ok, since the discussion for re-organising prog-metal has been started , let's start a discussion for reorganising other genrés too. the genrés that need reorganising the most are symphonic and art-rock and (to a lesser degree) krautrock. any suggestions?

by the way, I won't give suggestions myself, since my idea for reorganising would have been a completely different one right from the start (instead of installing sub-genres, allow an artist to belong to more than one sub-genré. this would have had the advantage that we wouldn't have had needless double-categories, like a sub-genré "metal" in symphonic and a sub-genré "symphonic" in metal)

What's up with that metal subgenre of symphonic that you keep mentioning ... the only band that I could associate with such a genre is High Tide.

Anyway ... one serious suggestion regarding the traditional genres would be to moveKing Crimson to Art Rock and move the poppish bands like Supertramp to Prog Related.

What we have learned from the total failure of Mike and The Progtologist's ill-advised prog-metal reorganization is that more subgenres are BAD, not good.  Why repeat the mistakes made with prog-metal in symph prog?  Why not just let the prog-metal area of this site become a nerdy disaster and allow the more legitimate forms of prog be properly organized?  This will give readers the impression that the prog-metal stuff is by-product of a few maverick specialists and not really a part of the rest of the site.   

BaldJean wrote: Mike, you don't get my point. when a band shares traits of symphonic as well as metal, it is totally open where someone who adds a band will put them. he might as well add them under symphonic as under metal. why should he necessarily go to the metal category first? hence it will come to these strange overlappings. which is why I would have much preferred to add more than one genré to a band

I think that approach is too progressive for this - or any other - prog website. Many people have a hard time accepting Prog Metal bands as it is, let alone having them appear in the same list with 70s symphonic prog bands. After all, "Symphonic Prog Rock" really IS different than "Symphonic Prog Metal". Entirely different sound and songwriting, not just Rock replaced with Metal like some "pluggable" component.

Another good thing IMO would be to introduce a genre for "Modern Symphonic Prog". Key bands would be Spock's Beard and The Flower Kings ... and because I know what people will respond: No, these are not Neo-Prog bands.

"yeah, the more 'legitimate' forms of prog including herbert hancock "

Seriously -- do you know ANYTHING about the music of Hancock?  Because your comments are completely asinine.  Hancock is one of the most important jazz pianists EVER.  He also was at the forefront of creating the fusion genre.  Listen to Mwansihi, Crossings and Sextant -- this actual *progressive* music -- it is music without precedent. 

What are you, 18 or something?  If this site is going to include fusion, it needs to include Herbie Hancock.  That not ALL of Hancock's discography is relevant for purposes of inclusion on the site only shows that there is something wrong with pigeonholing artists into little genre-boxes, not that there is something wrong with Herbie Hancock.  Dispensing with fusion altogether is another viable route (and is not a bad idea, since this site doesn't do a really good job with fusion, anyway).      

"I'm 43 and don't need you giving me lessons on the merits of herbie hancock,friend "

Say stupid things -- get reprimanded by someone who knows better.  That's how it works.

yargh wrote: What we have learned from the total failure of Mike and The Progtologist's ill-advised prog-metal reorganization is that more subgenres are BAD, not good.  Why repeat the mistakes made with prog-metal in symph prog?  Why not just let the prog-metal area of this site become a nerdy disaster and allow the more legitimate forms of prog be properly organized?  This will give readers the impression that the prog-metal stuff is by-product of a few maverick specialists and not really a part of the rest of the site.

It's nice of you to show us your true attitude ... I sure had a good laugh while reading that post. It is a personal attack however, and I'm not sure if the other collabs that participated in my efforts will be as tolerant.

yargh wrote: It is not a personal attack at all -- it's a critique of your work. I'm sure you're a wonderful person.

Sure ... let the attacker define what's an attack. Again, I'm not bothered by this, but the others may be.

horza wrote: yargh wrote: "I'm 43 and don't need you giving me lessons on the merits of herbie hancock,friend " Say stupid things -- get reprimanded by someone who knows better.  That's how it works. You stated that prog metal was not a 'legitimate' form of prog - I certainly don't feel 'reprimanded' as you have thus demonstrated that you do not,as you say,know better

    This discussion is about Herbie Hancock, not prog-metal.     Please try to pay attention.   

"Sure ... let the attacker define what's an attack. Again, I'm not bothered by this, but the others may be."

Then please quote the line that was an ad-hominen attack.  I criticized the quality and necessity of your work.  If I happen to be literate enough to do so in a colorful, humorous way, so much the better for me.   

yargh wrote: "Sure ... let the attacker define what's an attack. Again, I'm not bothered by this, but the others may be." Then please quote the line that was an ad-hominen attack.  I criticized the quality and necessity of your work.  If I happen to be literate enough to do so in a colorful, humorous way, so much the better for me.

Your post was cynical and had a negative vibe. If it's funny or not depends on whether you were serious or not ... let's face it, you weren't joking.

This thread was a slow starter........

....sure is hotting up now though!

horza wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: Ok ... but let's cool it down again and continue the discussion on how Symphonic Prog, Art Rock etc. could be modified. lets try and fit herbie handcock in somewhere then

How about fitting him into a hole in the ground?

"Your post was cynical and had a negative vibe." 

Well God forbid!  Sorry, but there's nothing in forum policy about being either cynical or negative.  I haven't used vulgarity or insulted you personally and I have no desire to.  As I said before, I'm sure you're a wonderful person.

horza wrote: Snow Dog wrote: ^ And despite all the evidence to the contrary, I'm sure that you are a wnderful person too, Yarrgh. is that an ad-hominen attack ?????

Yes, but ad-hominem attacks don't bother me.  They're just words; usually, they are words of people of lesser intelligence than myself, so it's difficult to take them very seriously.  Lastly, it doesn't particularly concern me that I might NOT be a nice or wonderful person.  There are far more important things than being nice or pleasant -- like being RIGHT, for example.

yargh wrote: horza wrote: Snow Dog wrote: ^ And despite all the evidence to the contrary, I'm sure that you are a wnderful person too, Yarrgh. is that an ad-hominen attack ????? Yes, but ad-hominem attacks don't bother me.  They're just words; usually, they are words of people of lesser intelligence than myself, so it's difficult to take them very seriously.  Lastly, it doesn't particularly concern me that I might NOT be a nice or wonderful person.  There are far more important things than being nice or pleasant -- like being RIGHT, for example.

May I bow down to you O Lord?

horza wrote: yargh wrote: horza wrote: Snow Dog wrote: ^ And despite all the evidence to the contrary, I'm sure that you are a wnderful person too, Yarrgh. is that an ad-hominen attack ????? Yes, but ad-hominem attacks don't bother me.  They're just words; usually, they are words of people of lesser intelligence than myself, so it's difficult to take them very seriously.  Lastly, it doesn't particularly concern me that I might NOT be a nice or wonderful person.  There are far more important things than being nice or pleasant -- like being RIGHT, for example. Humour by-pass in evidence again

Well done...........better answer than mine.

Snow Dog wrote: yargh wrote: horza wrote: Snow Dog wrote: ^ And despite all the evidence to the contrary, I'm sure that you are a wnderful person too, Yarrgh. is that an ad-hominen attack ????? Yes, but ad-hominem attacks don't bother me.  They're just words; usually, they are words of people of lesser intelligence than myself, so it's difficult to take them very seriously.  Lastly, it doesn't particularly concern me that I might NOT be a nice or wonderful person.  There are far more important things than being nice or pleasant -- like being RIGHT, for example. May I bow down to you O Lord?

I'd rather you didn't.  Having heroes is fine, but public displays of hero-worship takes things a bit too far.

You know, while were on the subject of organizing prog, I think the Krautrock section is overdue for some serious house cleaning (or "Haus Großreinemachen" to be perfectly accurate).

I mean there are so many krautrock bands with so many different styles that a newbie wouldn't be able to navigate his way through the thicket (Dickicht) of bands s/he confronts. S/he may think that Can sounds like Faust or Kraftwerk and be seriously misled because they all just say "krautrock." And here they've gone and spent all this money (geld) on CDs that they hate (nicht mögen).

And that's not right. That's not anything the Prog Archives should be a party to.

Organize Krautrock now!

yargh wrote: Snow Dog wrote: yargh wrote: horza wrote: Snow Dog wrote: ^ And despite all the evidence to the contrary, I'm sure that you are a wnderful person too, Yarrgh. is that an ad-hominen attack ????? Yes, but ad-hominem attacks don't bother me.  They're just words; usually, they are words of people of lesser intelligence than myself, so it's difficult to take them very seriously.  Lastly, it doesn't particularly concern me that I might NOT be a nice or wonderful person.  There are far more important things than being nice or pleasant -- like being RIGHT, for example. May I bow down to you O Lord? I'd rather you didn't.  Having heroes is fine, but public displays of hero-worship takes things a bit too far.

Oh good, I don't do bowing...

Someone mentioned re-organising Symphonic prog........

As long as we are talking about various re-organisation here, can anyone tell me why we have section of "12 best rated albums in same sub-genre" on the bottom of each album's reviews page.

Everyone has an idea about top rated albums anyway, hence it's completely useless, and does not give a reader (unfamiliar with a particular album) any additional idea on how good or bad it is, or what it is similar to or comparable with.

 And why Bubu Anabelas is Jazz-rock/Fusion now.

In the meantime, you guys please feel free to continue your fight - it makes interesting reading as well.

BaldJean wrote: ...instead of installing sub-genres, allow an artist to belong to more than one sub-genré. this would have had the advantage that we wouldn't have had needless double-categories, like a sub-genré "metal" in symphonic and a sub-genré "symphonic" in metal)

this is very good idea actually 

naturally any good artist belongs to more than one subgenre, and describing an artist this way will put a reader in clearer picture of what's this all about.

Apparently the "tagging" idea,whilst meritorious, would be a major task for Max.

"As of today, the discography lists 9,167 titles from exactly 1,960 bands."

Snow Dog wrote: yargh wrote: Snow Dog wrote: yargh wrote: horza wrote: Snow Dog wrote: ^ And despite all the evidence to the contrary, I'm sure that you are a wnderful person too, Yarrgh. is that an ad-hominen attack ????? Yes, but ad-hominem attacks don't bother me.  They're just words; usually, they are words of people of lesser intelligence than myself, so it's difficult to take them very seriously.  Lastly, it doesn't particularly concern me that I might NOT be a nice or wonderful person.  There are far more important things than being nice or pleasant -- like being RIGHT, for example. May I bow down to you O Lord? I'd rather you didn't.  Having heroes is fine, but public displays of hero-worship takes things a bit too far. Oh good, I don't do bowing...

You may bow for me if you really want to.

yargh wrote: What we have learned from the total failure of Mike and The Progtologist's ill-advised prog-metal reorganization is that more subgenres are BAD, not good.  Why repeat the mistakes made with prog-metal in symph prog?  Why not just let the prog-metal area of this site become a nerdy disaster and allow the more legitimate forms of prog be properly organized?  This will give readers the impression that the prog-metal stuff is by-product of a few maverick specialists and not really a part of the rest of the site.

I really don't appreciate some of your comments.The only person that thinks the whole project was a total failure and a mistake was you,and that doesn't mean much.And the prog metal area of this site is not a nerdy disaster,it is very,very popular here and is a legitimate progressive form.

I will accept this all as a total failure when and if   mailto:m@x - m@x or Rony tell us that.

sleeper wrote: Wow, the only thing that i ahve learnt from this thread in three pages is that yargh  appears (although i might be wrong) to be a thouraly unpleasent, condacending and patronizing person, no offence intended, and clearly has no respect for other peoples tastes and views. Please some one let me know if im wrong?

Sorry........you're not wrong.

"Wow, the only thing that i ahve learnt from this thread in three pages is that yargh  appears (although i might be wrong) to be a thouraly unpleasent"

Not at all.  Most people find me ridiculously charming in person.

 "condacending and patronizing person,"

Only when it's clear that it's warrented.  Being right is much more important than being nice.  Who wants "nice?" Agh.

"no offence intended,"

None taken.  Getting upset about what people on a message board think about you is the sign of an incredibly weak, fragile constitution.

"and clearly has no respect for other peoples tastes and views."

I absolutely do.  I just don't respect self-important whiners who can't back up their positions.

"Please some one let me know if im wrong?"

You're mostly wrong. 

goose wrote: yargh wrote: What are you, 18 or something?  If this site is going to include fusion, it needs to include Herbie Hancock. No, it should contain the fusion artists which are relevant to progressive rock. Otherwise you might as well say if this site is going to include metal, it needs to include Black Sabbath. Or if this site is going to contain symphonic music, it needs to include Beethoven

"Fusion" is the mixing of jazz and rock.  Including only those rock bands who experimented with jazz instead of the jazz bands who experimented in rock is more akin to including only those progressive bands who dabbled principally with classical and excluding from the site the prog bands who dabbled principally with jazz.  Especially considering that fusion was invented by jazz artists and not rock artists, I think that including the whole of the genre is the only accurate way to go.   

That PROG-metal has the word "prog" in it ought to make clear that it has a relation to progressive rock.  "Fusion," though, is it's OWN genre.  You can't take parts of it -- you either take all or none of it.  Fusion is NOT a subgenre of progressive rock -- it's it's own genre.  As someone who knows quite a bit about fusion, I can tell you that nobody who listens to the stuff makes the distinctions that you just made.  So now you want to create a genre called "prog-fusion?" (which is the logical conclusion of your argument).  Good god -- more non-existent genres to further ruin the site's credibility.     

You know, no one has responded to my humorous post on page 2. And I thought it was witty, clever, not at all mean-spirited, sophisiticated yet folksy, but no one has indicated any sign of appreciation.

I'm hurt...

I'm not getting very many love bunnies on this website...   

yargh wrote: goose wrote: yargh wrote: What are you, 18 or something?  If this site is going to include fusion, it needs to include Herbie Hancock. No, it should contain the fusion artists which are relevant to progressive rock. Otherwise you might as well say if this site is going to include metal, it needs to include Black Sabbath. Or if this site is going to contain symphonic music, it needs to include Beethoven "Fusion" is the mixing of jazz and rock.  Including only those rock bands who experimented with jazz instead of the jazz bands who experimented in rock is more akin to including only those progressive bands who dabbled principally with classical and excluding from the site the prog bands who dabbled principally with jazz.  Especially considering that fusion was invented by jazz artists and not rock artists, I think that including the whole of the genre is the only accurate way to go.    That PROG-metal has the word "prog" in it ought to make clear that it has a relation to progressive rock.  "Fusion," though, is it's OWN genre.  You can't take parts of it -- you either take all or none of it.  Fusion is NOT a subgenre of progressive rock -- it's it's own genre.  As someone who knows quite a bit about fusion, I can tell you that nobody who listens to the stuff makes the distinctions that you just made.  So now you want to create a genre called "prog-fusion?" (which is the logical conclusion of your argument).  Good god -- more non-existent genres to further ruin the site's credibility.

Nowhere does Goose mention that he wants to create a new genre!

"Only when it's clear that it's warrented"

since when has it been warented to be condacending and patronizing to someone because they think their right (and Mike and TheProgtologist probably were).

"I absolutely do.  I just don't respect self-important whiners who can't back up their positions."

Oh, raerly, I'v yet to see any proof of your respect towords other people, just spitful sarcasm.  

Sorry to everyone else that i took so long to write this and get of topic again.

bluetailfly wrote: You know, no one has responded to my humorous post on page 2. And I thought it was witty, clever, not at all mean-spirited, sophisiticated yet folksy, but no one has indicated any sign of appreciation. I'm hurt... I'm not getting very many love bunnies on this website...

Sorry, as soon as I read the word "Krautrock" I stopped reading!

eugene wrote: yeah, bluetailfly, sh*t happens...., and even more often than you think

Hey, how do you know how often I think sh*t happens? Why do you presume to think that I think sh*t happens less often than it actually does? The fact is, I often think sh*t happens more often than it actually does, though I suppose it's disputable that my perception of actual happening sh*t is really accurate.

So bottom line, buddy boy, don't assume, because when you do, you make an ass out of u.

horza wrote: yargh wrote: "Wow, the only thing that i ahve learnt from this thread in three pages is that yargh  appears (although i might be wrong) to be a thouraly unpleasent" Not at all.  Most people find me ridiculously charming in person.  "condacending and patronizing person," Only when it's clear that it's warrented.  Being right is much more important than being nice.  Who wants "nice?" Agh. "no offence intended," None taken.  Getting upset about what people on a message board think about you is the sign of an incredibly weak, fragile constitution. "and clearly has no respect for other peoples tastes and views." I absolutely do.  I just don't respect self-important whiners who can't back up their positions. "Please some one let me know if im wrong?"<!-- Signature --> You're mostly wrong.  charming you ain't matey i'm glad you have such a monumental intellect,your real name must be Marvin,you will surely recognise the literary reference there (popular literary reference) i am also pleased that you are confident enough not to care that i for one find you to be rather pompous and disagreeable i think your conceit comes from having your over-large head up your arse your view of the world is therefore slightly .... anal

 Well said!

bluetailfly wrote: eugene wrote: yeah, bluetailfly, sh*t happens...., and even more often than you think Hey, how do you know how often I think sh*t happens? Why do you presume to think that I think sh*t happens less often than it actually does? The fact is, I often think sh*t happens more often than it actually does, though I suppose it's disputable that my perception of actual happening sh*t is really accurate. So bottom line, buddy boy, don't assume, because when you do, you make an ass out of u.

I thought - you are upset 

your brilliance went unnoticed

but now I see

you're full of sh*t

sleeper wrote: horza wrote: yargh wrote: "Wow, the only thing that i ahve learnt from this thread in three pages is that yargh  appears (although i might be wrong) to be a thouraly unpleasent" Not at all.  Most people find me ridiculously charming in person.  "condacending and patronizing person," Only when it's clear that it's warrented.  Being right is much more important than being nice.  Who wants "nice?" Agh. "no offence intended," None taken.  Getting upset about what people on a message board think about you is the sign of an incredibly weak, fragile constitution. "and clearly has no respect for other peoples tastes and views." I absolutely do.  I just don't respect self-important whiners who can't back up their positions. "Please some one let me know if im wrong?"<!-- Signature --> You're mostly wrong.  charming you ain't matey i'm glad you have such a monumental intellect,your real name must be Marvin,you will surely recognise the literary reference there (popular literary reference) i am also pleased that you are confident enough not to care that i for one find you to be rather pompous and disagreeable i think your conceit comes from having your over-large head up your arse your view of the world is therefore slightly .... anal  Well said!

...........this is turning into the anti Yaaaaargh thread!

eugene wrote: bluetailfly wrote: eugene wrote: yeah, bluetailfly, sh*t happens...., and even more often than you think Hey, how do you know how often I think sh*t happens? Why do you presume to think that I think sh*t happens less often than it actually does? The fact is, I often think sh*t happens more often than it actually does, though I suppose it's disputable that my perception of actual happening sh*t is really accurate. So bottom line, buddy boy, don't assume, because when you do, you make an ass out of u. I thought - you are upset  your brilliance went unnoticed but now I see you're full of sh*t

Clever reply! 

Snow Dog wrote: sleeper wrote: horza wrote: yargh wrote: "Wow, the only thing that i ahve learnt from this thread in three pages is that yargh  appears (although i might be wrong) to be a thouraly unpleasent" Not at all.  Most people find me ridiculously charming in person.  "condacending and patronizing person," Only when it's clear that it's warrented.  Being right is much more important than being nice.  Who wants "nice?" Agh. "no offence intended," None taken.  Getting upset about what people on a message board think about you is the sign of an incredibly weak, fragile constitution. "and clearly has no respect for other peoples tastes and views." I absolutely do.  I just don't respect self-important whiners who can't back up their positions. "Please some one let me know if im wrong?"<!-- Signature --> You're mostly wrong.  charming you ain't matey i'm glad you have such a monumental intellect,your real name must be Marvin,you will surely recognise the literary reference there (popular literary reference) i am also pleased that you are confident enough not to care that i for one find you to be rather pompous and disagreeable i think your conceit comes from having your over-large head up your arse your view of the world is therefore slightly .... anal  Well said! ...........this is turning into the anti Yaaaaargh thread!

after his posts what do you expect

I think there's nothing wrong with all the sub-organization of genres. If someone has the time to do all this work, I think it's fine. It will make PA look more detailed and professional. On the other hand the sub organization is pretty useless because few people really care about the sub sub genres. "prog metal" or "symphonic prog" is enough for a person to know whether to research further on a band or not. All the sub sub genres will  only be used by PA because no one else before cared enough to do it... which shows that wasn't necessary. And if sub organize, then it should of course be done to symphonic and prog metal, for they have the greatest diversity. There's too few zeuhl or krautrock and they're too original to be sub categorized like that. Another minus is that the sub categorization will spawn countless amounts of threads and arguments about what belongs where and what doesn't. And no one will come to any agreement because it is impossible. The borders inside a sub genre are too obscure to be able to organize them accurately. 
The cons are much stronger than pros in this case.

So, my vote goes to leave it as is

Snow Dog wrote: ...........this is turning into the anti Yaaaaargh thread!

it seems it's true, but it's quite wrong

it's shame when many hitting one, in the first place, and I don't get what makes you so upset about yargh posts, - I do not have any problems with it at all, but that might be because I do not consider yargh more clever than myself

eugene wrote: Snow Dog wrote: ...........this is turning into the anti Yaaaaargh thread! it seems it's true, but it's quite wrong it's shame when many hitting one, in the first place, and I don't get what makes you so upset about yargh posts, - I do not have any problems with it at all, but that might be because I do not consider yargh more clever than myself

Sorry Eugene...................neither do any of us ( not that we'd admit it anyway)

Let me just say that I'm not offended by your personal attacks on me.  I think it's a healthy way to blow off steam.  I wish that the rules of the forum weren't being arbitrarily applied (I'm not allowed to fling baseless insults myself), but such is the nature of the double-standards that result from the favoritism and clubbiness that pervades this forum. 

I do wish that you'd couch your insults within the context of one single argument against any of my points -- otherwise it simply makes you look petty and stupid, and there is no basis for a discussion. There is a difference between phrasing one's points in a biting manner (which I did) and merely biting.   

yargh wrote: Let me just say that I'm not offended by your personal attacks on me.  I think it's a healthy way to blow off steam.  I wish that the rules of the forum weren't being arbitrarily applied (I'm not allowed to fling baseless insults myself), but such is the nature of the double-standards that result from the favoritism and clubbiness that pervades this forum.  I do wish that you'd couch your insults within the context of one single argument against any of my points -- otherwise it simply makes you look petty and stupid, and there is no basis for a discussion. There is a difference between phrasing one's points in a biting manner (which I did) and merely biting.

I have to admit Yargh, you do think a hell of a lot of yourself, but you are being a bit of a sport about it.

Ray Lomas wrote: Going to the point---------> I don't know a heck about prog compared to most people on this forum, but here is a rough suggestion how symphonic prog could be organized. Maidenrulez said that we already have Italian Symphonic Prog. IMO also this is already one sub-genre of symphonic prog. I think it is a good idea that King Crimson should go to Art Rock and be the main band there. I used some ideas from MikeEnRegalia's prog metal organizing. 1. "Classic symphonic prog" (Yes, Genesis, Camel, Steve Hackett, maybe Gentle Giant, maybe Moody Blues, ...) 2. "Orchestral symphonic prog" (ELP, ....) 3. Italian symphonic prog (PFM, Banco, Le Orme, ...) 4. "Dark Symphonic Prog" (Van Der Graaf Generator, ...) 5. "Modern Symphonic Prog" (Flower Kings, Spock's Beard, Transatlantic, ...) I'm bad in thinking better names for the sub-genres. So as I said, this is a rough suggestion since this re-organizing seems to be going on. Please don't shoot me.

I think id rather shake your hand than shoot you, good sugestions

Very nice.

I'm not entirely sure about the "orchestral" category though - it depends on whether there would be enough bands that are sufficiently different from the others. Also it might overlap with the Italian symph. prog genre ... but I'm not really familiar with the Italian bands, so - I don't know.

I like the idea of a Dark Symphonic Prog genre - I surely would be a fan of those bands (love H to He). Of course - like BaldFriede pointed out in my thread - many of these bands are not easy to classify, and this genre in particular might overlap with Avant-Garde/Experimental.

Modern Symphonic Prog: Yes, by all means. The symphonic bands from the 90s/2000s are entirely different from those of the 70s. With the exception of Wobbler, which should be categorized as Classic.

Ray Lomas wrote: It's possible that the "Italian symphonic" sub-genre should be teared up and put all the Italian symph-bands to other sub-genres. But I'm not that familiar either with the Italian symphonic, allthough what I've heard I like. Not so sure about the orchetral either. Are (were) there a lot of similar bands like ELP? By this I'm mean bands who took heavy influences from classical music.

Yea well i dont think you can classify peoples music by country

My small effort on this subject:

Instead of classifying bands, try to classify their music. I have an understanding from few answers to my questions, that in the future development of this site the classifications might be done on albums and not bands. Therefore it might be better to "choose" the most representing timeline of a band with different styles (like in KC's case), and gategorize them with those labels.

I think there's a point in classifying, it's helps upkeeping big archives and it's easier to search similar kind of artists whit this data, as it it done properly. Material by many mainstream symphonic prog bands which I have heard, are very different. So my hat goes off for those doing this (dirty) job!  

http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive_rock_discography_LIST.asp?style=4 - Symphonic bands!

The Miracle wrote: There's too few zeuhl or krautrock and they're too original to be sub categorized like that.

Check the archives; there is more Krautrock than prog-metal.

BaldFriede wrote: The Miracle wrote: There's too few zeuhl or krautrock and they're too original to be sub categorized like that. Check the archives; there is more Krautrock than prog-metal.

Yes, that's right, which brings up my earlier post on page 2 in which I called for a Krautrock reorganization into the various sub-genres of Krautrock. But alas, no one here understands the plight of the serious krautrocker --- which is that this genre is often overlooked and a target for derision and mocking laughter.

Das tut mir leid.

BaldFriede wrote: The Miracle wrote: There's too few zeuhl or krautrock and they're too original to be sub categorized like that. Check the archives; there is more Krautrock than prog-metal.

Wtf?

Ray Lomas wrote: It's possible that the "Italian symphonic" sub-genre should be teared up and put all the Italian symph-bands to other sub-genres. But I'm not that familiar either with the Italian symphonic, allthough what I've heard I like.

Partially agree, Italian Symphonic is too specific to represent a country or a genre.

It should only be Italian Progressive, because even though their sound is peculiar and absolutely unique, not all the Italian bands are strictly Symphonic.

I know countries are not genres, but in the case of Italian Prog it's different, because all bands share something special unique and evident that no other Prog band in the world has.

According to other sites there's also Dutch Euro Prog and French Theatricall Symphonic. so they are not the only ones.

But I'm open to new ideas and maybe would also be accurate to send this bands to their own sub-genres despite their respective countries.

Iván

^ I'm also a bit confused about the kraut-rock categorization, as it is also a country spesific genre. Why http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive_rock_discography_BAND.asp?band_id=1162 - RUFUS ZUPHALL for instance isn't krautrock, but http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive_rock_discography_BAND.asp?band_id=2012 - GÄA is?

I must admit that I'm not an ace at listening music analytivcally, I do it more like emotinally, so fitting these to different categories isn't so easy...

Ray Lomas wrote: Going to the point---------> I don't know a heck about prog compared to most people on this forum, but here is a rough suggestion how symphonic prog could be organized. Maidenrulez said that we already have Italian Symphonic Prog. IMO also this is already one sub-genre of symphonic prog. I think it is a good idea that King Crimson should go to Art Rock and be the main band there. I used some ideas from MikeEnRegalia's prog metal organizing. 1. "Classic symphonic prog" (Yes, Genesis, Camel, Steve Hackett, maybe Gentle Giant, maybe Moody Blues, ...) 2. "Orchestral symphonic prog" (ELP, ....) 3. Italian symphonic prog (PFM, Banco, Le Orme, ...) 4. "Dark Symphonic Prog" (Van Der Graaf Generator, ...) 5. "Modern Symphonic Prog" (Flower Kings, Spock's Beard, Transatlantic, ...) I'm bad in thinking better names for the sub-genres. So as I said, this is a rough suggestion since this re-organizing seems to be going on. Please don't shoot me.

I've been talking about this issue and even send a couple of PM's with similar ideas about this point, but I have some slight changes:

1. The term Symphonic is absolutely  inaccurate to describe what we know as Symphonic Prog, because or it refers to Symphony Orchestra or Symphonies, but the genre is much more than only that,
2. What we know as Symphonic Prog is nothing more than those bands influenced by musical structure from Classical Music from the late XI to XXI Centuries.
3. I don't remember many sumphonies or Symphonic Orchstras in the first five centuries of Classical Music?}
4. But sadly the term is so widely used that's too late to change it, my idea goes to base ouur sub-genres in the main influence that  the bands recieved:

• Medieval/Gothic Progressive: We're covering all those band like Renaissance, Strawbs, etc that are considered Folk but have also classical structure that were influenced by music from the late XI Century to the XV Century (This includes Gothic era with bands as Par Lindh Project and other Gothic influenced that could be added).
• Symphonic Prog: Covers all those bands influenced by Music from the Baroque, Classic and even early Modern period (Genesis, Yes, Kansas, etc.)
• Modern Classical Prog: This would include bands influenced by Classical Musicians from the late XVIII Century up  to today), starting with The Russian Nationalist Movement, this is the place for ELP, The Nice, King Crimson, etc, with very complex structures as the late Romantic Modern Classical but different to all symphonic mobements from earlier periods.
• Regional Symphonic (Well the name should better change but I'm only giving an idea): This sub.genre could include very influential and peculiar Countries Prog and may be the only sub-genre with sub divisions like:
• Italian Prog or Italian Symphonic
• Euro Prog
• Dutch Euro Prog
• French Theatrical Symphonic
• Latin Ameruican Symphonic

Not properly sub-sub-genres (because I don't like that idea) but only divisions refering to specific nations or regions with a strong and péculiar Prog' movement.

Does anybody have an opinion?

Iván

Ivan:

I really think your definition of Symphonic is always too literal. I don't want to start the discussion all over again though ... I would be interested if Friede or Jean agree with your definition of the word "Symphonic" as in "Symphonic Prog Rock".

BTW: Therion would also be a Symphonic band by your definition ...

BaldFriede wrote: The Miracle wrote: There's too few zeuhl or krautrock and they're too original to be sub categorized like that. Check the archives; there is more Krautrock than prog-metal.

I checked the archives and there are only about 40 Krautrock and 20 Zeuhl artists listed, compared to more than 200 Prog Metal artists. What do you mean by "there is more Krautrock than prog-metal", did they release that much more albums, or are the better part of the Krautrock bands mislabelled?

yargh wrote: "I'm 43 and don't need you giving me lessons on the merits of herbie hancock,friend " Say stupid things -- get reprimanded by someone who knows better.  That's how it works.

next time if you want to make a remark about someone don't be so IGNORANT AND STUPID to make it an AGE matter. I'm 18 years old and I think you're an idiot if you're thinking young people don't have any 'real' and 'good' overview about prog.

This issue keeps coming up on this forum and its mostly because of the progressive metal genre. Just accept it that there are also young people here who love prog and stop making these generalised statements that aren't about anything!

It was a normal evolution to have metal coming into prog, so accept that too for a fact (goes for anyone)

Cheers,

Tristan

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Ivan: I really think your definition of Symphonic is always too literal. I don't want to start the discussion all over again though ... I would be interested if Friede or Jean agree with your definition of the word "Symphonic" as in "Symphonic Prog Rock". BTW: Therion would also be a Symphonic band by your definition ...

Mike, a work like this is not done by one person, if there's something I learned during my 20 years of working in various projects is that a group with rigid and more open people works better, all the ideas blend and you get to a central point of agreememnt which almost always is the best.

BTW: Influence is not the only base to work Symphonic or any other genre, butthings must start from some point, and Therion is a Metal band before Symphonic, so their main influence is METAL.

Iván