Prog Metal: Organizing the categories

Ed_The_Dead wrote: You mean in your 1st post here?

I haven't had the time to post earlier, I've been busy reading all the posts! Seeing the pace of the development in Mikes list, and the fierce momentum in this thread  I hope there will be time for people who know prog metal by heart to participate in the work.

Power and Doom in the same area... Ummm... MIKE!!!!!!!!!!!

Ed:

http://uneasy-listening.com/elements/apps/mreviews/https/Pro gMetal.html

Extreme technical bands are in the rightmost column ... if they're really melodic, they're in the symphonic genre, and if they're really weird but not extremely brutal, they're in the experimental category.

You mean in your 1st post here? Think its th best anyone can come up ith... although extreme is a musthave... and what bout bands that aren't avant, aren't extreme & don't have symphonic or Power influences? We need the virtuoso/technical prog metal genre, Mike... Or at least we need 2 name some sort of genre for those... Any sugestiones? We can't just leave it "prog metal"...

I changed the genre names ... what do you think, better or worse?

Neoclassical is too confining ... there are some Orchestral bands that aren't neoclassical.

BaldFriede wrote: Nope, I only pointed out they use it, but didn't compare it to anything.

We should both stop to second guess what each other was implying with their posts.

One more form me:

Mike, wouldn't it be better 2 get rid of the Symphonic/neo name & just call it neoclassical?  I saw that term reffering 2 many bands like SG, Symph X (soffter early stuff) etc...

I still think bout that virtuoso subgenre

BaldFriede wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: BaldFriede wrote: Oh come on, Mike, that's overdoing it a little! Not even Gentle Giant, who are arguably one of the most complex bands in prog, even come close to the complexity of classical music. Sure, but they're trying, that's the point. They are not just adding string sections or operatic singing (like Orchestral Metal bands, Nightwish, Therion etc.) but they are trying to use polyphony, counterpoint etc. much more than any other prog genre. Read the genre definition for Symphonic Prog Rock if you disagree ... I seriously doubt that. Defending prog-metal as a genré is one thing, but saying they are the "real" progressive ones because they try to use counterpoint and polyphony is way over the top.

I did not say at all that these bands are more prog. There are many ways to be progressive, sophisticated composition is just one part. There are minimalistic bands that are even more interesting IMO, or Avant-Garde - Totally innovative bands either doing completely new things or combining things in really unusual ways.

BTW: I won't bother to search the forum, but I remember you using a similar point to show that most prog metal bands are not as progressive as the classic (symphonic) bands - I think High Tide was the band you were using as an example.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: BaldFriede wrote: Oh come on, Mike, that's overdoing it a little! Not even Gentle Giant, who are arguably one of the most complex bands in prog, even come close to the complexity of classical music. Sure, but they're trying, that's the point. They are not just adding string sections or operatic singing (like Orchestral Metal bands, Nightwish, Therion etc.) but they are trying to use polyphony, counterpoint etc. much more than any other prog genre. Read the genre definition for Symphonic Prog Rock if you disagree ...

I agree -- but that's also why King Crimson has always been a pillar of symphonic prog (and not art rock, as was suggested) -- their classical influences are just more 20th century than 19th century (the source for most symph bands).  If there is a problem, it may have more to do with the differences between Romantic and modern classical music than King Crimson and Yes.