genre policy question

here's a theoretical question which may give me some insight into the thought that goes into assigning bands to genres. so please show your working.

a) Information surfaces about an old prog band from China or Uzbekistan or somewhere called "theoretical prog band". apparently they released one album and disbanded, but it was a double album - disc A was a lush mellotron symphony and disc B was grooving prog fusion. assuming theoretical prog band pass your quality standards, in which genre are they alloted?

b) same situation except the discs are separate - theoretical prog band reform to record their fusion album thirty years after they released the sympho disc. does the band's new direction prompt a move between genre teams?

I'm not talking about any existing band in the archives - just presenting a problem for you. have fun. =)


Edited by laplace - May 29 2007 at 10:30

Art Rock, if the music quality is "valoros", "achieved" and various enough.

on a):

theoretically, a double-album of two separate, completely distinctive music would be hard to imagine from a band of the same inner spirit; in parallel, music can get a different interpretation or a different experiment; by me, if there is no acceptancy for symphonic or fusion, plus if there is a main core of various, complex rock, then Art Rock grows okay the "specimen"

on b):

if the band played symphonic in the 70s, one album one hit type, and reformed, out of caprice, decades later to improve one more album, which results to have a different concept, I'd ignore the modern album and would try to see how much symphonic the classic is. the "evolution" of it, unless the symphonic album is dreary and the fusion new wave is spectacularly priming, would be a drafty subject.

chopper wrote: Ricochet wrote: Art Rock, if the music quality is "valorous", "achieved" and various enough. on a): theoretically, a double-album of two separate, completely distinctive music would be hard to imagine from a band of the same inner spirit; in parallel, music can get a different interpretation or a different experiment; by me, if there is no acceptancy for symphonic or fusion, plus if there is a main core of various, complex rock, then Art Rock grows okay the "specimen" on b): if the band played symphonic in the 70s, one album one hit type, and reformed, out of caprice, decades later to improve one more album, which results to have a different concept, I'd ignore the modern album and would try to see how much symphonic the classic is. the "evolution" of it, unless the symphonic album is dreary and the fusion new wave is spectacularly priming, would be a drafty subject. What? I think your translator is playing up Rico.

I used no translator.

and the only word I've mistaken was "valoros"; it's "valorous".

mainly I meant that the music quality has to be various and complex for Art Rock, afterwards the "evolution" of the style (from symph to fusion, considering that neither symph nor fusion can be prime qualities of the music) can/must be appreciated.