Revolutionise the site

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

There have been, for a while now, a number of discussions in the collab zone of the forum (which cannot be viewed by the wider membership) regarding the way this site works, especially with regard to the question of sub genres, and how we categorise artists on the site. In my opinion, this now requires a wider debate amongst the site members as a whole, and this is a very long post, but is necessary, in my opinion.
This long post asks a simple question: is the way we consider and allocate artists to certain sub-genres working adequately, or do we need to consider a different way? Are the sub-genres themselves adequate to the encyclopaedic nature of this site? Do members of the site find it helpful, or a distraction?

Let me give an example of where I am coming from here. Actually, more than one, so bear with me.

Let us take Genesis as the supreme example. They are listed on the site as a symphonic prog band. Easy, you may think. They didn't start off as such, though. The first album, To Revelations, was more of a psych, pop/rock orientated work. From Trespass to Wind & Wuthering, no question as to where they fit, but what about subsequent albums? Let us say that they formed in 1980, and Duke and, after, Abacab were submitted to the forum as new artists for inclusion on the site. Where would they go? Well, certainly not symphonic, that is for sure. At best, crossover, and even then, it would provoke a huge argument (and I say this as a big fan of latter day Genesis).

How about Marillion? The archetypal neo prog band, you might think. Well, not really. In fact, although they were at the vanguard of the neo movement back in the 1980's, I would argue that they have not made a neo album since Fugazi, and certainly not since Season's End. If they were a new band, having just released Sounds That Can't Be Made, they would not be accepted in neo, simple as.

The point of all this? Well, if you undertake a simple search on the Internet for the definition of progressive rock, you will come up with a multitude of answers, a lot of them, by the way, saying that there is not a fixed definition. On this site, supposedly the "ultimate prog rock resource", we have endless debates about what prog is. The answer is that there is not a definitive definition. To my mind,  prog music is a philosophy, a way of making music, which separates it from mainstream, or commercial, rock music, with certain characteristics, but what do I know? One thing is for sure, if experts themselves cannot provide a definitive answer as to prog as a whole, what about the myriad sub-genres?

Let us all assume that we know what constitutes a prog act. What about the sub-genres? Are they important? Are they a good guide to visitors to this site looking for new music to buy? Are they, more to the point, clear in everyone's mind as to what they constitute? Does a reader of this post know, to the certain degree, that King Crimson is an eclectic act, and can describe precisely what that constitutes? I would submit no. In fact, listen to Lark's Tongues, then Construkction of Light, and then the latest Projekct release. Any certain themes that connect them? No. Red, my favourite release could easily fit within heavy prog, or prog metal, for that matter.

What about Pendragon? A neo band? They were when they started, and when I listened to them in the old days. By the time Masquerade... came out, they would easily have qualified as a symph band. Now, since Pure at least, and probably earlier, they would fit within heavy prog.

Again, the point here is that progressive rock music, and the styles within, by the very nature of the genre, changes. It progresses. Why do we carry on trying to fit artists within sub genres, when the artists themselves do not even think or create in such a way?

This does lead to all sorts of silly arguments and sheer pedantry when the collabs consider these matters. I was a collab until recently on the neo team and the new bands team. I gave up the ghost, because of a lack of time, but, also, more to the point, I was no longer enjoying the music. Trying to think whether an album was sufficiently symph, or heavy, or fusion, was destroying the point of it. It is music, simple as, there to be enjoyed, not classified. I classify at work, not here.

Also, you would be surprised at just how many people on the collab zone describe an artist as neo/symph, as if the two things are the same. If they are, why have separate sub-genres? What is Crossover prog? What does it mean to you? Well, as one who started listening to prog thirty odd years ago, I can state emphatically that this never even existed. It is a creation of our own making. Back in the 1970's, we called eclectic, crossover, whatever, prog and art rock. Things were simpler then. What about RPI? I have the utmost admiration and respect for the RPI team here, but, at the end of the day, all it ever was was Italian Symphonic Prog. 

This post is already far too long, and other points I wanted to make can wait until the debate that will ensue. However, what I wanted to do was ensure that this debate was opened up to the entire community on the site, rather than just collabs.

When you answer, I would ask that you give your preference for the following options:

1. Get rid of all sub-genres, barring prog and prog related. This is my preferred option. A site which has at its heart progressive rock music, which does not agonise and tear itself apart over silly definitions, all open to interpretation, and, worse, the definitive opinion of fallible human beings on teams who have the final word.
2. Reduce the number of sub-genres. Let me quote from an unnamed collaborator: Steve though, I would easily support your proposal...the best way to avoid arguments would be a very limited number of genres...perhaps Neo/Symph together (seeing it as the starting point of prog and its 80's revival), all Metal acts together, Eclectic/Heavy/Crossover another one, all Jazz-related stuff (R.IO., Fusion etc.) together...4 or 5 big categories and the problem will be closing solution.
3. Leave things as they are, probably the best argument for this being that it would take too much work to change things. In my opinion, that should never be a reason for not fixing something.

Sorry about the length of this. If you have come to this point, well done! When you respond, can I ask that responses are kept polite, not lecturing, respecting all teams and collabs? Let us not descend into petty arguments or personal lectures or attacks please.

Lastly, why bother? Okay, last year, Chris Squire and Steve Hackett released an album under the name Squackett. Not one of us had any doubt whatsoever that it belonged on this site as a prog rock album. However, it took forever for the teams to agree precisely which sub-genre it fitted into. In the end, a collab got into trouble by adding the thing anyway, out of sheer frustration. In the interim, the so called ultimate prog rock resource was in the strange position of being about the only specialised or general music/prog rock outlet where members could not review the album, or pass an opinion, because we argued endlessly about a silly "fit" over what sub-genre it belonged to.

Thanks for reading this. I would, by the way, be especially interested in reading the opinions of the many artists we have who visit the site.

Post Reply	Page 12 3 6 >