Bands that don’t belong to Progarchives

penguindf12 wrote: Ummm....who cares?!! Anyone added is fine with me, I'd rather expand the archives rather than limit it with stupid bickering of what is prog or not. Of course, we shouldn't just rush out and add everything that's obviously not prog, because it'd just waste time. But arguing about things already added is pointless, if they're taken off that'd just be even more time wasted. I personally wouldn't care if Britney Spears herself was added, and while it'd be very baffling and annoying, I wouldn't really care too much unless they dropped the real prog bands. So borderline stuff is fine by me, prog isn't an exclusive club, it's a fairly ill-defined disaffected musical genre. I wouldn't mind if they added the Beatles, the Who, Queen, Led Zeppelin, even Black Sabbath would be okay. I really don't care. Go waste your time somewhere else, don't bicker about this stuff. As long as real prog is here, it doesn't matter what else is added (unless it goes to an extent that it interferes with real prog). And honestly, I think Max and Rony know what they're doing. And no, Britney Spears is not going to be added any time soon.

Well I cannot agree that the more bands we add, the better. We should stick with prog rock groups. Nobody would like a 'progressive rap' band added for example!

Cheers

In my opinion, Asia aren't really prog, but since they're pretty good they can stay put

They're definitely quite proggy...  but I don't think prog and metal have to be mutually exclusive concepts.

I'm just saying, you said they were "always" classified as prog by prog sites, but they had "a few" metal fans.  There may be more fans of metal as a whole, but I'd say that the kinds of metal fans who listen to Devil Doll are usually prog fans as well.  The google thing showed that Devil Doll is more commonly referred to as a metal band.  All I was saying.

WHY WHY WHY, does every other discussion on this board talk about what is or is not prog?!?!?!?!  Every single day.  "This band is prog....  No its not prog means such and such....  Well to each his own...  Well, you suck then...."

Naturally with something as objective as a label on music, its prone to debate.  I know I can choose not to read it, but sheesh, how about some more discussion?  I like reading the boards (rarely post), but its the same damn thing over and over.

Its getting to a point where I hate to use the word "prog" because its such a loaded word.  Talk about things you like, talk about things you find difficult to like, but please, enough with the prog non-prog debate.  I guess I may get flamed for this, but hopefully some of you agree?

JMCecil wrote: I'm divided on the issue.  First, it's kind of retarded to see bands like Opeth, Dream Theatre and the other pseudo metal bands on a prog list.  Then you see people missing on the other end of spectrum like Brian Eno or Vangelis (although I guess Vangelis is sort of on the list).  Eno and a bunch of other guys are just as much prog as Opeth and DT if our definition is that broad.  And someone like that actually was an innovator. On the other hand.  One of the things that is great about this site and others like it is that you can see a vast amount of information about bands with different styles.  I like this exposure to stuff I normally wouldn't even think about.  Especially bands from outside the US.  I just wish the fanboys would give it a rest.  If I see 5 stars on a metal band review it's a dead giveaway that the review has nothing to do with the album, but only with the reviewers OMGZERS DIZ BAND IZ TEH RULE!11!!!.  There are a few exceptions but not many.

hear hear

i concure, im kind of split on the issue too,

goose wrote: They're part of the metal community though - I'd never heard them mentioned in a prog context when I stumbled across them. I agree they're not "standard" metal by any means, of course. If I had to classify them it'd be either gothic or maybe even contemporary classical music. The thing is, plenty of definite metal bands have made excursions into similar territory to Devil Doll, but as far as I know no definite prog bands have. Although it's a cliché, they really do transcend labels, I suppose. And I know a lot of labels!

You people really surprise me. I'm amazed!

Maybe this is because I really don't follow the metal scene that much.

I have read Devil Doll reviews in different prog sites for years and never seen those other bands you are referring (which most likely are all metal?). DD, however, is quite popular in prog sites. I really think the best definition for them is symphonic prog which they are also usually mentioned to be in prog sites. I do agree with your 2nd last sentence though. And a band can have gothic, classical, metal etc influences and still be labelled symphonic prog. I have never heard any other bands like this though. For me, they sound very progressive and the metal is only one of the many influences that can be heard in their music. The metal is in the minority and doesen't make them sound metal. If it would sound metal music I wouldn't like the band.

BTW, i can't understand that you defend them to be a metal band and in the next sentence you say you would rather classify them as classical music.

Man Overboard wrote: geezer wrote: goose wrote: Hey, I'd give any Devil Doll album 5 stars, because they really are that good! Are you saying that Devil Doll are metal? If you are, I complitely disagree. They are very extreme prog and sometimes heavy but that doesen't make them metal. I have read a lot about the band and they are always considered prog in progressive music sites (and they mainly appear in prog sites). They do have a few fans amongst metal fans but are not metal like Opeth, Dream Theater etc. I don't like prog metal but I think Devil Doll is brilliant. That alone is a clear sign for me that they are prog. Devil Doll should definately not be mentioned in this thread!! So, what *does* make a band metal?  If Devil Doll isn't metal...  then is Diabolical Masquerade, specifically Death's Design, metal either?  How about Green Carnation's "Light Of Day, Day Of Darkness"?  Are you implying that true progressive music and metal are mutually exclusive concepts?

Sorry, I didn't say it clearly.

Dream Theater and Opeth are prog metal. I think all prog metal bands are firstly metal and secondly prog.

Devil Doll shouldn't be put in any metal genre because they are not metal. It is hard to categorize them and they are therefore usually put in the symphonig prog genre.

I find it sickening that there are people here who honestly believe that any band having metal elements disqualified it from being progressive, or disqualifies it from being "as good" as anything else, to the point where any 5-star review is automatically "not about the album at all".  **** that, it's closed-minded bull**** spewed from a mouth that belongs to a person would rather listen to 70's LPs and rehashed neo-prog for the rest of his life.

Progressive music has always been about moving forward.  King Crimson not only incorporated metal elements, but if history tells an accurate picture, invented metal elements.  This generation's "underground" metal and progressive rock share many ideals, which is why many metalheads get deep into the prog scene, and many proggers discover metal.  Steven Wilson once said that the progressive spirit is alive and well in the metal movement. That is evidenced by bands like Opeth, Edge of Sanity, Green Carnation, King Crimson (who prefer the label 'heavy metal' over 'prog'), Fredrik Thordendal, Pain of Salvation, Riverside, and countless others.  To dislike them is an opinion.  To say these bands are not progressive is to deliver a poorly-told lie.

As for Dream Theater?  Yes, they're progressive.  A bit technical and showoffy, but we've had that in prog before.  How can you listen to something like "A Change Of Seasons" and say "Well, this just isn't prog, not in any sense of the word"?  That's like looking down at your cock and saying "Durrr!  I'm a guuuurl!"  (replace genders/organs if you're a female.)