What makes Progressive Metal progressive?

CCVP wrote: The T wrote: And your little-advertised website's  inclusion of Metallica's MOP as prog metal just requires a MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ In fact opinion is divided on the subject ... you're welcome to help cement the prog status. Why only Master of Puppets? From Ride the Lightning  to . . .And Justice for All they sure made some kind of "progressive thrash metal" and DO deserve a place among the progressive metal bands. BRING METALLICA TO PA NOW!!!!!! (fist in the air) (or at least a place at the prog related because of their importance to the genre)

Why only Master of Puppets? Well, submit your opinion at RF (in the form of ratings and tags) and you'll help setting things straight.

Elements Part II
You mention Ride The Lightning, and I agree with some of what you say about it. Solos? Randy Rhoads is a prime example of a metal soloist who was definitely in the virtuoso field of metal soloing technique at the time, definitely head and shoulders above in technical ability to the average NWOBHM guitarist of the time.
His solos were more meticulous than Kirk's for sure, and just in general a more skilled and fluent soloist than Kirk. You get that sense many of Kirks solos, even some of the ones one RTL, are somewhat improvisational in nature, wheras Rhoads' solos always seemed more composed and perhaps more "harmonically correct" for a lack of a better phrase, in the musical context. Take into account Kirk's admittedly terrible and almost complete lack of vibrato ability and control at the time and perhaps even worse now, there is no doubt to my mind Rhoads was one of the great pioneering metal soloists of his time, and Kirk was perhaps sometimes just going through the motions.
Megadeth? Archaic sounding compared to Metallica? Yes, I would say Peace Sells... as an album was definitely less complex in structure to Metallica's release in the same year, Master Of Puppets. The same went for the two band's 1988 releases, Megadeth's So Far So Good...So What? and Metallica's ... And Justice For All.
But archaic compared to Metallica? No way. Megadeth's work sounded just as modern, and to me some of SFSGSW has actually aged a lot better than some of AJFA.
Now for the next two studio albums the bands would release, Metallica's self titled and Megadeth's Rust In Peace. The self titled album, is just regressive and to be honest I can't listen to the album at all anymore, especially when you consider what a musically exciting path Metallica was heading on until Bob Rock came into the perspective.
Rust In Peace, on the other hand, while still not as structurally progressive as either MoP or AJFA, was easily more technically challenging than anything Metallica had and has so far ever done.
One of the reasons why, is the introduction of Marty Friedman into the band.
While one could nail the feel of Kirk Hammetts solos in a matter of months (I used to be able to play the Fade To Black solo perfectly, but I no longer practice that song), you would have to spend perhaps years to really nail all the subtleties in Marty's playing. His intense and incredibly well controlled vibrato technique, superb bending technique, exotic phrasing, mastery of the sweep picking technique, and the way he could dig the pick into the strings to give certain phrases more bite, were all really part of what makes Marty a true virtuoso compared to Kirk whom I would say was certainly skilled but not particularly challenging.
The guitarists that came into the band after Marty left couldn't nail Marty's style on RIP, proof of how of unique Marty's style was to him, yet I've heard many that could easily sound like Kirk.
The Tornado of souls solo is one of the benchmark solos people have used to compare Marty and post Marty guitarists with, and so far Chris Broderick has the more accurate emulation of that solo, but Broderick himself is incredily unique anyway and still will never sound like Marty.
Given the amount of people that cite RIP as the best thrash metal album of all time, including myself, there is not a doubt in my mind that album played a part in shaping technical metal to come and prog metal. While MoP was clearly more influential on bands like Dream Theater and late 80s/early 90s prog metal, I'm now starting to really hear the Rust In Peace influence in some of the more modern prog metal bands
Also, albums like Dragon's Kiss, Marty's first solo album, was at the time IMO, at least close to MoP in progressiveness. While I wouldn't call Dragon's Kiss prog in any strict sense, if you look at the extended composition Forbidden City, which has many twists and turns and is fairly complex, and the album closer, Thunder March with it's use of counterpoint with the electric guitar, it was obviously not a radio friendly poppy glam metal affair. And as it's happened, many prog metal guitarists cite that album as being influential on their musical development.

Metallica
Now for the Metallica debate that has sprung up in this page, I agree with a lot of what Cert had to say.
While Kill 'Em All is not prog in the way many of us have come to know it as, I'd be hard pressed to find many bands doing what Metallica had done for metal music in general in 1981 to their release of Kill 'Em All. This is where Dave Mustaine being a hugely influential musician gains even more strength IMO, as he was helping to pioneer the thrash genre before he had even started up Megadeth, which itself was massively influential on the thrash movement.
And of course RTL was a step up in compositional complexity and musicanship, and MoP even more so. AJA was a step up again, although the bass work not quite so, due to Newsted not even being heard, and he was known to not possess the skill Burton had.

DT
As for the Dream Theater argument, I think if were just to look at like Cert has, perhaps DT weren't that amazing.
But to have simply gotten the keyboard player, and Petrucci not just using Hammett as his lead guitar model, but instead looking to true virtuosos like Joe Satriani, Steve Vai, and Steve Morse for inspiration (to name a few anyway) and to come up with these compositions that weren't NWOBHM, and weren't just jumping on the Thrash metal bandwagon (thrash was a genre that had become over saturated with too many bands that were no longer being innovative like the earlier bands), is to my mind something that took a lot of testicular fortitude to do.
It would be easy to just do the NWOBHM or thrash metal thing again, but what DT did wasn't easy, in terms of reaching commericial sucess with it, and not easy in the literal musical sense of raising the bar of musicianship and compositional complexity for metal.


Edited by HughesJB4 - June 17 2008 at 06:10

HughesJB4 wrote:  (...) no doubt to my mind Rhoads was one of the great pioneering metal soloists of his time, and Kirk was perhaps sometimes just going through the motions. (...)

Edited by Certif1ed - June 17 2008 at 09:37

Certif1ed wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: Certif1ed wrote:   Along with Queensryche, Iron Maiden, Rush - who is it to be? No - I meant that if you could name only *one* band which symbolises Prog Metal then it would definitely have to be Dream Theater. The only other band which I would consider are Fates Warning, but Dream Theater are the #1 Prog Metal band.   Yes, but those other bands are also Prog Metal, and they preceeded them historically, is what I meant.   You can't define a genre from a band that came to it, say, 15 years too late (if we assume that Rush were first with 2112).

Rush are not prog metal ... not even close.

In my book it all started to take form around 1988/1989, with the Dream Theater debut and Fates Warning - Perfect Symmetry. Of course you don't have to agree ... but IMO those albums are for Prog Metal what Genesis - Foxtrot and Yes - CttE are for Prog Rock!

Certif1ed wrote: I must admit I found it hard to swallow, except in the absolutely literal sense of the word "Progressive" - ie, something different enough to sound new and exciting. Dream Theater simply added a keyboard and a sheen of technical mastery to a style of music that had been there for at least a decade - they did not re-invent the music in the same dramatic way that Rush or Diamond Head did. Or Iron Maiden or Metallica, come to that.

It reminds me a little of the dilemma Bruce Lee's followers had after he died.  The form of martial art he developed and taught, Jeet Kune Do, was designed to be always evolving, fluid, and able to adapt to any opponent or situation.. essentially a progressive fighting style, a 'way of no way' as he put it.  But over the years as his approach was taught to others, it became a rigid system with rules and techniques never meant to be adhered to.  Sorry, had to slip in the martial arts analogy

 

Atavachron wrote: It reminds me a little of the dilemma Bruce Lee's followers had after he died.  The form of martial art he developed and taught, Jeet Kune Do, was designed to be always evolving, fluid, and able to adapt to any opponent or situation.. essentially a progressive fighting style, a 'way of no way' as he put it.  But over the years as his approach was taught to others, it became a rigid system with rules and techniques never meant to be adhered to.  Sorry, had to slip in the martial arts analogy

That's actually a very nice analogy. There are essentially two aspects colliding: The style and the approach. Followers can either copy the original style, or develop new styles using the approach of the original artists. The former is more easily recognisable as being similar to the original, especially by people without a musical background. The latter is more interesting and rewarding to check out, but also much harder to recognize or identify since it requires in-depth knowledge. It's surely quite difficult for someone who has never played an instrument or studied music theory to indentify concepts like Counter-Point or modal scales, cadenzas etc. in a piece of music, let alone the intricate form/structure required by Certif1ed's definition. In effect, his definition is quite radical, and something with which I sympathize, but it would also alienate many "progheads" which are more used to comparing styles and simple elements. In a nutshell by his definition Dream Theater would be replaced with Metallica ...


Edited by MikeEnRegalia - June 19 2008 at 02:53

debrewguy wrote: A few comments here First, that quote from Emmerson - Does that mean we eliminate Krautrock from PA ? Oh, wait, that music is not repetitive, it is "droning". Or as they say in some quarters - prog music means not having to make up your mind as to what song you're playing (now you hear it, now you don't!)   I believe you're making a generalization about Krautrock that denies it's essence, Krautrock started as German Psyche, and for that reason exploring foreign influences rarely used in Rock before.   Yes, they have repetitive rhythm, but the exploration of the posibilities is in other point, they were the first to really use the heavy atmospheres and the spacey sounds, so they explored the posibilities as Emerson said, not my cup of tea, but they really deserve the name of Prog. Second, prog metal is doomed because it is associated with metal. Metal is associated with noise. Noise is associated with RIO/Avant-Garde and Krautrock, therefore Prog Metal is not prog.   That's called reduction to absurd, and would only work if the screams and noise were an exclusive characteristic of a non Prog genre, but it's not, you have noise in early Psyche if not listen Careful with that Axe Eugene also with early Hard Prog, you can listen Uriah Heep or Deep Purple or even the distorted noises that King Crimson used and Uriah Heep, or the noises inclueded in early space Pink Flyd albums .   Noise can be found anywhere. Third - Prog Metal can't be prog 'cause there are loud guitars and screaming singers.   Loud guitars: Marillion, Heep, Deep Purple, Kansas, Genesis (Listen Giant Hogweed), Rush,   Screams: Have you ever listened the Musical Box Final section, or Giant Hogweed or Supper's Ready? Of course if you don't want to mention David Byron, David Surkamp, Geddy Lee, etc and even the ballad oriented Greg Lake singing 21st Century Schizoid Man with heavy distorted guitars.   There are screams everywhere.   Fourth - Keyboards are necessary for a band to be considered prog ?   I don't believe so, instruments don't make the music, musicians make the music. Fifth - No , really , keyboards are necessary for a band to be prog ?   Honestly, I believe not. Sixth - Can someone stop that ringing ?///}   Ask a doctor, may be the same virus that attacked Phil Collins and caused him tinittus.   Iván

micky wrote: Atavachron wrote: It reminds me a little of the dilemma Bruce Lee's followers had after he died.  The form of martial art he developed and taught, Jeet Kune Do, was designed to be always evolving, fluid, and able to adapt to any opponent or situation.. essentially a progressive fighting style, a 'way of no way' as he put it.  But over the years as his approach was taught to others, it became a rigid system with rules and techniques never meant to be adhered to.  Sorry, had to slip in the martial arts analogy   hhahha...  f**king A.... post of the week right there.... anyone who can work a Bruce Lee analogy into a Prog Metal thread.... is truly God on Earth for the week

Agreed

What the?

As far as i know and as far as anyone that i know who is old enough to have lived that period Rush was NOT a progressive rock band neither a progressive metal one (what the hell?), just a terrific HARD ROCK band. It just happens that people who lived when history is in the making don't know the exact outcome of things and, about Rush, that was what happened. some years later (i think on the early 90's, already in internet chat things) Rush's classification changed widely to progressive rock wile it was still a hard rock band, which was quite reasonable since they for sure had some of the progressive rock elements.

Nowadays its classification is changing again to progressive metal. People, we HAVE to remember that, if we are going to change Rush's classification we'd better change also Deep Purple's and Led Zeppelin's to metal and also keep in mind that the measuring stick for old school metal is Black Sabbath. Come on, think about it: if Rush indeed was a progressive metal band, they would not had only invented progressive metal, but also they would be one of the inventors of metal itself.

Atavachron wrote: It reminds me a little of the dilemma Bruce Lee's followers had after he died.  The form of martial art he developed and taught, Jeet Kune Do, was designed to be always evolving, fluid, and able to adapt to any opponent or situation.. essentially a progressive fighting style, a 'way of no way' as he put it.  But over the years as his approach was taught to others, it became a rigid system with rules and techniques never meant to be adhered to.  Sorry, had to slip in the martial arts analogy

i wish i could have thought that, since it falls right into what i just said: some classifications are just forced, like putting Rush in the prog metal genre. Just let it be where it belongs: the hard rock session (and occasionally on the prog rock ).