What’s your biggest gripe with the top 100

^ It's good to see you drop by Todd. 

Edited by SteveG - February 23 2020 at 12:07

I don’t like where this thread has headed. This is a website for progressive music and that includes prog metal and fusion.

LAM-SGC wrote: Frenetic Zetetic wrote: LAM-SGC wrote: Frenetic Zetetic wrote: LAM-SGC wrote: ForestFriend wrote: Frenetic Zetetic wrote: If anything fusion makes the most logical sense to include, as it's actually a progression of one or more styles combined. Metal is just metal with progressive elements, but it's still metal.  Romantic Warrior is closer to progressive rock than Opeth, Symphony X, or Dream Theater. Metal is not just metal - it's also rock because metal is a subgenre of rock. So progressive metal is progressive rock; it's just the bands focus on different musical elements. A prog metal band that isn't directly influenced by a classic prog band is almost as rare as a classic prog band that never incorporated elements of metal into their music. . Sorry, but that is just nonsense, the progression in most so called progressive metal bands is progression within metal and based on metal. They do not copy prog rock bands nor do they have prog rock bands as an influence. Correct. The post before yours is attempting to arbitrarily blur lines between genres, then call that "prog". It's honestly no wonder this site is a mess. I agree completely. It all comes back to when many prog fans hear something in another genre that they recognize or like and immediately calling it prog, without ever once thinking, hey maybe that is what metal actually sounds like and maybe prog isn't a genre at all, but just a collection of sounds I like across genres. Bottom Line: prog fans have been appropriating and relabelling since classic prog died in the late 70s. It's good to know someone understands. This isn't elitism nor a knock; it's just rational comprehension of the usefulness of labels. If there's no standard and "anything is anything because it's art and subjective", then why all the genres in the first place? Most of the time I swear people come up with superfluous labels to avoid talking about anything legitimate because outside of being a musician or an obsessed fan, there's little grey room lol. Again, in full agreement with you. The uncomfortable truth though for many prog fans, and an issue swept under the carpet, is that while soul,jazz, metal, classical, hip hop etc. can all be defined rather exactly, prog can't be because it isn't an actual musical genre, which must be obvious to anyone reading any prog forum that includes bands from all sorts of defined genres. And yet I love classic Prog Rock, and I think as a genre that is where it ends with prog in the genre name. Everything else already had its genre names, RIO, Zeuhl, fusion, electronic, avantgarde....but are they all prog? No, they are what it says on the tin, RIO, Zeuhl, fusion, electronic. Otherwise, like you say, why bother with names at all? Let's just ignore all these names that the genres have given to themselves and instead listen to prog forums and call everything prog. AND ULTIMATELY, it all comes down to the evidence of your ears, how can you listen to Camel, Opeth, Fairport Convention and Magma and call it all prog? Simple, because prog doesn't exist.

Thank you Lewian and Guldbamsen, very interesting reading.

^That was a great read, thanks man
(It also fits in quite nicely in my little ‘box-thread’)

Problems always arise when we start to give the boxes/stickers/genres too much weight. Most especially a sticker like prog that is basically meaningless by now. Prog rock became a ‘sound’ instead of what it started out as ie progressive rock.
If we were to be completely anal about this Prague box then we’d have to scrap something like 95% of the artists featured on PA...not because they’re metal or Zeuhl or Krautrock - nahh but because the music simply isn’t genuinely progressive...and there’s about as much unoriginal prog from the late 70s and 80s as there is now..comparatively speaking - we’re quite a bit more people nowadays.

Personally speaking: I’ve stopped using the word prog or in fact most genre tags in real life conversations when discussing music. I find it far easier to get other people to try out something new compared to offering up a pseudo-name that never ever captures what x album of said genre REALLY sounds like.
If I make myself a carrot cake it doesn’t magically become a vegetable dish simply because I put carrots in. Music is like that as well: we play around with specific instruments and specific ingredients...until they stop being specific and become something ‘other’.


Edited by Guldbamsen - February 22 2020 at 05:17

Frenetic Zetetic wrote: LAM-SGC wrote: Frenetic Zetetic wrote: LAM-SGC wrote: ForestFriend wrote: Frenetic Zetetic wrote: If anything fusion makes the most logical sense to include, as it's actually a progression of one or more styles combined. Metal is just metal with progressive elements, but it's still metal.  Romantic Warrior is closer to progressive rock than Opeth, Symphony X, or Dream Theater. Metal is not just metal - it's also rock because metal is a subgenre of rock. So progressive metal is progressive rock; it's just the bands focus on different musical elements. A prog metal band that isn't directly influenced by a classic prog band is almost as rare as a classic prog band that never incorporated elements of metal into their music. . Sorry, but that is just nonsense, the progression in most so called progressive metal bands is progression within metal and based on metal. They do not copy prog rock bands nor do they have prog rock bands as an influence. Correct. The post before yours is attempting to arbitrarily blur lines between genres, then call that "prog". It's honestly no wonder this site is a mess. I agree completely. It all comes back to when many prog fans hear something in another genre that they recognize or like and immediately calling it prog, without ever once thinking, hey maybe that is what metal actually sounds like and maybe prog isn't a genre at all, but just a collection of sounds I like across genres. Bottom Line: prog fans have been appropriating and relabelling since classic prog died in the late 70s. It's good to know someone understands. This isn't elitism nor a knock; it's just rational comprehension of the usefulness of labels. If there's no standard and "anything is anything because it's art and subjective", then why all the genres in the first place? Most of the time I swear people come up with superfluous labels to avoid talking about anything legitimate because outside of being a musician or an obsessed fan, there's little grey room lol.

Again, in full agreement with you. The uncomfortable truth though for many prog fans, and an issue swept under the carpet, is that while soul,jazz, metal, classical, hip hop etc. can all be defined rather exactly, prog can't be because it isn't an actual musical genre, which must be obvious to anyone reading any prog forum that includes bands from all sorts of defined genres.

And yet I love classic Prog Rock, and I think as a genre that is where it ends with prog in the genre name. Everything else already had its genre names, RIO, Zeuhl, fusion, electronic, avantgarde....but are they all prog? No, they are what it says on the tin, RIO, Zeuhl, fusion, electronic.

Otherwise, like you say, why bother with names at all? Let's just ignore all these names that the genres have given to themselves and instead listen to prog forums and call everything prog.

AND ULTIMATELY, it all comes down to the evidence of your ears, how can you listen to Camel, Opeth, Fairport Convention and Magma and call it all prog? Simple, because prog doesn't exist.



Edited by LAM-SGC - February 22 2020 at 03:51

Frenetic Zetetic wrote: LAM-SGC wrote: ForestFriend wrote: Frenetic Zetetic wrote: If anything fusion makes the most logical sense to include, as it's actually a progression of one or more styles combined. Metal is just metal with progressive elements, but it's still metal.  Romantic Warrior is closer to progressive rock than Opeth, Symphony X, or Dream Theater. Metal is not just metal - it's also rock because metal is a subgenre of rock. So progressive metal is progressive rock; it's just the bands focus on different musical elements. A prog metal band that isn't directly influenced by a classic prog band is almost as rare as a classic prog band that never incorporated elements of metal into their music. . Sorry, but that is just nonsense, the progression in most so called progressive metal bands is progression within metal and based on metal. They do not copy prog rock bands nor do they have prog rock bands as an influence. Correct. The post before yours is attempting to arbitrarily blur lines between genres, then call that "prog". It's honestly no wonder this site is a mess.

I agree completely. It all comes back to when many prog fans hear something in another genre that they recognize or like and immediately calling it prog, without ever once thinking, hey maybe that is what metal actually sounds like and maybe prog isn't a genre at all, but just a collection of sounds I like across genres. Bottom Line: prog fans have been appropriating and relabelling since classic prog died in the late 70s.

Edited by LAM-SGC - February 22 2020 at 01:55

moshkito wrote: LAM-SGC wrote: ... Wow! Since before the word progressive turned up. You must be pushing on in years then because I've got the term "progressive underground" dated to 1968. And that's the earliest proven example I've found, however there might be examples from 67, but it seems unlikely. Kudos to you then for having followed prog for so long, I turned seven at the end of 68. Hi, At 69, still loving great music, and appreciating new music, and the stuff that is less known all over the world ... that I'll take with me to the aethers! I think the first I saw it listed, was probably the same screenshot that Dean once showed that had several bands, but the only one I remember in the listing was The Edgar Broughton Band ... and sadly, they are not considered that because they never bothered using a classical heckler () for a keyboard player! But, in Brazil, there were many mixes, that involved what became called "jazz" in their music, and the state of pop music in 1965, other than the usual favorites (Roberto Carlos) at the time, you had some folks like Maria Betania, which was downright scary and sometimes too strong ... but it made its point ... but I'm not sure anyone at PA will ever hear "Carcara" and see its message. Makes Pete Sinfield seem like a pop balladeer! And Coppola a few years later ... just a kid burning money! For me, "progressive" started mostly in film and theater, and the world of pop/rock music was a good 5 to 10 years behind its time ... and when they finally woke up to it, the rock press (with London have 2 magazines one of which had a circulation of over 150K !!!!) decided to kill it ... because they only liked SONGS and HITS ... which told you who owned and operated these things ... folks looking to make a killing in several bands ... something that Woodstock showed the previous record companies that they were wrong! I find the things that Godard, Truffaut, Fellini, Antonioni, Bergman, Herzog, and many others, way and far more progressive and experimental ... and they had a desire to expand the design and definition of "film" ... and for me most rock lost its impression and progressiveness, when they did not care about the work anymore ... it was just a song!

I remember that when I was a kid, I was far more fascinated by the intricate music in films and weird and scary tv programmes and in some of the very modern classical music on the radio, but that weird classical music was also used in lots of kids cartoons and puppet animation programmes from Eastern Europe.

LAM-SGC wrote: SteveG wrote: LAM-SGC wrote: ForestFriend wrote: Frenetic Zetetic wrote: If anything fusion makes the most logical sense to include, as it's actually a progression of one or more styles combined. Metal is just metal with progressive elements, but it's still metal.  Romantic Warrior is closer to progressive rock than Opeth, Symphony X, or Dream Theater. Metal is not just metal - it's also rock because metal is a subgenre of rock. So progressive metal is progressive rock; it's just the bands focus on different musical elements. A prog metal band that isn't directly influenced by a classic prog band is almost as rare as a classic prog band that never incorporated elements of metal into their music. . Sorry, but that is just nonsense, the progression in most so called progressive metal bands is progression within metal and based on metal. They do not copy prog rock bands nor do they have prog rock bands as an influence. Have you ever listened to Six Degrees Of Inner Turbulence by Dream Theatre? If you have and can't identify the myriad of (classic) prog rock references and influences found in that work, then you must be either tone deaf or not very perceptive. For the record, not being a fan of Avant/RIO, when I want to listen to modern prog that's really is progressive, I listen to prog metal, not neo or other sedate genres. I can't argue with any of that. Yes, I have heard it, but DT's prog rock is galaxies away from the Swedish prog-metal I listen to, which finds its progression in its mix of metal, classical music, Swedish folk music and also electronica. I think prog metal is an awful term because just like the words prog, metal and rock it says nothing about the style of the music. There are lots of different types of prog metal. Not to mention older bands like System of a Down. How, for example, should they be ckassified, cos I'm damned if I know.

Well, that would sh**can your prog metal is just metal claim, wouldn't it? The same argument could be made that symphonic rock is just rock with symphonic elements. Sometimes that's true and sometimes it isn't. We like music that crosses boundaries, but I for one would not like to actually listen to classical music, but I like classical motifs in prog rock music. The same with prog metal. I like the prog motifs without going full blown progressive or experimental. Somewhere along the line, we have to call these sub genres prog rock.

LAM-SGC wrote: ForestFriend wrote: Frenetic Zetetic wrote: If anything fusion makes the most logical sense to include, as it's actually a progression of one or more styles combined. Metal is just metal with progressive elements, but it's still metal.  Romantic Warrior is closer to progressive rock than Opeth, Symphony X, or Dream Theater. Metal is not just metal - it's also rock because metal is a subgenre of rock. So progressive metal is progressive rock; it's just the bands focus on different musical elements. A prog metal band that isn't directly influenced by a classic prog band is almost as rare as a classic prog band that never incorporated elements of metal into their music. . Sorry, but that is just nonsense, the progression in most so called progressive metal bands is progression within metal and based on metal. They do not copy prog rock bands nor do they have prog rock bands as an influence.

Have you ever listened to Six Degrees Of Inner Turbulence by Dream Theatre? If you have and can't identify the myriad of (classic) prog rock references and influences found in that work, then you must be either tone deaf or not very perceptive. For the record, not being a fan of Avant/RIO, when I want to listen to modern prog that's really is progressive, I listen to prog metal, not neo or other sedate genres.

Edited by SteveG - February 21 2020 at 11:28