new sub genres for prog
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Site News, Newbies, Help and Improvements
Forum Name: Help us improve the site
Forum Description: Help us improve the forums, and the site as a whole
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=80816
Printed Date: July 19 2025 at 00:46
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: new sub genres for prog
Posted By: kingcrimsonfan
Subject: new sub genres for prog
Date Posted: August 29 2011 at 15:23
|
i know someone had a similar post to this but do you think prog is getting to the point that more sub genres would have to be made or do you think the its not at that point yet please discuss ------------- 
|
Replies:
Posted By: ghost_of_morphy
Date Posted: August 29 2011 at 15:26
|
I think we already have too many subgenres, and genres for that matter, already. But as long as people can still easily find what they are looking for, I can live with an expansion. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Earendil
Date Posted: August 29 2011 at 15:37
| genres are good but over rated and some bands dont fit into any genres even though most possible music avenues have been explored so no not really |
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: August 29 2011 at 15:46
i like genres though because they allow me to categorize things more narrowly and then you can find other bands with a similar sound more easily because they are in a genre together with only 3 other bands i also really like categorizing things because it gives me a sense of peace and control over the world or at least over my music collection or at least the wikipedia page i am browsing however there are already a lot of subgenres you only need to see the wikipedia entries for metal or electronic music to see how narrowly people categorize things already so i dont think its possible to create many more subgenres and still have them be useful terms if the op is asking whether pa should have more subgenres i would say no while you could conceivably narrow things further for example some people have been pushing to split rio from rioavant for a long time now but i think that some of them could actually be narrowed for example i think zeuhl should really just be merged with rioavant its not really a genre it makes casual browsing of the site more difficult which is what the site should aim to be accessible in one thing mike has wanted for a long time is album tagging which i think would provide a compromise because you wouldnt have eight billion metal subgenres for people to click through while still differentiating the slight nuances in sound in a somewhat useful manner that can make people with ocd happy however max is awol and even if he werent adding tagging would be kind of a pain so it will never happen so i am ok with the way things are right now ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Eärendil wrote:Posted By: Oliverum
Date Posted: August 29 2011 at 15:49
|
I don't think we need any more sub-genres. The borderlines between genres would probably become too hazy to be recognizable. Not to mention the fact that some bands would nevertheless fit into only one genre. ------------- All the best freaks are here, please stop staring at me. Marillion - Freaks (1988). |
Posted By: Oliverum
Date Posted: August 29 2011 at 15:54
I agree with the first part of the sentence, I also do this often. ------------- All the best freaks are here, please stop staring at me. Marillion - Freaks (1988). |
Posted By: Earendil
Date Posted: August 29 2011 at 15:59
 |
Posted By: JS19
Date Posted: August 29 2011 at 16:10
| I think a new genre for 'Glorified Indie Pop' is in order.... |
Posted By: madmike
Date Posted: August 29 2011 at 16:11
| About the only places where I'd like to see an expanded range of subgenres are in the fields of Crossover Prog, Tech/Extreme Prog Metal, and Progressive Metal, as their definitions can be quite broad indeed, and can include bands that sound absolutely nothing like each other. They aren't necessary, though, just would potentially make explaining a band's style quite a bit easier. |
Posted By: logwed
Date Posted: August 29 2011 at 16:15
Someone who is into metal definitely would think that prog needs more subgenres  Metal and electronic already suffer from ridiculous overcategorizing, bands within a genre need not sound identical to be playing fundamentally similar music. We don't need Extreme Grime Banjocore Progressive Post-rock.
|
Posted By: madmike
Date Posted: August 29 2011 at 16:29
When you have bands like Opeth, Scale the Summit, Ved Buens Ende, Mastodon, and Deathspell Omega all in the same subgenre of prog, you know that the descriptive ability of classifying bands is minimal at best and non-existent at worst... and if the descriptive power is that poor, you wonder why you even bother with genre labels in the first place. Basically what I'm saying is either create a system where your labels actually carry some descriptive value, or don't bother. That's all. |
Posted By: logwed
Date Posted: August 29 2011 at 16:44
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_electronic_music_genres" rel="nofollow - This is a list of many of the electronic subgenres, not even complete. All these describe music that are all fundamentally very similar, more similar to each other than any other type of music. There is no point in thinking up all these subgenres when so many of them are only very nuanced in their differences. You don't need to have a subgenre to tell you if you'll like how a band sounds, leave that to your ears. Over-categorization means pigeonholing listeners and bands, putting the music to a formula in order to categorize it.
|
Posted By: madmike
Date Posted: August 29 2011 at 16:58
|
"Leave it to your ears" is a good mindset, but one that falls apart in practice. If it's "close enough", it's "close enough"... but, to use my above example, listening to Ved Buens Ende and expecting something similar to Deathspell Omega would be almost like listening to the overture of Kozhevnikov's "Symphony No. 3 - Slavyanskaya" with the expectation of something along the lines of Debussy's piano concertos, even though both would be ostensibly considered "classical music". Personally, I'd rather have something more concrete to go by with respect to a group's sound. |
Posted By: logwed
Date Posted: August 29 2011 at 17:44
|
Why must a subgenre only contain carbon copies of the same sound? I suppose that is the question I have. I think that there is no need to eliminate variation in a group. I just find it interesting that you point out that you only think that Cross-over, Tech/Ex Prog metal, and Prog metal need to be expanded into ever more meaningless subsets of subsets, as metal (as a subgenre of rock) is already ridiculed for overcategorization. I must wonder what it is about avid metal fans that makes them feel the need to sort until there are only 2 bands in any single subsubsubsubgenre. I mean, Yes and Anglagard are no less dissimilar than any of the artists you mentioned in your first post, yet you don't see hardcore symphonic prog fans harping for a schism to be created.
|
Posted By: kawkaw123
Date Posted: August 29 2011 at 18:21
| I dont like cross over prog. I mean it really just means junk pile prog. people just throw random things in there and call it good. What does Lunatic Soul have anything to do with Peter Gabriel? They are nothing alike. the Genre needs to be renamed as the "Junk Pile" or "things we cant categorize" |
Posted By: Warthur
Date Posted: August 30 2011 at 05:48
|
Going to ride to the defence of Crossover here: as I understand its definition, Crossover Prog is a place for progressive music which includes influences from more mainstream rock and pop - particularly rock and pop trends which were current at the time of release. So, for instance, Peter Gabriel's solo work in the 1980s had this New Wave influence creeping in. Now, obviously not everything which blends genres counts as crossover. If the major non-prog rock influence is some flavour of metal, well, we've got three metal subgenres for that to go on. (Incidentally, I don't agree with the suggestion we need more metal subgenres - if you want things categorised down to the level of black metal/death metal/speed metal/whatever, then metalmusicarchives.com is a far better resource for that.) If the major non-prog influence is jazz, you're looking at fusion, or possibly Canterbury. If the major non-prog influence is even less mainstream than your typical prog sound, we're probably in RIO/avant or eclectic territory. Either way, I resist the notion that Crossover ought to be a junk pile. Obviously it's going to sound extremely diverse because, hey, "mainstream rock and pop" covers a hell of a lot of territory. But the criteria for inclusion is a bit more involved than "stuff we can't categorise". I've only been a member of the team for a bit but when I've been voting I always ask myself "is this actually Crossover, or should it be categorised elsewhere", and I've no qualms about voting to move things - and from what I've seen of their voting patterns, my teammates take a similar approach.
|
Posted By: Earendil
Date Posted: August 30 2011 at 14:56
*deletes account, smashes computer against the wall, and begins screaming*
|
Posted By: Sheavy
Date Posted: August 30 2011 at 16:43
The little voice in my head that "reads out loud" is panting for breath after reading this. Also the only cat. I would like to see is of 20th century composers who influenced the developement of Prog directly (Stockhausen, that guy who influenced Frank Zappa a ton, etc.....). ------------- 
|
Posted By: darkshade
Date Posted: August 30 2011 at 18:40
|
I was saying the other day how all the Swedish symphonic/eclectic prog bands should have their own category, just like the Italian bands have theirs (and some of the Italian bands used to be in other sub-genres, and eventually got moved to RPI, so I don't see why it would be a problem)
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/MysticBoogy" rel="nofollow - My Last.fm 
|
Posted By: Earendil
Date Posted: August 30 2011 at 20:48
Let's just make a separate genre for every country
 |
Posted By: Triceratopsoil
Date Posted: September 01 2011 at 15:30
| I LISTEN TO LOTS OF ZIMBABWEROCK |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: September 01 2011 at 16:38
|
I believe we have already too many. Iván ------------- 
|
Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: September 01 2011 at 16:43
|
No matter how many new drawers you put in your wardrobe - you´ll still need to fill it up with socks. I don´t mind how my socks are stored - as long as I can find them. ------------- “The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.” - Douglas Adams |
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: September 02 2011 at 04:12
The problem is that if we create new genres, the genre's description will be generally too restrictive and will become exclusive, rather than inclusive, therefore the problem will remain.
I think we have enough prog genres, and we still have problems classifying some bands because they never fit the given description.. most prog bands take their influences from all over the map, therefore escaping (or trying to escape) pigeonholing and labelling....
So multiplication of subgenres will solve nothing, really
 The only way it could be solved is by
1) making the (a few chosen ones) existing genres more all-encompassing and inclusive, and that might actually mean diminishing the amount of subgenres (but given the team's sense of baronny on this site, I think I can dance on my face before this happens)
2) Actually allow the groups to be tagged more than one genre (this would dramatically decrease the arguments between teams).... and I don't mean necessarily to apply the album tags in use in JMA or MMA....
For ex: What's to stop a Gentle Giant to be labelled Symphonic (it is a bit), prog folk (the medieval influences), eclectic (they sure are) and more, if applicable.... It would certainly be less confusing than pigeonholing them into a single genre....
------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword |