Talk:Progressive rock/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Progressive Sub-Genres and Associated Pages

Progressive Rock should have the following Sub-Genre pages:

• Canterbury
• Crossover Progressive
• Eclectic Progressive
• Jazz Fusion
• Krautrock
• Neo-Progressive
• New Prog ("nu-prog" would redirect to this page)
• Progressivo Italiano
• Proto-Progressive (or "Progressive Influences")
• Psychedelic/Space Rock
• RIO/Avant Progressive
• Symphonic Progressive ("Art Rock" would redirect to this page)
• Zeuhl

I would like to start with the cleanup of the Symphonic rock page (see the discussion on that page). I would like to re-name it Symphonic Progressive. If I can get exclusive use of the page, I would appreciate it. That way I won't be fighting other editors that want to tout their favorite bands -- most of them on the page are not truly Symphonic Progressive bands! Thanks. Firstlensman (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source that has recognised "Symphonic Progressive" as a separable and notable genre? Otherwise, I think we might fall foul of policy on originala research. I have tracks by the London Punkharmonic Orchestra that play Sex Pistols tracks within a classical orchestra instrumental framework, but I've seen nobody describe that as anything but "symphonic rock", without a hint of progressiveness. I think the fault lies with the symphonic rock article, as it is poorly focussed and sourced. Once that is sorted out, I think this issue should disappear, mostly because I think "symphonic rock" as a term arose from the instrumental adventures of bands like Yes) (particularly on Close to the Edge) and perhaps also from Procol Harum, particularly Procol Harum Live with the Edmonton Symphony Orchestra. Since then of course, there has been a back-formation in that classical orchestras wishing to make some money have adopted pop and rock music to do so. See Louis Clark. Bottom line is that "symphonic progressive" is currently unsourced, as far as I can see. Rodhullandemu 00:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

On the Gibraltar Encyclopedia Of Progressive Rock this form is called "Symphonic Rock" although at times it is clarified as "Symphonic Rock/Progressive Rock". On the Prog Archives site it is called "Symphonic Prog". I submit to you that this makes more sense as it will not confuse this style with, as stated on the Symphonic rock page here on Wikipedia, groups such as KISS who happened to use an orchestra on one album! Firstlensman (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Amazon, Sonic Empire Music, last.fm, Prog Radio, Progressive World, and other sites refer to it as Symphonic Progressive Firstlensman (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I strongly oppose creating any of these sub genres. I strongly suspect this is someones own original research they are trying to introduce here. For example Krautrock is not a genre it's simply a description of German popular music, therefore I have no clue how a broad umbrella term like that could be a sub genre of progressive music. Ridernyc (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Krautrock is a specific form of German Progressive Rock and is recognized as such. A lot of people lump in ALL German Progressive bands which is a definite mistake as they all do NOT play Krautrock. The term Krautrock started as a derogatory term in the British music press, but has been embraced by these German bands. Notable examples of Krautrock bands are Ash Ra Temple & Faust. Examples of German Bands that are NOT Krautrock are Grobschnitt (Symphonic Prog), Eloy (Psychedelic/Space) & Tangerine Dream (Electronic). The same goes for Progressivo Italiano. This is the reason why these pages need to be cleaned up!!! Firstlensman (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If you look at Category:Progressive rock, Krautrock is already a sub-category of that; however, I do strongly agree that new descriptions should not be added without reliable sources. Without a rational argument for changing what we already have, I suggest we leave it as it is, since it has taken several years and thousands of editors to get to where we are now. Rodhullandemu 01:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much the entire list makes no sense to me a lot of them are made up, why is Psychedelic/Space Rock combined, why would art rock redirect to something called Symphonic Progressive? None of this make sense to me at all. Ridernyc (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Space Rock is an extension of Psychedelic Rock. It has been combined into one category on other sites which I've already mentioned. ditto RIO as an extension of Avant Prog. Firstlensman (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh another thing there is no such thing as "exclusive use" on Wikipedia, if you want that start your own website to publish your ideas. It's just not going to happen on Wikipedia. Ridernyc (talk) 01:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The people that run Wikipedia have locked people out of a page and assigned an editor to clean it up. Firstlensman (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree, and have hesitated to wikilink these terms for fear of adding too many redlinks. However, we are guided by needing reliable sources. I've no idea what is meant by "Crossover Progressive" or "Eclectic Progressive", for example, unless these terms have been used in reliable sources. I suggest the proposer of these changes (a) seriously consider whether the existing structure is adequate and (b) put forward a reliably sourced rationale for applying this structure. Rodhullandemu 01:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

See my previous links listed above for definitions. Crossover Prog is a term define bands that have gone more mainstream. Example: Genesis up to Wind & Wuthering is Symphonic Progressive -- Genesis post-Wind & Wuthering is Crossover Prog and/or Arena Rock. Peter Gabriel's solo career can be considered Crossover Prog. This term IS new and some artists, such as Mike Oldfield (Electronic Progressive) and Radiohead (New Prog), are erroneously listed in this category. Firstlensman (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

To make this quick and not drag it out, did you make this up on your own or do you have references in reliable sources? I really don't feel like beating around the bush and dragging this conversation out when it's pretty clear to me this is going nowhere. Ridernyc (talk) 16:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I did say see my previous links above, but here is the Crossover Prog page on Prog Archives. Firstlensman (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You keep adding links up there but not a single one of them is a reliable source. Ridernyc (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If by "reliable source" you mean a printed work by some stoner at Rolling Stone, then you won't get a true definition of any Progressive Rock. That there are sites dedicated to Progressive Rock on the internet that use the terms "Symphonic Progressive" and "Symphonic Prog" is more reliable to me. That major on-line stores such as Amazon choose to call it "Symphonic Progressive" is more reliable to me. Firstlensman (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

So long story short there are no reliable sources for any of your claims. Ridernyc (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

What do you consider a "reliable source"? Firstlensman (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS. anything not self published that is peer reviewed. Everything you have posted is either self published or totally unreliable. Last.FM for example is a wiki that also uses tags, so I can retag all my prog songs as Rockabilly and last.fm will list YES as a rockabilly band. So this is going nowhere. Your more then welcome to try other pages but really it's just not going to happen. Ridernyc (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

last.fm is providing a service and if the "Rockabilly" channel were playing "Yes", the "Rockabilly" fans would straighten them out, and visa versa. You are so concerned about my sources, yet the Symphonic rock page has so much opinion and falsehoods that you are taking as gospel! Where are the sources used for this content. I know that the sites I mentioned would make this page better! Firstlensman (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It's funny that you complain about Gibraltar Encyclopedia Of Progressive Rock and the Prog Archives yet they are both used throughout all the Progressive Rock pages as sources. Despite that, I have refrained from using them because of your concerns and found other "good" sources to use on the Symphonic rock page. Firstlensman (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Symphonic rock is a horrible article so I'm not sure what your point is. Ridernyc (talk) 03:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The people of wikipedia didn't lock the page from edits, Roddhullandemu locked it from unconfirmed editors so that every two days there isn't a list of bands from ABBA to Zebra. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You may wish to start by bringing this to the attention of more editors than the few that have this article watchlisted. Start a discussion at WT:PROGROCK. Also, most of the list you presented above is musical styles, periods (neo/nu progressive), or scenes (Canterbury/Krautrock), not genres. Combining two genres is generally a style, not a third unique genre. The styles can be happily covered here (provided sources), because I doubt you'll be able to create a high quality article for each style. This is not a put down on you, but rather on the absolute lack of coverage of progressive rock by sources considered reliable by Wikipedia. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I will re-state the question there! Thanks! Firstlensman (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Remove WP:NOR From Symphonic Rock page

I have many references to the information I presented in the Artists section. I did not use any references that any editors felt were no good (i.e. Prog Archives, GEPR, et. al.). I've requested that the WP:NOR be removed, but have not received a reply. Then, the page was flagged for containing Original Research. I don't think I have to have a reference on each and every sentence I wrote in the Artists section. But, I can do so if needed. I'd like to remove the "Original Research" flag from this page. Thanks. Firstlensman (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Pink Floyd

Are Pink Floyd really "prog", to be listed along with the likes of Yes and ELP? 86.138.104.4 (talk) 12:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC).

Actually, just after posting this I happened upon this. I know it's only a blog, but good to see it's not just me! 86.138.104.4 (talk) 12:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC).

It's not just you, it's not just the bloke that wrote that article. It's not just Bill Martin, who explained in his "Listening to the Future" book precisely why Floyd ain't Prog. If you look through the discussion archives of this article, you see the "Pink Floyd" issue coming up repeatedly. The usual response is that including Pink Floyd is the "consensus". Yet, people keep bringing it up, and showing articles, books etc stating the contrary. Yet "consensus" it remains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.179.104 (talk) 13:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Pink Floyd truly defines their own genre. I too would only consider them only quasi-progressive, but nothing in the likes of Genesis, ELP or Yes. Pink Floyd struck a balance between progressive and album-oriented rock. Try to figure out what genre Animals is. It's certainly not progressive rock in the formal sense. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Pink Floyd

Are Pink Floyd really "prog", to be listed along with the likes of Yes and ELP? 86.138.104.4 (talk) 12:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC).

Actually, just after posting this I happened upon this. I know it's only a blog, but good to see it's not just me! 86.138.104.4 (talk) 12:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC).

It's not just you, it's not just the bloke that wrote that article. It's not just Bill Martin, who explained in his "Listening to the Future" book precisely why Floyd ain't Prog. If you look through the discussion archives of this article, you see the "Pink Floyd" issue coming up repeatedly. The usual response is that including Pink Floyd is the "consensus". Yet, people keep bringing it up, and showing articles, books etc stating the contrary. Yet "consensus" it remains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.179.104 (talk) 13:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Pink Floyd truly defines their own genre. I too would only consider them only quasi-progressive, but nothing in the likes of Genesis, ELP or Yes. Pink Floyd struck a balance between progressive and album-oriented rock. Try to figure out what genre Animals is. It's certainly not progressive rock in the formal sense. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.242.9 (talk)

Folktronica? Eh?

"In the late 2000s the genre was revitalised by the sub-genre Prog Pop which emerged from the Folktronica scene in the UK[citation needed]. Typified by the British band The Yellow Moon Band and their debut album Travels Into Several Remote Nations of the World, this movement rejected the lengthy forms of the traditional progressive movement in favour of the familiar bombastic themes and virtuoso musicianship packaged in a three to four minute form typical of pop music[citation needed]. This sub-movement is most often credited to Geoffery Dolman, the founder of Static Caravan, a record label based in the West Midlands in the UK."

This is pretty baffling, and looks, at first glance, like some less than subtle self-promotion. Having listened to The Yellow Moon band (courtesy of MySpace) I would be hard-pushed to describe them as progressive rock; they might merit the 'psychedelic' tag, but they don't sound like a progressive rock band, nor do they proclaim themselves such.

'Folktronica' (I'm familiar with the term as a buzz-word carelessly bandied about my music journalists, but I had to check the wiki article to work out just what it meant) as a genre seems to be thought to include Beth Orton, Badly Drawn Boy and Bat for Lashes, artists who have no particular connection with progressive rock; certainly I can find no explicit comparison with prog rock by glancing through the sources cited on its own page.

This paragraph would seem to be a clear candidate for deletion; any objections?

Sanzen-Baker (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)