Talk:New Prog

Do Blackfield really count as "New Prog"? They don't really incorporate prog elements into their music. they seem more like an "Art rock" band. Zanders5k 19:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you Google "new prog" and Blackfield (or, indeed, Mars Volta), you get a fair number of hits. Now, many of these are just using "new" and "prog" together rather than specifying a genre, but some clearly are using "new prog" as a genre term. However, most are forum posts or blogs; I've had less success tracking down the sort of articles that make better citations. Whichever, it is usage of the term that we should be describing. We should not be making value judgements as to whether particular acts meet our own interpretations of the genre. It's not a question of whether Blackfield (or whoever) incorporate particular elements, but whether people refer to Blackfield as "new prog". Bondegezou 09:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree with the above: Blackfield are indeed too "Art rock"ish to consider them a New Prog band. They have very little prog elements and even fewer alternative ones in their songs. By definition this should exclude them from this category. So why is it that they remain? Sure they have progish songs (I think mostly those with Gavin Harrison on the drums) but the music leans more towards indiepop or something. Furthermore, I've never heard of anyone referring to Blackfield as a New Prog band unlike for instance Muse (witch I think falls perfectly to this category). Somehow I have a feeling that Blackfield is included here just because it is a Steven Wilson project. Terppa 18:31 July 10 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think that The Mars Volta belong in "New prog" because they seem excessive enough to qualify as a "Progressive rock" band. they seem just as progressive as Rush or Pink Floyd. Zanders5k 19:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these bands do qualify as progressive rock without using this moniker; Pure Reason Revolution, Gazpacho (which used to be on this page, but has been removed), Porcupine Tree and, yes, The Mars Volta. Others, like Muse or The Decemberists (another one that used to be on this page) probably wouldn't. I don't think that whether they would qualify as prog as well as new prog should really be a matter. The only one I have a problem with is the labelling of Porcupine Tree as new prog, as I think that it's a stretch to really call Porcupine Tree alternative rock in the first place. LupusCanis

Why put Marillion on here? Marillion has been around since the 80s, and basically is neo-prog. I'm deleting it. Splent 21:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't really compared 80s Marillion to 00s Marillion, but presumably their sound has changed due to the front man changing or something. LupusCanis 08:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marillion's sound certainly did change from archetypal neo-prog when Fish fronted the band to something different under Steve Hogarth. Their current sound has some similarities, to my ears, to New Prog, but I think the article should have some citations making that link explicit if they are to be mentioned. Bondegezou 10:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to submit this for deletion. It comes across as opinion. One of the sources was even a blog entry! Does anyone call these bands 'new prog'? Of the sources cited, only one uses it and it is merely mentioned among a list of possible names. It really ian't helpful as a label as there has been new prog for coming out constantly and there is tons of prog coming out in the last five years in particular. The term doesn't really distinguish it from neo-prog. 'Indie prog' would be a much better term. I'd like to see some legitmate sources of 'new prog' before adding an entry to Wikipedia about it.Chiok 17:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Music genres are notoriously difficult to pin down or define, certainly. One problem with genre terms is that they are frequently poor descriptors, as you argue "new prog" is. However, it is not the place of Wikipedia to make such judgements, but to document what terms are used. Whether or not "indie prog" would be a better term is irrelevant if people are using "new prog". There is a wave of bands like Mew and Pure Reason Revolution that have elements in common with each other and this wave has attracted a number of different labels. "New prog" seems to me the most commonly used and there are some citations in the article—if The Times isn't a legitimate source, I don't know what is. More citations would be welcome and certainly we should recognise that genre names can mutate or fail to establish themselves. However, as things stand, whether it's a good label or not, I believe there is a scene known by this term.Bondegezou 14:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the times article makes it clear this is very relevant.. "the sound of 2006" :) Anyway, I was looking for this entry to find similar bands and so this was very useful! --Vesal 20:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is "new prog"? Most of these bands sound nothing alike, how can you clump them all into one genre? More prog rock elitist bullshit. Bryan McLellan 19:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

... Bryan, you don't listen to much music, do you? A lot of genres have bands which sound very different in them, prog rock itself (compare, say, King Crimson to Emerson, Lake and Palmer), post-rock (compare Sigur Ros to Godspeed You! Black Emperor), metal (compare Black Sabbath to Dragonforce) etc. etc. If you look for long enough in any genre you're going to find two bands which don't sound anything alike. If those genres are valid (please don't come out and say "post-rock isn't a genre either!") then this is too. Yes, some people use the term, I use the term, it appears as a tag in www.last.fm's pages for some of these bands (all but Muse, I think). These bands have common influences and stylistic decisions, even if they don't sound particularly alike, and as that is what is used to define many other genres, I think that this is valid. If in five years this hasn't caught on and the term is no longer used, then maybe not.

And "prog rock elitist bullshit"? Seriously, there's a lot more elitism AGAINST prog rock than from it. In the period from the mid seventies to this year any music critic openly liking prog would probably not keep his job very long. Anyone who hates an entire genre obviously just hasn't listened to enough of the genre, there's always something good in any genre if you dig long enough, if you hate a genre just because it is that genre, you're just depriving yourself. LupusCanis 15:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the Times isn't a legit source? Try the Washington Post. Sabrebattletank

This page honestly should not exist. If a band is alternative rock with "some" prog influence, then they are still alternative rock. If a band is mostly prog but has some modern alternative rock touches, they are still prog rock. This article seems to be a compromise for arguments made about certain bands that people believe are or are not progressive rock. Personally, I believe this article is silly. Doesn't this mean that a Nu metal band that uses elements of death metal is "New Death metal" or a band that uses some black metal screams "New Black metal". Last time I checked, a band was defined by the majority of their sound. It would make sense to mention the bands progressive influence in an article, but this genre of new prog makes no sense, therefor, I believe should be nominated for deletion. Zanders5k 18:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not for us as individual editors to judge whether or not genre names are sensible or not. Rather, it is the role of an encyclopaedia to document what genre names are used. Numerous citations have been given of the use of the term "new prog" to describe a distinct group of musical acts. More citations are, of course, welcome and we should recognise that genre names can mutate or fail to establish themselves. However, as I've said before, this label is demonstrably being used, whether you or I think it's sensible or not. Ergo, I believe there should be a Wikipedia article on it. Bondegezou 10:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I don't see any problem with a band being considered both "New Prog" and "prog", so that a band is described by some as "progressive rock" does not seem like a good reason to remove them from this page. If there's a lack of citations demonstrating that a band is referred to as "New Prog", then that does justify that band being removed from this page, but I would suggest bands shouldn't be removed from here just because an editor feels they're not "New Prog". Bondegezou 10:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished reading the citations. If this article is to have any kind of credibility the citations require revision. Not only are there more "citation needed" tags than actual citations, the citations are about as blunt as a baseball bat. The articles only vaguely refer to "new prog" and some only refer to _new_ prog i.e. prog which is new. The Muse citation for instance points out that Muse reviles being referred to as new prog - not the opposite. The Mew article doesn't even refer to new prog. Something needs to be done in the name of credibility. Terppa 21:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that's had a "citation needed" tag for a while with no citation forthcoming can certainly be culled from the article. Bondegezou 22:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Showbiz Nu Prog? --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 05:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it's New Prog, and secondly, no. But that's a matter of personal opinion, unless somebody gets an article referencing it.Brady Clarke 07:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]