The "problem" with prog metal

 

worst post of all time

 

(after my last post before my last before the one that precede this one, of course)

 

 

Let's talk about the name. So let's agree for a minute that form and the development of it was one of the basic premises of the original progressive rock. We can say, then, that prog-metal in fact is not AS prog as we'd like it to be, OK. But let's also agree that about 70% of the genres listed in this site also disagree with the principle of form-as-basis for "progressiveness". We can safely say that most RIO, Art-rock, Electronic/space, and all the others, are not exactly here BECAUSE of form, but for other factors. Many "art-rock" bands play music in common structures that don't deviate from the norm a little bit, but they add instrumentation, they add colors, they add textures, they play with harmonies in ways that regular rock bands don't do. So we include them here. That's the same with prog-metal. It may have the wrong name, we shoud call it, as Teacher-Peter suggested, Zog-Metal or something, because it's true that it's not as closely related to the original prog-rock as the name would imply, but the genre still deserves to be here, and that will be part of my second point. Form is not the basis for inclusion in PA, and hence, we can say that most 80% of the members in PA don't think band X or Y is prog because of their work with forms. And as we can safely say that genres don't EXIST, but we CREATE them for researching and other purposes, it's OUR prerrogative ("our" in this case meaning the owners of the site, the collaborators and ALSO the regular members who make this place a living entity) to have certain particular set of guidelines as to decide whether to call a band prog or not. I agree: prog-metal is not TRULY "prog" if we use the original meaning of the expression (if it ever had one and only one) but it is "prog" because it falls into what we think as prog.

 

The second point I want to make is this: one of the biggest reasons for many of us loving and categorizing bands as "prog" is because they are in it FIRST for the music, SECOND for the cash or whatever else you may think of. In the past, in the glorious days of music, what moved musicians? Let's say first that in earlier centuries, performer and composer were two different things. We had lots of examples of composers-performers (Lizst, Beethoven, Bruckner, etc... Hundreds in fact!) but most of the times the music was composed FOR SOMEBODY ELSE TO PLAY IT. What do I want to say with it? Composers wrote music for MUSIC's SAKE first and foremost. (Well, if we dug deep in the corners of the subconcious we may say that it was egotistical reasons or self-satisfaction that moved them and artists in general, but let's leave this out of the picture for now). They didn't have "celebrity" or "the classical music hall of fame" or "MTV Viola Da Gamba Awards" in mind, they just composed because it was their passion, and that's why they spent so many years in developing... music!!! Who would actually devote years and years to a single symphony? Who would dedicate his life to discover the intrincacies of keys and harmonies? Who would write a treaty on counterpoint and fugue as his last work, one that surely wasn't going to be "popular"? Yes, they did it for money, too (hey, they had to eat, they had ladies to entertain, they had "bills" to pay), but that was just the regular "my craft, my profession, my way of live" thing, not the race-for-money-and-cars-and-ho's as it is today. They did it for the music.

 

What does that have to do with prog and prog-metal? Well, something. (that was a poor sentence). No, seriously. What we distinguish in most prog-metal bands is that what they do is usually not very "mass-oriented" music, they play metal, sure, but they don't play the metal that sells millions or moves crowds. They do it the other way. They care for music first, fame later. Do you really think Metallica tried to do anything with their music? No, they wrote and played the music they COULD play and they loved to play, the one that reflected their attituted, and that's fine. Many of the bands we call "prog-metallers" do "weird" things with their songs: 20 minute songs? extended solos? sudden rhythm changes? unusual orchestration and instruments? Ok, many of those attempt at going "over the genre" may be flawed and sound, to the ears of the conosseiur, as bombastic, pretentious, erroneous, superflous, whatever "ous" you can find.... But that's the thing that, in the minds of many of us, MAKES PROG: the attempt to TRY IT, the desire to GO FOR IT even if the results are ridiculous. To use the much-maligned and hated Images&Words by Dream Theater example (attention: not that I am particularly fond of this band): yes, I will say (for the sake of my argument, NOT BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT) that the music is overblown and there's too many solos and that "Learning to Live"'s structure is not incredibly complex and that John Petrucci smells kind of funny and that Mike Portnoy appears to be on crack and whatever you want... just one thing: DID, or DID IT NOT, this awful album, change history for metal (or for "prog"-metal, better said)? NONE will be able to deny this. Even if you try and say Queensyche or Fates Warning were the first ones, it was I&W that changed everything for the genre. (If not, there wouldn't be som many DT-clones out there... And better start realizing something: is not the fault of the original band that clones start appearing) Ok, so what's this have to do with anything? The fact that, as flawed as that awful album may be, it WAS AN ATTEMPT TO MAKE MORE OUT OF METAL. Maybe not in form, maybe they didn't accomplish it (again, I don't believe it, but for my argument's sake), but they DID IT FOR MUSICAL REASONS ANYWAY. Extended songs? Abrupt time changes? Solo after solo after solo? You may say whatever you want about those elements being exaggerated or not "true prog", I may even agree if we agree that "true prog" is a concept related to form first and foremost. But you WON'T BE ABLE to say that those elements weren't a true attempt to take metal a little further than what your regular Metallica tried.

 

And THAT"S what makes them prog, maybe not "prog" in the true sense of the word, but PROG in the sense that MOST PROG-FANS use and understand.

 

The problem with prog-metal? I guess the problem lies in trying to analyze it with othher genres and structures in mind.

 

Analyze it for what it is, love it for what it is. Just metal. More complicated metal, metal created for music's sake, metal created by trying to make it more interesting, metal written with much more difficulties than your regular 5 minute, one key Metallica song. But still METAL.

 

Metal in essence is a little noisy. You know, the chords and tones used in the genre are not particularly "loveable". But these musicians try, within the borders of that limitant, to make it more interesting.

 

And I think it's of great merit to actually be able to create intelligent, difficult, virtuosic music having noise and distorsion as prime materials.

 

How to check if something could be prog metal? Make an average person hear regular Metal. Make anyone hear Metallica, even their most complicated songs (And Justice for ALl for example)... they will bear it... if they can bear the noise of course.

 

Make the same person hear "Learning to Live"... unless he WANTS to get more out of music that just entertainment, he won't get past the solos and the time signature changes....

 

Prog-Metal: not for your average metal listener. Because it TRIES TO BE MORE.

 

Whatever the hell I just wrote, I didn't check it, so it should have errors, incongruences and contradictions. But it comes from my heart ....

 

... hey! Just the same as Prog Metal!!!