Art Rock ... or Crossover

Morphy raised a point that the Xover team has had in our minds for some time.

a bit of background... 

when the old PA's Art Rock category  reached mammoth proportions.. nearly 5 or 6 hundred bands .. with no common thread.. other than NOT fitting other subs.  The old AR team brought forth a proposal to split that 'category' into 3 more defined categories.. or sub-genres if you want to call it that.  Hard..err.. Heavy Prog. Eclectic prog and the 3rd one... what we originally wanted to call... Art Rock.. to encompass the bands that while prog as we define it here.. .ran parallel to what most consider the prog rock movement of the early 70's. That would not fit  the more rigid.. staid  sub-genres we have here.  Prior to  this split.. as  some of you may remember.  We had  several member that went APEsh*t when they realized that King Crimson was in Art Rock..  still other thought that Art Rock WAS prog rock and the name was redundant.  The new 3rd sub-genre was thus named Crossover Prog... to eliminate any confusion.

There have been some voices that call for a reinstatement of the old Art Rock name. After a quick pow-wow with fellow team members... we think that Art Rock should have a place on this site.  To properly rename Crossover prog to what it truly is... Art Rock. 

I snagged this quickly off of Wikipedia.  I bolded the interpetation WE think this site should promote.  The question is.. do you think this will lead to confusion with the site.. ...  a good move... or does it really not matter to you... the grouping is still the same.. regardless of what we call it.  Speak now... for people are watching and listening.

Note though... expect any opinions to be cross-examined.  If you are for it.. I'd like to know why.. and since we are for it.. if you are against it.  You will be asked why you are.

Cheers.

M.

The concept of "art rock" has also sometimes been used to refer to the "progressive rock" bands which became popular in the 1970s. The All Music Guide states that "Progressive rock and art rock are two almost interchangeable terms describing a mostly British attempt to elevate rock music to new levels of artistic credibility." ^[4] Progressive rock eventually stuck as a label for a specific genre of rock music, while "art rock" was used to refer to a wider, more subjective and harder-to-categorize collection of bands.

Princeton University's Wordnet dictionary states that " progressive rock, art rock" are "a style of rock music that emerged in the 1970s; associated with attempts to combine rock with jazz and other forms; intended for listening and not dancing" ^[5] As well, the book American Popular Music by Larry Starr & Christopher Waterman defines art rock as a "Form of rock music that blended elements of rock and European classical music. It included bands such as King Crimson; Emerson, Lake, and Palmer; and Pink Floyd."^[6] Bruce Eder's essay The Early History of Art-Rock/Prog Rock states that "'progressive rock,' also sometimes known as 'art rock,' or 'classical rock'" is music in which the "bands [are] playing suites, not songs; borrowing riffs from Bach, Beethoven, and Wagner instead of Chuck Berry and Bo Diddley; and using language closer to William Blake or T.S. Eliot than to Carl Perkins or Willie Dixon." ^[7]

The Guide to the Progressive Rock Genres lists "art rock" under the subheading "Forms Tangential and Peripheral to Symphonic Rock/Progressive Rock." The guide states that "art rock" is "another term often used interchangeably with progressive rock, [which] implies rock with an exploratory tendency." The guide also gives another definition of "art rock", which "describes music of a more mainstream compositional nature, tending to experimentation within this framework", such as "Early Roxy Music, David Bowie, Brian Eno's 70s rock music, and Be Bop Deluxe^[8].

it seems to me, Mike, that those definitions make pretty clear why the decision to drop the term 'Art Rock' was made  ..the definitions themselves are confused pointing to Artrock as "combining rock with jazz and other forms" which at this point isn't terribly accurate    ..plus there's the issue of what 'ArtRock' really was when it had legitimacy as a term which, to me, included other bands besides the ones in Crossover now, and 'Crossover' is not only an accepted and understood category elsewhere but describes linguistically and clearly what it is

let's not be afraid to shrug off outdated ideas and old criticisms..  we moved forward and took music history with us, it was a good thing 









Edited by Atavachron - March 03 2008 at 19:25

Atavachron wrote: it seems to me, Mike, that those definitions make pretty clear why the decision to drop the term 'Art Rock' was made  ..the definitions themselves are confused pointing to Artrock as "combining rock with jazz and other forms" which at this point isn't terribly accurate    ..plus there's the issue of what 'ArtRock' really was when it had legitimacy as a term which, to me, included other bands besides the ones in Crossover now, and 'Crossover' is not only an accepted and understood category elsewhere but describes linguistically and clearly what it is

very good point David ...I remember Tony mentioned in our team thread.. how Crossover Prog is actually becoming... 'prog culture' if you will hahha..through our work here.  A big point for keeping it I will admit.