Peter Gabriel Is In Crossover!!!

Passionist wrote: Heh, another spot free in the prog-related :) No, I'm hapy with this move. /me goes on his rampage for adding björk to PA ;)

funny you mention Bjork...

Passionist wrote: Now there's a way to get the needed apathy and negativiness back to PA!

  that is where the fun is

MajesterX wrote: woopee. Gabriel's in some sub-genre of a sub-genre that we made up and now we're rejoicing. I don't mean to be a sad sack here, but as long as Peter Gabriel is recognized or even on the site for that matter, why does it matter whether he's in the related section of the new so-called "crossover" section? I like him a good deal, but I couldn't care less whether he's called Eclectic Crossover Progressive Rock or just plain Pop.

if you don't mean to be a sad sack.. I won't mean being to be a prick.   Whether you like or  don't like you doesn't matter a damn.  Those sub-genres exist to help those who don't know his music with a reference point to other artist who have a similar style.  Being in PR says jack sh*t about what he did musically or what he sounded like. We 'make up' these sub-genres to help sort out of these nearly 3000 bands.  It isn't a science.. .only a reference. 

micky wrote: if you don't mean to be a sad sack.. I won't mean being to be a prick.   Whether you like or  don't like you doesn't matter a damn.  Those sub-genres exist to help those who don't know his music with a reference point to other artist who have a similar style.  Being in PR says jack sh*t about what he did musically or what he sounded like. We 'make up' these sub-genres to help sort out of these nearly 3000 bands.  It isn't a science.. .only a reference.

Do you honestly believe that if a Peter Gabriel fan asked for similar bands, you would direct him to Radiohead or Mike Oldfield?

I was younger and more ignorant when I first came here, and I began to associate the bands here with the genre names here when talking to other prog fans, and they were confused as hell. In the real world, the sub-categorizing stops at progressive rock.

MajesterX wrote: micky wrote: if you don't mean to be a sad sack.. I won't mean being to be a prick.   Whether you like or  don't like you doesn't matter a damn.  Those sub-genres exist to help those who don't know his music with a reference point to other artist who have a similar style.  Being in PR says jack sh*t about what he did musically or what he sounded like. We 'make up' these sub-genres to help sort out of these nearly 3000 bands.  It isn't a science.. .only a reference.  Do you honestly believe that if a Peter Gabriel fan asked for similar bands, you would direct him to Radiohead or Mike Oldfield? I was younger and more ignorant when I first came here, and I began to associate the bands here with the genre names here when talking to other prog fans, and they were confused as hell. In the real world, the sub-categorizing stops at progressive rock.

OK, so your solution would be..? Having everything together, so that a Peter Gabriel fan would find similar bands more easily?

I really wonder at how easy it is for some people to criticise, even to try to destroy what others are working hard to create... It's true that some set too much store by categories, but is it really necessary to put things so unpleasantly? After all, you know how this site works... If those categories and classifications really get to you, you should try and find a site that only deals with 'progressive rock'.

MajesterX wrote: Ghost Rider wrote: OK, so your solution would be..? Having everything together, so that a Peter Gabriel fan would find similar bands more easily? I really wonder at how easy it is for some people to criticise, even to try to destroy what others are working hard to create... It's true that some set too much store by categories, but is it really necessary to put things so unpleasantly? After all, you know how this site works... If those categories and classifications really get to you, you should try and find a site that only deals with 'progressive rock'. My solution would be to downsize. If the goal of this site is reference, then I would be happy with 5-9 sub-genre's with a disclaimer stating that the genres are inventions of the site and are unique terms used for reference purposes only. I'm not trying to be unpleasent. I just can't stress enough that classifying thing so greatly limited people to listen to only their "favorite" sub-genre, and if a band they like is in a section they don't it might influence negativity towards that band. My point is that if we continue categorizing this genre we might as well come up with a genre for each and every band.

hey Raff want to go back to managing AR again... this time with 800 different sounding  bands lumped togehter. 


That is an option of course...  but really does nothing.. it doesn't help the site or it's users.  Itf the users acutally read the defintiions of the sub-genres and had some understanding of what this site is about.. there simply wouldn't be a problem.  If people still had a problem.. they could go elsewhere I guess.

Ghost Rider wrote: micky wrote: the hell with this....a move that people like.  We can't be having any of that...  moving him back to PR.  Listening to you all bitch about this stuff is much more fun  As usual, I miss all the fun due to my different times.... I can't believe my eyes, though! Somebody who's actually HAPPY at one of our decisions... What's the world (i.e. PA) coming to?

Hmmmm, so I guess they're are no takers for pushing BTO's inclusion in Heavy Prog
 then ?

Yeah Peter Gabriel really fits better in Crossover than in Prog Related. And not everyone disliked the separation of Art Rock into three categories. I use them as a reference and not a categorization, and even if I lately havent paid that much attention to the sub-genres I understand why it had to be divided. The art rock section simply was getting to full and having Gentle Giant and A.C.T. in the same sub genre just didnt had any connection, although one of the good things in progressive rock is how even if a group does symphonic prog that doesnt mean they're sound will resemble another symphonic prog group (ex: Genesis and Yes).
I support the work of the collaborators in the first place, and I remember (as some of the collaborators and administrators remember as well) that Erik Neuteboom proclaimed P.A. to be negative to prog and although everything was then clarified, recently at the Symforce Festival event, when some of we P.A. members met at the festival, I remembered Erik about the separation of Art rock in 3 sub-genres, and he only said that he had a kind of nostalgia feeling to the Art-Rock name, that was all.
But I agree that P.A. has to have more controversy than supporting from the members

Finally!!! Therefore there it is someone that it understands what it is the Prog in PA!!!