Talk:New prog

This article was nominated for deletion on 2008-07-19. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

theres no desription 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]

Post-AFD discussion

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:

What is new prog? Is it a period movement in Progressive rock? Is it a genre of its own right? Keep in mind that there is no page for Progressive death metal or the like; it's just a redirect to the tech death section in the Death metal page.

Who are new prog? Battles (band) and People in Planes?

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

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]

Add the band Three

u cant edit edit worth a damn, but if someone could add three (3) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.116.136.132 (talk) 08:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Add the band Three

i cant edit edit worth a damn, but if someone could add three (3)