Talk:Post-progressive

Post-progressive - an established genre?

Is there any other reason to think that such a genre exists than the book by Hegarty and Halliwell? Rocking the Classics puts it in quotes and uses phrases like "X could be termed post-progressive". Also what artists fall into this category apart from King Crimson, David Sylvian and Talk Talk (who are not even considered progressive rock by writers and music critics)? Chilton (talk) 12:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The term is also used in the books by Holm-Hudson, Macan, and Martin. Therefore, it is a real thing, per WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NEOLOGISM.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 06:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@Chilton: Before going around a hundred articles to remove every mention of "post-progressive" while disregarding sources, please read WP:TRUTH, WP:GWAR, and WP:STICKTOSOURCE.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 06:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

As I wrote, Macan puts it in quotes and generally treats it like a term he invented for use in his writings, not a real music genre. I don't know Wikipedia rules for music genres, but I doubt having three or four books where a term is used (does it even mean exactly the same thing in all three of them?) is enough to consider it an established genre (especially since the definition looks self-contradictory, because Talk Talk are not considered progressive rock by the vast majority of music writers). Please respond to my question on what artists fall into this category apart from the three mentioned. Chilton (talk) 11:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I've just linked you the "rules for music genres" – it's at WP:GNG. Hegarty and Halliwell defines the term directly, and others elaborate on it. That is enough to demonstrate that it is a "real thing", so to speak. As for your question of what other artists would fall in the category: I'm not sure. I assume most neo-psychedelia. Maybe Talking Heads? Brian Eno? XTC? I understand that "post-progressive" must refer to all "progressive" rock after the mid 1970s that wasn't Yes-style "prog".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I mean, what artists are commonly classified as post-progressive? Were any artists other than Sylvian, Talk Talk and King Crimson ever termed "post-progressive" in a publication? If you are not sure, then it is quite clear that something is not right with this "genre". Also "progressive rock" almost always refers to 70s-style prog and music that explicitly harks back to it as a main source; there are widely used terms like "experimental rock" or "avant-rock" for "progressive" rock which doesn't have much to do with Yes. Chilton (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

1) Here are some additional sources who use the term "post-progressive" or "post-progressive rock" [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

2) Progressive rock ("prog") != "Progressive" rock (progressive music). Avant-rock and experimental rock are not inherently "progressive".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Re: Sylvian, Talk Talk, Crimson

(Responding to Talk:David Sylvian, Talk:King Crimson, and Talk:Talk Talk)

Wikipedia does not use individual editors' opinions. Instead, we report what reliable sources say. Here is Paul Hegarty and Martin Halliwell's definition of "post-progressive", directly from the book Beyond and Before: Progressive Rock Since the 1960s

The term 'post-progressive' is designed to distinguish a type of rock music from the persistence of a progressive rock style that directly refers to 1970s prog. The 'post' also refers to that which has come after other forms of avant-garde and popular music since the mid-1970s. ... [it] identifies progressive rock that stems from sources other than progressive rock. ... there are those who content, though, that progressive rock is far hidden, and that post-progressive rock feeds a more explicit return to prog: in other words, a return that is not one. This trend is best exemplified by two British avant-rock acts of the 1980s and early 1990s: David Sylvian and Talk Talk.

They did not make up "post-progressive". It can be seen in at least 10 other reliable sources, 5 of which appear on this article.

Chilton is also confused of one very important matter: the difference between "prog" and "progressive music". "Prog" is how most people conceptualize the genre of "progressive rock". "Progressive" is an umbrella term that also refers to an approach (or an attitude) toward making music. Genres like art rock and post-punk are a kind of "progressive" rock music. However, they are of course not considered subcategories of "prog". I hope this helps clarify some things. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

It can be seen in at least 10 other reliable sources, 5 of which appear on this article. - and how many of them say that these particular artists are post-progressive? Wikipedia should report consensus, not the classification used by one author. As to the last paragraph - no, post-punk is not generally considered to be progressive rock music or even "progressive" rock music (because this term is probably only used in publications on progressive rock - and if you only know these, then you probably shouldn't be making authoritative statements about rock music). It has nothing to do with the matter at hand, though. Chilton (talk) 19:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@Chilton: Post-punk: "Branson rebranded Virgin away from the declining genre of progressive rock and toward the ascending genre of punk. In this way, Virgin was in an ideal position as post-punk emerged as a kind of "progressive punk" and could parlay its brand identity for avant-garde rock into avant-garde punk." [7]

There is an entire article where you can read more about how sources use the term "progressive" when applied to music. You are so confused on this matter and there are only so many ways I can dumb it down for you.

As for editor consensus on what to include in the infobox, I await a third opinion. If "post-progressive" is invalid, then what about "avant-rock" and "post-rock" on Talk Talk? Those genres only have one citation as well. I don't see you complaining about those.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I see you don't understand the difference between "generally considered" and "considered in one source", and the difference between writing "a kind of" and placing something in an acknowledged genre. Avant-rock (or experimental rock) and post-rock are widely recognized genres and Talk Talk is described as such in a myriad of sources. Chilton (talk) 19:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Once again, only one citation for "avant-rock" and "post-rock".

Once again, post-progressive is also recognized in at least 10 reliable sources, and given substantial coverage in at least two, which is more than enough to establish notability (WP:SIGCOV).

Once again, the source is using the "progressive" descriptor, it's not calling "post-punk" a subcategory of "prog rock".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there is only one citation, but as I wrote, they are described as such in a lot of other sources. Post-progressive might be a notable concept, but Talk Talk, David Sylvian and King Crimson are not generally recognized as post-progressive acts. Wikipedia shouldn't report the classification used by one author as absolutely valid. As to the third point - I know that! I wrote that "X is Y" is not a generally used statement, while you cited one source that says "X is kinda Y in quotation marks" - it doesn't contradict what I wrote in any way. Chilton (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Bill Bruford writes "post-progressive style" in his autobiography while discussing Discipline. How are we gauging "generally used"?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Now that's something, but I don't think primary sources can be used or relied on in this way (and it's not even clear that he means the same thing). Can you provide other sources for all three acts under consideration? If you can provide something on the order of one-fifth of the number of sources I could provide for them being labelled as avant/experimental rock or post-rock, then I think it might be a good idea to consider reintroducing the post-progressive tag. "Generally used" could be roughly defined as "appears lots of times in many different corners of professional music writing". Chilton (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Here are Holm-Hudson's comments on post-progressive referenced in a book about Radiohead. I'm not sure how you are judging "professional music writing". These are all reliable sources. Every author is a professional writer. And calling Talk Talk post-progressive is far from an extraordinary claim (WP:EXTRAORDINARY). You don't need multiple sources for it. We both know they play rock music that drew from eclectic sources, which is exactly how "post-progressive" is defined. If you thought about it more, you would see it's also how "progressive" music is defined. The "post-" only refers to "post-1970s".

It's almost exactly the same thing as "neo-psychedelia". We identify "psychedelic rock" with the music of 13th Floor Elevators, Jefferson Airplane, and the Doors. Decades later, other rock bands made psychedelic music, but they couldn't be called "psychedelic rock". They had to be distinguished in some way. It's the same idea, and it's not uncommon. "Post-" and "neo-" are very often-deployed prefixes. When someone writes "post-progressive", they are obviously using it in the same way others have: post-1970s "progressive" rock that isn't really "progressive rock".

In short, unless you can propose a real argument against the label, we don't need multiple sources to call most of these artists "post-progressive". It's not like we're using "Detroit blues" in reference to Britney Spears. "Post-progressive" is a totally fair label for Talk Talk and King Crimson.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are replying to in the first paragraph. We also wrote about post-punk and you seem to have confused two threads of the discussion. I think the discussion boils down to what should be placed as a genre in a infobox, and my opinion is that a term which is applied to a famous act only once in the whole history of music writing shouldn't. Your opinion that it's a fair label doesn't change much. Chilton (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

You underestimate how often pop/rock subgenres can only be sourced to one or two reliable sources. If my opinion on a fair label doesn't matter, then I'm not sure what the point of consulting this talk page is. Despite your arguments, post-progressive is an established genre, and academic sources do call these artists "post-progressive". Just because it's an obscure term does not change the fact that it is notable and verifiable (WP:OBSCURE). Given this information, I don't see why it shouldn't be in the infobox.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

"Post-progressive is designed to refer to a type of rock music"

I could find no such quote on page 224 of Hegarty & Halliwell. Instead, it says:

The term ‘post-progressive’ is designed to distinguish a type of rock music from the persistence of a progressive rock style that directly refers to 1970s prog. Chilton (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

...Seriously? WP:PARAPHRASE Nevermind, you were talking about a direct quote. Thank you for pointing out the discrepancy.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should it be presented as a music genre and placed in band infoboxes? It is basically a term that appears in a few publications on progressive rock (sometimes in quotes or in sentences like "X could be termed post-progressive") and that is not widely used or recognized as such; there are no bands commonly described as post-progressive. It was also placed in a number of infoboxes on music genres (eg. in jazz and ambient music) and in the lead in progressive rock, perhaps giving it undue importance. An article on this topic was deleted in 2006. Another issue is that the sources listed use post-progressive as an adjective - should the article use it as a noun as it currently does? Chilton (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• No and no. It should be described as a term/concept that appears in some writings on progressive rock. No to using it as a noun. Chilton (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
• Yes / yes Stick to sources "Post-progressive" is described by reliable sources as a type of rock music, a subgenre of progressive rock, and a musical style in general. Undermining the sources by reducing it to a "concept" or "term" would constitute OR (see also: WP:REFERS). For similar noun/adjective terms that are also treated as genres, see Post-punk and Post-rock. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Please change it to "yes" or "no". I think it would be good to note that you're the author of the article. I replied in the discussion section. Chilton (talk) 18:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

• Yes There is enough real world application to support the inclusion, yes. Damotclese (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

The RFC is not about inclusion, though. Chilton (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

"Should it be presented as a music genre and placed in band infoboxes?.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

• Yes Summoned by bot. Per above and a quick search for the subject, covered in reliable sources and used to describe a subgenera of progressive rock. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 05:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
• Yes & Yes - Summoned by bot. The term is used to accurately describe a type/genre of music. Arguments thus far opposing its use have not illustrated a convincing reason not to include. Meatsgains (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment—adjective v. noun the article uses "post-progressive" as if it were a noun, while the sources listed use it as an adjective

This claim is demonstrably false—the article's very first footnote exists solely to correct this non-issue. Located after "a type of rock music", we have 4 sources that state the following:

Quotes from sources

1. The term ‘post-progressive’ is designed to distinguish a type of rock music [8]
2. "post-progressive" (subgenre of progressive rock) [9]
3. Since the '80s, we have seen the rise of both a neo-progressive movement [...] and a post-progressive style [10]
4. A number of new bands have cultivated what might be termed a post-progressive style [11]

The first two use it as a noun, unquestionably. The last two use it in the same way someone could have written "rock style" or "pop form". One uses it in the same sentence as "neo-progressive", which is absolutely a genre.

If we are to continue discussing the validity of "post-progressive" as a musical genre, then I invite anyone to explain why it should be treated differently from "post-punk", "post-rock", "post-metal", and countless other "post-" art movements--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment—coverage and recognition It is basically a term that appears in a few publications on progressive rock [...] and that is not widely used or recognized as such [...] . An article on this topic was deleted in 2006.

Not really a falsehood, but just a little misleading. Chilton implies that "post-progressive" does not meet WP:SIGCOV. There are at least 9 sources I could find that use the term, enough that I could extrapolate about 5KB of readable prose from. Is it worth pointing out that several of those references come from respected academics who have written a great deal about progressive rock? Edward Macan, Bill Martin, Paul Hegarty, Martin Halliwell, Kevin Holm-Hudson, and John Cotner. Another, Bill Bruford, was the drummer for Yes, King Crimson, U.K., and Genesis.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

The first two use it as a noun, unquestionably.

I don't think the first one does (it could be read either way, and as far as I remember the authors always use it as an adjective further on). The second one is just an index entry; the index also includes "neo-progressive (sub-genre of progressive rock)", which is an adjective. The last two seem to use it as an adjective - nothing about them implies that post-progressive is meant as a noun. Some reasons why "post-progressive music" differs from the genre names you've listed: they are much more established in music discourse, there are bands which are commonly classified as belonging to these genres (unlike with post-prog), they arose much more organically ("post-prog" was basically slapped by the authors you cite on a number of disparate bands that were already agreed to be in some genre, and is little used otherwise), they have relatively consistent and agreed-upon definitions.

Chilton implies that "post-progressive" does not meet WP:SIGCOV.

I never wrote that the term is not notable - please be careful not to mislead others. Chilton (talk) 17:54, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:SUBJECTIVE: "aesthetic opinions are diverse and subjective [...] it is appropriate to note how an artist or a work has been received by prominent experts and the general public. [...] Verifiable public and scholarly critiques provide useful context for works of art."

Even if everything you said was true—and I'm not saying it's not—ultimately, these are aesthetic opinions delivered by reputable sources. The way you make a good article about this finicky subject is by presenting the musicologists' views and letting the reader decide for themselves. You seemed to have decided that "post-progressive" isn't a genre, and that's fine. However, you want to distort what the publications say, and that's not fine.

The second one is just an index entry; the index also includes "neo-progressive (sub-genre of progressive rock)", which is an adjective.

It writes it, clear as crystal, "subgenre of progressive rock". But it's only in the index, so it doesn't count? And now neo-prog isn't a genre? Such cherrypicking.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

And now neo-prog isn't a genre? - what the hell are you talking about? I was addressing the adjective-or-noun question, which is separate from the status of post-progressive music as a genre. Please respond to that. Chilton (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

We're talking about musical genres or styles, which are categories of music, which are deployed as nouns. If we can agree that post-progressive may be described as a genre or style, then there is nothing left to discuss. It's normal to write that something has a progressive jazz flair, containing neo-psychedelic echoes, proto-prog themes, and punk rock attitude. Nobody reads that and thinks, "hmm, do they mean punk rock, or punk rock?" --Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

The authors you cite only talk about a "post-progressive style" etc. - it is original research to state that post-progressive is the name of a genre. As I already wrote below, it also seems to imply that there was first a music genre called simply progressive (just as there was rock before post-rock, punk before post-punk etc.). Chilton (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

1) If your point is that Hegarty/Halliwell phrases their sentence as "the term 'post-progressive' is designed to distinguish a type of rock music" instead of "post-progressive is a type of rock music", then wow. Like, according to the Oxford Dictionary, a stove isn't a cooking appliance, it's a term designed to refer to a cooking appliance.

2) "Progressive music" has always been used to refer to a category of music. I'm not sure how you could possibly dispute this.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Ad 1 - my point is that they never use post-progressive as a noun, which you seem to have a problem acknowledging. Ad 2 - nothing I've written suggests that I don't think the phrase progressive music is in use. Writing something like that shows that you don't understand my arguments at all, or purposefully distort them. Chilton (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

The word "progressive" can be used as a noun-modifier as well as an adjective, which is the point you have a problem acknowledging (see below). You're also repeatedly denying the source that says "subgenre of progressive rock".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Not in writings about progressive rock, where it is always an adjective. You are referring to an index entry, and "post-progressive" can be read as being an adjective in this context (especially since, as far as I know, the author only uses it as an adjective in the text of the book); the index also mentions "neo-progressive" (which is an adjective) among subgenres of progressive rock. Chilton (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment on Ilovetopaint's response to the survey Undermining the sources by reducing it to a "concept" or "term" would constitute OR - I don't think it would undermine anything. It is a term. Hegarty & Halliwell talk about it as a "term" when introducing it. The fact that some author presents it as a music genre in the index of his book doesn't mean that Wikipedia is obliged to describe it as one. Chilton (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

On the contrary, Wikipedia is obliged to present all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. We already know "post-progressive" is a term—it would be like writing "this is a sentence". --Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Presenting a view is not the same as adopting it. I have nothing against mentioning that some author identifies a "post-progressive" subgenre of progressive rock. Chilton (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Or a "post-progressive" subgenre of "progressive" rock. If we really wanted to adhere to these standards, we would be writing about "neo-progressive rock music". --Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

No, neo-progressive rock is well-established as a genre. The term's use ranges far beyond that of post-progressive, both in general contexts and in specialist writing. It figures on AllMusic and probably in most books on progressive rock. There is a commonly accepted set of neo-progressive bands. Chilton (talk) 20:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

How do we know when aesthetic opinions are "well-established"? When it fulfills an arbitrary number quota? There are already several authors that discuss the subject in detail. At least two of them wrote urtexts on progressive rock that nobody ever really questions. Pretty authoritative if you ask me.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment on Ilovetopaint's new response to the survey For similar noun/adjective terms that are also treated as genres, see Post-punk and Post-rock. Post-punk and post-rock are used as nouns in a very large number of publications, and clearly unlike "post-progressive" in this respect. By the way, using "post-progressive" as a noun seems to imply that there was first a music genre called "progressive". Chilton (talk) 19:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Again, there was.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

No, none of these say "progressive"; they say "proto-prog", "progressive music" and "prog". Chilton (talk) 14:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Now we're splitting hairs between Progressive (music) and Progressive music? No thanks. I'll just say that the article could be renamed to Post-progressive rock (or Post-prog). But I wouldn't support that change, per WP:COMMONNAME.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

It's not splitting hairs, there is no music genre named "progressive" and it would be an error to refer to prog rock by this name in a Wikipedia article. It's like calling "postmodern literature" simply "postmodern". I don't know what WP:COMMONNAME has to do with any of this, as "post-progressive" (treated as a noun) not only isn't a commonly recognizable name, it's probably never been used in literature. Chilton (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Plenty of books refer to prog bands as progressive bands. They do not go out of their way to write progressive music bands because that would be ridiculous syntax. There is no difference between progressive music and progressive music, unless the terms are being used in an obviously different context (Progressivism). Again, this is like saying that punk rock is a genre but not punk. "How can there be post-punk if we didn't first have punk? Punk only describes an aesthetic. It's not really a genre. And punk band could just mean unruly hooligans or troublesome group!"

How about this: why don't you find examples of post-punk, post-rock, post-metal, etc. being deployed the same way that you'd like to see post-progressive? Are these usages any different from the others? [12] [13] --Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Progressive in progressive bands is an adjective - did anything I wrote suggest that I am in any way against this usage? On the other hand, progressive by itself is never used as a noun denoting a genre; neither is post-progressive. Punk, post-punk or post-rock are obviously names of music genres and are regularly used as nouns - it's ridiculous that you would even ask for examples. Chilton (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

It's not necessarily an adjective. It can also be read as a noun modifier, i.e., "the group recorded an album of progressive/soul/bluegrass music".

Interesting how you won't retrieve examples of post-punk, punk, post-rock being used as a noun the way you like it. Because they're "obvious" genres. lol. In that case, I'll find more for you.

• POST-PUNK GENRES: England's post-punk musical period bequeathed goth, new wave, and other genres to the world.
• At first glance, the name implies that it is a genre that came after the punk era. It is a movement more than a singular, discernable style.
• The term post-rock was coined in 1994 [...] Post-rock generally applied to bands that used typical instruments of a rock band
• Evidence that the Internet can and does facilitate such postsubcultural trends among youth is seen, for example, in post-rock, a scene whose community of fans around the world have little in the way of a physical basis for their collective investment in the post-rock genre.

What would it take for you to be appeased? These sources are no more "obvious" than the post-progressive ones. Do you want somebody who writes "post-progressive is a type/genre/scene/collective/aesthetic/NOUN of music"? I've already provided two in that vein. You won't accept them though, because one refers to "the term", while the other is only explicitly stated in the index. As if any of that matters.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Examples of statements (from Google - it was really extremely easy) that clearly establish post-punk or post-rock as a noun:

I also engage with fanzines in recognition of broader subcultural participation in post-punk.

Best guitarists in post-punk? : postpunk - Reddit

In some ways, maybe in post-punk, with there being all these other things to write about, it let me off the hook a bit.

The beginning of Chinese rock: To talk about post-punk in China, it would probably be necessary to start with a very brief history of Chinese

What do you like about post-punk?

Perhaps the most successful band to emerge from post-punk was U2

Post-punk is a diverse type of rock music

The genre itself was defined as a separate movement from post-punk

He could use an interview with John Lydon, whose move from the Pistols to PiL ushered in post-punk

Where Mono particularly excelled through their career was their ability to create some of the tightest builds and climaxes in post-rock.

Understanding Through-Composition in Post-Rock

Released almost a decade into post-rock's existence through John Zorn's label Tzadik as part of the New Music Japan series

5 Albums to Get You Into POST ROCK

I wanna get into post-rock. Who do I start with?

How to introduce post-rock to others?

[meta] Why is post-rock so unpopular?

introduced a generation to new sonic environs and turned the tattooed geeks that created it into Post-Rock's very own superstars Chilton (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Reddit posts as sources? Haha. Ignoring that, these usages aren't at all different from the examples I gave below. And yet those weren't convincing?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 08:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

In contrast to your examples, they show post-punk and post-rock being unambiguously used as nouns. Chilton (talk) 11:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

One way of thinking about it is that in your examples, you could substitute an adjective like pretentious for post-progressive and they would still be gramatically correct, while you can't do it in mine. Chilton (talk) 11:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment—"established in music discourse" Usually, the more niche the subject, the less consensus there'll be among the nebulous cast of characters known as the "music discourse". Even the boundaries of "progressive rock" have been the subject of much contention. Most post-1970s rock genres have definitely not arisen under organic circumstances. Nearly all of them originated from some guy's fanzine or an NME article from the '80s. The sooner this is understood, the sooner I think "post-progressive" can be appreciated in the same way as "post-rock", "neo-psychedelia", "proto-prog", "proto-punk", etc.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

What I meant by "organic" was that they arose from a need to describe new developments in music that didn't fit comfortably under any other umbrella, and were quickly adopted outside the publications where they first appeared. Chilton (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

"Establishing" post-progressive

These sources may supplement the four I gave above. I didn't include these because they never explicitly state "post-progressive, the [noun]". They're just food for thought.

• [14] Self-identified as “post-progressive indie rock” [...] The band cites influences like post-punk pioneers
• [15] They’ve been called many things in their career, post-rock, prog, post-progressive, alternative; North Atlantic Oscillation are at heart, or at least aspirationally, a ‘pop’ group.
• [16] Japanese post progressive metal band Mono
• [17] Kscope, even promotes itself as offering “post-progressive sounds”.
• [18] out now via post-progressive independent label Kscope.
• [19] The prolific keyboardist for post-progressive giants Dream Theater
• [20] post-progressive heroes Porcupine Tree and pioneering progressive giants King Crimson
• [21] post-progressive rock hero Steven Wilson
• [22] the new album "The heads of the other", fifteen songs footprint art rock, post-progressive and blues (from Italian)

--Ilovetopaint (talk) 08:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

None of these show unambiguously that "post-progressive" can be regarded as a noun, unlike the countless examples that can be brought up for "post-rock", "post-punk" etc. You could substitute an adjective like "pretentious" for "post-progressive" and they would still be gramatically correct. I'm not even going to comment on the translation from Italian. Chilton (talk) 13:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

You mean those "countless examples" from Reddit that were identical to the examples I gave you?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, your comparison is unjustified.

You can be progressive and "a progressive".

You can't be pretentious and "a pretentious".

You can be punk and "a punk".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for comment 2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The term "post-progressive", which is only ever used as an adjective in sources and never unambiguously as a noun, is transformed into a noun in the article, which in my opinion constitutes original research. Should it be used as a noun? Chilton (talk) 11:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• No. Chilton (talk) 11:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
• Yes – as discussed to death in the last RfC, progressive is widely accepted as a noun, and even if it wasn't, post-progressive would still be valid as a noun modifier. There is no evidence that suggests otherwise. I expect the next RfC will be for Proto-prog and Post-punk?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

This use of progressive as a noun has nothing to do with music genres, and you can't simply extend it to post-progressive because you think it looks reasonable - Wikipedia should be based on sources. I think it would be good to note that you are the author of the article. Chilton (talk) 13:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• No. Seems like WP:OR. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• No Wikipedia is not intended to be a dictionary, and it is not intended to define words and phrases, it is supposed to accurately convey testable facts with suitable references and citations, not create them. Damotclese (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• Note: there was a previous RFC whose statement included a question on this topic, but none of the respondents except myself voted on it in the survey. Chilton (talk) 11:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

That's not true. @Meatsgains: and I voted yes to both questions.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

There were three questions. Chilton (talk) 13:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Chilton:, Your claim that "none of the respondents except myself voted on it in the survey" is false. There were five users who voted, four of which supported its inclusion and one, being you, who opposed. If there were three questions, why did you only vote "No and no"? Meatsgains (talk) 14:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Clearly there is another no (in bold) at the end of my answer. Please read carefully. Two of the respondents only wrote one yes. Chilton (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

You only asked two questions. The first, "should it be presented as a music genre", makes the second ("should it be used as a noun") redundant. There are no examples of music genres that aren't used as nouns.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Note – See #"Establishing" post-progressive for a gist of how newspapers and music websites use the term post-progressive in the same sentence as art rock, prog, etc..--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
• Ad there is no evidence that suggests otherwise - so far the only "evidence" for post-progressive being a noun is your opinion. Chilton (talk) 13:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Is it?

1. The term ‘post-progressive’ is designed to distinguish a type of rock music [23]
2. "post-progressive" (subgenre of progressive rock) [24]

Let's consult Merriam-Webster again.

type (noun): a lower taxonomic category selected as a standard of reference for a higher category

genre (noun): a category of artistic, musical, or literary composition characterized by a particular style, form, or content

Anybody born in an Anglophonic country would have learned in 1st grade that a noun is a person, place, or thing. If post-progressive is a type or genre and a type or genre is a thing, then post-progressive is a thing. Which means post-progressive is a noun. I know this is complicated stuff, so let me try to visualize it for you in an even simpler way.

• noun => thing => type => post-progressive
• noun => thing => genre => post-progressive

--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.