Talk:Neo-prog

References and tone

The article makes a lot of apparently subjective assertions without supporting references or citations. Cain Mosni 02:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Theater??

Should Dream Theater be listed as a neo-prog band? It seems to me that they fall more into the progressive metal category than the neo-prog category, and their songs are nowhere near as radio friendly as neo-prog tries to be.

I would list Dream Theater because of they huge usage of neo-prog elements. But I may be wrong. Any other opinions? --ΛэтєяиuS (talk) 16:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't, Dream Theater may share some similarities but overall their works fall square into the "Progressive Metal" category. Similarly, I wouldn't include The Flower Kings, since they play a very classic 70s style Prog Rock. --User:RazerWolf —Preceding comment was added at 09:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Theater allegedly use "elements" (though no-one says what these elements are, and I don't hear it!) from a vast array of Prog Rock - but more strongly from Metal. They are obviously a Metallica-inspired Metal band with an inclination towards technical displays. However you feel about that as a summary, Technical displays are NOT a strong feature of Neo-Prog, and neither is a Metal sound or style, ergo, Dream Theater are not Neo-Prog. MarkCertif1ed (talk) 13:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A more detailed explanation is required

I thing a more in depth explanation of the difference between prog rock and neo-prog should be given.

Queen

It seems Queen was the first neo-prog band. If you listen to albums like Queen II (1974), Sheer Heart Attack (1974), A Night at the Opera (1975), A Day at the Races (1976), and Jazz (1978). They have all the characteristics of neo-prog.12.65.66.93 17:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but I never heard anybody call Queen as a prog rock band.

Queen definitely produced Prog Rock (listen to Queen II and be amazed), but never Neo-Prog. Their music had the swagger and pomposity of early Prog acts, although it's true, they produced some incredibly emotional music too. Their music fits so many categories that it's probably safest to leave them in their own category. None of their music really fits the Neo-Prog "mould" - at the time of Neo, they were playing stuff like "Another One Bites the Dust" "Radio Ga-Ga" and "Flash", which are out there by rock music standards, but not Prog in any shape or form. The albums mentioned above are a) too early and b) too close to Prog/'70s rock generally to have the "Neo" sound (Neo means "New"). I'm now wondering what characteristics the original poster heard. MarkCertif1ed (talk) 13:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prog Archives Opinion

That doesn't seem like a very correct opinion. What is it documenting albums sold? Because then Dream Theater and the Flower Kings are much more popular than any of those bands combined. That Section shouldn't be there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.29.31 (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should Wikipedia Delete this page?

It was proposed that this page on Neo-progressive rock be deleted because there "Seem to be no references from reliable sources; mostly original research statements; fails the notability criteria of have significant discussion and description in reliable sources." Whether the reasoning is true, or is to remain true, is up to everyone who edits these pages to make it right. What is for sure is that the term "Neo-Progressive" as a genre has been used frequently since the early 1980's (and up to the present day) in many media outlets: music papers (such as Sounds and Melody Maker from Britain), popular online web sites (such as GEPR, ProgArchives, Dutch Progressive Rock Page, etc.), numerous published books (such as those authored by Jerry Lucky who mentions it several times, despite claiming later not to be entirely comfortable with the term), lots of online articles (just search the internet to see how many), as well as on a well-established online radio at Last.FM (http://www.last.fm/tag/neo-progressive%20rock).

This genre deserves its place as a historical fact on Wikipedia. We just need to add weight to that claim by bringing the article more in line with their requirements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.68.191 (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. As the person who put up the deletion suggestion, I firmly agree with the above statements. I nominated it not out of some kind of personal dislike for the term, but simply because, as I said in the suggestion itself, there's currently a big lack of sources.

Now, the book given could make the difference, but there's still much to be done. For one thing, we need some material from the book itself: some quotes, some discussion of the genre history and characteristics. In-depth talk about the genre itself. Even then, it's debatable whether a single text is enough to support a separate article, as opposed to perhaps a sub-section of the "progressive rock" article. The problem is that last.fm, online articles (unless from webzines with dedicated editorial and writing staff, focused on music of this kind) and web sites aren't, in themselves, sufficient as sources.

Essentially, there's just the question: if we take out the original research and material from non-reliable sources (which currently constitutes pretty much the whole article) is there enough left to justify an article? Currently, no, but I'd like to see what exactly this text can provide on the genre. And if there are indeed numerous published texts with sections focusing on this genre (as opposed to simply using the term), those would help significantly too. Prophaniti (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken about Last.FM, so perhaps a better source that seems to be more acceptable to Wikipedia is at AllMusicGuide which has its own section on Neo-Prog: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:4399 (although AMG can be full of inaccuracies and so on, it still seems to be a go-to source). Quotes from the book by Jerry Lucky would be a good idea and it shouldn't be difficult to unearth some -- plus Mr. Lucky wrote an article online that directly addresses neo-prog at http://www.ghostland.com/ghostland/editorials.asp?ID=7 so we can see that there are sources out there. Although maybe not a huge number but enough to demonstrate reliable information from acceptable sources. Beyond that there are a lot of informal references to the sub-genre and even though these would not be sufficient alone, it is an indication that it is a term that has been in use for some time. And in a sense its no different than the sub-genres that appear from other genres... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.68.191 (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like good stuff to me. I may detest allmusic on a purely personal level, but it's perfectly acceptable as a source and does indeed make the distinction of neo-prog as a genre. The important thing now would be work that, and other good sources, into the article itself, so that we have plenty of sourced info on the development of the genre, it's history and characteristics, the key artists/releases, and other distinctions from other genres. Some of which I see you've already done, cheers. Prophaniti (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]