Great idea from Brufordfreak and a sentiment we ALL share on this site.

In his poll he mentioned starting a poll of albums that are held captive by original categorization

Which albums and artists do you feel are mistagged?

Albums there are literally tons including Porcupine Tree's space rock albums.

Artists there are just as many

Just a few i can think of at the moment

Riverside should be Heavy Prog

Haken should be progressive metal

Magic Pie should be progressive metal

Fantomas is in RIO and they are about as experimental as it gets

Likewise Mr Bungle is as eclectic as it gets but are in RIO

I'm sure we ALL have something to contribute to this list hehe

Vangelis is about as symphonic as you can get, although much of his work cannot be categorized strictly as 'rock.'

These are the two that first come to my mind.

We are faced with the informatics limits on which the database was built upon. Touching the base could ruin everything. Of the little I know of informatics, the PA DB is built upon an Access software of the early 00's.

I remember M@X explaing that toying around or tinkering the software's principle could crumble the whole thing, though I suspect that experimenting on a copy of the DB out of line could be doable.

The way I understand things is that multi-genre belonging involving hyperlinks of the other genres is impossible on the artiste's page and the overall alphabetical list, but I could see extra space being added on album pages to have the descriptors (much like what RYM does). Likewise, I could see it possible (but WTF do I know?) to add a column in the DB/Genre alphabetical order containing secondary genres, but without the hyperlinks towards those secondary genres

siLLy puPPy wrote: Fantomas is in RIO and they are about as experimental as it gets Likewise Mr Bungle is as eclectic as it gets but are in RIO

I'm fine with Bungle & Fantomas as Avant-prog (avant sort of means experimental), as for Tull in Prog Folk, there was a big discussion (to which I sort of agreed)  and I even started a poll whether Tull should be in a different genre : as I totally expected, the massive/overwhelming majority decided it was prog folk.

However, I simply don't get how such an Avant-Prog (or experimental) master like him does in Crossover Prog Ditto for Bjork in Xover. She defines experimental, IMHO.

http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=73146&PID=4301136#4301136" rel="nofollow - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=73146&PID=4301136#4301136

Perhaps the genre teams could use this thread to consider possible re-evaluations in the near future? I think all of us on the teams are primarily invested in new band suggestions and have time constraints. Nonetheless, this might be a worthwhile pursuit. Bands evolve, as does our insights into what is or is not prog.

Ideally a better database where multiple subgenres could be applied to bands would be wise, but alas, PA's owner is, for all intents and purposes, absent from the helm. Until that changes, we are stuck with what we have.

 

One further point worth noting is that bands from the classic period such as Yes, Genesis, etc already had an extensive discography by the time they were included into PA's database, and therefore their subgenre was based on a balanced consideration of most if not all of their albums. By contrast, the subgenre of new artists will be based on their first album because that is naturally the only album they have. Because first albums are often different to subsequent albums, basing the subgenre on the first album will likely be somewhat of a distortion. Thus, new artists are treated fundamentally different to old artists in this regard.

 

Agree with both of these. 

I'm not losing any sleep over any of this. To me its much more important that they are on here rather than where. But it's fun to discuss. If anyone really wants a move they can suggest it as per the process outlined. 

Great points everyone and then there's always the question of whether we should add more genre tagging. Some will say absolutely not but i think the more the better since as the music world has expanded exponentially  it's useful to become ever more specific in a tagging system.

For example, someone mentioned prog related only refers to rock. Why can't we have a secondary tag called prog related jazz which could included Coltrane, Sun Ra and others that weren't quite fusiony enough for the category but clearly ran parallel to the prog world.

There are many new tags popping up in the prog world as well that could be considered.

Brutal Prog

Pronk (Progressive Punk)

Swancore

Likewise it would be helpful if prog metal would be broken down into its metal genre constituents

Progressive Death Metal

Progressive Black Metal

Progressive Metalcore

Progressive Alternative Metal

Progressive Experimental Metal

Progressive Doom Metal

Progressive Symphonic Metal etc

As far as FANTOMAS, come on Ian! It's METAL! Avant is very much an experimental genre but we have an entire experimental metal section which is for avant-metal bands. In fact Fantomas is a mix of avant-metal, experimental rock, dark ambient, alternative metal and sludge metal. That's METAL !..! Even has drummer dude from Slayer :D

Also another perplexing feature of this site is that RPI is included. Most of these bands are really just symphonic prog (but not always like Area). Well why are many of the Spanish and Argentine symphonic bands not included as they utilized the exact same formula only sung in Spanish rather than Italian. To me that makes no sense.

Ironically many sites consider zeuhl a subgenre of avant-prog but i'm fine with it as a distinct genre here because it is so distinct.

It's not unheard of for an artist to be moved here. When i first started visiting the site i was perplexed by Cornucopia was listed as jazz-fusion and not Krautrock. I submitted the change to both the PSIKE (whatever it was called ten years ago) and JRF teams and voila it was changed unanimously!

I like this idea in general (on a "by album" basis), but I think it won't work on many cases on a "by artist" basis.

Take Pain of Salvation for example. Each of those prog-metal subgenres would be too specific for describing their whole discography. So in this case, I like the vagueness of the "Progressive Metal" tag.

^ the generic progressive metal tag would still be used

bands like Death are clearly progressive death metal

bands like Deathspell Omega are clearly progressive black metal

i know this will never happen. this is a fantasy thread!

Hi,

And this has been one reason why I have mentioned several times that we need to make sure any artists has 2 albums worth of music FIRST ... before including them in PA. This means, likely, less inclusions, but in the end, it would help define/classify things a bit better, and I think that we will find if some bands are for real or not within the sphere they are being considered.

What I don't want to see, is someone create something in their bedroom, not that it can't be done, and immediately post it on PA and say it is progressive, and we listen to it and go ... yeah ... has some progressive on it ... but we do not know the artist, and what his inclinations are, and we should wait for those a bit more. 

It might mean that the other site gets more "listings", so what ... let them list all the crap out there, and bloat their database so badly, to the point of it being impossible to understand how and why are they here, other than some fan's fancy shampoo!

But, "mistagged", in my book, could also be a consideration on the folks in that group and making the decision, which as much as I know they hear a lot of things, in the end, I'm not sure that some of them understand or care for the other definitions and placements and would (possibly) just send the band away from their area because it won't fit, and 5 years later, guess where they should be? 

The question is, HOW MANY BANDS WERE MISTAGGED BECAUSE OF THEIR 1ST ALBUM? And if we have that answer, it will be much easier to make a call from then on ... but I'm not sure that database folks look forward to "changes" since most of it would affect their "engine". But that's like saying that the engine doesn't have faults that can't be fixed! Or no one wants to even try ... specially with a behemoth of data!

Tori Amos (Art Pop)

Anathema (Hard Rock)

Be Bop Deluxe (Art Pop)

The Beatles (Pop/Rock) 

Blue Oyster Cult (Hard Rock)

ELO (Pop/Rock)

Jimi Hendrix (Psychedelic Rock)

Radiohead (Alternative Rock)

Rainbow (Hard Rock)

Spirit (Psychedelic Rock)

The Who (Hard Rock)

Wishbone Ash (Hard Rock)

Easier just to reevalute an artist if another style becomes the dominate one me thinks

I'd be fine with Fantomas in Experimental Metal, they are a few Avant Metal bands that seem to be in the Avant genre rather than the Experimental Metal genre. It's not a big deal to me, I think they sit fine in either. Avant tends to be one of the dumping grounds for bands that don't fit elsewhere, similar to Eclectic.

I agree with TPE. It should move from Neo-prog to Symphonic.

Hi,

That was not the idea ... if one artist does not release any more work, then after a time he/she should be added ... the idea was to prevent the inundation by wanna bees that do not belong and are being mistagged right from the start.

I have no issues with the so many bands we are discovering from the 70's that only had one album at all ... their work has survived quite well and they deserve to be listed. But, today, with the ease that things can be created, and no studio, I think I would put the brake on the idea some ... 

I was also thinking that the "definitions" for inclusion and of the specific areas and terms, be cleaned up so there is less discussion or doubt as to the selection ... when something is being thrown around because it could belong to various areas, it makes it look like it will always end up in the wrong place.

WHYYYYYYYY? Why in the world would any primarily metal band be in avant / RIO when we have THREE metal categories on this site?

Illogical

Disregarding the practical aspect of this, I think of Prog Metal more like a separate genre different from all these mentioned even there's maybe quite a lot of overlap.

^ But okay, I suppose now you were also talking about "Tech/Extreme Prog Metal". 

I think the BIG PROBLEM is that so many bands change and evolve. Look a ULVER or MOTORPSYCHO or ZAPPA. Or Santana's brief foray into J-R Fusion or Johnny Mac and Jan Akkerman's forays into classical et al. or Gleb Kolyadin's New Age and classical albums.

J Tull had some Prog Folky albums but I've always thought them first as a blues-rock band.

My point is: (as has been discussed many times before) that bands are stuck with one assignation when, in fact, they may have several versions of themselves presented to the world on an album-by-album basis.

ELP, Yes and Genesis are all tagged 'Symphonic' yet they are all different. ELP could easily be in eclectic and Genesis in Neo. I realise that may seem very strange but Genesis evolved the song format rather than being a pure symphonic classical based band imo and that it was what Neo is to me. Yes at their best were much more classical than Genesis (the Wakeman/Howe axis made that happen) and so would still be Symphonic as they stand and ELP were all over the place so could be in eclectic.

I would keep Tull in folk prog for want of anything better (don't understand 'eclectic' for them at all) and keep Floyd in Psychedelic but would put King Crimson in Experimental/Post Metal personally. Some of this is a bit 'after the fact' but isn't that what we are talking about?

Magic Pie should be progressive metal

Are you kidding me? Magic Pie is not even close to being soft metal. It's 100% symphonic/neo or maybe eclectic prog. It's anything BUT metal. I would personally stick to the Symphonic label, as it is classified right now, because of the band's retro sound.

No not kidding but now that you mention it eclectic actually would be better.

All 5 Magic Pie albums have tons of progressive metal in them but the music shifts from various symphonic and neo-prog moods to crazy avant-prog moments before bursting into extremely confident progressive metal.

Have you really listened to the albums? I just listened to all of them several times in recent weeks and the METAL is absolutely ferocious. They are on metal sites and even RYM has progressive metal for all five albums as one of the tags.

^ metal doesn't need to shred. It just needs to be heavy. You seem to have your own definition of metal.

Magic Pie is more metal than some bands listed as such here like Riverside for example.

I'd probably vote eclectic overall though because it's a roller coaster ride of ideas which is why i love them.

I must admit, I'd never thought of The Doors as a Proto Prog band - at least not until I arrived here at ProgArchives. 

A psychedelic pop band. I'm still not sure how they are proto-prog!

Also psychedelic rock. They can be considered proto-prog for their long epic, theatrical songs, they could easily go beyond the structure of a pop/rock song, they could easily jam and so on. 

Hi,

Given their ability, work and long cuts, and meaningful experience for the most part, I would think that they defy the idea of what a pop band means, and later in life, even Ray M. expressed the feeling that they did not like that "radio" was telling them what to do ... they wanted to be a "visual" band, one that kinda evolved from FILM ... for its ideas, and Jim M. managed to do that beautifully many times. 

If you say ... yummy yummy the love is in my tummy, I can handle that ... but saying that Light My Fire, which you could easily say is about an erection ... is scary ... very scary ... and I am pretty sure that all members of The Doors, knew the difference between crap and real stuff.

That makes them NOT A pop band.

^ Yummy Yummy Yummy was done by Ohio Express. That video is totally mistagged.

First of all it shows The Best of the 1910 Fruitgum Co.: Simon Says album cover and yet that song isn't on it.

http://rateyourmusic.com/release/comp/the-1910-fruitgum-company/the-best-of-the-1910-fruitgum-co-simon-says/" rel="nofollow - https://rateyourmusic.com/release/comp/the-1910-fruitgum-company/the-best-of-the-1910-fruitgum-co-simon-says/

Someone obviously mixed up the two bands most likely due to the fact they released a split album with this song (done by Ohio Express) on it.

http://rateyourmusic.com/release/comp/1910-fruitgum-co-ohio-express/1910-fruitgum-co-and-ohio-express/" rel="nofollow - https://rateyourmusic.com/release/comp/1910-fruitgum-co-ohio-express/1910-fruitgum-co-and-ohio-express/

I guess we can add mistagged videos to this discussion!

Just because a band is edgy and has more contemplative lyrics doesn't mean they can't be a pop band.

Pop means POPULAR MUSIC with catchy melodic hooks. The Doors did it better than most but essentially they were a psychedelic pop rock band that perfectly exudes the zeitgeist of the era even in the modern day.

Sure they had extended jam sessions but so did many other bands of the late 60s.

Innovative yes but i find the proto-prog claims a bit exaggerated.

The only album that really showcased any kind of progressive tendencies was The Soft Parade.

Tracks like "Strange Days" were veering towards prog but most tracks were short and punchy.

 ^ Keep in mind Proto-prog is not a subgenre or category of progressive rock, it is a historical section of artists deemed significant to the development of what became known as progressive rock.   

Again--  not Prog.   A tip of the hat to the bold artistry of the 1960s that led to Prog.

My thoughts exactly. A few contemporary bands from the mid 00s onward maybe sound enough like those foundational 80s-mid 90s neo bands to qualify, but on the whole, a lot of them belong in symph or, more likely, crossover, on this site.

Agree on Riverside. Oingo Boingo are probably a better fit for Prog Related. The first three albums and the final one are certainly progressive within that niche (not "prog" as such, but progressive). But I think that first album of theirs was really the most innovative. If they extrapolated further from there, they'd maybe work in Crossover, but considering that's just one of their albums, overall, Related might be better.

That first one kills though. NAAASTYYYY HAAAABIIIIITS!

Epignosis wrote: Jethro Tull is hard rock / heavy metal.  They even won some kind of award of it.

And who would know more about that than the Grammy people

some examples of bands would help prove your point a bit better. 

True, I've always thought they fit better under crossover. 

I think they always were under neo, I could be wrong though.  If they were moved from crossover to neo, it was wrong IMO. 

As for me, I feel like Big Big Train should be in symphonic prog, same with Styx. Also Mr. Bungle should be in prog related, they aren't really prog, just very avant garde funk metal, like Primus