Porcupine Tree for Eclectic?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Site News, Newbies, Help and Improvements
Forum Name: Help us improve the site
Forum Description: Help us improve the forums, and the site as a whole
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=61458
Printed Date: February 24 2025 at 13:55
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Porcupine Tree for Eclectic?
Posted By: Conor Fynes
Subject: Porcupine Tree for Eclectic?
Date Posted: September 22 2009 at 13:25
|
Porcupine Tree aren't just heavy prog; on the other hand they have more to do with other genres with that. They started out as a pure Psychedelic band, followed by their middle period (IE: Stupid Dream, Signify) which is more or less Crossover, followed by their latest period which has alot to do with progressive metal and heavy prog.
Wouldn't that constitute them being in eclectic prog over simply heavy prog???
|
Replies:
Posted By: Marty McFly
Date Posted: September 22 2009 at 13:39
|
Yep, I basically agree. I'm little bit ashamed, that I didn't realize that earlier, but now, when you said it, it's more obvious. I still remember song "Jupiter Island", which haunts me in sleepless nights and perfect (and not heavy at all) Lightbulb Sun album. Yes, bands often changes style during start and end of their career, but they're really eclectic. If you mean same thing as me. They're eclectic, as they have many styles in their music, but most of them (all of them?) are prog. I though that use "Eclectic prog" is reserved for those, who are prog to some extent, but are also other styles, not connected to prog. ------------- There's a point where "avant-garde" and "experimental" becomes "terrible" and "pointless," -Andyman1125 on Lulu  Even my |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: September 22 2009 at 13:39
|
Probably not. By that logic, a whole host of bands belong in Eclectic simply because their sound changed or evolved over the course of their discography. That's not really what we look at (though it can be a factor). The Eclectic category hosts those bands that are clearly progressive and amalgamate many distinct styles in the course of one album (usually), such that the album would not neatly fit into one of the other categories. In the Court of the Crimson King is a very good example. Within the five tracks, there's jazz, hard rock, acoustic rock, avant-garde improvisation, symphonic prog, and a bunch of other ingredients. Hope this helps.  ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: September 22 2009 at 13:49
|
^ your description also fits most PT albums. Of all their studio albums only Voyage 34 and Sky Moves Sideways are relatively homogenous (Space Rock), the others are inherently eclectic.
------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: September 22 2009 at 13:54
|
^^ (Rob) valid, but I think the phrase from the definition that's brought up is the recognizing of "bands that evolved markedly over their
career (in a progressive, evolutionary way), or have a plural style
without a clear referential core". To which things stand this way: PT does comply to the first part, with a more than clear evolution, while they do have a referential core after all (so not just switches, without settling somewhere), thus not fitting the second part. Porcupine Tree was initially in psychedelic, given the early albums up to Signify (to which Voyage 34 and Metanoia can add confortably), but the move was decided once the mentioned new taste of metal and heavy prog was adopted, starting with In Absentia. The Crossover phase was left in a minor tier. Of course, the heavy prog categorisation is not meant to be a pure and restraint one, but it was seen this way by adding the psych with the heavy and the metal (concepts of dark, hollow, riffing music also added to the table). To which the one big "spirit" flowing through the vein of most PT albums is perhaps significant as well. But PT are indeed larger than a tag and a genre, so if the consensus is to add 90s + late 90s + 2004-present = Eclectic, then I'm personally fine with it. It's a more simple vision for everybody. But not many of their albums are eclectic inward. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: September 23 2009 at 03:17
|
^ so eclectic is more a mood than a style thing?
------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Any Colour You Like
Date Posted: September 23 2009 at 03:23
| If anything, I would lean towards moving them to eclectic. I'm no eclectic expert, but I just feel that HP doesn't suit their style... but hey, it's up to the collabs. |
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: September 23 2009 at 03:52
|
Predicting this thread: 1.Will end up in 5+ pages of arguing about this 2. Somehow PT fanboyism will come into it. 3. People will cite more examples of other artists and their albums in the fight for For and Against and it will possibly end up going totally off topic. 4. Someone will get offended, most likely a fanboy or an anti fanboy Absolutely concrete facts: 1. Nothing will change as a result of this thread, the band will stay in Heavy Prog. 2. Fortunately this hasn't made to the second page yet at the time of writing ------------- 
|
Posted By: progkidjoel
Date Posted: September 23 2009 at 04:04
| I'm not sure if they should be moved, but I wouldn't say they belong in HP... I'd only really say their four latest are heavy prog, and the other 6 aren't really suitable for one genre either. |
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: September 23 2009 at 04:14
I don't understand the question. -------------
|
Mr ProgFreak wrote:Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: September 23 2009 at 04:21
Yeah, so far so good, but it will likely happen the way you said it. Do you have an opinion on this, btw? -------------
|
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: September 23 2009 at 05:04
The way I understood your post is that PT aren't eclectic to you because darkness and - on the later albums - heaviness are present on most of the albums. I would agree to that these elements are recurring, but still most of their albums contain a broad range of styles. To me, stylistically, they are clearly an eclectic band. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: September 23 2009 at 06:16
I think I agreed that, as a band, PT's evolution during the career is the greatest lobby for it to be relocated in Eclectic. As far as the albums go, the same level of eclecticness and switchovers can't be found. I fairly anticipate this could be denied by going into details and nuances (you yourself find the opposite, saying make use of a "broad range of styles"), but to me most PT albums can really be labeled in a straight way stylistically, while clearly having a very powerful referential core. I didn't relate to the dark flavours their music sometimes embrace to dismiss the eclecticness, I argued that those flavours were fully taken in account, when summing up the parts that were found fit for Heavy, and leaving the Crossover/Alternative in second tier. Even with the 90s psych/space and the post-'04 metal and heavy having distinct traits, the two, I repeat, were considered adequate in the same way for Heavy Prog. Summing up styles without finding a (significant) common denominator leads to Eclectic Prog. For PT as a band, that's fine and makes broad sense. For PT's albums, that's less convincing. -------------
|
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: September 23 2009 at 06:24
|
^ so we simply disagree about whether their albums are inherently eclectic or not ... I don't have any problem with that. However, I think that simply calling them "Heavy Prog" does describe their style too well. Even on FOABP only a small part is heavy - the same with Deadwing or the latest.
------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: September 23 2009 at 07:08
|
I didn't know I needed an opinions on this:P But yeah I honestly couldn't care that much either way if they got moved or not, but I know it wont happen anyway. They got some heavy stuff, leave 'em in heavy prog lol. |
Posted By: progkidjoel
Date Posted: September 23 2009 at 07:11
That was the same thing I was trying to say before - I don't really think they belong in heavy, but I don't think it matters enough for them to be moved. |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: September 23 2009 at 07:26
|
They've already been moved once, from Space/Psych to HP. I don't see how anyone would really benefit from this game of ping-pong. This obsession with the 'perfect fit' is what is keeping dozens of up-and-coming prog bands out of the site, as well as having PA ridiculed around the internet. As a long-time member of this site, I don't like to see comments such as the ones I saw in a thread at Progressive Ears - unfortunately, they were quite true for the most part. Anyway, while I agree that some form of categorization is useful (libraries would be impossible to use without categories), I can't help feeling that for some members it has become more important than the music itself. |
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: September 23 2009 at 07:46
|
I've never been to Progressive Ears ever. I just had to look now. Someone said: "I liked PA a few years ago, but too many people now (especially people who, for one reason or another, cannot communicate in English), too many non-prog bands, and WAY too many inane forum topics." ololol. So true sadly. http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=61446 - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=61446 Sadly we have threads like this that prove the point too. |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: September 23 2009 at 07:52
|
Good to see we agree on something, Harry!
|
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: September 23 2009 at 07:52
Prophecy fulfilling. -------------
|
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: September 23 2009 at 08:08
|
Another thing to consider is that many prog websites adapted to at least multiple genres per artist years ago ... maybe PT are simply both Space Rock, Eclectic and Heavy, and the database is simply too limited to express that. Incidentally: Progfreak may be the most genre-centric prog website of all, but there are also no genre discussions there ... even among those who contribute regularly :-) ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: LiquidEternity
Date Posted: September 23 2009 at 08:16
|
I really don't find PT that eclectic at all. Just as eclectic as any prog band that's been around that long ends up sounding like. But I wouldn't be uncomfortable, in light of their last few albums, to find them in Experimental/Post Metal.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Kotro
Date Posted: September 23 2009 at 08:20
|
They should never have left their original allocation - the change to heavy prog made as much sense as moving Genesis to Prog-Related. ------------- Bigger on the inside. |
Posted By: Conor Fynes
Date Posted: September 23 2009 at 21:36
What WAS their original allocation??
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: September 23 2009 at 22:23
|
^ they were in Psych, which doesn't suit them any better than Heavy, actually I lean toward LiquidEternity's suggestion of Exp/Post Metal.. to be honest I don't really care what category they're in and would be fine with them in Eclectic, if EcTeam wants 'em we'll talk, till then they're fine where they are |
Posted By: Queen By-Tor
Date Posted: September 23 2009 at 23:37
|
@ this thread.
|
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: September 24 2009 at 00:42
I believe this is correct. Unfortunately I forgot to predict that Mikebytor would come in this thread and lol at it. |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: September 24 2009 at 05:28
| It would be more funny if people all over the Internet weren't laughing at us.... A few years ago I got into a fight with the people on an Italian prog website exactly for the same reason. And things have not changed a bit, on the contrary. But hey, if you think that fighting over subgenres is more important than talking about bands or artists that rely on us for exposure, who am I to say anything? |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: September 24 2009 at 06:00
|
^ why all that sarcasm and criticism? Would this become a better place if people were forbidden from discussion genres? This thread was started by a member who joined this website about 6 months ago ... he didn't participate in all the genre discussions of the last couple of years. Still he found it important to discuss why PT are in Heavy Prog. The fact that you are, in a way, "burnt out" on those topics doesn't change their relevance. If new members ask those questions, IMO they should be taken seriously. And I still maintain what I said above: Other websites reacted by making their database structure less rigid - if people are laughing about PA it might be for a number of reasons. The antiquated database structure is just as likely a reason as are the genre discussions resulting from that structure. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: September 24 2009 at 06:34
Mike, you can believe what you want, but the people were not laughing at the database structure. The fact that you like categorizing music does not mean everyone else agrees with you. I have always supported the division in genres, but when I see that it takes precedence over more important things, then I get a bit shirty. Anyway, I don't see any point in pursuing the discussion, or repeating things I have already said. I just wish that, for once, you had some faith in my ability to read and understand what people say on other forums. Edit: quote from a post taken from the thread "It Ain't Prog If It Ain't Got...":
This was Madprophet's first post, and, while I don't agree at all with his comments on Metal bands, I would like to point out that he is someone who believes we are going a bit too far with the categorization. |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: September 24 2009 at 06:45
|
Who is laughing at us? Where? Why? ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: September 24 2009 at 07:04
Why do you take such posts seriously at all? Most people have many complaints, but very little constructive input to offer ... I see no point in trying to please everyone. BTW: Of course I trust you to be able to read and understand posts properly. But please consider this: Many of the genre discussions at PA arise from the problem that an artist can only be in one genre, due to the limitations of the database. Porcupine Tree fit in Psych/Space, Eclectic and Heavy. If it was possible to assign those three genres to PT I'm pretty sure that we would not be having this discussion right now. So even though people might not complain about the database structure directly, many of the complaints concerning genre discussions are indirectly caused by it. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: September 24 2009 at 07:43
http://www.progressiveears.com/default.asp?bhjs=0 - http://www.progressiveears.com/default.asp?bhjs=0 If the thread still exists, it was something like "Progarchives vs Progressive Ears". Even I thought it was a good laugh, because not everything said by PE regulars were a misrepresentation of PA.. |
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: September 24 2009 at 08:14
|
I seriously don't understand the need to turn this into a discussion about categorizations. The one thing that looks already exaggerated is perhaps that everytime PT release something new, a "PT for Eclectic" thread is born. But the OP's post was fairly honest, he didn't say "The Incident now puts PT in a whole different light, we must now put them in Eclectic", he pointed towards the band's walkthrough, a view from which the suggestion makes sense. If one wishes to criticize the act of suggesting/discussing changes instead of the suggestion/call for a discussion itself, or read about others criticizing it (here or on other sites), that's fine to do, but I hardly see the result of it. Furthermore, there's a line between refining or correcting, and trying to squeeze everything into perfect fits. We all know the genres aren't perfect & not every band in them fits or is even certified as a "best possible/plausible fit". I barely see where the rush for a "perfect fit" philosophy was even suggested. To add, many suggestions of moving a band were made so far, by all sorts of people, of all ranks, without even a third of them getting these "oh, such silly categorizations" reactions, but rather being dealt with in orderly fashion. Does it count that, this time, it's about the assumably more controversial Porcupine Tree? Therefore, since it only happens with the big cases (like Jethro, Zappa, now PT), I think the generalized criticism and express of discontent towards "suggestions/discussions related to genre placement" reveal its flaws. Now, putting my team member hat on, I must honestly say that I have a duty to take this suggestion into consideration and offer a reply. And so do my colleagues. -------------
|
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: September 24 2009 at 09:13
|
Every PT studio album, except maybe for Sky Moves Sideways, Voyage 34 and Metanoia (if you even count that one as a studio album), is inherently eclectic. From song to song there are varying levels of Space/Psych, Heavy/Metal, Alternative/Rock and even Jazz/Fusion (Idiot Prayer, Tinto Brass ...). EDIT: In my opinon, of course ... which has no binding effect on anyone. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: September 24 2009 at 10:21
|
Yes.. we got it... You laugh at ridiculous threads. You're independent and intelligent. You're hip, modern. You're young.
And you post here because....?
You still need attention after all.... Even you.
Anyway, I would favor a move of the band to Eclectic. Their music has influences and elements of many different subgenres, and as it just takes a click on a stupid mouse to do it, I guess as unnecessary as this discussion may be, it can be discussed, and eventually addressed.
I would say refer this to the team in charge.
Or discuss it in the other zone, where it can retain at least 10% of its civility.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: September 24 2009 at 11:18
You're referring to me as well  ?BTW, the thread on ProgEars was deleted, since they didn't want a proliferation of 'vs' threads. As to the team in charge, I believe I was part of the HP thread when they were moved, so perhaps I've earned the right to have my say - but not because I am young (far from that) or hip (anything but), rather because I am seriously concerned about the site. Is that OK now? |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: September 24 2009 at 11:24
|
^Certainly not at you Raff... It was not addressed at you. But for people who come here and only bash the thread, without adding at least one dime of an idea about the topic... How much time they have that they waste it so blatantly... -------------
|
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: September 24 2009 at 11:49
Well, I bashed the topic too, though I like to believe I did so with a reason. Anyway, if I can add something on topic at last, I'd like to say I am surprised that the suggestion of moving PT to Eclectic has come only now. Like equally hard to classify bands such as KC or VDGG, they would have fit Eclectic to a T (sorry for the pun ) right from day one. However, precisely on account of their nature, no placement will ever please everybody, so I'm sure that, once they get moved to Eclectic, someone will start a thread asking for them to be moved back to Heavy, or Psych, or whatever. This is what prompted me to say, stop with this game of ping-pong. Unless we are talking about bands whose placement no one will ever dispute (like the Canterbury or Krautrock acts), this is bound to happen almost every time a high-profile act is in question. Obviously, as Mike pointed out, having multi-genre tagging (as they have as ProgEars) would solve the problem, at least in part - though I am not sure some other kind of issue would come up after that. |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: September 24 2009 at 12:01
| I would have thought Crossover for PT, but it doesn't really matter to me. |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: September 24 2009 at 12:01
|
At this point, I'd be more inclined to see them in Crossover...
------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: September 24 2009 at 12:01
|
I think it wasn't such an error considering where PT was going to in the "Deadwing" era... But if you see their discography as a whole, the band seems a good fit for eclectic. And I would predict that with the band in that genre nobody would want to move them again. That's the advantage of that genre, being "eclectic". All a band has to be is a combination of styles and it'll become difficult to argue against it being there. -------------
|
Posted By: Kotro
Date Posted: September 24 2009 at 12:02
That's the kind of reasoning that promotes stagnation and gets us nowhere. I say: if possible, do it. Labeling bands only provoques confusion, but I'm sure there would be a lot less fuss over labeling albums. ------------- Bigger on the inside. |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: September 24 2009 at 14:40
Not that I totally disagree, Raff, but please keep in mind that we are probably the largest and most well-known Prog site on the net right now, and anybody who puts us down for one reason or another is most likely the fox grumbling about the sour grapes. I'm willing to bet that most complaints about this site comes from many people who have started trouble here, then gotten banned. There is no logical reason to dislike a website such as this one, since its main purpose is to be an indepth, resourceful archive, and I think we do that better than anyone. Any other problems a person may have with us is not a good enough reason to stop coming here. Now, on to the PT thingy . . . I personally don't think they should have ever been moved from where they were originally. Now all it's done is ignite yet another argument for them to be moved once again. Space-Rock and Eclectic both suit them far better than 'Heavy Prog' in my opinion, but it's just my opinion, and I'm not concerned enough with it to ask the admins to do another pointless action, when what we should be concerned with is all of the new additions to the site. My God, some people fight tooth-and-nail just to get a certain artist added, yet we now have the audacity to complain that a band that has already made it in is now in the wrong place? Just be happy with PT being here at all, and realize that not everybody is going to be happy with where they are located. |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: September 25 2009 at 01:37
Of course one of the issues of introducing multi-genre tagging would be: Who does all the tagging? It would mean a lot of work to go through all the bands and re-evaluate them in multiple genres. I'm not sure how they do it at ProgressiveEars (I have an account there, but I haven't used it in ages) but I guess that some admins simply assigned the genres without much discussion. Not a bad idea if you ask me - when there's a problem then it needs to be solved somehow. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: September 25 2009 at 02:15
|
I understand the attraction of multi-tagging but I also suspect it would not be a cure all, could end up being a bit of a mess, and would eliminate a certain democratic tension we have here; a healthy push & push-back that provides engagement and an active, intentional evaluation process rather than some people assigning tags without end or limitation. This is not meant as a knock to those who practice multitagging, I just don't think it's the savior. And besides, it's not as fun. |
Posted By: Windhawk
Date Posted: September 25 2009 at 02:27
|
As long as HP feels they belong where they are, they will stay. If HP would like to move the band, Neo wouldn't mind having them. Read the last three or so paragraphs of the revised Neo definition to see why. ------------- Websites I work with: http://www.progressor.net http://www.houseofprog.com My profile on Mixcloud: https://www.mixcloud.com/haukevind/ |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: September 25 2009 at 06:13
Just for the record: the people who post at ProgEars are not the kind of people who would get banned, here or otherwise. The general membership there is made up of older prog fans, some of whom have grown up with the genre, much as I have, and who are into discussing music. As to PA being well-known, well... I am sorry to have to disabuse you, but when Micky and I went to NEARfest in June, we met quite a lot of blank stares from the people to whom we mentioned PA. I don't believe it is fair to say that those who don't like the site do so because of sour grapes. Personally, I think that a continuous flow of destructive criticism is a bad thing, but denying the existence of problems that may drive people away (I know, because I have left on several occasions) is equally damaging. In my humble opinion, when on an 'in-depth, resourceful archive' there are still many missing or inadequate bios, unreviewed albums, and incomplete album data, there is more reason for worry than the placement of Porcupine Tree or whatever. fixed quote box. |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: September 25 2009 at 23:30
Alrighty, then. |
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: September 26 2009 at 14:16
I think that Neo would suit them better than eclectic, or HP for that matter. |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: September 26 2009 at 14:24
|
I could never see them in Neo ... they're far too experimental.
------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: J-Man
Date Posted: September 26 2009 at 14:52
|
Nope. They fit fine in Heavy Prog. They might be prog metal if we're pushing it, but they're fine where they are. As for eclectic or neo, not even close. Hope this helps, -Jeff ------------- 
Check out my YouTube channel! http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime |
Posted By: inrainbows
Date Posted: September 26 2009 at 16:25
I don't think so, not even close, can't they stay where they are ? Please .... They're great , so what's the point for moving them?  ------------- 
|
Posted By: J-Man
Date Posted: September 26 2009 at 16:38
Exactly. PT is fine where they are, and there's no sense in moving them. -------------
Check out my YouTube channel! http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime |
Posted By: Windhawk
Date Posted: September 26 2009 at 16:47
|
Indeed. As I said at first: As long as HP feels they belong where they are, they will stay there. There's no sense in moving a band about as long as the team keeping track of the genre in question doesn't have a problem with the band being there. ------------- Websites I work with: http://www.progressor.net http://www.houseofprog.com My profile on Mixcloud: https://www.mixcloud.com/haukevind/ |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 26 2009 at 18:32
|
^ well exactly. No band can be moved unless both teams agree. ------------- What? |
Posted By: aapatsos
Date Posted: September 28 2009 at 13:59
|
my two humble cents: early recordings fit to psych/space rock as many have stated before me. Signify onwards they fit best to Heavy Prog and I can't really see any obvious eclectic (as I interpret it) elements in their sound whatsoever. As Logan and Epignosis implied above, they do resemble to crossover nowadays... |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: September 28 2009 at 14:10
|
^ Are there specific elements that would suggest eclectic? I used to think that "eclectic" simply means that they use a broad range of styles.
------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: September 28 2009 at 14:23
| In a rather simplistic way, Eclectic means having a broad (or varied) range of Prog styles (having elements typical of various categories here) while not being dominantly any one of them. When it has significant mainstream elements, those tend to get passed on to Crossover. I often think in terms of suitability for the old Art Rock category first, and then narrow down from there. |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: September 28 2009 at 14:47
|
^ Well, then I submit that PT - even on their latest albums - use elements of Psych/Space Rock, Heavy Prog, Crossover Prog and Avant-Prog.
------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: September 28 2009 at 14:59
And I think due to the mainstream elements it's better suited to Crossover than Eclectic (for me they're significant enough). |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: September 29 2009 at 02:10
|
Unfortunately they're too Eclectic for Crossover.
------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Kotro
Date Posted: September 29 2009 at 03:59
But nor enough to be out of Space Rock, IMO.  ------------- Bigger on the inside. |
Posted By: Conor Fynes
Date Posted: October 02 2009 at 19:38
|
They would personally fit best in Crossover or Eclectic (concerning such a wide range of styles, wider than most bands on the site) although Psychedelic and Heavy both fit different parts of their career. I could never see them in Progressive Metal though. That would essentially be judging a band based on a few minutes of their expansive discography?! |
Posted By: LiquidEternity
Date Posted: October 02 2009 at 19:43
|
Not progressive metal, agreed. But still, I would have to vote if not Crossover they should go in experimental/post metal.
-------------
|
Posted By: Conor Fynes
Date Posted: October 02 2009 at 20:05
| Still, I can't see them ever as a metal band. Even in the incident, there was alot of stuff that was not metal at all. They are not considered a metal band. Metal as just an ingredient in their newfound mixing pot. |