Prog Metal: Organizing the categories

king16 wrote: Looking good already!   But i'd rather not add Anathema to the Orchestral subgenre, since there's nothing Orchestral about their music. There's no fusion in their music with classical music, on the other hand: they do share a whole lot of similarities with Pink Floyd and space rock in general and their first albums are definitely doom metal. A lot of people would call them avant garde metal. So, do I. I like your explaination of the Avant Garde/Experimental subgenre and I really think they should be in that category.   Just my 2 cents of course   Oh, and I've also heard that Arcturus is avantgarde metal, but I could be very wrong about that one... however, they do lean more to the basis of symphonic rock than a band like Opeth does, if you're looking at the compositions imho.

 I had placed Anathema in Avant/Experimental and moved them to Orchestral ... I'll move them back. Thanks for your input, it confirmed my own opinion.

Arcturus: They can be pretty extreme, but their newer albums are more Avant-Garde/Experimental. But IMO their approach isn't really symphonic, I think they should stay inthe "red" area. But neither of my genres is demeaning, it's not like the symphonic section is better than the others. There are brilliant band in all the genres.

Looking good already!

 

But i'd rather not add Anathema to the Orchestral subgenre, since there's nothing Orchestral about their music. There's no fusion in their music with classical music, on the other hand: they do share a whole lot of similarities with Pink Floyd and space rock in general and their first albums are definitely doom metal. A lot of people would call them avant garde metal. So, do I. I like your explaination of the Avant Garde/Experimental subgenre and I really think they should be in that category.

 

Just my 2 cents of course

 

Oh, and I've also heard that Arcturus is avantgarde metal, but I could be very wrong about that one... however, they do lean more to the basis of symphonic rock than a band like Opeth does, if you're looking at the compositions imho.

Kris_man wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^Kris: 's not really possible to be that specific with categorisations. Generally extreme vocals are only likely to occur in the red categories ... but they may be used occasionally by bands of the Power category, or even the Symphonic bands. BTW: Rhapsody only used operatic vocals on one song (Lamento Eroico on Power of the Dragonflame). But proggnosis do it! Also, I think I must define "operatic vocals" differently to you do (I certainly don't use it in a technical sense). Or maybe I'm just getting Rhapsody mixed up with Kamelot. Anyway, good work Mike, I'm strongly against the notion that some people here seem to have that prog metal should not be sub-divided. I'm also against people like yargh who seem to enjoy playing the devil's advocate.

Thanks!

I know proggnosis ... they have a rather complicated system, and although the archives could at one point begin to do that, it can't be done using genres.

About the operatic vocals: The most simple definition would be "vocals like in an opera". Neither Kamelot nor Rhapsody use them ... Therion do.  

-bp- wrote: I'll play it first and figure out what it's called later.       - Miles Davis

good tunes is good tunes.  categorization destroys art.

Yeap Progtologist, but don't you think that the job you've done could be a the starting point and the basement of a real division of bands without creating new sub-sub genres.

For God's sake, you've already done almost all the job, with the help of other experienced Prog Metal fans a great thing could result from this, add this influences to the biographies or ask for new Bios if necesary but using your work.

I don't offer my help here because I'm a newbie in Prog Metal, but in other genres I could sacrifice my free time (And my girlfriend's patience).

Don't see the negative side, I believe your job shouldn't be wasted, it must be used but not creating fictious sub-sub-genres.

Iván 

I'll play it first and figure out what it's called later.
      - Miles Davis

CaptainWafflos wrote: I think "proto prog" and "prog related" are left intentionally vague. Proto prog refers to the progenitors of progressive music in general. A very vague "subgenre", but limited to only a few bands. Prog related is even more vague, containing bands that aren't necessarily progressive, but have no doubt made some contribution or have some significance to progressive music. If I'm not mistaken, one of Arjen Anthony Lucassen's sideprojects was recently moved to this genre because it wasn't necessarily deemed to be true progressive metal.

Well Proto Prog is mostly a grenre based in a time paramethers for Prog Archives, which IMO is partially wrong.

I agree Proto Prog bands had to release their albums before lets say 1969 (In The Court of the Crimson King), but not only that, because for example Zappa is in RIO (For God's sake Freak Out was released in 1966, when Prog wasn't yet Born, much less RIO which only saw the light in the late 70's, how in hell can Freak Out be a key RIO album?????)

Prog Related is only an invention, a place to send all thise bands that many members want to see included but noit Prog enough to fit the genre. Music is Prog or not Prog' that's the only possible choice.

But please, Peter Gabriel is probably one of the 5 most important personalities of Progressive Rock and almost sure the most influential due to his job with early Genesis, but he's lumped with STYX or Roxy Music, it's unfair.

I'm not really familiar with the genre of Art Rock as a whole to make a valid argument against yours, but it sounds like this genre was also left intentionally vague judging from the definition on this site.

The definition is terrible, Art Rock according to most places is the simplest form of Progressive Rock, the borderline that divides Prog' from POP.

What in hell does Steve Hackett, Kansas, Rush, have to do there.

How can Radiohead be considered more comnplex and better elaborate than the above mentioned?

I listen to Symphonic Prog regularly. I agree that bands like Genesis and King Crimson have little to do with each other, and it has been said by other collaborators that this subgenre also needs to be revamped.

Surely needs to, but adding sub-sub-genres is not the way IMO.

In the case of Prog Metal, alll the bands lsited here are part of the Metal Genre, they have a clear identity that almost no other genre has, so I don't believe it shoiuld be divided in sub-genres, the term metal is more than enough to describe the main influence of all this bands.

To me, the point of having music genres is to let me know at least vaguely what kind of music I'm listening to. If genres are no longer doing this adequately, how could you possibly disagree that adding to them would detrimentally affect the genres on this site as a whole?

Then lets work all the genres, send every band to the place where they probably fit best, send King Crimson to two, three or four sub-genres if works better, I volunteer for that, but don't make a bigger problem adding more sub-genres or creating paralell genres to Prog' Rock.

I can be wrong, but again this is my honest opinion.

Iván

Edited by ivan_2068

ivan_2068 wrote: Agree 100% but I beg yoiu listen: Rush Hackett, Steve Kansas The three are in Art Rock, even when Rush is closer to Hard Rock, Kansas Symphonic and Steve Hackett should bementioned in more than one genre including Symphonic.

OK, I'm brand new to this discussion, but I've had the benefit of reading all these posts in the last half hour, so maybe I have the benefit of an unbiased or fresh viewpoint.  Ivan said something that struck a chord with me.  He said that Kansas and Steve Hackett should be mentioned in more than one genre.

Well, what if instead of splitting prog metal (and only prog metal) into different genres, we allowed bands to be in more than one sub-genre.  Each band could be in a secondary sub-genre.  Even a tertiary or quarternary sub-genre, if need be.

Therefore, we wouldn't need separate prog metal sub-genres, just add a secondary sub-genre that further defined it.

Dream Theater would be in Prog Metal sub-genre, primary, and neo prog, secondary.
Opeth would be in Prog Metal sub-genre, primary, and avant garde, secondary.
etc.

It would work with other bands in other sub-genres as well.

Kansas would be art rock, primary, and symphonic, secondary.
Steve Hackett would be art rock, primary, symphonic, secondary, and perhaps avant garde, tertiary. (or whatever he is, sorry, I don't know Hackett very well.)

But I think you get my point.  I don't think we need entirely new genres when we can have bands that appear in multiple genres and that would help to define them, to distinguish them, and to categorize them more in line with other bands that sound like them.

I know a lot of work has gone into this already, and the work is very good.  I just don't know if it's necessary to have completely different sub-genres when we could simply add the secondary sub-genres to ANY band.  Mike's list could be used to generate the first secondary sub-genre listing.  Other people could make their own suggestions.  Perhaps there's a Canturbury band that has elements of Folk, or a symphonic prog band that some people consider neo prog.  This would take care of ALL of that.

Just some food for thought from the outside looking in...

 

 

Edited by viperjr98

CaptainWafflos wrote: I beg those of you criticizing the further division of prog metal: listen to Meshuggah and then perhaps a band like Dream Theater and tell me in honesty that you can support these two bands being in the same genre.

Agree 100% but I beg yoiu listen:

Rush

Hackett, Steve

Kansas

The three are in Art Rock, even when Rush is closer to Hard Rock, Kansas Symphonic and teve Hackett should bementioned in more than one genre including Symphonic.

Or listen:

Gabriel, Peter

Supertramp

Queen

All are considered Prog related, Peter Gabriel has nothing in common with Queen and much less with Supertramp.

Or maybe

Moody Blues

Deep Purple

Procol Harum

Nice

Absolutely nothing in common Moody Blues is more like early Psychedelia, Deep Pureple Hard Rock, Procul Harum is clearly closer to Symphonic and The Nice is a Symphonic or Classical Prog band

Or even The Pseudo Symphonic:

Genesis

King Crimson

Emerson Lake & Palmer (ELP)

Gentle Giant

Van der Graaf Generator

King Crimson was only remotely Symphonic on their debut album, ELP has no relation with Symphonic, the are clearly a Classical Prog Band, Gentle Giant is a genre of their own closer to Medieval Music with some Celtic influences, Van Der Gaff and Genesis have almost nothing in common.

All Prog genres have the same problem, but I would disagree with the same strenght if somebody would want to create sub-genres of Symphonic.

Probably I would agree to add Classical Progressive with bands like ELP, The Nice and even King Crimson due to their complex structures based in moderb classical, but never to create sub-genres of symphonic.

Just had a short chat with Bryan and The Proctologist and I'm sure they understand my point of view has nothing against Prog Metal and much less against them, Bryan is probably one of my oldest virtual friends (Since we joined Prog Archives because he's much younger than me and The Proctologist wasv ery receptive), my point is that no sub-genre should be divided.

That's all

Iván

Edited by ivan_2068

goose wrote: But the only reason for prog metal being tackled first is that we have collaborators who're prepared to give their time to do this - perhaps symphonic prog (or krautrock, or any other genre...) is "more important", but until someone with a good knowlege of it goes to the lengths that Mike, Bryan and Jody (and others?) have, it can't be done before prog metal is! That's the only reason for it being done first* *i.e. prog metal fans are more obsessive than symphonic fans

But that's precisely the problem -- this undertaking has the whiff of vanity, not helpfulness.  This is obvious to me from the nature and character of the defenses for this "project."  A few people who think that they know something about progmetal have decided to make sure that everyone is aware of this, by needlessly inventing unnecessary categories that they can force the genre's bands into.  Never mind the fact that if a subgenre is not part of the vernacular, it has little value; if there aren't bands running around calling themselves "modern gothic prog metal" (or whatever) it doesn't follow that someone else should invent this categorization for them -- especially considering that the further you break down something into subgenres, the less likely it will be that any particular band can fit accurately into any one of them.

This whole thing has already been proven to be a disaster, both in terms of conception and execution.  The people responsible have shown themselves to be meticulous workers and enthusiastic followers of prog-metal.  Let's give them whatever kudos such distinctions merit, but please lets just end it at that.  There's no reason to wreck the organizational structure of the site because a few prog metal fans have an inferiority complex.