How can metal be prog? - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

Petrovsk Mizinski View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

Joined: December 24 2007
Location: Ukraine
Status: Offline
Points: 25210

Posted: December 14 2008 at 02:37

Atavachron wrote:

Mathrock is a large, general category and may include aspects of Mathcore.. to me, 'Mathcore' is an approach (or sound) somewhere between Mathrock and Metal, appearing in both genres; 'Mathcore' is a descriptive, whereas Mathrock is a large, established and inclusive style with hundreds of bands -- some may be heavy and reminiscent of metal, some are quieter, jazzier, or more experimental, but they all are Mathrock. This is why Ruben, Chris and I worked hard to establish Mathrock as an independent category.. it is a movement not unlike Progrock in it's early days.

I understand what you mean and definitely Mathrock can a somewhat unforgiving term to get your head around.
My only beef with the names Mathrock and Mathcore is this really: that the name Mathrock (if not taken as a "large, established and inclusive style with hundreds of bands") implies it has it's roots in rock, while mathcore implies it has it's root in hardcore punk, when really, mathrock is much more closely aligned with hardcore punk (if not always musically in the case of some band, at least aesthetically anyway) and mathcore takes from metalcore, hence why I find "Technical Metalcore" is a more correct tag than mathcore.
I agree 100 per cent with it being called Mathrock, if we see it as a movement, which indeed, again I agree, it is.
But I just think, if the definition of Mathrock...well part of the definition of anyway of Mathrock ever gets revised, I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to take into consideration possibly explaining the whole " math rock implies it has it's roots in rock, while mathcore implies it has it's root in hardcore punk, when really, mathrock is much more closely aligned with hardcore punk (if not always musically in the case of some band, at least aesthetically anyway) and mathcore takes from metalcore, hence why I find "Technical Metalcore" is a more correct tag than mathcore" thing (if not in those exacts words, but something to that effect obviously) to make things a bit clearer.
Heh, I ain't really pushing for it.........I just think it's not a bad idea, that's all and I guess we can leave the mathrock/mathcore thing here, since it's getting too much off the topic at hand.

WinterLight View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: June 09 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 424

Posted: December 14 2008 at 02:25

Pretty important stuff taking place here. Too bad I'm not smart enough to participate.

Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195

Posted: December 14 2008 at 01:58

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

^ you'd like that, wouldn't you ... distorting/ridiculing the usage of tags with your exaggerated examples (Tokyo Tapes) and then leaving it at that. Wink

Give me a decent example, where you try to assign a small number of well defined tags to an album ... Big smile

I'm not the kind of people who leaves Mike.

Well, neither am I. Tongue

Iván wrote:

I believe the over-tagging is absurd, in Prog Archives we have the reviews which are the proper place to be as wide as you want.

For me a sub-genre is enough, I don't believe we need more, Symphonic or Neo Prog or Prog Folk or Fusion or Prog Metal, that's all.

And honestly I see the Tokyo Tapes example as absurd as saying "Neo-Classical Technical Prog Power Metal", that's my opinion and I believe I'm entitled to it as you are entitled to tag as much as you want.

I gave my opinion as you have given your's plenty of times, so yes, I leave this thread because it's futile to continue discussing when we are in such different positions.

Iván.

The difference between our positions is that you criticise and ridicule mine, while I simply describe my position. Have I ever said anything negative about yours? Honestly, I can't understand where all this negativity is coming from - and the same applies to The T's recent post. You hate Progfreak.com, we're all a bunch of idiots there for using tagging - got the message. But can't we collaborate and help one another even if we use different approaches?

The T

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493

Posted: December 13 2008 at 23:34

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

The more tags, the more disagreements and the less understanding.

Sorry my beloved metallers but in this case I clearly side with this position. While it could be very valuable for us to be using those ridiculous names in our own metal website, in a progressive rock website in which, as I have said, we are just a side genre (it's my opinion.... we're not a prog sub genre but a prog side genre), we don't need to be confusing people, including ourselves, with tags like "progressive technical mathematical scientifical galileian hardcore post-christian satanic white metal" or anything of the sorts.

We have the perfect number of sub genres, all of them sharing the "metal" part of the name. I know there is something called progressive-black metal for example (a genre i really like a lot), but for the outsider (for metal) prog fan, calling it EXTREME progmetal should be enough. Yes, we can find 4349837403 subdivisions if we want, but let's do that in ProgMetalTheTYourLord.com, which will be launched in 2066.

Really, I'm supposed to know my metal and that byzantine discussion about "mathcore" and "metalcore" really lost me. I've always been opposed to extra tag-zation (I've alwats mantained Mike), and even in a metal website I would only use words that would help distinguish between SUBGENRES, not between subjective opinions from members which, as it's obvious, could generate 3928302932 tags for one single album.

Edited by The T - December 13 2008 at 23:35

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535

Posted: December 13 2008 at 22:51

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

^ you'd like that, wouldn't you ... distorting/ridiculing the usage of tags with your exaggerated examples (Tokyo Tapes) and then leaving it at that. Wink

Give me a decent example, where you try to assign a small number of well defined tags to an album ... Big smile

I'm not the kind of people who leaves Mike.

I believe the over-tagging is absurd, in Prog Archives we have the reviews which are the proper place to be as wide as you want.

For me a sub-genre is enough, I don't believe we need more, Symphonic or Neo Prog or Prog Folk or Fusion or Prog Metal, that's all.

I gave my opinion as you have given your's plenty of times, so yes, I leave this thread because it's futile to continue discussing when we are in such different positions.

Iván.

Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195

Posted: December 13 2008 at 19:30

^ you'd like that, wouldn't you ... distorting/ridiculing the usage of tags with your exaggerated examples (Tokyo Tapes) and then leaving it at that. Wink

Give me a decent example, where you try to assign a small number of well defined tags to an album ... Big smile

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535

Posted: December 13 2008 at 18:35

Made my point, and gave my opinion, more is unnecessary because the positions won't change.

Iván

Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195

Posted: December 13 2008 at 18:02

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

No. Both reviews and tags are subjective. Even the genre labels at PA are subjective, why else would there be so many discussions about them?

The next four posts after mine, were a discussion between you and Hughes about how appropriate the term metalcore or whatever was for a determined band.

The more tags, the more disagreements and the less understanding.

Iván

Please, I made it clear in my posts that I don't think that "metalcore" is a particularly good tag. It should exist because it is being used by many people, but when I tag albums at PF I tend to avoid it. The problem is not the quantity of tags, but the use of confusing labels and descriptions ...

Atavachron View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65255

Posted: December 13 2008 at 17:51

Mathrock is a large, general category and may include aspects of Mathcore.. to me, 'Mathcore' is an approach (or sound) somewhere between Mathrock and Metal, appearing in both genres; 'Mathcore' is a descriptive, whereas Mathrock is a large, established and inclusive style with hundreds of bands -- some may be heavy and reminiscent of metal, some are quieter, jazzier, or more experimental, but they all are Mathrock. This is why Ruben, Chris and I worked hard to establish Mathrock as an independent category.. it is a movement not unlike Progrock in it's early days.

Edited by Atavachron - December 13 2008 at 18:28

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535

Posted: December 13 2008 at 11:29

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Since you're mentioning my website, let's look at how the album is currently labelled there:

"Neo-Classical Technical Prog Power Metal"

Neo
Classical
Technical
Prog
1. Progressive
2. Rock
Power
Metal

Don't you think that's more than enough to talk of over tagging?

Only if you see it like that ... I don't. Who ever said that this was a genre definition? The genre for the album is Power Metal, as far as I'm concerned ... the other words are simply tags (attributes) which further describe the music.

How else do you want it to be seen?

That''s exactly what you are saying and all as part of a definition.

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Sorry, but the word "pompous" is well defined. If you decide to use it in your review, people will read it and use this definition to make sense of it.

For heaven's sake....IT'S A REVIEW!!!!

It's suposed to have introduction, arguments, opinions, adjectives, as a fact reviews with less than 200 characters are not posted, we are encouraged to make our reviews wide and argumentsd

A genre name not, it must be as simple as possible for eeverybody to understand or do yo believe that a good description for "Steve Hackett's Tokyo Tapes would be:

Elaborate, Guitar based a la Hackett, with King Crimson Pompous plus Asia simpler Influences and Genesis reminiscences Symphonic/Neo/Avant Retro Prog?

This would be absurd.

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

No. Both reviews and tags are subjective. Even the genre labels at PA are subjective, why else would there be so many discussions about them?

The next four posts after mine, were a discussion between you and Hughes about how appropriate the term metalcore or whatever was for a determined band.

The more tags, the more disagreements and the less understanding.

Iván

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - December 13 2008 at 11:32

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: December 13 2008 at 11:10

^ I don't see a copyright ;-)

What?

The Quiet One View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

Joined: January 16 2008
Location: Argentina
Status: Offline
Points: 15745

Posted: December 13 2008 at 11:03

Dean wrote:

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Dean wrote:

You're going to have a long wait .

I don't think so Dean I proved that at least for some experts, the term that is called Math and should be called Mathcore but which Hughes calls Technical Metalcore, is an equivalent with Progressive Metalcore, so the relation is undeniable, to the point that Hughes has accepted it....And trhatb my friend, is an achievement .

Iván

The statement is not commutative: if Harry calls Mathcore Technical Metalcore and what Harry calls Mathcore is Math Rock then what he calls Mathcore is not what he calls Technical Metalcore and therefore what is currenly called Math Rock is not what is currently called Technical Metalcore and Mathcore is not Metalcore.

Dean can I use that post as my signature?

Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195

Posted: December 13 2008 at 10:56

"That sounds very simple Dean!"

Wink

Edited by Mr ProgFreak - December 13 2008 at 10:56

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: December 13 2008 at 10:51

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Dean wrote:

You're going to have a long wait .

Iván

What?

Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195

Posted: December 13 2008 at 10:47

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Since you're mentioning my website, let's look at how the album is currently labelled there:

"Neo-Classical Technical Prog Power Metal"

Neo

Classical
Technical
Prog

Progressive
Rock

Power
Metal

Don't you think that's more than enough to talk of over tagging?

Is that so bad? I know that you're having problems with the word neo-classical, but let's not go there in this thread ... Wink

I don't have any problem with Neo Classical, used alone to describe a determined genre of musicor a sub-genre of Classical.

Of course it makes no sense to include every bit of information about an album in its genre label. But we can collect all the tags people assign to it and then select the most important ones. That's where the power of tags comes from: The system can count them. If you have only reviews, the system can't possibly know how many people think that an album is pompous, for example.

But Pompous is not a genre definition, it's an adjective that can suit ELP as well as Jethro Tull or Genesis or Symphony X in a determined moment of their albums, not a tag for a band or album.

Exactly - "pompous" is an adjective. Why shouldn't you assign it to an album or song? You did so in your review.

Sure. But whenever I'm browsing through reviews - be it here, at PF or at any other website or magazine - I find out that people are using these tags in the text. You may reject my website for whatever reason you want, but you can't deny that even you use them. Smile

We atre not tagging, by definition a review has to be wide, explanatory, argumented, a name or tag must be clear, concuise and short.

Well, maybe it doesn't make sense to split the genre - you're the expert, and I trust your judgement. However, assigning more tags to something doesn't necessarily mean that something is split, or that you're narrowing/boxing something. If you added the tag "pompous" to something which is also "symphonic", you're not creating a new sub genre called "pompous symphonic" ... you're merely saying that the music is both pompous and symphonic. Maybe I should explain these things in more detail at PF ...

For God's sake, Pompous is only a wide and subjective adjective used as part of a long detailled descriptive review, not in a name or tag.

Sorry, but the word "pompous" is well defined. If you decide to use it in your review, people will read it and use this definition to make sense of it.

What is pompous for me, may not be Pompous for other person, as a fact w3hat is normal for a Proghead, is extremely `pompous for the rest of the world...A review MUST BE SU(BJECTIVE, a tag MUST BE OBJECTIVE.

Iván

No. Both reviews and tags are subjective. Even the genre labels at PA are subjective, why else would there be so many discussions about them?

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535

Posted: December 13 2008 at 10:36

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Of course PF is different from PA, and I'm no longer trying to get my visions implemented here. I'm just trying to say that many people like tagging - for some things you simply can't find a short and precise label. Sure, we could just simply call everything "music" .

As far as I know, definitions must nbe short, clear and concise, but you are free to do in Prog Freak as you want

Since you're mentioning my website, let's look at how the album is currently labelled there:

"Neo-Classical Technical Prog Power Metal"

Neo
Classical
Technical
Prog

Progressive
Rock

Power
Metal

Don't you think that's more than enough to talk of over tagging?

Is that so bad? I know that you're having problems with the word neo-classical, but let's not go there in this thread ... Wink

I don't have any problem with Neo Classical, used alone to describe a determined genre of musicor a sub-genre of Classical.

But Pompous is not a genre definition, it's an adjective that can suit ELP as well as Jethro Tull or Genesis or Symphony X in a determined moment of their albums, not a tag for a band or album.

We atre not tagging, by definition a review has to be wide, explanatory, argumented, a name or tag must be clear, concuise and short.

For God's sake, Pompous is only a wide and subjective adjective used as part of a long detailled descriptive review, not in a name or tag.

Iván

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535

Posted: December 13 2008 at 10:24

HughesJB4 wrote:

Yes, I too belive more multiple/more tagging helps people learn and can help to be more descriptive about music.
Whether it needs to be applied at PA is another question entirely, but I strongly support Mike in his endeavors in his comprehensive tagging system at Progfreak.com.

I'm nobody to say what is best for Progfreak, but this scares the sh!t out of me, and now you understand why the common Collaborator didn't participate in Progfreak, despite the invaluable service this site is doing for ProgArchives....Because it's unfriendly and confusing

HughesJB4 wrote:

Indeed, the term Groove metal is widely used and known among the metal community, but outside of metal, it's probably not highly descriptive to people, yet I personally still use the term anyway it can help be more descriptive about some bands if the person understands what the genre is.

You just hit the nail in the head.."WIDELY USED AMONG THE METAL COMMUNITY"

But this is not the Metal Community, this is the PROG COMMUNITY, and we need only Prog Metal, they may need all this names for THEIR sub-genres,. but we are not transporting all Metal sub-genres here, or do you believe we should have Free Jazz Fusion, Classical Jazz Fusion, Nu Jazz Fusion, Latin Jazz Fusion, etc

No we absorb Jazz Fusion as one category of Prog, so should do Prog Metal.

HughesJB4 wrote:

And yes, metalcore is indeed confusing.

Of course it's confusing, I have proved that not even the experts can agree.

HughesJB4 wrote:

The problem is, despite the use of 'core' in the name, some metalcore bands are in fact less punk influenced than many metal bands.
For example, the big name metalcore band, Darkest Hour, has released a lot of music that is essentially melodic death metal musically but with hardcore punk style screaming and the band wears clothes that ties them in more with the punk crowd than it does the metal crowd, yet their music is indenially essentially heavy metal at it's core, compared to say, Metallica's Kill 'Em All, which has an obvious hardcore punk influence, but yet is called a metal album.
And from this, we can also perhaps say metalcore is defined partly by aesthetics, just as metal as.
And let's not forget, the aesthetics of punk and metal were always things that were notable parts of the 2 scenes.

Please...Do we have Prog Punk or has it been added since last week?

HughesJB4 wrote:

And then we have metalcore bands that are more punk influenced than metal bands, but the key to identifying metalcore as a different overal genre to metal is, again, in the subtleties one begins to understand only from having heard the music many many times.

They are Prog Metal, that's what the normal, not obsessed member and visitor of Prog Archives needs to know, if you want to wrote a thesis of Metal for a select public, do it,, but here it must remain simple.

Dean wrote:

I'll not dissect this in it's entirety because Mike and Harry have explained well enough. The clues and answers are in what you have written and quoted - Math Rock is not called Mathcore but should be, while what is much of what is currently called Mathcore is should be called Technical Metalcore. Basically if you fuse any Metal (or Rock) sub genre with (Harcore) Punk you will get a xxxxcore of of some form.

Self explanatory??????????

I'm more lost than when I started.

Dean wrote:

The multitude metal subgenres have descriptive self-explanatory sounding names, but they are not necessarily descriptive or self explanatory and, like many of the Progressive Rock subgenres, are named as much for their historical derivation than they are for any musical description, which is why many of us avoid using them and use more generic "umbrella" names like Extreme Metal.

As any person who doesn't have a degree in metal and too much time on his hands. ), but as you have seen in the poets I reply to, the Prog Team members don't understand this a PROGRESSIVE ROCK COMMUNITY and their excuse is that this terms are used in the METAL COMMUNITY.

The funniest thing is that in the next 4 posts after the ones I replied to, Mike and Hughes start to disagree, instead ofestroying bad Iván, the Metal Hater, they start to discuss between them, because the tags of one of them is not accurate for the other.

What do you expect from the normal human without Metal super powers?

Dean wrote:

You're going to have a long wait .

Iván

Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195

Posted: December 13 2008 at 10:21

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Of course we need more. I'm not sure where your sentiment against tagging comes from ... if anything, I'd say that we need to select the tags we use more carefully. For example, I don't use a genre label like "metalcore" since it's a really fuzzy term ... nobody really knows what it means. It's even worse than the label "progressive" - for that one most people at least have an idea of what it means, but for "metalcore" there are several specific definitions floating around the internet which contradict each other. The same applies to genre labels like "groove metal" ... they are not self explanatory, so I tend to avoid them.

Maybe Progfreak (site) needs more tagging, because you are obsessed with tags and you created a site for that Mike, but that's not the case of ProgArchives.

Iván wrote:

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Have a look at your own review ... I took the liberty of highlighting the words that I would call tags. What I'm trying to show is that we all use tags in our reviews ... the tagging on my website (or at last.fm for that matter) is only a way to make some of the information of the review available to the system, so that it can be used in comparisons.

Mike , a review is a place for PERSONAL OPINIONS, you say everything you want with freedom.

But for a genre is absurd, we would need a specific combination of names, moods and influences to describe each and every band and we will have no point to end, because if I in my PERSONAL REVIEW feel that all the terms I used are correct in a phrase, we would have to tag V as:

Symphonic, Operatic, Egyptian, Fast, Choral, Keyboard, Synth, Pompous, Instrumental, Dramatic, Bach Mozart Prog Metal

That would maybe be OK for ProgFreak, but honestly....Would be ridiculous for a Prog label band of a place as Prog Archives.

Since you're mentioning my website, let's look at how the album is currently labelled there:

"Neo-Classical Technical Prog Power Metal"

Is that so bad? I know that you're having problems with the word neo-classical, but let's not go there in this thread ... Wink

Plus the fact you point it well, I use several terms in MY review, to clear my ideas, but each person has his own ideas, his own perceptions, and ProgArchives is not a place where people put their own twenty words definitions.

A PERSONAL REVIEW is a place to be as explñanatory as you want, to use the adjectives you need, to add as many literary figures as you wantt, but a definition must be concise and d simple, if not, we are confusing the person who comes here and finds a place with so many names.

I remember when I took Symphonic, you told me to split it as much as I needed, but I honestly believe that there is one Symphonic, and even when we pretend to add Schools and eras to EXPLAIN, the genre will remain as simple as it is now....SYMPHONIC PROG.

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535

Posted: December 13 2008 at 09:56

Well, I have been replied by everybody, but still no problem, lets go step by step:

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Of course we need more. I'm not sure where your sentiment against tagging comes from ... if anything, I'd say that we need to select the tags we use more carefully. For example, I don't use a genre label like "metalcore" since it's a really fuzzy term ... nobody really knows what it means. It's even worse than the label "progressive" - for that one most people at least have an idea of what it means, but for "metalcore" there are several specific definitions floating around the internet which contradict each other. The same applies to genre labels like "groove metal" ... they are not self explanatory, so I tend to avoid them.

Maybe Progfreak (site) needs more tagging, because you are obsessed with tags and you created a site for that Mike, but that's not the case of ProgArchives

Mike , a review is a place for PERSONAL OPINIONS, you say everything you want with freedom.

Symphonic, Operatic, Egyptian, Fast, Choral, Keyboard, Synth, Pompous, Instrumental, Dramatic, Bach Mozart Prog Metal

That would maybe be OK for ProgFreak, but honestly....Would be ridiculous for a Prog label band of a place as Prog Archives.

HughesJB4 wrote:

Well yes, if you want to say metalcore is 'indirectly' connected to prog metal, I have no qualms, since both obviously are metal genres, but both have somewhat different roots, which again, I'm sure we can agree on now from previous posts explaining that.

That's what I said from my first post, you added direct links or whatever, made it ultra complex, when you could had simply and easily said...Yes there is a connection.

Always the need to over complicate everything.

HughesJB4 wrote:

Regarding Between the Buried and Me, they were a band that started off as a very much pure metalcore band with very slight hints towards prog metal.
They eventually evolved into a Progressive Death Metal band and their most recent album displaying very very little metalcore sound in it at all.
To call them metalcore or progressive death metal.....neither is incorrect (hence why you see them labeled as both), unless you apply the tag to the wrong phase of the band.

Now there are right and wrong phases of a band?

Please Hughes, you catalogue it as Extreme Tech Metal and three Prog Reviewers, two of them members of a team and like 5 people who reviewed the album called it and I quote "PURE METALCORE.

The Sound is so similar that 8 persons out of a few, believe it's Metalcore, despite you believe it's Tech, Extreme Prog Metal...Do we need all this terms to describe a band?

HughesJB4 wrote:

The thing is, with some PA genres, what can fit in them is somewhat broad.
In Tech/Extreme we sometimes have bands that are not technical bands (in the case of Opeth for example) but fit in there better than the other two genres for their Extreme (i.e musical traits such as death growls, death metal riffs/influence).

So even though Prog Metal has three sub-genres, this are not enough and you need more?

Please, I believe your capacity of abstraction is under questioning.

HughesJB4 wrote:

We then have bands which are progressive metalcore, yet fit into the Tech/Extreme genre.
We have progressive death metal bands that fit into Tech/Extreme genre.
We have progressive technical death bands that fit into Tech/Extreme.
We have progressive thrash metal bands that fit into Tech/Extreme.
We have some bands which are a cross breed between groove metal and various extreme metal genres that fit into Tech/Extreme.
We have progressive Deathcore bands that fit into Tech/Extreme (deathcore itself being an offshoot of metalcore, a hybridization of metalcore, death metal, hardcore punk and in some bands, grindcore or even death grind.......

Please, read yourself......I need a guide to remotely follow you, and I consider myself a person with more Prog knowledge than the normal casual visitor....Do you believe this helps or confuses the people=

And that's probably not even all of it listed there (and had I listed much more, it may have been quite overwhelming to some readers), but you get my point that the common link between these sub genres/bands within the sub genres is that they contain elements of either technical metal or extreme metal or both.

And at the end you say:

HughesJB4 wrote:

yep it's confusing, but I know deathcore when I hear it).
We can have progressive technical deathcore bands.
We have progressive black metal bands.

Yes, you understand it, but the visitor gets more lost than before your explanation.

I'm sure that 90% of Prog Archives members are lost by this point

HughesJB4 wrote:

Hell, in heavy prog, we have the example of Fall Of Troy.
A band which is not really influenced by the older heavy prog bands like Rush at all, and sounds nothing like Rush or Porcupine Tree.
They are a mathcore/post-hardcore/experimental with an aesthetic a lot closer to punk than and by many people are not associated with prog rock at all.
But the band is heavy, heavy enough for heavy prog, and perhaps most importantly, a progressive rock band too, in midst of all the mathcore/post-hardcore/experimental sound they have.
Sure enough, the Mathcore is there, but unlike the progressive mathcore of Tech/Extreme, The Fall of Troy does not have mathcore their main focus, and as such, isn't all out as heavy as the Tech/Extreme progressive mathcore bands.

Honestly, I would need a Metal - English online translator to at least attempt to understand 10% of what you are saying.

HughesJB4 wrote:

As many can see, it can get confusing perhaps, but that's why the more knowledgeable on the topic are called in to investigate because they know the subtle details of the genres/sub genres and know how to put them in the right genres because they can hear more than the obvious details in the music.

But you are forgetting this knowledgeable people should work for the public, not to satisfy an insane need of over-tagging in such extreme that only an expert can get it.

I don't agree with Peter when he says he would Put Symphony X under the category of I like or i don'tt like, but I see he has a point.

I will continue in the next post, because this is getting huge.

Iván

micky

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46833

Posted: December 13 2008 at 06:09

hahhaha

The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip