stop the "Neo" prog label ?

I consider "neo-prog" only original bands from beginning of 80-thies (Marillion, Pendragon, IQ, etc)

Edited by awaken77 - January 19 2013 at 15:38

Slartibartfast wrote: lucas wrote: ^ strange when you know that Vangelis and Synergy are often associated with electronic music... Not too strange when I read there was a debate regarding the inclusion of Tangerine Dream before I got here.

yes, I remember that there were arguments against electronic music because it is not "rock"...

I have summarised many of the points made here on the Revolutionise The Site thread in Improve The Site section, so please do contribute there

Me, I'd either drop it or move others into it. Flower Kings and Spock's Beard come to mind.  Two Bands which never took off with me.  I like some Marillion.  Go figure. 

On a side note, what the hell are Vangelis and Synergy still doing in prog-related?


Edited by Slartibartfast - January 19 2013 at 14:51

Blacksword wrote: I don't care much for labels really, and I'm not a huge fan of so called 'neo-prog' but in its defence it is arguably more 'progressive' than acts that sought to sound like the bands of old through use of mellotrons etc. The neo bands of the 80's were using the technology of the day to re-interpret and re-invent prog rock, just as the classic prog bands used the technology of the day to re-interpret and re-invent rock music. I guess the post neo prog bands who aimed to get back to that old sound are closer to being tribute acts. Specifically paying tribute to a time in music history, rather than paying tribute to specific bands. That's not to say they weren't writing good and worthy music. This is why I have some sympathy for the view that bands like Radiohead are truly progressive, and are representative of where progressive rock is now. People don't have to like it, it's just how it is, in my humble opinion.

Dean wrote: Roxbrough wrote: octopus-4 wrote: Roxbrough wrote: What about stop all labels and just listen to music? Not a bad idea, but with thousands of artists searching just alphabetically is not good. As reviewer, when I try to describe something "new" I often compare what I hear with something well known. Subgenres can help in this sense  even when they are not very appropriated or the artist is controversial. I think Vangelis is on prog related only because he moved from JR/F to Symphonic, to Progressive Electronic, to Krautrock, to Avant, (the B-side of Heaven and Hell may fit in Zeuhl, too) that assigning him to a specific subgenre is impossible. But if you remove ALL the labels this would become www.archives.com and couldn't be distinguished from metal archives and jazzmusic-archives, too.    I would prefer that, being as I know my alphabet. I don't need anyone else to tell me what, "in their opinion", music I like fits into what pidgeon hole, The idea of pigeonholing is to enable people who have never heard a band (say Harmonium for example) to discover their music by association with other bands that they have heard of and do like. Knowledge of the alphabet does not give you that. We provide both methods of locating bands - you can take your choice of which you prefer to use and certainly serendipity is a wonderful method of finding that surprise discovery. But with 7,605 artists to pick from chance discovery is a needle in a haystack approach.

This is another great point Dean.  With our database people can search for bands either way they prefer, we offer the option.

If you want to use our genres to narrow your search, you have that choice.  Our definitions may not be the only way to sort bands but they are one way.   If you want to disregard them and cast out the labels, then ignore them and use the random or alphabetical or some other method to examine bands.  No one is forcing you to like sub genres in order to use the database.

But there is no reason to kill a system that many of us enjoy and find very valuable,  just because you don't.  Just use the site in the manner you wish. 

Some of the other issues raised in the revolution thread are as Dean pointed out yesterday,  grossly overstated.  I feel we were making real progress on new bands monitoring, team cooperation, team building, and morale.  Chris, Yam, Andy, and others, have been increasing efficiency of process.  It felt pretty good of late, so I thought.




Edited by Finnforest - January 19 2013 at 08:33

[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]

Roxbrough wrote: If we all own up, Progressive is not the right tag for what we listen to now anyway. It is meant to indicate 'progress' and taste wise we all really hanker for a certain 'formula'. Punk was more progressive than progressive music when it arrived, but I doubt  many of us on here prefered it. We would all be better of finding a new tag if we simply MUST have one. I propose we all think of what we like as 'Intricate music'.     Get ready, ha ha ha

Punk was a change, but technically it was regressive rock, not progressive.

I never thought about neo prog bands as "less-genuine" bands. To me it's just a label that describes their sound, not their quality..

If we all own up, Progressive is not the right tag for what we listen to now anyway. It is meant to indicate 'progress' and taste wise we all really hanker for a certain 'formula'. Punk was more progressive than progressive music when it arrived, but I doubt  many of us on here prefered it.