Talk:Progressive house/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

this article is shit

I'm sorry I appreciate all y'all contributions but for the love of God Tiesto is not progressive house! And Castles in the Sky is euro House or anthem trance it's not progressive house! come on! 209.119.226.66 (talk) 19:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Smells like a vanity genre

This has a high gibberish factor and smells like a vanity genre. A candidate for deletion, and the redirect from "vocal trance" is not appropriate IMO. I won't touch it. -Wyss 83.115.10.183 04:11, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Firstly: not sure what you mean by "vanity genre". Progressive dance music has existed since the early 90s and is generally accepted to be a major force on the dance genre's evolution over the past 10 years. It has pages dedicated to it in most dance music rags, and its originators are well known, platinum selling artists. It's not just three nerds in canada trying to be different or something. Vocal trance (in the modern anthemic sense, as exemplified by Above and Beyond and Armin Van Buuren) fairly obviously has its roots in the progressive trance sound that started off the breakdown/build/climax format. To get a feel for how it all links up, find an mp3 of Three Drives On A Vinyl's Greece 2000, an early vocal prog-trance cut. -Commander deathguts
There are serious issues with this. "Progressive Electronica" is not a suitable name to begin with. I have yet to see this term used to reference these styles of music. Progressive house, trance and breaks should just have separate entries in the encyclopedia. There are also POV issues with this article imo. -213.199.128.177
Yeah their is no such thing as "progressive electronica". Someone should think of a better term for the article if they want to capture all progressive style of electronic dance music. Maybe seperate articles should be written? Progressive House/Break's are virtually the same thing except Progressive House artists like to use breakbeats and blended percussion in their pieces sometimes. Progressive-Psy is really a bunch of B.S IMO, It should just be considered Progressive Trance. Only the Scandanavians and Germans could have came up with that. I yelling at them, because it's most Germans folks who are "dumping" all these damn blog links into numerous EDM articles on here. It's really starting to become annoying, because their is no noticeable difference. The same thing applies to people from U.S with Progressive House blogs -24.147.201.151 17:13, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Progressive house and trance are miles apart! The latter is surely more of a marketing term/creation no?-max rspct 22:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, for the most part they are miles apart and distinct ;-D. Progressive House is more of U.S/U.K phenomenon, whereas you are more likely to find Progressive Trance in the Nedtherlands/Germany, etc. I can't tell the difference between Progressive-Psy and Progressive Trance that's what I meant. Progressive Trance (in Dutch/German sense) is a very minimalistic genre to begin with. I like this to an extent, becuase it can take on numerous elements, but that doesn't mean it's actual form of music. It's not like Goa or Psychedelic Trance it has no musical structure in terms of melody, etc with the exception of subtle chord changes and other elements contionously layered on top of each other (DJ approach). The article is right when drawing the line between Progressive House and Progressive Trance though. Progressive Trance is more percussion eccentric. -wikilurker 11:35, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC).
Progressive psytrance vs progressive trance - there are significant differences. Prog-psy is generally just a really dark, progressive house inspired version of psy-trance, with similar sounding beats and tempos but sparser synth lines and so on. It's not very accessible, whereas progressive trance is pretty much the radio-friendly version of trance that developed in the mid-to-late 90s, more or less synonymous with the later terms 'epic' and 'anthem'. The confusion likely arises from the fact that nowadays the most popular use of the 'progressive' epithet is regarding house, so a trance cut with a deeper, housier sound will get called 'progressive/trance', when in fact progressive trance is the one thing it is not. The correct term in this situation is 'deep trance'. Commander deathguts 00:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
That makes no sense 'vanity' genre, Please do not request stupid things, Just because you may not be educated this genre of music, Or any in that fact does not means it doesn't exist or in 'gibberish', and Vocal Trance is a very clear way of describing what it is. Its Trance, with Vocals, what else do you want to call it? Caiuse (talk) 16:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


You guys have got to be kidding. What a bunch of tossers. Get over yourselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.139.94.108 (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

what to do?

many people seem unhappy about the current title for this article. "progressive electronica" gets 52k hits on google, but saying that, electronica is an overused term (especially in the us) which people use when they're not knowledgable enough to know proper name for an electronic music style. for the purpouses of this article, there's three main options; leave it as it is, rename to something like Progressive dance music, or seperate articles for progressive house, progressive trance and prrogressive breaks (the psychedelic progressive stuff can be mentioned on progressive trance). i'd go for the third one, but i'm wondering what the opinions of others are like on this? -- MilkMiruku 05:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Separate articles for house, breaks and trance would be counterproductive. i'd like a section that specifically details the differences between them. Progressive psy should be on the psytrance page really, it's definitely genealogically closer to there and has a wholly separate fanbase, whereas the folks into progressive breaks now are the same people who were into progressive trance 5 years ago, and progressive house 5 years before that, and probably still listen to all 3. Commander deathguts 00:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
why would seperate articles be counterproductive? i actually think it would allow breathing space for the information on each genre to be enlarged and improved upon. this page could still serve a function as disambig for progressive dance music (although, as i mentioned, i think it could do with a name change). --MilkMiruku 02:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Commander deathguts that we need better explanations of the distinctions between different progressive EDM subgenres. For example, tempo alone isn't enough, to me, to be the distinguishing factor between progressive house and progressive trance. If all you have to do to change genres is crank the tempo knob, they can't really be that different, can they?
I also agree that it makes sense to keep them as one article simply because the styles are so similar and there is so much cross-pollination, so to speak, between the different styles.
The differences are subtle. Doesn't mean they aren't there: Paul Van Dyk and Way Out West share sonic similarities, but they clearly have different styles.
--Okto8 (talk) 21:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The term is already used

"Progressive Electronic" is an cath-em-all term referring to the wave of artists innovating the electronic music and bringing it to the mass attention from the late '60's to the early '80's. Think Jean Michel Jarre, Kraftwerk, Tangerine Dream, Vangelis...

I have nothing against the article as such. But the title is plainly false, misguiding and _must_ be changed. (May I suggest something in the lines of "Progressive styles of electronic dance music"?) Squeal 13:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

so, the options include Progressive dance music, Progressive electronic dance music, Progressive styles of electronic dance music.. anyone got any other suggestions? if not i'll move the page to Progressive dance music in a few days time as it's most natural sounding one (and gives the most google hits). --MilkMiruku 00:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Progressive Trance minimalistic beat centric?

Progressive trance usually refers to a type of trance music that's minimalistic and more beat and percussion centric.

What? I remember when progressive trance was used to refer to what today would be called "melodic trance". It was not the minimalistic stuff, it was the stuff with heavy melodic and emotional content. Like the non-goa remixes of Binary Finary's 1998, i.e. 1999 etc. They were not minimalistic and beat-centric, progressive trance songs focused around the melody. (This article needs to be cleaned up in general.) --Brentt 23:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Article move

I see the article has been moved from Progressive dance music to Progressive electronic music with the edit summary "Excuse me, what does Vibrasphere and Ticon has to do with dance music? This article is about electronic prog". house, trance, breaks and their subgenres are forms of electronic dance music so i'm not getting the reasoning for the change, especially when "'progressive dance music' -wikipedia" gets 16,300 and "'progressive electronic music' -wikipedia" gets 11,900. --MilkMiruku 14:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That's irrelevnt. The article is about electronic music, not dance music. Those days when anything electronic was called "dance" have passed around the 90's (like the days anything that had an electric guitar was called 'rock'). Psychomelodic (people think User:Psychomelodic/me edit) 12:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


I do not want to be offensive, but I have to tell you that press and fashioned opinions today are very confused; that happens, from time to time. Does someone really believe that Modern dance music and its styles and substyles are "THE electronic music" ? May I ask you to quote serious references on this matter? I can realize that searching on the web any info on electronic music, still some universities' webpages can be found among other results. None mention modern dance music as a subgenre of electronic music. The term "Electronic art music" is very recent, and still is not accepted everywhere.

In other words, electronic-music-as-a-style is one of the experimental genres of modern music. The use of electronics as-a-playing-technique is very common in modern dance music, and actually there is no acoustic modern dance music, that I am aware of.

So, why there is confusion between styles and techniques? Between the mean and the message?

Brian Wilson 21:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess that Progressive (dance music) is better, because the term Progressive is used mainly as a technique in different styles and subgenres in the general context of modern dance music. I mean that progressive dance music would mean a genre, and this is disputable. Before reverting or swearing at me, lets take a drink together and discuss it chilling out. Cheers

Brian Wilson 21:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Dance music

This article and its title are in a conflict. The article is not about dance music. Read the dance music. Read it again. Now read this article. It's about progressive electronic music genres, not progressive dance music genres. True, most electronic music developed from dance music, like most heavy metal music developed from rock music, most hip hop music developed from blues, most pop music developed from R&B etc. This article is about progressive electronic genres such as progressive trance, progreesive house and so on. If it would be about progressive dance music, I wouldn't mind about its title. But it's not. Therefore I suggest its perm title will be; Progressive electronic music. Psychomelodic (people think User:Psychomelodic/me edit) 21:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


The point is that electronic music is undoubtely something very different from what it is believed to be by some press, youngsters' slang and nightclubs in last 8 years. Please realize that "Electronic music" is a term that means nothing. All music today is played and recorded with electronic (or electronically processed) instruments and devices. The term "electronic music" is awful, in this context; trance, techno, club music, modern dance music, are the right words.

An artistic work is defined by the techniques, the styles, the context and the themes (or content).

So, we have hundreds works and artists today making some peculiar music and you are able to use only that old fashioned term? Let's find something better, it is not original research, just lets choose some better words among the dozens that are used. Furthermore, we should keep in mind that good definitions usually never seem fashioned, I mean that some music fans that are too much involved with the last "hits", will find almost every definition in Wikipedia as outdated. Wikipedia is not a music magazine. We need to choose word that will not end to be outdated for some years, and for this reason some will not agrree now, but will agree in a near future. Some terms that were so fashioned and cool many years ago, are no longer used today, despite the evidence that the same or similar music is played even by new artists. Some examples: jungle is no longer used but almost the same music is now called "drum and bass"; another modern example is lounge, it was so cool two years ago, but now its going to be forgotten (but not the music itself, only the word!); the term New Wave is now dead, but bands like Editors are the heirs of Joy Division, the Chameleons and the earliest U2. Could you believe that Dire Straits and Police were regarded as "new wave" in 1980-81? Brian W 22:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

When I say electronic music I mean;
Fact is, in today's public opinion, electronic music stands as an umbrella term for all these genres. Yeah, pop music instruments are almost 100% "electronic" but it's not important because nobody consider pop to be electronic. I honestly don't care what will happen in next decade as long as Wiki articles are relevent to today. I don't know anything about the next decade but calling techno and house "dance" seems to me something used in the last decade. Electronic music for me (and I belive also rest of the world) is a way to refer to genres such as trance, house, techno, ambient, and hmm... dance. Psychomelodic (people think User:Psychomelodic/me edit) 22:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


Which people? I do not live outside the world, and this template is just unconsistent, it lacks logic and it's even ridicolous. Did you read the above postings? Other wikipedians agree with me on this article. Also, have you read carefully my last message above? Techno and house are Club music, doesnt that get into your mind? Please give a look at the rest of the web.Brian W 23:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well in that case, please re-write electronic music. I'd also like to see in the new article a clarification that, hmm, techno and house are not electronic music. Psychomelodic (people think User:Psychomelodic/me edit) 10:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll repeat myself

...cause a few people apparently missed the first time.

Progressive electronic is a term used to encompass the early rock and new age electronic musicians, usually belonging to psychedelic, progressive rock (that's probably where the name comes from), krautrock or similar music genres. Enter "progressive electronic" in Google. Click any of the results. What you'll find is not progressive house or trance artists, but the likes of Jean Michel Jarre, White Noise or Tangerine Dream.

Some people here seem to miss the existence of the self-explanatory term electronic dance music. Which is often shortened simply to dance, as it's currently the dominant form of dance/club music in the world. What this article tells about are those dance genres, not the actual progressive electronic music.

I really, really don't care what you call this article. Just don't call it anything near progressive electronic, because that, my good people, is simply a lie.

I guess what Wiki needs is a stub on the real progressive electronic. I may write it, when time allows, and that'll, of course, result in reverting this article back to its more neutral title. Feel warned. Squeal 17:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


I fully agree with your statements and proposals, dear Squeal. Please let me be "offensive" once again: every article pertaining to popular music and electronics seems to have been heavily edited/vandalized recently (last 12 months or less) by a group of well known Wikipedians whose age is very likely 15/25 and that are based in UK (or maybe Italy) and that pretend to be someone else; also, their main plan is to destroy and re-write back the history of "popular" music from 1978 to 2004, and annoy all us. Brian W 10:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Why are u such a xxxxer ? U are ageist and constantly insult othere's intelligence. I actually remember the 70's so THERE! . Where is your evidence for dismissal of house music history etc? Everyone else cites books etc - All you do is rant about how much you know and the years you think you have over us. Go troll and poke your pathetic attitude elsewhere.-- max rspct leave a message 11:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not insulting you in any manner, actually, I'm a conspiracy theorist and a conspirator myself, that means that I believe that you and your friends are even too much "intelligent", and that are trying to fool me and the whole Wikipedia. Brian W 11:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
New Order "re-invented" and popularized Techno, not the Kraftwerk or the American DJs. Without New Order's contribution, Techno would still be a somewhat unknown genre, or maybe the whole history of pop and dance music styles would be completely different. Of course New Order, as many New Wave artists did, heavily brought in their music Krautrockers sounds and techniques, anyway New Wave was original under many respects. Listen to Confusion by New Order, the first 1983 release is Techno as it is meant today. Later in 1980s, Inner City brought some brightness and easy listening to that kind of music, and the House scene became important. This is just a short summary of a little part of the events that occurred in 1980s, but if you are honest, you will now understand the reason behind my statements. Brian W 12:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


I have a question for music fans: are you aware that electronic music is not electronic dance music? Did you ever realize that no university in the USA regards electronic music and the music for dancing as the same genre? Are you aware that this is not a music magazine? Do you know the meaning of the term encyclopedic? Do you know the difference between idiomatic expressions, slang and encyclopedic (formal) language? Are you aware that most of articles claiming to deal with "electronic music subgenres" are unsourced or grounded only on independent websites? My suggestion to the proponents of this drama is: please try to answer each question I posted above, otherwise you'll look just pathetic. Brian W 21:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Artist list

  • The artist/label lists on this page are too large in scope and unmanageable. I would suggest a category, something like Category:Progressive electronic artists. In any case, I'm going to remove those giant lists at the bottom as all they do is take up unnecessary space. Wickethewok 20:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, I'm getting rid of a bunch of POV/OR stuff that I don't think can be proven. Wickethewok 20:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I just finished fixing up the text. There was a lot of text there that was overly ornate that looked like it was trying to extra intellectual. Avoid phrases such as "Please consider...." and "so to speak" - they don't add anything to the article. I would love some reliable sources on this subject, as thats whats holding this article back from being decent. "Generally accepted" information shouldn't be good enough for an encyclopedia article. Most of this information looks relatively accurate to me, but it really does need reliable sources. Wickethewok 21:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Merger proposal with Dark House

Dark house seems to be a subgenre of Progressive house, and its also a stub. --Reubot 04:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Disagree. Retain article in current format. "Dark House" is another media-fabricated ridiculous sub-sub-sub genre. 203.57.241.67 01:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Encise
  • I think we should turn "dark house" into a redirect and only add stuff once it can be referenced. I kinda agree with the above, not entirely convinced the genre exists, just sounds like a description applied to certain records to me. - Zeibura (Talk) 01:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Why removing the artists' names in the progressive trance section ?

Someone removed the names of the representative artists for progressive trance, and i believe that it was a mistake and the names should be re-added. If a person is interested in finding out more about a music genre, it would be of great help for him/her to look up a list of representative names that work in that field; otherwise, plain information without such examples may be irrelevant to him/her.


An encyclopedia article should, as far as possible, be an information rich breakdown of the given topic. Does that necessarily imply that it should contain lines and lines of examples? Perhaps it is better to have just a few that can identify the essence of the article. --Skopp 20:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Imo, only artists with articles about them should appear here (no redlinks). If they are in fact important enough to be representative of their genre, then surely they are notable. This will hopefully discourage people from adding themselves/obscure artists. Wickethewok 18:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

What is actually "progressive"?

The lead paragraph of this article is confusing. It indicates that progressive electronic music (probably the best term, IMO, BTW) is called that for two reasons, both that because it draws from the same influences as progressive rock (classical structures, instrumentation, etc.), and also because it has a progressive (quickening, incrementing) beat. Actually, this article even infers that it's because the music involves the progressive layering of sounds. These are three not at all similar definitions. Which is correct? I would hazard that the latter two are closest, and they are at least slightly similar. The idea that the term is used in the same way as in "progressive rock" is ridiculous, at least when we're speaking of late 90s, early 2000s electronic music. I can't comment on Jarre and similar artists' productions from the 80s. QuinnHK (talk) 02:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Based on my experience, I would say the third definition (layering and progression of individual sounds). I don't know anything about the first definition, but I would say that the second is entirely wrong. Wickethewok (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
My personal view view is that the 'progressive' is the progressive layering of sounds as the song progresses, i don't think the other two are correct. The problem is the lack of sources. I can't really find any. --neonwhite user page talk 20:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

---

"Progressive" - Then (1995 to ~2002) and Now (2007/8 to ~2010/11/12 and possibly upto 2015)

circa 2000: IMO - but more from 15+ years of breathing, eationg and shitting house, IDM, breaks and even classical music - progressive house/trance./breaks/shitcore have NOTHING to do with prog rock! If it did at some point it certainly doesn't anymore. 'Prog' was descriptive of the building, incresingly complex sound of a track over it's play. It PROGRESSED from a teaser to a more thicker, driving, pumping groove. Perfect example: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vK6z8mAAzQw">Danny Tenaglia - Elements</a>.

Now: The term just applies, by what discern8ng listeners deem so, to 'quality'. To well produced, heartfelt, non-commercial house. It doesn't even have to follow the pattern like dogma (find and savour Darkarma's remix of Autechre - Surripere to see what I mean) Skopp (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

All sub genres seem to be merged into this article except Progressive psytrance, which is small stub without any sourcing or notability. I suggest merging it here. --neonwhite user page talk 20:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Look. I think that basicaly we should leave OUT anything which is not *really* Progressive. Unfortunately I'll agree that there is a huge confusion on what this genre is even in the scene. Why is it that beatport has 15K+ Progressive tracks in its database (making this the second most populous catagory after House on their site), and yet Digitally Imported (one of the most popular internet radio stations for electronic dance music) has only usually around 500 or so listeners, while many of the other channels have 1000+ (such as chillout, trance, vocal trance, house, etc). There is a huge discrepancy here.

However I do agree overall with the tone of the article. Whoever was trying to start a flame war back in 2006, with the whole issue of electronic dance music vs just electronic music, could most likely be satisfied by us adding the word "Dance" into the whole thing. Progressive electronic dance music. But I think just Progressive, is fine. Those of us that spin it don't really call it anything else.

Finally I have no idea where dark house came from (I know I'm going a ways back now :). It has no place here. Also progresive goa (I don't believe there is actually any such thing as progressive psytrance -- all the tracks I spin when I do progressive goa sets are clearly on the goa side of the whole thing, not psy. Not that I'm an authority on any of this stuff...but then again...who is?), should most likely be left where it is. Its origins are about moving that whole genre into a new area by borrowing musical structures which quite frankly were around in the old symphonic days when Mozart was sitting around writing his scores at the age of six. Just because it uses a general architecture of musical development with a climax towards the end doesn't mean that it should be automatically included here. Also just because someone tacked the label "Progressive" onto it doesn't make it part of the huge lineage (which is well summarized in the article) that has gone on before it. Progressive is one thing. Progressive goa is another.

Just some thoughts.

-Oblivionboy user page 22:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeh I agree. Caiuse (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I ended up merging it with Psychedelic trance as part of a broader mergeing of non notable sub genres anyway. --neonwhite user page talk 14:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Move to Progressive Dance Music

This article is 98% related to dance music and has very little to do with the wider use of the term electronic music. The term progressive electronic music is arguably an oxymoron; if you consider that historically electronic music has been intimately tied to technological progression. Also, for many years electronic music existed exclusively in an academic, research based environment, and was very much concerned with progress. The use of Progressive electronic music exacerbates an issue that exists elsewhere on Wikipedia when it comes to distinguishing one electronic music from another electronic music. Some editors created a page entitled Electronic art music but this further complicates issues, see here: Talk:Electronic music#New merger proposal. I personally believe there should be one page called electronic and computer music that encompasses the totality of electronic music types, from the earliest days right up to the explosion of mass produced electronic music (resulting from music technology becoming cheap and accessible). Semitransgenic (talk) 13:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I had used it parens becasue the word progressive is used to refer to a bunch of stuff, and generally, in relation to dance music, fans seem to simply say progressive. If it's in keeping with the guidelines on such matters I don't see a problem. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Just pointing out that since this article has been moved, the first paragraph is now pretty much irrelevant. - Zeibura 17:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Quite right. I removed a bunch of unnecessary/unrelated text. Wickethewok (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Amidst the Raindrops???

i removed this soundsample to avoid confusion, because it isn't an example of progessive breaks, instead the track's style should go under ambient breaks --Monkeyatemydog (talk) 12:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Sasha - Xpander.ogg

The image Image:Sasha - Xpander.ogg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep Tiesto and the likes out of the progressive trance section

Tiesto, van Dyk, Oakenfold and so forth are not progressive trance artists. They do not represent the progressive genre in any form. Please read the characteristics of progressive trance. Compare Vibrasphere and Markus Schulz to Tiesto, van Dyk & Oakenfold (the artists that should not be listed under progressive trance). There is a big difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.184.17 (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Progressive Trance doesn't exist. But I do agree that Tiesto is more (mistakenly) associated with the Trance scene. PVD I don't know what he plays. In the case of Tiesto this is a falsity that he is a 'Trance' only DJ. Tiesto started in the House scene, and he is more known for Trance House, not straight up Trance (German Rave). Tiesto also played a lot of Progressive House back in the day. Oakenfold also played alot of Progressive House in the early years.Danceking5 (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Progressive Trance does exist... There's countless articles about it, and i think it should be separated once and for all from progressive house... If you consider Tiesto progressive house or trance, well, that's another story that i don't wanna comment since i'm trying to be as truthful and coherent as possible... Cratertempus 15:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC/GMT)

too subjective statement

sounds somehow gross: "such simplistic subgenres as tech house and psytrance" :) -- not a fan of the two but it sounds like a highly biased language. Z99 (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Beatmatching

"Roots of progressive can be traced back to the early nineties, when digital technology allowed DJs to beatmatch tracks together"

Beatmatching has been possible for as long as mixers and variable speed turntables have been around, I'm pretty sure it existed prior to the early 90's. Digital Technology had nothing to do with that. If it's referring to programs that allow for a fixed tempo like Ableton Live then they should word it in a less ambiguous fashion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.190.171 (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Sidechaining and Deadmau5

The section on Sidechaining sounds like tosh for two reasons 1) deadmau5 didn't invent side chain compression 2) glenn morrison has nothing to do with EDM let alone progressive anything being a rugby player and THREE) sidechaining isn't unique to progressive house. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomtaroo (talk • contribs) 19:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The following section has been removed from the main article:
--TudorTulok (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Side-chain compression and cutoff filter in Progressive house/trance

Somewhere around 2007, a new distinct electronic sound or instrument has been developed within Progressive house/trance, first heard at Glenn Morrison and Deadmau5, many people calling it: Deadmau5 sound. The cutoff filter, "flavours" the compressed instrument with a feeling of development, of rising. Every instrument compressed with side-chain ducks between the kicks of the track, and the combination with the cutoff filter sounds is similar to a "helicopter", also reminiscent to the "morse-code" sound between the kicks of all Disco tunes.

The following is a list of notable tracks using both side-chain compression and cut-off filter:

Composer/Band Song title Year Length Listen
Alpha 9 (band) Bliss (Club Mix) 2009 6:50 link
Armin Van Buuren vs. Sophie Ellis Bextor Not Giving Up On Love 2010 2:55 link
Bissen pres. The Crossover Washout (Myon & Shane 54 Remix) 2010 7:15 link
Deadmau5 Not Exactly (2010 Extended Remix) 2010 9:14 link
Deadmau5 Not Exactly (Inpetto Remix) 2009 6:33 link
Fragma Tocas Miracle 2008 (Inpetto 2008 Mix) 2008 8:16 link
Glenn Morrison Contact (Original Mix) 2007 6:39 link
Glenn Morrison No Sudden Moves 2007 6:03 link
Hybrid Finished Symphony (Deadmau5 Remix) 2007 6:31 link
Morgan Page feat. Lissie Longest Road (Deadmau5 Remix) 2008 7:26 link
Myon & Shane 54 Not A Lot Left 2008 8:19 link
Nic Chagall feat. Jonathan Mendelsohn This Moment (Prog Mix) 2009 8:39 link
Tomcraft Loneliness 2010 (Myon And Shane 54 Remix) 2010 7:30 link
Whigfield feat. KLM Music Saturday Night (Secret Sunday Remix) 2009 5:04 link

I completely agree with you for removing this. I removed it some time back but someone (maybe Pengowl), put it back again. One needs to be careful that you don't have producers, DJs, or their minions possibly trying to 'attach themselves', to being some grand creator of some invention on music, simply for marketing reasons. Meaning, to enter themselves into the history books as someone so influential that they completely changed a genre. This bit on sidechain is ridiculous. Lastly, I don't know much about the mouse's music, but I checked a few of the tracks and they sound nothing like Progressive House. To me it sounded like Tech House, but that's just my opinion.Danceking5 (talk) 05:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Message to Vandal

Feel free to add to article, but make sure to not delete the prior work that took hours to research and write. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danceking5 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Semitransgenic, it seems like your stalking this page. I came back to this page which I originally wrote most of the material relating to the Mixmag article, and I edited it a few days ago, and BOOM your back deleting it. I'm going to revert it back to the original. Feel free to add sentences or add to the article, but please do not delete the prior material that I wrote, as all of it is true, and from someone who was there from the beginning of the scene. Simply referencing a statement to an article does not make the data relevant. For example, this page is on a sub-genre of House. That does not mean you can include a sentence stating: "Oprah has a new TV network, and they played Techno in the background on one of her shows", and then you provided a reference from the newspaper. The fact that you provided the reference does follow the rules, but the sentence has nothing to do with the article on this page. That's why it was deleted. It could be added to a Disco music page though, or a Techno music page.

If you don't mind me asking, what year did you start collecting 'Progressive House' and what is the oldest record in your collection of it?

Regarding the Techno comments. Techno should be mentioned (as the sentence prior to it should be included), but that one sentence I deleted because it has nothing to do with Progressive. Also, Techno in general has little to do with Progressive. Progressive came from the House scene...specifically Acid House and very influenced from the Balearic sound of Ibiza. Techno was an influence but not the primary driver, and very little to do with Detroit.

Technically Progressive House was the next re-branding of House after Acid House, but I'm not going to get into this, it's too complicated.

If you have a problem with what is written, can you open the discussion on here, and explain your reasons, and we can both discuss before you start hacking away at the page. Also, if any edits I make are not true, feel free to explain to me WHY they are not true.Danceking5 (talk) 05:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Danceking5, thanks for your input, I'm not sure why you believe it is OK to remove legitimate sources, please take a look at WP:RS. Can you also look at guidelines on the matter of WP:OWN. Happy editing! -- Semitransgenic talk. 13:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I am not removing legitimate sources, I am removing information that has no relevance to the article. One could say the statement - House music started in Chicago. Then give a viable source. This is true yes, but it is not relevant to the article, that is what I'm getting at. Your reference to a couple of records that provided some 'missing link' may be more relevant on a page on disco. Carl Craigs opinions on the word progressive are relevant and should be included, but this page is really about Progressive House, I think you would agree...that's why I removed the statements about Techno. If you don't understand what I'm referring to, then I don't think you are qualified to be hacking away at other peoples work that isn't incorrect in the first place. I also find it strange that you keep monitoring this page. Every edit I do, it's like your watching my every move. Do you think this is healthy? I've gone away for a month. Let's see how long it takes for you to come back.
Since I suspect you weren't part of the original Progressive movement, I think you should leave the edits standing to give people a chance to comment, instead of hacking away at whatever I write. Another question I have, were you at the Renaissance events at the time the Sasha & Digweed mix CD was released? The word Progressive has everything to do with House music that was played at events such as Renaissance.
Your reference to the gap being filled by MBO & Capricorn, then the beginning of Techno, is false. Chicago House was the big scene in the midwest and this is the influence (and the gap) that the Detroit guys were using to design their version of House music. Larry Heard had everything to do with what Detroit was up to. Experimental type Techno obviously deserves a place in the history, but as far as dance records, It was modelled hugely after what Ron Hardy was playing in the Music Box. The output of labels such as Trax, DJ International, and Jack Trax was monstrous in comparison to the small industrial wasteland scene of Detroit at the time, along with it the labels that were releasing "Techno" - Metroplex, KMS etc. This large volume of output in Chicago is what was filling the gap.Danceking5 (talk) 02:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
again, it's best to provide sources when it comes to offering a particular historical perspective, otherwise it is nothing more than unsubstantiated personal speculation, we can't use that as content unfortunately. If you have specific usable sources please offer them. If you want to create an article entitled Progressive House, and have appropriate WP:RS cites to get it rolling please do so. Progressivity in electronic dance music appears to be the concern of this article.-- Semitransgenic talk. 17:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Semitransgenic, when you get a chance, can you go back and analyze the back catalog of the detroit labels I refer to, and also take a look at all the Chicago labels that came out of Sherman's plant. Don't forget Rocky Jones, and the amount of output he put out also. Compare the volume of releases. Also know what the releases are and listen to the early Detroit Techno, and explain to me how that resembles early Progressive House. Give me the example of early Progressive House records vs early Detroit Techno, because from the sounds of it, you are attempting to advance your opinion that Progressive House comes from Techno, am I correct? Here is the statement I removed from you:
In Detroit, prior to the emergence of Techno, artists like Alexander Robotnik, Klein and MBO, and Capricorn filled a vacancy left after disco's demise in America. [2][3
Can you please explain to me the relevance of this statement? And how it relates to the term "Progressive"? Again, not trying to pick on you or anything, I just want to understand what your position is on the reference to Detroit.
"Progressivity in electronic dance music appears to be the concern of this article."
Can you explain what this means? I'm confused. The term "Progressive" in electronic dance music refers to the sub-genre label that has been used since the early 90s. Am I incorrect on this?Danceking5 (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
the approach here is not to view progressive as a specific genre of music, but as a descriptive term that has been applied to a range of EDM styles. We are attempting to discuss in the article what the notion of progressivity means in the context of dance music. In Detroit, they referred to a range of post-disco music as progressive. Progressing from what? progressing from disco clearly. Additionally, certain commentators viewed Detroit techno as nothing more than a progressive style of house associated with Detroit; a style that was more influenced by Euro disco and electro than the sound of Philadelphia. Moreover, the descriptor progressive has been applied to a whole host of EDM styles in the last 20 years, the UK progressive house label is simply one of many instances where an attempt has been made to differentiate a sub-genre by alleging it is progressive relative to a preceding style.-- Semitransgenic talk. 14:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree that it should be referenced how it applies to various "EDM" styles. But originally, it must be understood that the term "Progressive", was a buzz-word used in the rave scene to describe "Progressive House" in the House arena a big raves, mostly in places like England, Canada, Scotland, and America (Aahz). There was no text book definition back in the day, the word "Progressive House" simply got shortened to "Progressive", for ease of using the term. There was no scientific reason. I agree with the reference to Italo Disco, that influenced the Progressive House sound (the first instance of progressive). My stance is the UK term "Progressive House" & "Progressive" (short nickname) was the first widespread use of the term, as a sub-genre. The other instances, where the Detroit guys say they used it, it would be nice to see in writing, proof of a published piece from back in the day, that shows this. A magazine article or something possibly? Otherwise, it could be just guys talking, possibly trying to get media attention. And I don't believe a book that was published in the late 1990s would qualify for this. But I do see your point in referencing the progressive sounds in Italo Disco, that is true. Those records though you referenced, were still not the gap between Disco & Techno. As I said before, the gap was House music.
RE:"certain commentators viewed Detroit techno as nothing more than a progressive style of house associated with Detroit; a style that was more influenced by Euro disco and electro than the sound of Philadelphia." My argument is that these commentators are not educated on Chicago House enough to conclude this. When they refer the 'sound of philly', this actually is not what real House was. House really started in 1986 (in Chicago), and this fully electronic sound, was the sound that guys like Derek May were using as their template. Yes, House records were released as early as 1984 in Chicago, but there were few releases. Techno that early on was by no means more progressive than early House. It was mostly terribly produced House, and generally did not last the test of time. A few of the songs got played in the clubs, but most of the really early Detroit stuff was experimental, and the early stages of the better stuff that was to follow, but this came after 1986. Metroplex was putting out some 'Electro House' early on, and House also. What we know as Techno that was to follow, is not what the early releases were on KMS. Check it out yourself. It was essentially House produced in Detroit. And no, it was not Progressive that early on.Danceking5 (talk) 01:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


whatever version of history we choose, both here and elsewhere on Wikipedia, the fact of the matter is that we need reliable sources. Dan Sicko is a reliable source for a lot of the Detroit related stuff, including use of the word progressive early on. You need to understand that we have to work with the reliable sources we have available to us, personal knowledge cannot form the basis of any article unfortunately. We need to stick to discussing what the sources say, not what we believe the case to be. -- Semitransgenic talk. 09:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Is it possible for you to start discussing the issue instead of whining about rules. There is absolutely nothing wrong with discussing these topics on the discussion page itself.Danceking5 (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal- rename and move to Progressive (electronic dance music)

The page should be renamed since the article is about "progressive" in the context of EDM and not about a particular genre called "Progressive electronic dance music" Bhny (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

it's called "Progressive electronic dance music" because it is supposed to be about "progressive" in the context of EDM, and not about a genre. Change it to Progressive (electronic dance music) and it will assumed to be about the so-called genre "progressive." Less confusing as is. Semitransgenic talk. 15:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
but the current title means it is about a thing called "Progressive electronic dance music". Bhny (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
not a "thing" a topic, it's pretty standard practice for articles from what I've seen. Semitransgenic talk. 18:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
"progressive" in the context of EDM would have a topic Progressive (EDM). That's standard WP style. The first sentence of nearly every article is <topic> is <meaning>. So the first sentence would become- In EDM, progressive is blah blah. Bhny (talk) 20:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
i understand this, but wikipedia contains numerous articles where this is not the case, example: Scientology in Germany. Personally I have an issue with this approach but I don't see wikipedia objecting to the creation of such content. As it stands this prog article doesn't actually cite any sources that explicitly discuss the notion of progressivity (as it relates to EDM more generally) so perhaps the article should not exist at all, it's largely the result of OR. Most of it remains without citations and the rest refers almost exclusively to a single source. Semitransgenic talk. 21:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Bhny, if you changed the article to "Progressive (EDM)" this would be in fact changing the whole page to Progressive House only, not really ideal, since the page is divided into many uses of the 'precursor'. The term "Progressive" or "Prog" for short, alone, refers to Progressive House, since the early 90s. Its a nickname. A short-form that ravers used.
Semitransgenic, the article is very valid, written by a variety of qualified people who have compiled this information over a number of years. The term Progressive has appeared countless times throughout the history of the dance scene. Nobody probably has the magazines anymore though LOL! If you are somehow speculating that the term Progressive House has nothing to do with the dance scene or is invalid because you believe there are few articles, you probably aren't qualified to be editing this page. You seem more like a Techno guy trying to figure this thing out? I'll try to sum it up. There is no 'notion of progressivity', Its not a scientific explanation...the term Progressive. The term Progressive, was used in the early rave scene, when the American House generation of the late 1980s and 1990-1991 period, from the older warehouse generation, divided from the new Rave House masses. There was a divergence in the scene, as the next generation was coming in - kind of like now, how the new House DJs are phasing out the prior generation (to some degree). The term Progressive was generally used for most House in the main room at large scale raves, regardless if it was that UK sound that the scene became bombarded with from the GU series in the late 1990s. Even DJs like Josh Wink were classified as Progressive House DJs. DJs like Deep Dish were called Progressive (House) DJs.
So Bhny, to answer your question, in my opinion, I don't think the title should be changed in the way you put it, because the term Progressive alone is used now as a precursor to other genres, like "Progressive Breaks". And yes, "Progressive" by it-self is not a genre of dance music. It's the nickname for Progressive House. Technically, the page should be re-named to Progressive House, then the editors will change the subordinate offshoots that came from the original term "Progressive House".Danceking5 (talk) 08:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
"You seem more like a Techno guy trying to figure this thing out?" That's funny. @Danceking5 just because I decline from dick waving, regarding my actual understanding of EDM (from both practical experience and academic inquiry), does not mean I am somehow clueless on this matter. My sole interest is in the creation of articles that try and adhere to guidelines on sourcing and citing content. If you could actually take the time to find valid verifiable sources that reflect the version of events you are presenting here it would be more constructive than simply ranting inanely on a talk page. Semitransgenic talk. 12:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
You aren't declining from dick waving. You decline to discuss my points because you probably have no contrary information. I'm not writing this with the intent to make you feel insecure or something, I think your only taking it that way. I'm writing it to explain to you the history, and you should try and read what I'm writing and have an open mind. I feel compelled to comment on what you say, from your previous actions. In the past, I have experienced emotionally based editing from you, where you have stalked my editing, others editing, and especially deleted young new editors who tried to collaborate on the Techno page, you have deleted their information with 24 hrs because it didn't fit your agenda. You need to be monitored. I sense that, if you feel the information I or others write, is some threat to some original research your trying to advance, you feel compelled to squash it before others can even read it. If this were the case no young editors would ever be able to add anything to this site, because people like you are silencing their information before anyone can read it. Because this is an encyclopedia we are talking about here, and its public and open to the world, the system needs people like me to monitor errors (false information). Many of the articles on dance music on wikipedia, are composed of original writing from accounts by people, from the scene. Unfortunately there is few historical writings on the topics back then. Back then the scene was un-developed. Writings that have often appeared far after the fact, about historical genres, are often written from the standpoint of someone who wasn't there. Whatever writing did exist back then was also not academic in nature, and was more fan-based. And when it comes to House, it wasn't until around the GU series coming out that Progressive House started becoming a more commercialized term. The Progressive scene prior to this was quite underground, if you weren't attending these huge dark warehouse parties where this music was played, it wasn't really broadcasted publicly in magazines or books. As far as information in these talk pages that i've been writing, (which I'm sure many people have been reading my comments) there is no citation. I AM THE CITATION. There is also no need to provide citations in the talk pages.
I don't think your clueless at all, I just think your information is from books or magazines, and not actually living through the early scene. I could be wrong but you failed to answer my previous question, when you entered the dance scene, what year. It was also a tip off when you used the term 'EDM'. This interest of yours, unfortunately, regarding adhering to guidelines on sourcing and citing to construct ALL WRITING, I believe is a cop-out, for you to try and hack away at other peoples work that doesn't fit your personal agenda. I also believe, that you personally feel that the term Progressive, somehow comes from the Techno scene. Am I right on this last sentence?Danceking5 (talk) 06:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • "I don't think your clueless at all, I just think your information is from books or magazines, and not actually living through the early scene." Define "early scene." For what it's worth, because it's irrelevant as far as sourcing is concerned, I have been a listener and collector of dance music since the early 80s, I saw the various scenes come and go and understand the developments that took place along the way. Additionally, much of what took place has been written about, and that includes academic writing. I prefer to rely on what those sources have to offer rather than submit my own original research as content.
  • "...where you have stalked my editing, others editing, and especially deleted young new editors who tried to collaborate on the Techno page, you have deleted their information with 24 hrs because it didn't fit your agenda. You need to be monitored." Can I ask: do you use a watch list? Did it ever occur to you that the "stalking" you are experiencing is a result of said pages being on my watch list. You really need to straighten out your understanding of wikipedia.
  • You state: "I AM THE CITATION." Sorry, but that is patent bullshit. Enumerable books on EDM have been published, your disinterest in citing what they have to say indicates that you have zero interest in anyone's view but your own. I have no time for your, or anyone else's, original research. If information cannot be verified by the average reader, using reliable sources, the content should not be featured on wikipedia. Semitransgenic talk. 12:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
You claim you 'saw' the various scenes come and go. Did you actually 'participate' in the scene as a raver or DJ? You also couldn't have 'seen' the early Progressive House scene, it was very underground, contained in warehouses. I also wonder, that if you say you lived through it, why are you theorizing that Progressive House may not even exist then, as you claim this page is all original research. It wasn't until around 1996 that I remember it moving into large clubs. So unless you were at those early huge warehouse parties, then you wouldn't have been exposed to it. Again, it wasn't until Global Underground popped up that it became more advertised - the term Progressive (referring to Progressive House). It also isn't irrelevant as far as sourcing is concerned, because you might be sourcing false information. Without knowing what is right or wrong, you could be in fact advancing original research. I also believe your theories on "Progressivity" of music, in reference to this term, is misguided slightly. The reference to Carl Craigs opinion is good though as it establishes that the term was floating around that early on. Progressive was never a big deal, it was just 'Raver House', the kind of House that ticked off the original Chicago/Warehouse scenesters who got ousted from warehouse parties, because the raver rug rats from my generation came in and infiltrated the scene. This is kind of like now, how the next generation of Pop House/Hip House scenesters are phasing out the older crowd. It was "Progressive" at the time. It was new, it was the 'new thing'. That's all it meant. It wasn't scientific.
"Additionally, much of what took place has been written about, and that includes academic writing. I prefer to rely on what those sources have to offer rather than submit my own original research as content." I'm really interested in these academic references. Can you possibly point me in their direction - especially the ones who speak of early Progressive House & Trouse.
RE: The Stalking - That perfectly explains my point. Anyone who would put something on a watch list to MONITOR new editors contributions, so you can play god on if their information can stand or not, is highly unhealthy. I'm telling you from an outside perspective. Its nuts, nobody on the Techno page can add anything because you and your other collaborating minions are trying to control that page. You'll notice how my editing is very democratic. I encourage new editors to ADD information to the page, then let their information if un-cited stand for 2 months so people can COLLABORATE and add citations. I'm not sure what your reference to the term EDM actually entails. There are various genres of dance music. That's it. If you want to generically call something 'EDM' then this is your perogative, it has nothing to do with Progressive. Why? The term EDM wasn't even around in the 1990s, and even if it was, nobody was using it. I also have nothing against you adding citations from other books. If the information is wrong though, then it should be opened for discussion, to ensure that the information is reliable. My understanding of Wikipedia is simple. Encourage the broadcasting of TRUE, PLAIN, and COMPLETE DISCLOSURE. You keep refering to Original Research, are you talking about this talk page? I have no idea why keep talking about my Original Research. I also don't need to CITE a talk page. It's called a talk page for a reason.Danceking5 (talk) 10:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • @Danceking5 you need to stop coming off like a complete tool. you seem to think other editors need to prove something to you, in fact, they don't. I personally see little point in discussing my background, with you, or anyone else, because it has zero to do with the issue at hand.
  • Your understanding of the watch list facility is seriously confused. You need to sort that out and understand that it has zero to do with "stalking." You sound like a clown making such accusations.
  • EDM is a widely used acronym in academic sources. It's a useful term, and I don't have a problem adopting it.-- Semitransgenic talk. 19:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Semi, thats only your opinion. By the way, none of your responses actually have ever explained your positions on the topics discussed. I don't think anyone owes me anything, I only get annoyed by you. Nobody else really. Only because ive watched your behavior on other pages, as well as reverting my work some nights IMMEDIATELY (probably from your monitoring window thing that I don't understand). I agree, there is no point in discussing your background, because I already know - someone told me. I also don't really care, as long as you stop disrupting my contributions. The watchlist itself has nothing to do with stalking, but the person utilizing the watchlist MIGHT have something to do with stalking, and in this case the watchlist could be his tool. Those are my suspicions. By the way, if you stop bugging me, i'll stop annoying you.Danceking5 (talk) 04:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

BHNY - Rename Request "Progressive House"

Bnhy, you have an interesting point on the term "Progressive Electronic Dance Music" when I think about it. I think the title of this page should actually be changed to "Progressive House", since after-all, the entire page is about Progressive House, and the off-shoots that came from it. It is valid to write under the Progressive House section, "Progressive House Style Offshoots",...breaks etc... since technically it took ideas from it. Same with the box on the right, it should be changed to "Progressive House" at the top. Curious other editors opinions on this. My reasoning is, the article should be named after the historical reference to the term "Progressive House", what the term meant from the origins of the scene, since historical fact and historical record is more important than ambiguity. The page is kind of confusing to be named after its nickname or short-form name. If others agree or disagree I wouldn't mind discussing. I don't know how to make that change though so someone else would have to do it.Danceking5 (talk) 09:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes that makes sense. I'll change it Bhny (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Is there still a plan to change the title of this article? At the moment there is one title at the top of the page and another in the infobox, which is a bit confusing.--SabreBD (talk) 23:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
if you change the title, mention of anything other than "progressive house" will have to be gutted from the article. Are you prepared to do that? Semitransgenic talk. 23:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Also the article would need to be moved. The alternatives are to put the title of the article in the infobox, or remove the genre infobox on the ground that this is not a genre. As the article stands it looks like the last one is most appropriate. In any case, some consistency needs to be implied.--SabreBD (talk) 09:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree consistency is in order. I think removing the un-cited "variations" material and moving the article makes most sense. We then work towards building a well cited "progressive house" article if possible. Semitransgenic talk. 14:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
It seems like there a no serious objections to moving it to "Progressive House". I think once it's moved it will get more focus and the other info can be merged back into main articles-. "progressive techno" merged back to techno etc.
There's already 2 links: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_EDM" and "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_House" --» There's no need to change it that way... But separate Progressive Trance from Pogressive House sounds more than fair... There's countless articles about Progressive Trance and at "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_EDM" it's connected to house... Cratertempus 15:25, 14 Jun 2012 (UTC/GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cratertempus (talk • contribs)
I agree, the title should be changed to "Progressive House", and no, just because the title is changed, does not mean you have to remove anything. Its not life or death. The infobox itself does not imply anywhere that it is a genre of music in of itself. Progressive House is a 'subgenre' of House. The subgenre became very large in the late 1990s, so large in fact that the style surplanted the crowd draw of traditional "House". This in my opinion is the reason to keep the infobox, as it does show the influences for this large subgenre. If anything, add the citation request tag so writers can collaborate or find sources. Cratertempus, there is no such thing as Progressive Trance. This has already been discussed time and time again. It is an erroneous term that applies to Trouse (Trance House). Just because noobs have written about their 'theories' on the internet about it, even though they can't even technically cite its origin, this doesn't imply its academically correct. I found an article that explains why it is false, and i'll try to post the info soon, it might interest you guys. Your right about the link, this page is already linked from House music, being that its a subgenre of House. I think I recall some years ago the page was called Progressive House, then someone went and changed it. I agree with all of you though, that it should be changed to "Progressive House" and the main link retained from the House page. Also, you are correct that Progressive Techno can be merged to the techno page. Even the term Progressive techno is a falsity, but the debates will never end if I even get into that.Danceking5 (talk) 04:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't really mind about your opinions... Wikipedia is about truth and not opinions. Progressive Trance exist and it's easy to prove it, if you think "chord progressions" are only used in progressive house then you should learn more about music theory... a lot of types of music use them including uplifting and vocal trance. You did well on turning this into a Progressive House article, but i'll keep an eye on you to be sure you wont destroy anything about Trance. Keep the truth above your thoughts... —Cratertempus (talk) 12:10, 15 Aug 2012 (UTC/GMT)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Progressive electronic dance music → Progressive house music –

There's a general agreement to do this move. I couldn't do the move myself because "Progressive house music" already exists as a redirect to this page Bhny (talk) 05:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I support Bhny's opinion to change the article title. Believe it or not the page many years ago was called Progressive House, then someone went and changed it.Danceking5 (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Good Job On Changing

Thanks for changing the article name, whoever did it. This is much more accurate now. I will try to get the 'industry insider' article referenced on Progressive House over the summer, and I'll post a link to it.Danceking5 (talk) 07:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Ambient as stylistic origin genre

I can't see how this genre could of originated from ambient. Sure some progressive house tracks have beat-less breaks. This is a similarity not a major influence. I don't think their inspiration came from wanting to make music fit into the background. It was more about giving dancers an opportunity to catch their breath and join or leave the dancefloor. I believe it also became common on tracks, including trance not just house, because djs could see the changes in record groove pattern indicated by the lack of percussion and use it to improving their mixing. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

progressive has become a useless term

In the past progressive, particularly progressive rock was a blending of different styles of music, but the term in reference to electronic dance music has become more about the structure of the music with the breaking down of the layered parts and rebuilding the layered part to a climax. The result of having different meanings and the more recent definition being about a very common structural feature that all kinds of styles of music use, has effectively rendered the term useless to the point that just about any music can be referred to as progressive. -Strangebob —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.51.166 (talk) 09:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Not true. Genre names are and always have been descriptive, not prescriptive. The term "progressive house", for example, does communicate certain observable qualities of some artists' music, although it does not decree what must be included. Compare Daft Punk and Sasha and you will notice extremely distinct sonic qualities, even though both are classified as house music.
Progressive here is not meant as a quality judgment or a comparison to what came before (as it was with prog rock), it's more a reference to the song structures, which tend to have drawn-out melodic and rhythmic progressions, with elements brought in and out of the mix gradually.
By way of defining it with a foil, "classic" trance (pre-melodic trance) is not progressive in this sense, as rhythms and melodies are dropped in and cut out, usually in four-bar cycles.
EDIT: wasn't signed in :[ Okto8 (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "progressive" and "prog" have become flaky, almost useless terms as far as genres go. What I mean is that "prog" is no longer a term to describe the sound or feel of a song, it simply describe a structure. Seeing as many genres can use this structure, what good is the term? If I say I write "prog", I'm not really communicating what style I write. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.153.178 (talk) 04:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

You defy your own argument. The fact that it describes a structure a certain track may or may not employ, means that it is not useless. "Progressive" was never descriptive of a style in itself, it always needed to be qualified. That the word is not meaningful in any description, just because it is not descriptive enough of its own, is a faulty conclusion. 89.217.132.6 (talk) 13:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The term 'progressive' was originally intended to suggest that the music tended towards complex progressions, often breaking free of the verse-chorus-verse archetype and frequently with much longer songs than typically heard on pop radio. This led to the term 'progressive' being conflated with 'experimental.' Bands like King Crimson and Genesis often composed long songs with complex progressions that frequently borrowed ideas from progressions found in classical music. The word progressive, when applied to EDM, should mean the same thing but in popular use anymore it seems to be a generic term for music that branches out in other directions.

Sample

I think the example sample of Madonna's What It Feels Like For a Girl (Above & Beyond Video Edit) is a poor choice. It is too vocal, too trance and too pop to distinguish itself from hundreds of other more progressive house tracks. The article does need some samples regardless. - Shiftchange (talk) 11:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you.It's a terrible example of the genre. And I think that the tempo is a bit faster than the usual 120-130 BPM tempo used in the majority of the Progressive House tracks. Gmirakis (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Checking this guide and the example tracks there I felt William Orbit's "Water from a Vine Leaf" (1993) was the best. Another good one would be Gat Decor's "Passion" (1992) which is already mentioned on the page. Maybe an early Sasha or Leftfield track, something British from the early 1990s for sure.
We already have a sample of Last Train To Trancentral (Live From The Lost Continent) by The KLF (1991). However even though Discogs places it within the progressive house genre, it is described as stadium house here. I note that stadium house does not appear on this list. Likewise La Tour's "Blue" (1991) is described as progressive house at Discogs but its more deep house as mentioned here. Just thought I would suggest some alternatives. Ideally we would have 3 or more samples. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I think a discussion about the second sample recently added is appropriate. I am not sure that sample is representative. - Shiftchange (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Big room house

It seems now that the big room house article was deleted some editors want to recreate the article here. I would argue it doesn't belong. It shares few of the charactistics of progressive house. It is more electro house orientated. Prog was not huge at festivals unlike say electro and trance. I don't understand why editors want to do this. I think it has something to do with how awful the sounds is. Its like it has to pushed into progressive house to gain acceptance or for marketing purposes or something. Progressive house is a 90s sound which slowly developed into the 00s. Its strange to think in recent years it suddenly developed into a new sound. The same thing happened with trance. Its sound was defined in the early to mid 90s. Then in the 00s people like Corsten, Tiesto or Oakenfold popularised a commercial sound which was deriative and generic and gave the genre a bad reputation. Let's keep this article for the real deal and not fall for the hype. - Shiftchange (talk) 03:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Progressive_house/Archive_1&oldid=1126100296"