The "problem" with prog metal

The idea that using classical "form" makes the music "fake classical" is simply not accurate. Close To The Edge is a text-book example of classical Sonata Allegro form, but sounds nothing like Beethoven, Mozart, or Haydn (the composers most often used to define this form). Schubert was one of the greatest composers of "art-songs" which nearly all use a slight variaation on the basic ternary (ABA) form that pop writers have run into the ground for centuries. Yet, Ms. Spears' "Toxic" or Justin's "Sexy Back" doon't sound anything like Schubert. Use of form is required for sound to be organized in such a way that we recognize it as music. Metal uses it's own set of forms, they're just fairly simple ones. Using more complex forms would be an interesting excercise in a way. Meshuggah (sp?) may be an example of this, but it still doesn't move me at thhe gut level where I want to be moved by music.

I think you mis understand to some degree the use and importance of form in music (even in classical music). There is no "rule book" for composition of classical music. Forms (and music theory in gerneral) are used to describe what composers have done. They are seldom used anymore as a basis for composiing. I certainly don't say to myself, "I think I'll use form "x" or form "y" for this piece. However, all music has form of one kind or another. I did not mean to imply that some are better than others. I don't see it that way. I like Delbert McClinton and Richard Thompson in equal amounts to Yes and Genesis even though they do not push the limits of form in any way whatsoever.

My point was simply that Prog metal is not more adventurous in the area of form than it's predecessors. It is not a criticism, it's an observation.

As to why I keep hold of the stuff? Well, I'm a pack rat andf that extends to music as well as other areas of my life. And besides, you never know when the wind will change. I held onto my Van der Graaf Generator LPs long enough to eventually find some appreciation there. Who know what'll happen in the next 15 years? My journey isn't that simple. I still don't like most jazz and classical is no more a part of my listening than Prog or Blues or any number of other genres. My ituunes library is somewhere in excess of 35,000 songs of which I'd estimate that classical might be about 1/4, and prog 1/4, with the remaining half being divided among everything else.

To put it simply, it's complicated.


Edited by Trademark - March 28 2007 at 18:42

Trademark wrote: Having spent many a long year earning an undergrad degree and two masters degrees (1.Theory & Composition and 2. History) in music I have to side with Cert on the issue of Prog-metal and form. I have complete (or complete as of 2004 when I gave up trying to really like PM) catalogues of DT, Fates Warning, Aeyreon, Evergrey, Symphony X, POS, LTE, and more I can't remember off the top of my head. I also have dozens of titles by Zep, Sabbath, Judas Priest, AC/DC, Metallica , and yes even some Blue Cheer and more as well. The use of form by the traditional metal bands sof the 60's & 70's is not noticably different from the majority of the prog metal I have heard. Isolated exceptions occur in both camps ans they always will. For my part, you'll need more than an example or two to convince me that Prog-maetal bands are making any innovations in the area of form. On the issue of form as a basic "tendency" (which is how Cert described it) PM fails at stretching the limits of form. Puffed up pop song forms iare, in fact, the order of the day. Sorry Mike, but one single example does not cause a case for general tendencies to be lost. There are anomallies in all fields of study. Do you want a real musical analysis of this DT piece? You might be surprised at the result. If you want an actual analysis I'd need a MIDI file of the tune so that I can open it in Finale to actually look at the notes and the form in their natural habitat. And T, Please... The title of this thread invites bashing and yet no one has taken the opportunity to heart. Open a thread with the title "The Problem With Neo" and you wouldn't have to wait 5 posts for the first bash. When you gave your honest opinion of Kaydot you got a similarly heated response from many members. Were you bashing or being disrespectful then? I didn't think so and I thought others over-reacted, just as I see you over-reacting now. IMO You are the one not being respectful and it would appear to go directly against your signature statement. Think things over a bit before you respond to something like this, and then respond with facts that can be verified or at least can be debated, instead of responding with indignant hyperbole. Those of us who have problems with prog metal have attempted, in what I see as really gentle terms, (and specific musical terms) to explain what those problems are. Cert has a problem with form, which from a musical point of view I must agree with. He sees pushing the boundries of existing forms as being a constituent quality of prog-rock. You unfortunately, made contradictory statements with respect to your understanding (or lack of understanding) in this area. First you invite him to "un-dumb" you and then state you'd rather remain an idiot. Which is it? The former is available if you want it, but no one can rob you of your right to the latter. For myself, my main problem with PM is, as I stated earlier in the thread, that the players seem to have no sense of when NOT to play. This spoils it for me, the constancy of playing everything they know wears me out long before the record is over. I like a little more open space in my music and the lack of space robs Prog metal of a lot of the emotional impact it might otherwise have. As I said earlier "everything, all the time" takes away the power to affect one's emotions. Children with a true gift at "manipulation" are NOT the ones you see screaming in restaraunts. The ones with the real gift understand instictively that they have to vary their tactics to get the desired result. For me, PM bands don't understand this concept, and if you want to go into comparitive musical analysis on the issue we can do that. We can find points of referrence for comparison. In another thread some time ago you extolled the virtues of Mahler. If you use mahler as a point of reference for greatness, you would soon see where PM falls flat. Find a frame of comparison and let's look at it rationally. As the list of bands I have sampled tallies in excess of 25 CDs (well over 30 hours of music) I can't accept the "you obviously haven't listened to Prog Metal" argument. I obviously have and I formed my opinion of it's "problems" based on that experience. The fact that my experience and Cert's line up pretty nearly 100% may be coincidence or it may indicate something else; I don't know, but I find it interesting.

Hold on now, I really enjoy prog, and metal, but I hate all of those bands you listed, and agree with your critique...

I am not the only person who is saying that the problem with prog metal is that people only listen to DT and DT clones.

How about Neurosis? Gordian Knot? Devil Doll? Spiral Architect? MotW/Kayo Dot? That is what I have in mind, when I speak of progressive metal.


Edited by Thobjorn - March 28 2007 at 19:23

Not worthy of your time.

Edited by The T - March 29 2007 at 14:40

I took no offense and appreciate your respopnse T. I thought you might have over-looked what Cert was saying about form and how it relates to a "degree of progressiveness to him". I don't see it entirely that way, although I admit it is a factor for me, but it is only one of many.

You're quite right that the thread was bound be difficult from the get-go. That said, I think it has been handled pretty well considerreing the high emotional state that our own favorites tend to produce in us. I don't know about the reviews. I don't write them and I don't read them. I was simply looking at what was said here in the forum. Cert (like Ivan Melgar M in some ways) likes a spirited debate, so if you come back with facts and well thought-out responses you'll get more out of it. I have a coouple of new things to check out as a result of my discussion with Mike a page or so back. I'm looking forward to it.

BTW, I'd have to say that the NEO team takes a more severe and unrelenting beating (bashing) than the Prog metal fans, but it's a pretty close call.

As for my age, well I'm older than you and your kids put together (most likely). Let's just say I might well have bought a Blue Cheer album when it was first released.

Edited by Certif1ed - March 29 2007 at 07:55

^ of course growling is more "radical" than simply using distorted guitars ... it's inherently aggressive. But ever since people started growling that vocal style is being used ... it has become an accepted style. With my comparison I just wanted to show that whenever something very unusual occurs you get this "total denial" reaction from some people ... and ten years later it might be the most normal thing in the world.

T:

The Musical Box is a more traditional musical structure than Supper's Ready. Supper's Ready is what theorists would call an "episodic" composition. In other words it is a group of short "songs" glued together with some transitional material. Some of the material from the opening returns at the end giving it a "complete" feel. Pictures at an Exhibition is a good example of an episodic orchestral piece. Almost every epic Neal Morse has written also follows this episodic pattern with a return of the opening theme at the end. It's fun and I like them alot, but as a composer, it is much more challenging (and complicated) to work within a structure that forces you to constantly re-think the material you've already written, so in that way the "traditional' forms are more complex, when they are approached with a high degree of creative artistry. When they are not, as basic radio pap music, they are flat out boring.

The Musical Box comes much closer to utilizing a more "classical" approach to form. The opening section (up to about 4:00) could be seen as either a sonata form exposition (the themes are too closely related in character for me to agree with this, but some might see it) or as a set of variations. The melodic and harmonic material here lends itself to the type of textural variation that early Genesis were so adept at creating. They take the same basic progression (in this case without even changing the key) and re-work it is a number of subtle ways. I see the beginning as intro and A section which could be further briooken down into A1, A2, A3 if you want to delineate the variations.

This is followed by the loud, fast section which in my own analysis would be a B section. It doesn't have enough direct relation to the opening material to be a true development section in my opinion.

A short recap of the A section follows. The return of the opening material is not extensive enough to make it a recapitulation, so once we get to this point we can pretty much throw Sonata form out the window as far as this tune is concerned.

The Now, Now, Now" Coda which is related to the B Section, but not a repeat of it, closes the piece out.

So what you get is Intro-A-B-A1-Coda. A very typical song form from the Romantic era that you might see in Schubert and would certainly be seeing reguarly by the time of Wolf and Mahler.

Whether you, personally find trhis a more complex structure than the episodic one used in Supper's Ready, I can't say. In some ways it might look simpler because of the re-use of some melodic material, but from a compositional stand-ppoint this type of composition is a great deal more challenging than an episodic one as I mentioned above. I think this is what Cert may be tallking about when he says Learning To Live is simpler in structure. Pastiche or collage techniques are not as difficult to create as really creative structured work.

I must say I disagree with him when he says musical form is about the entire work. Nearly 9 years of study have taught me that musical form is about the structure, the building blocks. You can have a text-book piece in any of the known forms and it can be terrible. You can also have pieces that slip ansd slide around the "rules" to some extent which are great.

What I'm think I am seeing in this discussion is the idea that the episodic structures are more complex than the more traditional ones, and from the particular vantage point someone with a lot of formal music training, I can say with absolute confidence that this is NOT true. They are interesting and have lots of contrasts and other types of shifts in tonality and tempo, but as odd as it might sound this does not make them more complex, only more varied.

Please bring your siggy back T. You're AOK by me as always.

Edited by Trademark - March 29 2007 at 16:29

Edited by MikeEnRegalia - March 29 2007 at 17:00

^ I meant that I see no point in trying to modify rock music so that it implements all the advanced concepts of classical music. I understand the fascination that some people have with form ... I just don't think that it's *the* most important thing, and I'm happy to see that there are many different opinions on the subject.

Thanks for your heads up regarding the possibility for me to learn music theory ... of course it could increase my appreciation of music. Maybe I'll get a good book and "scratch the surface", who knows what might happen.

About the Heaven's Cry songs: It appears like none of the sample tracks are working on that server ... I'll ask the webmaster. In the meantime you can check out their music here: http://www.myspace.com/heavenscryband

MikeEnRegalia wrote:   they *are* more complex than ABA.