Talk:Progressive dance music

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Music
Portal
Progressive dance music is within the scope of WikiProject Music genres, a user driven attempt to clean up and standardise music genre articles on Wikipedia. Please visit the project guidelines page for ideas on how to structure a genre article and help us assess and improve genre articles to good and 1.0 standards.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.


Electronic music Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Electronic music, set up to organize and expand entries on Electronic music.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rave, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to Rave, Rave music and other various aspects of rave culture. For more information, visit our project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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;
v • d • e
Electronic dance music • Genres
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] An electronic music powered community website.

Zenbeats.com is an electronic music powered community website. Every article on this site is submitted by you. Share, explore, link, and support the electronic music community. Zenbeats 16:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Hey, you know what another website where "every article... is submitted by you"? Wikipedia. Please stop spamming articles. Wickethewok 18:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Please tell me how you consider this to be spamming? I have nothing to gain or lose by submitting my link on Wikipedia, Zen beats does not solicit anything to its users, our only goal is to provide our users with the latest news about the electronic music scene.I tried adding to the external links, and got deleted by Kuru (for the record the link I am submitting is no different than Resident Advisor on the external links). I even tried contacting Kuru to discuss this issue and he never responded to me, so if you want to talk about how politically correct Wikipedia is regarding the content that is submitted by "its user’s" I would definitely be willing to have that discussion with you. You say every article is submitted "its user’s" on Wikipedia, but then you are saying is the article can not reference anything outside of Wikipedia...... Interesting concept.... I searched three articles from Zen Beats on Wikipedia, and what I found is general information, if that about the person the article was about, nothing in regards to what is going on now. So I guess in your eyes it is better to limit people's knowledge to what is only on Wikipedia. I am following the guidelines set in place by Wikipedia. If it is that troublesome to everyone then I will remove it, as I said before the only people that have anything to gain is the user's that are clearly trying to find information on the electronic music scene. Zenbeats 11:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • There are very specific guidelines for external linking at WP:EL, especially WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. Placing links to what is clearly a website you are affiliated with on dozens of different articles certainly falls under WP:SPAM. Wickethewok 18:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I read the guidelines again and posting the link to Zenbeats.com does not under any circumstance fall under spam, and if it does then so do all of the external links on the main page especially "Resident Advisor". You are right there are very specific guidelines set in place, and under "What Should Be Linked" #4 states "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.", that is exactly the content Zenbeats.com offers. The site is relevant to this article as well as many other articles on wikipedia, which all still fall under the same category "Electronic Music".As for WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided; Zenbeats.com does not violate any of those guidelines. All articles on Zenbeats.com are submitted by its user's, Zenbeats.com is not affiliated with any outside website, and the only time Zenbeats.com requires a user to register is if they wish to submit an article. After reading your feedback and having Kuru delete my link with out any willingness to have further discussion regarding the deletion, the only difference between Zenbeats.com and this article is that the people have a choice to post an article that they found interesting about the Electronic Music Culture with out being blasted as spammers, and know that any tasteful article submitted is not subject to be critiqued and or deleted. In this culture voice is everything, and Zenbeats.com gives its user's a chance to have that voice! Zenbeats 21:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

  • Why not just progressive dance music? I don't see any reason the parentheses are necessary. Wickethewok (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I went ahead and moved it. Does anyone have any issues with the de-parenthesizing? Wickethewok (talk) 01:33, 10 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)