What is so wrong with Prog metal

MikeEnRegalia wrote: A member of the band recently wrote me an email because I purchased their first albums on their website ... maybe I'll write him a reply, mentioning that using mellotrons on their next album would get them more appreciation here ...  No, I wouldn't do that. After all, if the really used a mellotron, the traditionalists would hold it against them and accuse them of copying the classic bands.

hahahha... can't win either way hahhaha.... I thought it was pretty good Mike... but  personally there are some aspects to prog that I really really love... and they seem rooted in 'classic' prog. 

MikeEnRegalia wrote: micky wrote: the music...while rather good... does leave a fundamental question in my mind.... which can be a fatal flaw to an older 'hardcore' prog fan.... good music... but if you threw this track to me without any decription... I wouldn't off the top of my head... associate 'prog' with it.  That I'm sure is a product of 'enviroment' where prog I grew up with and still listen to... is keyboard heavy.. and will throw a harpsicord, flute, sax, a bassoon hahaha   or something at your to add to the 'sonic palate'.  Just an observation... So you're one of the "if it hasn't got a mellotron it isn't prog" guys?

hahahha....  i must be   

the music...while rather good... does leave a fundamental question in my mind.... which can be a fatal flaw to an older 'hardcore' prog fan.... good music... but if you threw this track to me without any decription... I wouldn't off the top of my head... associate 'prog' with it.  That I'm sure is a product of 'enviroment' where prog I grew up with and still listen to... is keyboard heavy.. and will throw a harpsicord, flute, sax, a bassoon hahaha   or something at your to add to the 'sonic palate'.  Just an observation...

let's see....let me check on those  samples you mentioned Mike ... my curiousity has been ...aroused

valravennz wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: Paul K. wrote: In my opinion it's heaviness that confines it. However, if it wasn't heavy we wouldn't call it metal. Vicious circle Think of it the other way: Metal doesn't need to be heavy all the time. So in a way somebody *could* call all other genres "confined", as they exclude the heaviness. If you listen to any major Prog Metal band then you'll see that they offer the full bandwidth, from soft to heavy. And some of the bands even release albums which are not heavy at all, for example Opeth - Damnation or Epica - The Score. Yes to that, Mike. Then you also get bands which have started out as Metal and changed or diversified their music to such an extent that they can no longer be thought of as Prog Metal. My best example of this goes to "Ulver" who were at first put into the Prog Metal catagory, because their early albums had Prog Metal elements. However, their later albums have shown this group to be leaning towards Experimental/Post Rock beginning with the release of the album "Perdition City", perhaps. My point is that Prog Metal encompasses parts of many genres in Progressive Rock Music. It  would be difficult to find a group classified as Prog Metal,  who plays straight out "grind-core", "Black", "Death" or "Brutal". I would hope that these groups would not be considered appropriate for the Archives.

Thanks, well said!

About that last point: *Some* of these groups are considered if they add Jazz-Fusion to their style, or if they are very technical and experimental. But most of these bands are rejected, also because such additions would call for further additions of similar bands. Latest example: Cryptopsy. A very technical and experimental band, but they were rejected. Initially I voted for their inclusion, but then I agreed with the others ... technicality and experimentality alone are not enough, especially in a genre like Thrash Metal where most of the bands are technical and somewhat experimental.


Edited by MikeEnRegalia - June 04 2006 at 10:14

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Paul K. wrote: In my opinion it's heaviness that confines it. However, if it wasn't heavy we wouldn't call it metal. Vicious circle      Think of it the other way: Metal doesn't need to be heavy all the time. So in a way somebody *could* call all other genres "confined", as they exclude the heaviness. If you listen to any major Prog Metal band then you'll see that they offer the full bandwidth, from soft to heavy. And some of the bands even release albums which are not heavy at all, for example Opeth - Damnation or Epica - The Score.

In my opinion it's heaviness that confines it. However, if it wasn't heavy we wouldn't call it metal.
Vicious circle
    

Edited by Paul K. - June 04 2006 at 05:41

as long as people remember that DT (for better or worse) does not represent the entire genre then it's okay :)

This querelle is for some reasons the same as the one between Beatles and Rolling Stones, with the due proportions. The beauty and intrinsic power of music and in general of art is that it goes under the subjective opinion of people, coming from different social, cultural and "political" backgrounds. This is something we should never forget.

So, back to the issue. I'm very proud of being a fan of progressive music, no matter what distinction we make in the sub-genres. Catagories were something Hegel was profundly against, and being a marxist I feel somehow very close to what the great german philosopher said. It may sound pedantic and tautological, but to me what really matters is if the music is full of passion, whether it gives me strong feelings and vibration along my backbone. If some band is doing so, I do not care if it's a prog metal band, electronic, hip-hop or latin.
My first experience with prog music was with "Live at the Marque", I remember that day: I was standing on the bus, heading to high school. A friend of mine passed to me that album the day before and so I put the tape in my portable player and I listened to it. I still remember my reaction: it was like "what the hell are these guys doing?" I was shocked, just paralyzed by "Metropolis". Back then, I had grown up with Depeche Mode and The Cure, Morrissey and Chopin. It's not then so difficult to imagine how shocking for a guy like me listening to that type of music was. After so many years, if I came across prog scene is mainly due to them and I must thank them for that. Yet, in the process of getting more and more in contact with other prog bands, I discovered one element that DT had been missing after the release of Falling into infinity: passion and  "romanticism". Do not misunderstand me: I do not expect DT to become Chopin or  Tchaikovsky, but I haven't felt and experienced the same thrill in listening to them any more since a change of seasons.
There is nothing wrong with Prog metal, it's not the type and style of music which is wrong, it's the way you play it which makes the difference. Why do Symphony X shake me from the very bottom and DT don't, at least not any more? The answer is simple: DT chose to be part of the mainstream, consciuosly and voluntarily: but for any action there is always a reaction equal and opposite in magnitude and verse. My reaction was naturally a profund rejection to that choice of being and so here's my answer to your post

Prog metal is just as good as all the others: the music is what matters to me, the outcome, the result, the actual making of it, not how you define or label it. DT stopped being a very good band for a specific purpose, to become more popular and attract a broader and larger number of people. It always happened this way, it happened to Genesis, to Yes, to Rush, to anybody. Only Fripp has remained honest to himself and that is way he is the most influential man in the world for "out-of-the-mainstream" prog rock, and most probably the poorest of all!!!

micky wrote: imoeng wrote: so this means this thread is over?? huhuu, i love confrontation,, heehehe hahahha.... there's lot of time and opportunities for that.... try telling Ivan that Kansas is AOR... try telling me that ELO is disco-rock...  or, of course, try telling a Rush fan that there is any fault or imperfection at all in Rush.