Talk:New prog

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Various discussions[edit]

theres no description of the genres sound!


Who the HELL invented this label? This is worse than 'fratire'. What prick thinks about how to categorise bands in this way? I guarantee none of the bands here would want to be referred to as 'New Prog'. Goodness gracious me. Do people over 15 actually care about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.204.245 (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; I am mulling over an AfD. It seems this "new prog" label is not a genre at all; just a happenstance label given to recent bands with progressive leanings. It's a broken neologism (har har, it's new, we get it), and I'm not too pleased with that. Sources are mainly just reviews of bands noting that they bear similarities to progressive rock (hey, it's the new prog, so we make a Wikipedia article calling it "new prog" -- clever). Any reason this page should escape an AfD? 81.51.104.121 (talk) 11:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed before, but the article was moved from New Prog to New prog, so you need to go to Talk:New_Prog to see that previous discussion. Bondegezou (talk) 11:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tag will be re-added, unless you want WP:OR instead. This "term" is no more than happenstance in the citations given. "The new prog" does not mean that they have defined a genre "new prog"; rather, it means that they are talking about a new wave of progressive rock. Your arguments on the previous page are weak at best: your suggestion is that there is some link between the bands (OR?) which is somehow supported by articles that just says there is some new prog rock in town after decades of dormancy. This absolutely does not mean that they have created a genre called "new prog". 81.51.104.121 (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From The Times article: "The sound of 2006 will be called — in fact, already has been called — new prog, prog moderne, or crazy prog". That's a use of the term as a genre name. Bondegezou (talk) 09:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From the Pop Matters review: "the so-called front-runners of the "new-prog" movement." The punctuation there again reveals this is a genre name. Bondegezou (talk) 10:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Take 3 sources here discussing anything regarding the term: First, Guardian Unlimited. Guardian Unlimited makes vague reference to the term in regards to a band not considered in the Wikipedia article (Radiohead). Yet more undercutting is the Entertainment Weekly article "Prog Rocks Again" where various terms are given and new prog is not one of them. Rather, the only article making specific reference to the "new prog" term here is the Times article. And similar to the old Brutal Prog article, that's far from enough to make the term notable. I have heard people refer to Coheed, Oceansize and Muse as bands which draw from old prog rock, but this particular genre is not well-established by any means. Find more reliable sources; I'll stay my hand on the AfD so you have time. 81.51.233.5 (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've given more than one example above with specific reference to the "new prog" term. Personally, I first encountered the term in the Times article, but then saw it being used more widely to describe the scene encompassing acts likes Pure Reason Revolution, Mew and Coheed. That said, the term has not (yet?) caught on to the same degree as, say, "neo-prog" or "post-rock". Certainly all terms of the form 'new X' are fraught with interpretative difficulty; I'm currently in the middle of a lengthy mediation over the New antisemitism article to give a rather more serious example. If I'd got to pick a name for this genre, I would have come up with something better! Anyway, the new prog article has survived and been actively edited for over 2 years now, so it seems to me to be proving its value. I keep an eye on the article and am always endeavouring to improve it. If you can help make it better (clean up some of the references, find more, indicate weaker points in the article), then do so, but if you think an AfD is appropriate, then go for it. Bondegezou (talk) 11:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly a neologism, but it seems to be a well-referenced one, so I don't think the tag is appropriate. Whether the concept is coherent, distinctive and notable enough to merit a separate article, rather than perhaps merging and redirecting into the main prog article, is another matter. Alai (talk) 12:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that only one article specifically refers to it as a genre called "New Prog" and that is just one of a series listed in that article. As a redirect to the main prog rock article, the bands are explicitly referred to as progressive, but I don't know if their existence warrants any such section: progressive rock never went anywhere, so it's not that there actually is some magical revival. On that note, an AfD will be coming shortly and we'll all get our two cents plus a few dollars in then. 81.51.232.219 (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm this certainly isn't progressive, so let's just call it "New Prog" so when people like me are looking for good music we can just skip over anything with this label. Maybe "Pop-Prog" would be better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.214.96 (talk) 22:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everybody, as you can see there is much debate whether New prog is a genres or not. I have looked at various sites, such as rateyourmusic.com, and I've come to terms that New prog is a genre influenced by Progressive rock, Neo-prog, Alternative rock, Electronic rock, and Post-punk. (DeanBaetz (talk) 01:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)) DeanBaetz[reply]

Does Wikipedia have some policy that no music made after 1979 may be referred to as rock? Is that it? Because that's the only reason for this idiocy to exist.

Post-AFD discussion[edit]

I'm starting off with a quick note: I hacked off the "key albums" because they're entirely WP:OR and are mostly just a list of all albums by the artists mentioned above it.

I'm not going to throw another AfD at this article until I've done my damnedest to fix it or prove it cannot be fixed. So here's what needs to be addressed in the article:

  • When did it begin? Where did it begin?
  • What does it sound like? This may not have an easy answer if it's a period movement.
  • Are the "also called xxxx" remarks actually correct? (I'm betting on no here.)
  • Do we have proper documentation of the use of the term? If not, what would a better title for this article be? (Translation: the old WP:NEO problem.)

Any other questions can be added and addressed as needed. 83.203.178.78 (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by your use of the term "period movement". You've suggested neo-prog as an example of a period movement in progressive rock, but I'd see it as a distinct sub-genre that began in the 1980s but isn't limited to that period. Likewise, my understanding of New prog is that it represents a certain sound (alternative bands going in a proggy direction, particularly a certain UK-based scene) not just prog rock in a particular period. Bondegezou (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I recently saw Pendragon in concert, actually. Here's the thing, quoted from AMG: "Although all of the major bands are still producing albums, the classic era of neo-prog effectively ended when vocalist Fish left Marillion in 1987." Neo-prog is dead. It was a movement of bands in the 80s. However, like most prog bands, they tend to die young or just keep producing records until half of their members are dead. 83.203.178.78 (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New != NU[edit]

New means recently established, etc. NU means "new urban" (see nu-metal, for example). I'm pretty positive this isn't what the article intends. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 18:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I checked, the "nu" in nu metal does not mean New Urbanism. The insistence in this case from the author of the article is that there is a genre which is referred to "new prog", "nu prog", and "post-prog" all. It has long been my case that this article is WP:SYNTH for this reason among others. 71.203.185.108 (talk) 00:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Add the band Three[edit]

i cant edit edit worth a damn, but if someone could add three (3) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.116.136.132 (talk) 08:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the duplicate entry which was above this one. You will have to provide a source, particularly one noting that it is a key band in the genre. But good luck finding a source that says it's a genre at all. 71.203.185.108 (talk) 00:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Differences[edit]

Coheed and Cambria sound nothing like Muse. Either one of them is New prog or none of them are. It's impossible for both of them to be.86.46.213.116 (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some would say King Crimson sound nothing like Gong, yet both of them are prog. Bondegezou (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
^ and they certainly don't. 82.46.111.137 (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aural description and future cleanup.[edit]

I have left two fact tags on the page. The first will likely just result in removal of the statement (I can't find anything about "nu-prog", let alone a statement linking "new prog" and "nu-prog"), but the second could be fixed with some reading of the origin and characteristics of the genre (or is it a period movement? Articles seem focused around 2005). Contributions wanted. 128.61.33.213 (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term has not taken off as much as perhaps it initially seemed it would. However, I think there are ongoing citations that could be used, e.g. here for a bit of a random example. Bondegezou (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is so goddamned stupid.[edit]

^^^^^ 66.56.184.62 (talk) 04:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this with...[edit]

OK, now that I've got your attention... we should merge this article and the neo-progressive rock article with the main progressive rock article. New prog and Neo-prog are honestly not big enough to deserve their own article, but they might be good enough for a couple of sections on the main prog rock article. Thoughts? --LordNecronus (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete[edit]

This article is seriously flawed. It fails to define the genre and it groups a load of bands based on throwaway lines in individual reviews. I'm of the opinon that this is pretty much WP:OR, inasmuch as it only appears on a handful of sites, most postdating the Wikipedia entry, and has been cobbled together from reviews. The 1990-2000's section of progressive rock while it maybe doesn't include all of these bands, at least puts them in context. Jjgull (talk) 19:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battles[edit]

if you have to have bands to fit this, surely Battles? 82.46.111.137 (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you could provide a citation describing the band as "new prog", that would be great. Bondegezou (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

30 Seconds to Mars[edit]

Like, seriously? If I could provide a citation to suggest Jesus was a woman, and with a head of a rhinoceros would that be "acceptable" too? 92.239.246.171 (talk) 11:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By their logic, yes. Just like how most bands on this list weren't called "new prog" directly as a genre, it's just bands that were called new and prog. I could find plenty of citation for calling a ton of bands emo that aren't, that doesn't make it true. Genre debates on wikipedia are just a disaster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.139.223 (talk) 03:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Genre debates on Wikipedia are endlessly problematic, yes.
Wikipedia policy requires something to be true and verifiable. So, you need to be able to back things up with a citation, but that doesn't mean a citation alone is sufficient. If something is cited but not true, then the citation doesn't matter. If you can find a band with a citation saying it's emo, but it's not emo, then policy is clear: don't include it as emo. The problem is that genre categorisation is so subjective that truth becomes slippery and what's left is citations.
In the case of this article, "new prog" is an unhelpful name, but that's the label that emerged. However, to the best of my knowledge, I believe the currently listed bands have all been labelled as "new prog", not simply new and prog. If there are any where this is not true, please do mention them here or edit the article directly. Bondegezou (talk) 12:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, Riverside and ALL OF THOSE are NOTHING close to 30STM...This section is a goddamn joke... Who did this? 91.231.24.100 (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So how did this thing survive the first AfD anyway?[edit]

At the very least I agree with the (apparently long-running) consensus that both this and the similarly awkward neo-prog article ought to be distilled down and merged with Progressive Rock. If nothing else, that lead section has got to be replaced. It's the most vague, subjective, and overly-wrought description I've seen in an article in some time. The rest of the article is little better. As has been noted above, a laundry list of references does not necessarily prevent content from being OR, which is clearly the governing force of this article. Snow (talk) 07:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_prog&oldid=1204265010"