Progressive / Avant Garde Metal

Just curious. Do you guys have any process in place to ensure any progressive metal (widest context) on or added to PA is added here too? Same the other way around  - there are bands on MMA tagged as progressive or experimental that aren't on PA. Is this a deliberate policy to keep the sites separate?Perhaps you have differet criteria? Seems like you're missing a trick here if you could add to both sites where the genres overlap? Would reduce your respective workloads and ensure that experimental / prog metal lisitings for both sites was as comprehensive as possible.

UMUR wrote: That�s initially how I thought it would work, but apparently PA and MMA (and JMA who is similar in style to MMA) are built on different platforms that don�t work well together. So while some of us are also members on PA (personally I�ve been a member of the PMT over at PA for a while a couple of years back in time) and PA and MMA share owners/webmasters, the sites are two completely different entities (even though I like to refer to the sites as sister sites). So to answer your question in short. No there is no collaboration between PA and MMA. So yeah there are probably a lot of acts on PA that hasn�t been added to MMA yet and likewise the other way around.   ...one of the things I don�t get is why the three sites aren�t promoted more on the other sites (preferably on the frontpage of all three sites). Lots of progressive rock fans love metal that�s not necessarily progressive and and could have an interest in MMA and I know that a couple of the regulars here love jazz and spend time on JMA. Just examples of how some people could benefit from travelling between the three sites. Being a member on one of the sites doesn�t necessarily exclude being a member on the other two. Personally I�m a member on all three sites.

My opinion on the matter doesn't isn't entirely complimentary toward most of the PA prog metal team, so I won't share it here 

If an album was on PA in tech/extreme and noted as prog doom, would you reassess for MMA or just accept the PMTs judgement?

Except for what UMUR calls vanilla progressive metal, which quite often fits the MMA progressive metal-genre perfectly, there is some degree of reassessment if a PA-artist gets added to the MMA. For instance, the PA tech/extreme metal genre conflates a number of different extreme metal genres (like black, thrash, death, grind, deathcore, etc.) for which the MMA typically will have separate genres. So, if a progressive death metal band is included under extreme/tech progressive metal in the PA, it is likely to be included under death metal in the MMA, and a progressive grindcore band is likely to appear under grindcore in the MMA, or, if it has a lot of avant-garde features, it might appear under avant-garde metal, although the PA had it as extreme/tech progressive metal. Also, a heavy prog or a neo-prog or crossover prog or whatever artist in the PA might end up under hard rock in the MMA, or, if metallic enough, under progressive metal or even traditional metal. So, yes, there definitely is a degree of reassessment.

There's bands I've already found on this  site which would imo fit well on PA. Do I go the usual suggest bands route? That's proably a question for PA.

While I, also enjoying a lot of prog rock, have a user on PA, I rarely log on and I rarely interact with the community there for reasons which are probably similar to the not-so-favorable opinion that Triceratopsoil alludes to. I would imagine that the way to get MMA prog metal acts added to the PA is to suggest them. Personally, I have stopped suggesting artists for inclusion into the PA because it often takes forever for them to be added or rejected, but I imagine that's the way to go. I really don't know, because I don't know what their addition procedure is these days.

That's proably a question for PA. More pertinently, how to we get the large number of metal bands into MMA that are currently archived on PA? Suggest them individually?

That would be one way to go about it. Suggesting them in bundles would be fine, too, but then the best thing is to sort the bundles into categories based on the genre you would like to suggest artists for (simple to make it easier for the collabs). So, if you want to suggest a bunch of vanilla progressive metal artists to the MMA and a bunch of progressive black metal artists and, say, a bunch of progressive doom artists, you make one post in which you suggest the progressive metal ones and include "progressive metal" in the title of the post (like "Progressive metal suggestions" or something like that). Then you make a separate post for the progressive black metal bands, calling it "Black metal suggestions", and one called something like "Doom metal suggestions" for the doom metal bands.

We�ve discussed the possibility of further sub sub genres like NWoBHM, but haven�t come to an agreement on the subject yet. Personally I�d like to keep things as simple as possible, without too many sub sub genres. I think it�s confusing to newcommers. More sub genres will also make it harder for Collabs to decide where an artist belongs. It�s hard enough as it is IMO. Some of the more eclectic artists are a pain in the ass to place.

Edited by UMUR - 22 Feb 2013 at 2:42am

You know, out of strawberry, chocolate, and vanilla ice-cream, I prefer vanilla.To me 'vanilla prog metal' is not a negatively laden term, so I won't kill anyone for using it.

As for sub-subs, I am in support of sub-subs for distinct genres, and wouldn't mind seeing a specific sub-sub for melodeath, and I wouldn't mind a djent sub-sub, too (although there are many segments within the metal community who refuse to see djent as a genre).

Triceratopsoil wrote: The origins of the term "djent" refer specifically to a guitar tone, irrespective of genre.  For that reason, many members of the site (myself included) would take issue with the addition of that subgenre

UMUR wrote: We�ve discussed the possibility of further sub sub genres like NWoBHM, but haven�t come to an agreement on the subject yet. Personally I�d like to keep things as simple as possible, without too many sub sub genres. I think it�s confusing to newcommers. More sub genres will also make it harder for Collabs to decide where an artist belongs. It�s hard enough as it is IMO. Some of the more eclectic artists are a pain in the ass to place.   ...oh and for the record I only use the term vanilla progressive metal to quickly explain to people the difference between the Dream Theater "school" of progressive metal and the extreme metal version(s) of the progressive metal sub. I don�t use the term as a negative laden term. Actually I�ve stopped using the term completely after I found out how much it pisses Steve off. I�m afraid he�ll kick my ass.

ROFL!

The term 'jazz' is also about 100 years older than the term 'djent.'  I don't feel that there is a well-defined style of music accompanying what gets refered to as djent, and in my opinion it is just thrown there as an easy classification - similarly to how anything with slight "trippy" elements is instantly referred to as 'stoner metal' regardless of what style of metal it is based in.

Edited by Triceratopsoil - 22 Feb 2013 at 12:11pm

Colt wrote: UMUR wrote: We�ve discussed the possibility of further sub sub genres like NWoBHM, but haven�t come to an agreement on the subject yet. Personally I�d like to keep things as simple as possible, without too many sub sub genres. I think it�s confusing to newcommers. More sub genres will also make it harder for Collabs to decide where an artist belongs. It�s hard enough as it is IMO. Some of the more eclectic artists are a pain in the ass to place.   ...oh and for the record I only use the term vanilla progressive metal to quickly explain to people the difference between the Dream Theater "school" of progressive metal and the extreme metal version(s) of the progressive metal sub. I don�t use the term as a negative laden term. Actually I�ve stopped using the term completely after I found out how much it pisses Steve off. I�m afraid he�ll kick my ass. ROFL!