why? because they are all symphonic bands. This is all so basic, yet only a few other people see what I am talking about. And please don't tell me that Metal is just an arbitrary label. It's not. It is also a descriptive term for the music. Mike, I will pose the same challenge to you. All the bands in the new sub-genres have prog and metal in common. Can you name me a case of other sub-genres that have such a unique relationship with every single entry? Do you see why it makes no sense to me that these bands are in separate, unrelated sub-genres?

And as I said, this is not about metal. This is about logical organization. In the world of food, there is fruit. Under fruit, you find apples. Under apples, you have Macintosh, Granny Smith and Ida Reds. In a store, would you put the Granny Smiths by the bananas, the Macintosh by the grapes, and the Ida Reds by the oranges? No, you would have them all grouped together.

-------------
a.k.a. H.T.

http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com

Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 30 2007 at 03:52

^ all the prog rock bands have in common that they're both prog and rock. So why sub divide them any further?

-------------
https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:

Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 30 2007 at 04:01

bhikkhu wrote:

And as I said, this is not about metal. This is about logical organization. In the world of food, there is fruit. Under fruit, you find apples. Under apples, you have Macintosh, Granny Smith and Ida Reds. In a store, would you put the Granny Smiths by the bananas, the Macintosh by the grapes, and the Ida Reds by the oranges? No, you would have them all grouped together.

First of all: I'm sure I'd put the Macintosh in the computer department. Wink

But I don't see what you're getting at with your fruit analogy. Nobody's suggesting to put metal bands where they don't belong. I'd say that what we're doing with metal here is similar to if in the fruit department there were several sub-departments all devoted to apples. Let's say that there is one sub-department for sweet apples (prog metal) and one for sour apples (tech/extreme prog metal).

I can't see why this would irritate any customer. Those who know their apples well would still find what they're looking for since they know whether their favorite type is sweet or sour. Those who are new to apples would see the distinction and also know immediately which department they would want to check out first, depending on their preference for sweet or sour.

-------------
https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:

Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: October 30 2007 at 04:10

To heck with apples! Give me Minneola Oranges or give me death!
Oh, yeah, and some nice bananas, Too.

-------------
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: October 30 2007 at 04:35

MikeEnRegalia wrote:

First of all: I'm sure I'd put the Macintosh in the computer department. Wink

But I don't see what you're getting at with your fruit analogy. Nobody's suggesting to put metal bands where they don't belong. I'd say that what we're doing with metal here is similar to if in the fruit department there were several sub-departments all devoted to apples. Let's say that there is one sub-department for sweet apples (prog metal) and one for sour apples (tech/extreme prog metal).I can't see why this would irritate any customer. Those who know their apples well would still find what they're looking for since they know whether their favorite type is sweet or sour. Those who are new to apples would see the distinction and also know immediately which department they would want to check out first, depending on their preference for sweet or sour.

You are exactly right. Except, the apples would be all together. You wouldn't have a display of one kind, then rows of peaches, and grapes, then another kind of apples, then pears and kiwi, and then more apples. You might see Granny Smith, an not notice the others, and assume that is the only kind they have.

-------------
a.k.a. H.T.

http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com

Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: October 30 2007 at 04:53

And all apples grow on trees, so everything that grows on trees should also be grouped together, but then not all apple are green and not all kinds of apples can be used to make cider, and crab-apples are practically inedible and oak apples are not apples at all, and pomme frittes are potatoes... the problem with analogies is that they are only valid at the level you first apply them at.

I think everyone can see and understand each other's point of view, (with or without analogies), we just don't agree and I don't think we never will.

I'm done.

-------------
What?

Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 30 2007 at 06:23

bhikkhu wrote:

You are exactly right. Except, the apples would be all together. You wouldn't have a display of one kind, then rows of peaches, and grapes, then another kind of apples, then pears and kiwi, and then more apples. You might see Granny Smith, an not notice the others, and assume that is the only kind they have.

I see your point. But the order in which the genres are displayed can easily be changed ... currently it happens to be alphabetically, but I agree that it would make sense to group them differently:

Psychedelic/Space Rock
Symphonic Prog
Italian Symphonic Prog
Eclectic Prog
Prog Folk
Canterbury Scene
Jazz Rock/Fusion
Krautrock
RIO/Avant-Prog
Zeuhl
Progressive Electronic
Indo-Prog/Raga Rock
Heavy Prog
Crossover Prog
Neo Progressive
Progressive Metal
Tech/Extreme Prog Metal
Experimental/Post Metal
Experimental/Post Rock
Various Genres/Artists
Prog Related
Proto-Prog

-------------
https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:

Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: October 30 2007 at 10:54

darqdean wrote:

And all apples grow on trees, so everything that grows on trees should also be grouped together, but then not all apple are green and not all kinds of apples can be used to make cider, and crab-apples are practically inedible and oak apples are not apples at all, and pomme frittes are potatoes... the problem with analogies is that they are only valid at the level you first apply them at.

I think everyone can see and understand each other's point of view, (with or without analogies), we just don't agree and I don't think we never will.

I'm done.

Also, if you don't follow the whole analogy, then you will miss the point. In an earlier post, I broke it down as a form of a larger group and its subsets. Food > Fruit > Apples > Macintosh = Granny Smith = Ida Red.

And, Rock > Prog > Prog Metal > Progresssive Metal = Extreme/Prog Tech Metal = Experimental/Post Metal

-------------
a.k.a. H.T.

http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com

Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: October 30 2007 at 11:00

MikeEnRegalia wrote:

I see your point. But the order in which the genres are displayed can easily be changed ... currently it happens to be alphabetically, but I agree that it would make sense to group them differently:

Psychedelic/Space Rock
Symphonic Prog
Italian Symphonic Prog
Eclectic Prog
Prog Folk
Canterbury Scene
Jazz Rock/Fusion
Krautrock
RIO/Avant-Prog
Zeuhl
Progressive Electronic
Indo-Prog/Raga Rock
Heavy Prog
Crossover Prog
Neo Progressive
Progressive Metal
Tech/Extreme Prog Metal
Experimental/Post Metal
Experimental/Post Rock
Various Genres/Artists
Prog Related
Proto-Prog

So, then I guess you would have a special name for that group of three, just following neo. If so, I am guessing it would be Prog metal. Which is why I don't understand why they were split in the first place.

And before anyone takes a few steps back, and says it's because they are so different, I understand that. I am in full support of the three new subdivisions. I don't like Dream Theater, but I love Indukti. Why? Because they are so different. Yet they are both Prog Metal bands. Just because the differences needed clarification, did not make them cease to all be prog metal. I don't see why that all encompassing banner was dropped.

-------------
a.k.a. H.T.

http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com

Posted By: Vibrationbaby
Date Posted: October 30 2007 at 11:33

These genres just confuse everything. In the seventies I just worried about whether or not I liked an album. Many prog bands put out very different sounding material from album to album or morphed into a different sound as their careers progressed. I have never understood what the big deal is about having to ctegorize music. Confused

.

-------------

Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 30 2007 at 11:58

^ it's not a big deal. It's fun for those of us who do it, and it's helpful for newbies and everyone who wants to use the categories. Those who don't want them don't have to use them!

-------------
https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:

Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: October 30 2007 at 13:55

Bhikkhu, I have to ask, did you actually read my post? I made it quite plain that if we are going to group all the metal related bands together then we should group all the rock related bands together, after all, why should one sub genre get preferential treatment and not the other.

I think the "problem" here is that you equate Prog Metal tob Symphonic prog, or Eclectic, or Ne etc. You shouldnt, you should equate it to Prog Rock, which is already firmly split, because leaving it as Prog Rock would be very unhealpful to people looking for bands related to other bands.

-------------
Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005

Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: October 30 2007 at 16:10

sleeper wrote:

Bhikkhu, I have to ask, did you actually read my post? I made it quite plain that if we are going to group all the metal related bands together then we should group all the rock related bands together, after all, why should one sub genre get preferential treatment and not the other. I think the "problem" here is that you equate Prog Metal tob Symphonic prog, or Eclectic, or Ne etc. You shouldnt, you should equate it to Prog Rock, which is already firmly split, because leaving it as Prog Rock would be very unhealpful to people looking for bands related to other bands.

So are you saying that Prog Metal is u sub-genre of Rock, and not Prog? Then why is it here? I do want it to be helpful for finding similar bands. If you came here looking for bands similar to Indukti, you wouldn't go to Symphonic, you would go to Prog Metal. And from there you would look at the further subdivisions to find what you are looking for. I guess I need to say it yet again. I don't understand why the unifying title of Prog Metal needs to be removed.

-------------
a.k.a. H.T.

http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com

Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: October 30 2007 at 20:23

bhikkhu wrote:

No, I'm saying Prog metal is a sub genre of progressive music, just as Prog rock is. And if you dont think the unifying title of prog metal needs to be kept, than why dont we have the unifying title of prog rock?

-------------
Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005

Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: October 30 2007 at 21:19

sleeper wrote:

No, I'm saying Prog metal is a sub genre of progressive music, just as Prog rock is. And if you dont think the unifying title of prog metal needs to be kept, than why dont we have the unifying title of prog rock?

Read the banner, we have the unifying title of Progressive Rock!!!

http://www.progarchives.com/">

If it's not clear, it says Prog Archives.com your ultimate PROG ROCK resource.

This is a Prog Rock site, if Prog Metal is not part of Prog Rock (Which I believe would be absurd to believe), then it doesn't belong here.

So or it's a sub-genre of Prog Rock, or doesn't belong here.

Progressive music refers to REM, U2, or any band that went beyonnd the parameters of mainstream, but not necesarilly part of the Progressive Rock GENRE, from which Prog Metal is a sub-genre, exactly like Symphonic, Folk or Neo Prog.

Iván

-------------

Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: October 30 2007 at 22:09

sleeper wrote:

bhikkhu wrote:

I'll reiterate what Ivan said, we do. And I am saying the unifying title of Prog Metal needs to be kept. As a matter of fact, that is exactly what I said. I would really like an answer to this instead of just circular repetition of pervious statements. I asked if you believed if Prog metal was a subset of Prog or not. If not, then what do we do with it? This is a prog site. Now, obviously, I don't think this is the case. It's actually very simple, and I feel like I am one of the few who is in on a secret here. Rock > Prog >Prog Metal. Very easy. And equal to prog Metal are the other subs. So why are we abandoning the general label, and moving the subsets up to equal levels with the other sub-genres? As I have said before, but I will say it again (and maybe this time someone can actually give me an answer), This implies that they have as little in common as Folk and Electronic. Yet, this is not true, because they are all prog metal bands.

-------------
a.k.a. H.T.

http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com

Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: October 31 2007 at 00:00

BTW Sleeper, who told you that Metal and Rock are two different things to say that this site priviledges Progressiver Rock over Progressive NMetal?

Metal is one genre of Rock

Heavy metal (often referred to simply as metal) is a genre of rock music that developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s. With roots in blues-rock and psychedelic rock, the bands that created heavy metal developed a thick, heavy, guitar-and-drums-centered sound, characterized by highly amplified distortion and fast guitar solos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_metal_music - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_metal_music

So if it uses the prefix Prog, PROG METAL is clearly a sub-genre of Progrwessive Rock., so yes Progressive Rock is priviledged in Prog Archives and Prog Metal is part of it, talking about a special entitty that is a sub-genre of Proogressive Rock, but has special or super natural attributes that places it above the rest, otr at the same klevel of the mother genre which is Prog, is absurd and a falacy.

Progressive Metal is only one sub-genre more in the same level as all the others, or at least should be, because today it has mutated into a sort of Holy Trinity that has nothing of Holy or special otr even trinity.

Topday people are more confused than evver, some claim that Prog Metal is a sub-genre of Prog while others as you clainm it's a parallel entity to Prog Rock, this split has brought confusion and chaos, for a genre that represents 10% of the bands in this site.

Iván

-------------

Posted By: jimmy_row
Date Posted: October 31 2007 at 01:06

bhikkhu wrote:

sleeper wrote:

bhikkhu wrote:

not that I disagree or anything (actually, I'm indifferent on the topic), but I'm curious what you think about Canterbury and RPI in this case. If prog metal should be kept as one, then shouldn't Canterbury be consolidated with Jazz/Fusion and RPI be broken up into proper subgroups? (ie. PFM and Le Orme go to symphonic prog, Il Volo goes to jazz/fusion, etc.). If we're going to stick to general labels, perhaps it's best to do away with geographical categorization?

-------------
Signature Writers Guild on strike

Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 31 2007 at 03:23

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Read the banner, we have the unifying title of Progressive Rock!!!

http://www.progarchives.com/">

If it's not clear, it says Prog Archives.com your ultimate PROG ROCK resource.

This is a Prog Rock site, if Prog Metal is not part of Prog Rock (Which I believe would be absurd to believe), then it doesn't belong here.

I'm really sorry if all this is too complex for you to understand. Confused

But since I know you're a bright person I actually get the feeling that you're deliberately ignoring our reasoning.

-------------
https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:

Posted By: SgtPepper67
Date Posted: October 31 2007 at 10:19

I don't really care that much about the subgenres and all that but of course it's interesting to group the bands together according to their style. Anyway, I'm a bit confused with the crossover prog genre. For example, why is Supertramp in that genre, and Styx in prog related? I haven't heard all the albums by both bands and maybe I don't analyze music so deeply, but for what I've heard both bands have some prog elements but they're not completely prog bands and have some clear pop inclinations. Shouldn't they be both on the same sategory?

-------------

In the end the love you take is equal to the love you made...