| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Raff 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 29 2005
Location: None
Status: Offline
Points: 24439
|
 Posted: September 25 2007 at 10:35 |
 Time Signature wrote:
rushfan4 wrote:
I think that there should be a "former prog band member" sub-genre which can include all of the artists that belonged in a "classic" prog band at one point and then went on to do solo albums. That way Phil and Pete can be together again with Steve Hackett, Anthony Phillips, Mike + the Mechanics, and Tony Banks. And Bill Bruford can be "grouped" with Rick Wakeman, Jon Anderson, Steve Howe, and Chris Squire since all have solo albums. |
But is that a genre as such. I see its value as a category, but I don't think it could be considered a musical genre. |
It's not a musical genre at all, and some of the artists Rushfan4 has mentioned have released albums that are not even prog-related. I don't understand... We are often taken to task for having added bands like BOC, Queen or Iron Maiden to the site (even though in PR, which they definitely are), when there are people who suggest adding Phil Collins or Mike and the Mechanics... 
|
 |
Time Signature
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 20 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 362
|
Posted: September 25 2007 at 10:24 |
rushfan4 wrote:
I think that there should be a "former prog band member" sub-genre which can include all of the artists that belonged in a "classic" prog band at one point and then went on to do solo albums. That way Phil and Pete can be together again with Steve Hackett, Anthony Phillips, Mike + the Mechanics, and Tony Banks. And Bill Bruford can be "grouped" with Rick Wakeman, Jon Anderson, Steve Howe, and Chris Squire since all have solo albums. |
But is that a genre as such. I see its value as a category, but I don't think it could be considered a musical genre.
|
|
Raff
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 29 2005
Location: None
Status: Offline
Points: 24439
|
Posted: September 25 2007 at 02:29 |
At least someone who doesn't take us to task for real or imagined misdeeds  ...
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65778
|
Posted: September 25 2007 at 02:21 |
|
thank you rushfan4
|
|
The Whistler
Prog Reviewer
Joined: August 30 2006
Location: LA, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 7113
|
Posted: September 25 2007 at 02:14 |
Oh...that explains why I've reviewed a crossover album. I was worried, you know.
Atavachron wrote:
  great move
..and I wouldn't worry about Zep in Heavy.. they weren't prog (and I'm a Ledhead from way back)
|
(Psst! You move 'em to Heavy, and I've got this real keen Stairway to sell you!)
|
|
"There seem to be quite a large percentage of young American boys out there tonight. A long way from home, eh? Well so are we... Gotta stick together." -I. Anderson
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46838
|
Posted: September 24 2007 at 16:32 |
rushfan4 wrote:
I think that there should be a "former prog band
member" sub-genre which can include all of the artists that belonged in
a "classic" prog band at one point and then went on to do solo
albums. That way Phil and Pete can be together again with Steve
Hackett, Anthony Phillips, Mike + the Mechanics, and Tony
Banks. And Bill Bruford can be "grouped" with Rick Wakeman, Jon
Anderson, Steve Howe, and Chris Squire since all have solo albums.
For what it is worth, I personally find the various
genres and sub-genres are useful as a guide to give an idea of bands
that might be similar in sound or character to bands that I already
know, but obviously due to limitations you can end up with bands that
are completely unrelated being included in the same genre. It has
been beaten to death in many a thread regarding how by their very
nature there are many a prog band that defy categorization. I
feel that the Collaborators do a good job with what they have to work
with regarding bands and genres. As I read it, their goal is to
try and keep a sub-genre into more manageable groupings.
Unfortunately, based on their categorizations the Art-Rock group
consisted of 800 plus bands and it was decided that it was time to try
and re-group into smaller more manageable groups. I certainly can
understand this and don't have a problem with it. Admittedly, I
don't fully understand the new categories and what they represent but
hopefully with time I will get to understand them and I will benefit
from these more compact groupings. In all reality, if their goal
was to group the bands into a category with a similar band, they could
end up with 400 subgenres with only 1 or 2 bands each.
That being said, I agree with the previous poster that Peter
Gabriel's solo music didn't just all of a sudden become more
proggier because he was moved from Prog-related to Crossover
prog. It has just been deemed to be a better category for
him.
To all of the Collabs, thank you for all of your hard work in
making this site such a wonderful resource for us prog rock
afficianados to find new and old bands alike. |
it is a better fit for him because he fits the definition of
Crossover.. read it carefully... I make the point that it is a prog
sub-genre ..that is different from the same old sh*t of side long
epics, nebulous as hell lyrics, and blaa blaa blaa. Prog was not
about that... those were only characteristics of it... not things that
made prog ...prog. Prog fans should by the nature of the music we
listen to...be fairly open minded. But like life... theory
often doesn't translate to reality. If so...I'd be calling you
Comrade Rushfan1001 hahahha.
btw/
thanks.. and look for a X-mas card from the old AR team. Nice post
and I was kidding about 800... it was aboutt 500 when that debate started... so ...hell... it might have been by now 
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
rushfan4
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 22 2007
Location: Michigan, U.S.
Status: Offline
Points: 66735
|
Posted: September 24 2007 at 16:19 |
I think that there should be a "former prog band member" sub-genre which can include all of the artists that belonged in a "classic" prog band at one point and then went on to do solo albums. That way Phil and Pete can be together again with Steve Hackett, Anthony Phillips, Mike + the Mechanics, and Tony Banks. And Bill Bruford can be "grouped" with Rick Wakeman, Jon Anderson, Steve Howe, and Chris Squire since all have solo albums.
For what it is worth, I personally find the various genres and sub-genres are useful as a guide to give an idea of bands that might be similar in sound or character to bands that I already know, but obviously due to limitations you can end up with bands that are completely unrelated being included in the same genre. It has been beaten to death in many a thread regarding how by their very nature there are many a prog band that defy categorization. I feel that the Collaborators do a good job with what they have to work with regarding bands and genres. As I read it, their goal is to try and keep a sub-genre into more manageable groupings. Unfortunately, based on their categorizations the Art-Rock group consisted of 800 plus bands and it was decided that it was time to try and re-group into smaller more manageable groups. I certainly can understand this and don't have a problem with it. Admittedly, I don't fully understand the new categories and what they represent but hopefully with time I will get to understand them and I will benefit from these more compact groupings. In all reality, if their goal was to group the bands into a category with a similar band, they could end up with 400 subgenres with only 1 or 2 bands each.
That being said, I agree with the previous poster that Peter Gabriel's solo music didn't just all of a sudden become more proggier because he was moved from Prog-related to Crossover prog. It has just been deemed to be a better category for him.
To all of the Collabs, thank you for all of your hard work in making this site such a wonderful resource for us prog rock afficianados to find new and old bands alike.
|
|
|
|
Dirk
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 1043
|
Posted: September 24 2007 at 15:50 |
|
I agree with the move but i don't understand the sudden outburst of happiness. Is Peter Gabriel's music suddenly much better because he's been moved to another genre?
I always thought he was ok and my opinion hasn't been altered by reading this.
Reading the reactions here it looks like there's some underground competition going on between bands where genre is more important than musical quality and discussions about genres overshadow the music itself, not a good thing IMO.
|
|
Dim
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 17 2007
Location: Austin TX
Status: Offline
Points: 6890
|
Posted: September 23 2007 at 16:05 |
|
I'm still happy!
|
|
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46838
|
Posted: September 23 2007 at 09:48 |
Mandrakeroot wrote:
Finally!!! Therefore there it is someone that it understands what it is the Prog in PA  !!!
|
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
Mandrakeroot
Forum Senior Member
Italian Prog Specialist
Joined: March 01 2006
Location: San Foca, Friûl
Status: Offline
Points: 5851
|
Posted: September 23 2007 at 09:47 |
|
|
|
ShipOfFools
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 23 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 107
|
Posted: September 23 2007 at 03:19 |
That's wonderful. I agree, he deserves it. The man has contributed more to prog music than most. 
Edited by ShipOfFools - September 23 2007 at 03:19
|
"Better than a thousand hollow words is one word that brings peace" - Buddha
|
|
LeInsomniac
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 22 2006
Location: Portugal
Status: Offline
Points: 315
|
Posted: September 23 2007 at 00:53 |
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 
|
Happy Family One Hand Clap, Four Went On But None Came Back
|
|
Man With Hat
Collaborator
Jazz-Rock/Fusion/Canterbury Team
Joined: March 12 2005
Location: Neurotica
Status: Offline
Points: 166183
|
Posted: September 23 2007 at 00:11 |
Wow...a genre move I agree with.
Something must be wrong here.  |
|
Dig me...But don't...Bury me
I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive
Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect.
|
|
debrewguy
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596
|
Posted: September 22 2007 at 22:55 |
|
Hmmmm, so I guess they're are no takers for pushing BTO's inclusion in Heavy Prog
then ?
|
|
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
|
|
bhikkhu
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 06 2006
Location: A² Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 5109
|
Posted: September 22 2007 at 15:39 |
|
|
|
|
|
Dim
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 17 2007
Location: Austin TX
Status: Offline
Points: 6890
|
Posted: September 22 2007 at 15:03 |
|
|
|
|
|
Raff
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 29 2005
Location: None
Status: Offline
Points: 24439
|
Posted: September 22 2007 at 14:39 |
Thank you for your clarification!  I see your point, and I know there are people who would go for an ever more detailed classification of the bands in the DB. Personally, I think we do need categories, though we should avoid going the way of some other websites I know, where the proliferation of subgenres of every kind has become a bit of a joke. I do also agree about people letting themselves be 'limited' by subgenres in their listening habits. However, this is something that, in my opinion, can't be easily avoided... Open-mindedness is often at a premium among people, and far too few are ready to leave their comfort zone in order to experiment - subgenres or not.
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46838
|
Posted: September 22 2007 at 14:35 |
|
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
MajesterX
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 30 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 513
|
Posted: September 22 2007 at 14:30 |
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.
|
|
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Peter Gabriel Is In Crossover!!!
.... 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?
