I agree his solo career deserves more than just a Prog related tag. I think crossover is the right sub-genre for his music.

 

Lets not get ahead of ourselves though and put Led Zeppelin in heavy prog. If we did that I would immediately leave!

 

I'm gonna write this in my journal right now!!!

yes yes, very nice move...though I won't enjoy his music any more or less.

 

 

 

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?

 

 

there will always be complainers looming about, but there are still many of us who appreciate the many little things that are less noticeable, so I hope you collabs don't feel like we by-standers are looking to piss on everything that is done (ahem....micky and Raff.......some of us are actually happy to have BOC here) 

 

Hate to poop on your party and all that, but I was very happy to see art rock get divided in the first place!!!

 

Now we need to divide metal!

Something must be wrong here.

 

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. 

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!)

 

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 was kind of a joke.  Basically I was reuniting the band members of these two classic bands by saying they should all be grouped together in a similar genre "former prog band members".  Hence the winking smiley face.  However, I am all in favor of the addition of Queen and Iron Maiden to the site.  I am only familiar with BOC's "hits" so I don't pass judgement there.

First off, as I said in my previous post I respect the decisions of the Special Collabs and the site owners in regards to the genres decided and where the bands are placed.  Although I might not agree on all of them that is understandable on both sides.  Some bands could fit into multiple categories and it is a judgement call as to which genre that best fits them.  As I also mentioned at this time I don't fully understand what is meant by the various subgenres but this is due more to my limited knowledge of these terms.  I say this tongue in cheek, but to me the term Prog-Related would include Phil Collins and Peter Gabriel and Mike + the Mechanics because all 3 are pop bands that are "related" to Genesis the prog band because of the overlapping band member(s).  I understand that is not how PA defined Prog-related but to me that would be a literal definition.  Also, based on the six degrees of separation theory based on that line of thinking PA would end up including every band in All Music because somehow somewhere Cyndi Laupner is related to King Crimson because her horn player played in a jazz band that featured a guy who played in a band with Robert Fripp, etc... and that is most definitely not the purpose of PA.

 

I don't wish to enter this debate or rehash other thread arguments in regards to what I consider a fine line between prog-related and crossover prog and eclectic prog (which at this point I really have no idea what this is supposed to mean).   I suspect that there is some sort of standard measurement used such as if a band's music is "more than 25% proggy but less than 50% proggy" they are deemed prog related but if they are "more than 50% proggy but less than 75% proggy" they are crossover prog and if they are "greater than 75% proggy" they are eclectic.  As I said I realize that it is a judgement call and I respect that the Special Collabs are far more knowlegable about these items than I am and that much thought and discussion goes into where a band is eventually placed. 

No Rushfan, I know that, i wrote the prog Related definition that was approved by mailto:M@X - M@X and the Adm Team.

 

Prog Related is the category that groups bands and artists that: - Without being 100% Prog, received clear MUSICAL influence of this genre, OR - Are widely accepted as MUSICALLY influential to the development of Progressive Rock by the community, OR - Blend characteristics of Progressive Rock with mainstream elements creating a final product that despite not being part of the genre is evident that are close to Prog. We specify the word MUSICAL because simple performance of a determined instrument in a Prog or mainstream band is not justification enough to include an artist, no matter how virtuoso he/she may be, Prog Archives has to evaluate their compositional work because the music is what determines the characteristics of a band or an artist. (...) Melgar Morey http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive-rock.asp#38 - http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive-rock.asp#38

 

There are three separete conditions that allow a band to be added, being part of a Prog band is not one of them. As a fact in the other parragraph it's specified that the simple performance in a Prog band doesn't give the artist the quality opf Perog Related.

 

The inclusion of an artist is only for MUSICAL/COMPOSITIONAL reasons, so Mike & The Mechanics or Phil Collins don't have a place here because in their solo work they never wrote a single Prog related note.

 

Iván

 

 

 

Your position on post-Gabriel Genesis and Phil Collins' solo career are definitely well-known and expressed throughtout PA and I certainly have no intention of entering the battle waged on the Genesis Montreal thread. 

 

As I said in my post all that I was doing with my suggestion was having fun by "reuniting" the members of Genesis by suggesting that their solo bands be grouped together in the same made up sub-genre "former prog band members".  I am absolutely not suggesting that this genre be added; again I was only having fun with "reuniting" Genesis.  I believe that you overexaggerate with your comment about neither Mike or Phil writing a single prog note in their solo careers, but I also agree that neither of them are prog and that neither of them belong on Prog Archives. 

 

As far as the various sub-genres go, again, I respect the decisions and definitions that have been made by yourself and the other special collaborators and the site owners.  I realize that you have dealt with these various subgenres far longer than I have and that you definitely have a better understanding of them than I do.  I have read the definitions of these various subgenres and still find them somewhat unclear, but this again is probably more due to my lack of knowledge in these areas.  I am sure that there is a subtle difference between Prog-related and the Crossover Prog definitions that is taken into account by the decision makers when choosing the various bands' categories. 

 

Again I respect the decisions that have been made and I am not suggesting that any changes be made.  As an example, to me, a band like Iron Maiden is a heavy metal band that "crossed over" into prog with albums such as Seventh Son and Somewhere In Time.  But I also know that unless Ghost Rider works some magic it will be a cold day in hell before Iron Maiden is listed as anything but Prog-Related on PA.  It is what it is and the decisions that are made are the decisions that are made. 

 

Take care. 

 

Scott

 

That's a good question, but if I had to answer honestly, I would say yes. Simply because his first few albums were highly influenced by Genesis(some songs on PG 1 sound like they could have been written by the band), and they fit snuggly under the prog rock genre.

 

However, if Peter had started his career at So, his music wouldn't be (and shouldn't be) considered prog (with a few exceptions.)

 

Never said Mike's solo career, I believe Smallcreeps Day could fit in PR, but Phil Collins necer made a prog song inn his solo career.

 

On the other hand, just explaining the point, because I heard this position repeatedly, I can't guess when something is a joke or is said seriously.

 

But don't worry not a Genesis Montreal thread, i'm also tired of that one.

 

Iván

 

BTW: If you noticed I have not posted a single time to support or not the Peter Gabriel movement to Crossover, so my position has nothing to do here.

You also have to consider his other albums, such as Birdy, The Passion, Rabbit Proof Fence and Ovo, while not being pop or rock, they do come under the prog umberella.

 So something really positive related to the new sub-subgenres.

 

Hi Ivan:

 

Possibly a language barrier issue.  "Tongue in cheek" is a term used to indicate that the comment is meant humorously.  I apologize that that wasn't clearer and caused a Misundertanding (Prog or non-prog Genesis song???). 

 

My reference to Mike's solo career was an error on my part in which I should have referred to Mike + the Mechanics instead of his solo career.  I am familiar with Acting Strangely Fine, but I have yet to hear Smallcreep's Day in order to pass judgement on that album.

 

As regards to Peter Gabriel's placement into Crossover Prog, I have no arguments with this change.  Again in my mind, the difference between what qualifies as Prog Related and what qualifies as Crossover Prog is both subtle and subjective.  One difference being that Crossover Prog is kind of a term of endearment whereas Prog Related is kind of a term of scorn (term of compromise); sort of an "Ok, fine will add the band to PA to appease the masses but we really don't think that they're actually prog but we don't want a revolution on our hands".   And please, this is not a criticism it is just my lowly observation.

 

Well, until I knew Hyperbole was a valid figure of speech.

 

Iván

 

Yeah. *droooling*

If you played it for 2 hours, that'd be pretty prog.