This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Progressive Rock, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Progressive rock on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Progressive RockWikipedia:WikiProject Progressive RockTemplate:WikiProject Progressive RockProgressive rock articles
New prog is within the scope of the Music genres task force of the Music project, a user driven attempt to clean up and standardize
music genre articles on Wikipedia. Please visit the task force
guidelines page for ideas on how to structure a genre article and help us
assess and improve genre articles to
good article status.Music/Music genres task forceWikipedia:WikiProject Music/Music genres task forceTemplate:WikiProject Music/Music genres task forcemusic genre articles
Various discussions
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
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)) DeanBaetzreply
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
So how did this thing survive the first AfD anyway?
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