stop the "Neo" prog label ?

Probably right for more modrn bands. But those erli eighties bands could certainly be in a genre called Newe wave.

And I don't regard something with limitations as being particularly useful. Those limitations, IMHO, make them extremely non-useful..

 

 

You must be aware that there are many instances here where collabs agree that an artist is sufficiently prog to belong here, but then enter into an anal debate about where. If they cannot agree where, the artist does not get on the site, a ridiculous state of affairs. Either that, or they get put into Crossover or Eclectic (usually). 

As it is, sub-genres impose far more limitations. They also make no sense, especially since at least two of them are entirely inventions of our own making.

I agree quite a lot with this because I have observed this happening on suggestion threads.  Well intentioned, of course, but the pedantry just gets in the way ultimately.  It's more important whether an artist is prog because that decides whether it belongs in PA or not...not whether it's prog metal or eclectic or whatever, that cannot and should not hold back its inclusion.   

 

I think the cases of bands being excluded from here because teams don't agree is grossly overstated, and the notion that Xover or Eclectic is the dumping ground is an exaggeration. I would prefer some teams to be a little more inclusive, but I see no reason to break the system to make that happen.

Now, come on, firstly if we want to talk subgenres which don't really make sense what about "eclectic" - a term which literally means "a grab-bag of miscellaneous stuff". There's no one "eclectic prog" sound or scene, it's literally just the "uncategorisable" section. (I stress that I agree completely with you about crossover too, despite having served on the crossover team - the definition of the subgenre, as with eclectic, is completely artificial and was basically made up for the purposes of categorising stuff on the site.)

The difference between crossover/eclectic and neo is that neo at least used to mean something and arose in common prog discussion circles to mean that thing rather than being invented from whole cloth for the sake of a categorisation system. Although the definition of the "neo" sound is, I will agree, now very murky, I do remember a time when it was fairly consistently used to refer to the early 80s prog acts which emerged from the scene for which the Marquee served as a focus, and for acts which are influenced by those earlier acts to an extent that their sound clearly evolved from an attempt to walk in the footsteps of IQ, Marillion, Pendragon, or some other band from that crew. Like Canterbury, it does at least describe a scene, even if we can argue over whether it describes a sound.

I do think there is a legitimate debate to be had when it comes to the organisation of this site as to whether the subgenres we use should reflect sounds, scenes, a mixture of both or neither and good on you for opening that debate, but I don't think the term "neo" is as absolutely useless a term when used in discussing prog as "crossover" or "eclectic". I can talk with people about prog on other fora and if they wheel out "neo" we all know what is meant. If someone starts talking about crossover/eclectic then unless the other participants are aware of the categorisation scheme on this site the result is bafflement.