The fathers of Prog Metal

The.Crimson.King wrote: <div style=": rgb255, 255, 255; margin-left: 1px; margin-top: 1px; margin-right: 1px; margin-bottom: 1px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: rgb0, 0, 0; font-weight: normal; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.2; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; -: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba26, 26, 26, 0.296875; -webkit-com-fill-color: rgba175, 192, 227, 0.230469; -webkit-com--color: rgba77, 128, 180, 0.230469; "> Dean wrote: The.Crimson.King wrote: You're allowed to be wrong as well.  Posting Sam Dunn's chart is hardly indisputable evidence as far as I'm concerned and I stand by my opinion.  This is agree to disagree time. I'm male, so to half the population I'm always wrong. People thinking I am wrong is the reason I get into these discussions, so of course I am allowed to be wrong, the onus on proving that to be the case falls on other people, simply disagreeing proves nothing.   The chart isn't evidence it is mere illustration - I could have picked one of dozens of similar charts, again merely as illustration, just as you picked My Dying Bride and Mötley Crüe as illustrations not evidence. We could do a survey of all the metal family trees out there and analyse them to see if Doom Metal and Progressive Metal appeared as a subgenres of the metal genre by consensus of those chart compilers, that would be closer to what I would regard as evidence.   If you can demonstrate to me (using Nicholas's own example) that apples and oranges are not fruit, then I will think about considering the logic of the argument as being partway to possibly not being wrong. Your argument appears to be based upon the premise that oranges are the only fruit and apples are a different classification of vegetable seed production. Now, if he'd chosen berries instead of fruit it would have been a different story: grapes, blueberries, peppers, oranges, pumpkins and bananas are all berries whereas strawberries and apples are not. The botanical reasons why apples and strawberries (and figs) are fruits but not berries is based upon the how and where the fleshy part of the fruit is formed and that is the common defining characteristic of strawberries, apples and figs (botanically they are called accessory fruit). {good grief Penfold, it comes to something when I have to create my own straw[berry]man argument in an attempt prove myself wrong}.   If you believe that Black Sabbath, Mötley Crüe and Motörhead are "true" Metal then all the subgenres of Metal are separate genres not subgenres, but that ignores the defining common characteristic of those subgenres - which is that they are Metal (Prog Metal without the Metal is just Prog Rock is it not? Symphonic Metal without Metal is just Symphonic Rock, Folk Metal without Metal is just Folk, Thrash Metal without Metal is just Punk Rock, etc. etc.).   Is this a disagreeing or just contradicting? Anyway, I never agree to disagree. I rather enjoyed your fruit and vegetable illustration - and I learned a few things about botany -  but let me illustrate my opinion with another family of the food kingdom.  When I was a kid, I discovered I was allergic to nuts.  My throat would swell up and I had trouble breathing (same as today).  I was told to avoid nuts at all cost, so I did.  However, being a kid, occasionally breaking the rules was a prerequisite, so I found myself devouring an Almond Joy.  Allergic reaction?  None.  Then I tried a Payday bar loaded with peanuts.  Allergic reaction?  None.  Then I tried a Sees Candy walnut bar.  Allergic reaction?  You betcha!  When my handlers discovered I was experimenting with nut filled candies they freaked so I was put back on the wagon. Fast forward 20 years.  Almond Joy, Payday, Heath Bar, Baby Ruth all were occasional treats and still no allergic reaction.  How in the world can you be allergic to nuts and able to eat almonds and peanuts?  A little research and the answer made perfect sense.  Almonds are not nuts, they are a member of the peach family.  Peanuts are not nuts, they are legumes (beans).     Metal = nuts.  Doom metal = almonds.  Prog metal = peanuts.  Are almonds a subgenre of nuts?  No, but 99% of the population believes they are.  Does that make it true?  No.  Does someone with a nut allergy have an allergic reaction to almonds just because they "think" they're eating a nut?  No.  What about peanuts?  Surely something with the word "nut" in it's name must be a member of the nut family?  <span ="apple-style-span"="" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba26, 26, 26, 0.292969; -webkit-com-fill-color: rgba175, 192, 227, 0.230469; -webkit-com--color: rgba77, 128, 180, 0.230469; ">If "prog-metal" must be a form of metal simply by virtue of it's name, then aren't "pea-nuts" surely nuts?  No.  <span ="apple-style-span"="" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba26, 26, 26, 0.292969; -webkit-com-fill-color: rgba175, 192, 227, 0.230469; -webkit-com--color: rgba77, 128, 180, 0.230469; ">Do musical subgenres really have anything to do with fruits, vegetables, or nuts?  You say tomayto I say tomahto.</span></span> <span ="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba26, 26, 26, 0.296875; -webkit-com-fill-color: rgba175, 192, 227, 0.230469; -webkit-com--color: rgba77, 128, 180, 0.230469; ">Just because those around me (doctors, parents, etc) were convinced that almonds and peanuts were dangerous and would trigger my allergic response, my direct experience told me otherwise.  Just because others are convinced that prog metal/doom metal/etc = metal, my direct experience tells me otherwise.  If that is not the definition of a subjective opinion where different views from my own aren't "wrong" but simply "different", I don't know what is.</span>

I really like the way you put this and it makes a lot of sense actually. We simply cannot label things contrary to popular belief. I tried to explain this like you did, but failed. Lol. This is a great analogy and I can agree with it.
Nuts...almonds...peanuts. Not the same. Nuts(Metal) almonds (Prog metal)...you can look at this way and the seed classification of what constitutes being a nut in the first place can be co related to metal's evolutionary process. Evolution breeds difference and sometimes refinement in most cases, and it certainly applies to what we have been talking about here. Very interesting.

progbethyname wrote: I guess my analogies did not measure up to illustrate my point very well, however I think you know where I'm coming from. But, I tell ya Dean, you make a pretty convincing argument for all of this. As for Analogies. Yup. You picked them a part pretty well and certainly venturing into the 7 classes of taxonomy for living things isn't gonna make things easier to understand, so my humans and reptiles comparison can take a back seat.

Edited by Dean - September 16 2013 at 19:01

Dean wrote: I see less classification in a book store than I do in a record store - I don't see dozens of sections for all the subgenres of fiction - General Fiction, Sci-Fi and Fantasy, Horror, Romance, Crime and Humour - and that's about it - there may be a Historical Fiction section if you are lucky, but you don't find Gothic Romance or Speculative Fiction sections, you selom see Sci-Fi and Fantasy seperated, so you certainly don't see the Fantasy section subdivided into High and Low Fantasy, Medieval Fantasy, Science Fantasy, Heroic Fantasy, Dark Fantasy, Swords and Sorcery Fantasy, Mythic Fantasy or Contempory Fantasy. And nor would you seriously expect a book shop to go into that level of detail in all realistic honesty.

Dean wrote: progbethyname wrote: I guess my analogies did not measure up to illustrate my point very well, however I think you know where I'm coming from. But, I tell ya Dean, you make a pretty convincing argument for all of this. As for Analogies. Yup. You picked them a part pretty well and certainly venturing into the 7 classes of taxonomy for living things isn't gonna make things easier to understand, so my humans and reptiles comparison can take a back seat. I have a bit of a one-man crusade regarding analogies because they are just supposed to be illustrations and they are supposed to make the thing they are analoguous to easier to understand and/or explain. That's it. Period (as you American's say). Picking apart an analogy does not win an argument - proving the analogy wrong does not prove the argument wrong, it just show that the analogy is flawed in someway, all I did was correct the flaws and in doing so showed them to be a better analogy for illustrating my argument than they were for yours. 7 levels of taxonomy is perhaps over the top, but that's because you picked "animals" to compare with "humans" in your analogy - you set the seven levels not I.   progbethyname wrote: As for how I feel about books. When I go into book store i usually see books neatly classified and separated into proper genres and sub genres a like. My point is that music is not given the same attention to detail as books with regards to proper separation of genres and subject matter. That's all. I see less classification in a book store than I do in a record store - I don't see dozens of sections for all the subgenres of fiction - General Fiction, Sci-Fi and Fantasy, Horror, Romance, Crime and Humour - and that's about it - there may be a Historical Fiction section if you are lucky, but you don't find Gothic Romance or Speculative Fiction sections, you selom see Sci-Fi and Fantasy seperated, so you certainly don't see the Fantasy section subdivided into High and Low Fantasy, Medieval Fantasy, Science Fantasy, Heroic Fantasy, Dark Fantasy, Swords and Sorcery Fantasy, Mythic Fantasy or Contempory Fantasy. And nor would you seriously expect a book shop to go into that level of detail in all realistic honesty. progbethyname wrote: As for the NIN comment. It's as you said, you spotted a generic chart of google and used it as an example. Those 'generic' classifications are not definitive and that is how I feel about NIN's placement in that chart. Industrial? NIN classified mainly as Industrail? That's all on that point. And of course NIИ are filed under "Industrial", (where else would they be? In the special Reznor section?) you are rapidly losing me here as your classifications do not seem to agree with anything, let alone some random genre chart culled from a random google search. progbethyname wrote: But overall, I hope you can see where I stand and where I am coming from. The last thing I want is a misunderstanding. Actually, I honestly think a lot of what you said is very truthful but I think we may be at a crossroads cause it's coming down to a matter of opinion and subjectivity. I just want to say though, weather you think I'm right or wrong, is that it comes down to what you've actually listened to or explored in the metal world of things. I feel the way I feel cause as you know I feel their is a massive difference. Lastly, I cannot just through everything under 'metal' and by doing so it has saved me from a few headaches when discussing music with others. Less embarrassment as you listed. ;) Of course I can see where you are coming from, I simply see that as being completely wonky-thinking. I have been a fan of metal since it began and I have sampled practically every subgenre of metal that exists (meh, I tend to get a little brain-numbed by the plethora of ---core subgenres, they seem to proliferate like rabbits dependant on which key the band farts in, but I can live with that by simply ignoring them), so I am aware that one subgenre (generally) sounds massively different to another - even between Power Metal, Symphonic Metal, Progressive Metal and Battle Metal.... I cannot for the life of me say that Traditional Progressive Metal is even remotely similar to Technical Progressive Metal or Post Metal, but they are all still Metal no matter how I dice them. There is a massive difference between Punk Rock and Prog Rock, and there is a degree of animosity between some fans, but we can still throw them under Rock. If you are ashamed of Metal then you have no case to answer - I tell people I like metal and they can take that or eff-off. (I'm 56 years old and look like Gandalf on a bad hair day, do you think I care what people think?) progbethyname wrote: I all respect to and for music, I think that a separate classification for metal and Prog metal is necessary as you already know. Calling a spade a spade is prosaic and lacks detail. Simple logics don't always prevail and work mainly in this case of course. In all accounts though. I've appreciated this discussion. Thank you. :) We don't call Prog Metal a spade, we call it Prog Metal and that is as seperate and as detailed as it needs to be. I struggle to see how you would describe Progressive Metal without using the word "Metal"

I think so as well in regards to the use of analogies in a discussion. Also, not a good idea to get anal about the detail of them sometimes cause it does create a major deflection from the main points in the discussion that even we are having right now. But, it is important to be accurate and in a few cases I was not.
Continuing on, my point about books getting a better treatment as far as headings/classification still stands meaning my view has not changed because its just what I've experienced personally living here in Canada. I bet things may be different where you are and I gotta say that is good to hear. I hope your music stores have at least some structure similar to well run book store. ;)
And yeah, the NIN wall of sound does carry trace amounts of some Industrail, but of course to label NIN strictly as industrial in my opinion is incorrect. Industrial music is known as machine music or a metal on metal factory sound.
Bands like Combichrist, Fear Factory and Frontline assembly are Industrail purely speaking. Not NIN. If anything, NIN are far more electronic than anything else. Actually, to be fair, this was the point I was trying to make with how the media will just label things they don't understand. Reznor has even openly said he does not consider himself at all to be an industrial artist, and to be honest there is no 1 genre or sub genre you can definitively place NIN. NIN are a collection of sub genres electronic/goth rock/metal and industrial. Nowadays you can even throw in tech house and dance into his art. This is evident on his latest album if you care to listen to it. ;) But, as you said in a witty manner 'should we file Reznor in the special Reznor section of music?' I am actually for that lol! Then again, that would be ridiculas so the fair thing to do is just stick NIN somewhere so we can classify them...ok Industrail it is.

Lastly, and to very clear, I'm am not ashamed of Metal at all. It's evolutionary process has been incredibly interesting to me and I love it to death. Also, the sub-genres of metal (and there are tons) have been accurately classified. I just think at this point it's starting to get quite bloated and some separation would be best, especially if one were to go to a music store. Bunching everything under metal is gonna get real confusing and people are gonna start thinking its all the same sh*t...oh hell most people already do! Hey, you pointed out some metal sounds that are vastly different sounding and sifting through a metal 'chain of being' I believe left you feeling 'Brain numbed' and I do not blame you. It's like venturing through a series of cosmic worm holes now. Lol you may choose to 'ignore' the bloated-plethora that is metal planet, but I do not. Things can be easier...it's just time to not be lazy and start separating. Think of how much better Music stores would fair from this. Dumping everything that is somewhat metal oriented into one big-bloated pile in alphabetical order is not a good idea, but it won't change. Noway it won't. Logic is logic ergo metal simply has to be metal regardless of difference. Agh you know what my main problem with all of this is that dumping everything under 'Metal' specifically is gonna lead to a lot of misconceptions about 'Metal' in general. People are gonna think its all one kind of sound and that is a problem in my eyes. That is what bugs me the most and you have to admit Prog metal as a subgenre of metal while having say post/tech extreme metal as a sub genre of Prog metal is a little ridiculas I think. Sheesh...time for a change.
Time to elimate these silly worm holes. It's getting to be 'footnote' central. Lol

Dean wrote: progbethyname wrote: I really like the way you put this and it makes a lot of sense actually. We simply cannot label things contrary to popular belief. I tried to explain this like you did, but failed. Lol. This is a great analogy and I can agree with it. Nuts...almonds...peanuts. Not the same. Nuts(Metal) almonds (Prog metal)...you can look at this way and the seed classification of what constitutes being a nut in the first place can be co related to metal's evolutionary process. Evolution breeds difference and sometimes refinement in most cases, and it certainly applies to what we have been talking about here. Very interesting. Nope, if you are bringing evolution of Metal into the analogy then it really does not fit - almonds are not an evolutionary development of "nuts" so cannot be analogous to Prog Metal. Analogies only work at the level they are first described, if you have to bend them to fit they are bad analogies, if you try to bend them to fit they will break. Prog Metal was not called Prog Metal by consensus, it was called Prog Metal because it was Metal influenced by Progressive Rock.   We all know those genre genealogy charts are inaccurate. The reason they are inaccurate is because they suggest that all those subgenres developed independently and in isolation, which we know is not the case. Prog Metal did not develop independently to Power Metal or Thrash, or Black Metal, nor did it develop in isolation from all other subgenres of metal and rock music. Just as (as I said a million pages back) Dream Theatre did not develop in isolation from <SPAN =st>Queensrÿche, Savatage and Fates Warning. All those metal subgenres and all those metal bands influenced each other ether directly or indirectly by virtue of existing. </SPAN><SPAN =st>You can neither ignore nor discard that legacy.</SPAN> <SPAN =st> </SPAN>

Well Almonds are the big misconception because they taste and look like a nut, but in fact they are not a Nut.
So 'Almond' could represent some misrepresentations in the whole genology metal...like certain classifications that are in the metal tree, but aren't supposed to be. Overall though, I see your point but I think this analogy still works on level where Misrepresentation and classification errors are in 'Metal.' I mean it is an absolutely huge amount where by so many people are led to believe that an almond is a nut just people think metal is just metal (typically the yelling and screaming sort.) I think that is why The Almond is is quite significante here, but botanically speaking it doesn't fit into the genealogy, but the 'Almond' can serve as a very useful lesson to learn proper classification. :)

Ok Dean. Level with me in regards to the main topic of this forum. Who, in your opinion, can be counted as a father of Prog metal. Actually, plural would be better. I would like to hear what you think if you haven't listed it already...I might have missed that. ;)
Also, to comment on your age related feelings. Yeah being 56 and having a good appreciation for metal is a rare thing nowadays...well at least in my world....but I do understand your 'I don't give a f**k' attitude what others may think. I'm 24 years younger than you and I already don't give a f**k either, except when people misrepresent my music tastes like whole metal is just metal deal. In any case, it's great to have another metal/Prog Metal appreciator, Gandolf appearance or not. :)

progbethyname wrote: Well Almonds are the big misconception because they taste and look like a nut, but in fact they are not a Nut. So 'Almond' could represent some misrepresentations in the whole genology metal...like certain classifications that are in the metal tree, but aren't supposed to be. Overall though, I see your point but I think this analogy still works on level where Misrepresentation and classification errors are in 'Metal.' I mean it is an absolutely huge amount where by so many people are led to believe that an almond is a nut just people think metal is just metal (typically the yelling and screaming sort.) I think that is why The Almond is is quite significante here, but botanically speaking it doesn't fit into the genealogy, but the 'Almond' can serve as a very useful lesson to learn proper classification. :)

Dean wrote: progbethyname wrote: Well Almonds are the big misconception because they taste and look like a nut, but in fact they are not a Nut. So 'Almond' could represent some misrepresentations in the whole genology metal...like certain classifications that are in the metal tree, but aren't supposed to be. Overall though, I see your point but I think this analogy still works on level where Misrepresentation and classification errors are in 'Metal.' I mean it is an absolutely huge amount where by so many people are led to believe that an almond is a nut just people think metal is just metal (typically the yelling and screaming sort.) I think that is why The Almond is is quite significante here, but botanically speaking it doesn't fit into the genealogy, but the 'Almond' can serve as a very useful lesson to learn proper classification. :) The nut analogy has run its course, any further stretching, twisting, bending and massaging is pointless, it's never going to work. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and swims like a duck, and if it has feathers and webbed feet and associates with ducks we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family Anatidae on our hands. We cannot define a genre by what ill-informed people who have no knowledge of the genre think it is - that's dumbness of the first order - if some dumbass people think metal is yelling and screaming then they are ill-informed, unknowledge, uneducated, ignorant (in the dictionary definition, not the playground definition) and nescient ..,.which can be summarised in one word: wrong. I don't see the logic in changing something to accommodate people who are not (and who will never be) interested in it.   The misconception or misunderstanding is not with the fans of the genre or with anyone who understands it. progbethyname wrote: Ok Dean. Level with me in regards to the main topic of this forum. Who, in your opinion, can be counted as a father of Prog metal. Actually, plural would be better. I would like to hear what you think if you haven't listed it already...I might have missed that. ;) I said way back on Page 1 - Ironing Maiden.   For plural I'd add Metallica, but they would be playing second guitar.   The logic is simple.   1. It has to be a Metal band. 2. It has to be a Metal band that were not niche. 3. It has to be a Metal band that is not wholly Progressive Metal. 4. It has to be a Metal band that is widely regarded as influential on Metal and Progressive Metal. 5. It has to be a Metal band that is influenced by Progressive Rock. 6. It has to be a Metal band that used non-standard song structures. 7. It has to be a Metal band that experimented. 8. It has to be obvious.    There is a ninth prerequisite, which is they have to been successful prior to Progressive Metal appearing as a subgenre, and for that I'd consider any date between 1987 and 1989 as being the period where Prog Metal emerged from the primordial Metal soup, so only bands that hit the big-time before 1987 would qualify. Several of the nascent Prog Metal bands (Queensrÿche, Fates Warning, Savatage, Voivod) released albums before this time but they were neither Prog Metal nor were they not well known enough to be influential at that time.   Lots of bands can tick three or four of those boxes, several can tick five or six. I believe that only Metallica can tick seven boxes and only The Irons can tick all eight. (Metallica only tick seven boxes if we take their whole discography into account - if we only consider their first four albums as being influential on Prog Metal then they'd only tick six boxes (IMO)). The two poll options don't tick all eight boxes.     Of course other's may disagree with that, and they are welcome to.

Dean wrote: progbethyname wrote: Well Almonds are the big misconception because they taste and look like a nut, but in fact they are not a Nut. So 'Almond' could represent some misrepresentations in the whole genology metal...like certain classifications that are in the metal tree, but aren't supposed to be. Overall though, I see your point but I think this analogy still works on level where Misrepresentation and classification errors are in 'Metal.' I mean it is an absolutely huge amount where by so many people are led to believe that an almond is a nut just people think metal is just metal (typically the yelling and screaming sort.) I think that is why The Almond is is quite significante here, but botanically speaking it doesn't fit into the genealogy, but the 'Almond' can serve as a very useful lesson to learn proper classification. :) The nut analogy has run its course, any further stretching, twisting, bending and massaging is pointless, it's never going to work. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and swims like a duck, and if it has feathers and webbed feet and associates with ducks we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family Anatidae on our hands. We cannot define a genre by what ill-informed people who have no knowledge of the genre think it is - that's dumbness of the first order - if some dumbass people think metal is yelling and screaming then they are ill-informed, unknowledge, uneducated, ignorant (in the dictionary definition, not the playground definition) and nescient ..,.which can be summarised in one word: wrong. I don't see the logic in changing something to accommodate people who are not (and who will never be) interested in it.   The misconception or misunderstanding is not with the fans of the genre or with anyone who understands it. progbethyname wrote: Ok Dean. Level with me in regards to the main topic of this forum. Who, in your opinion, can be counted as a father of Prog metal. Actually, plural would be better. I would like to hear what you think if you haven't listed it already...I might have missed that. ;) I said way back on Page 1 - Ironing Maiden.   For plural I'd add Metallica, but they would be playing second guitar.   The logic is simple.   1. It has to be a Metal band. 2. It has to be a Metal band that were not niche. 3. It has to be a Metal band that is not wholly Progressive Metal. 4. It has to be a Metal band that is widely regarded as influential on Metal and Progressive Metal. 5. It has to be a Metal band that is influenced by Progressive Rock. 6. It has to be a Metal band that used non-standard song structures. 7. It has to be a Metal band that experimented. 8. It has to be obvious.    There is a ninth prerequisite, which is they have to been successful prior to Progressive Metal appearing as a subgenre, and for that I'd consider any date between 1987 and 1989 as being the period where Prog Metal emerged from the primordial Metal soup, so only bands that hit the big-time before 1987 would qualify. Several of the nascent Prog Metal bands (Queensrÿche, Fates Warning, Savatage, Voivod) released albums before this time but they were neither Prog Metal nor were they not well known enough to be influential at that time.   Lots of bands can tick three or four of those boxes, several can tick five or six. I believe that only Metallica can tick seven boxes and only The Irons can tick all eight. (Metallica only tick seven boxes if we take their whole discography into account - if we only consider their first four albums as being influential on Prog Metal then they'd only tick six boxes (IMO)). The two poll options don't tick all eight boxes.     Of course other's may disagree with that, and they are welcome to.

Well, I find your last point here very interesting about your opinion on 'the fathers of Prog' question that I asked you. I think the rest of what we spoke about can be put to bed, but I do appreciate all those other discussions.

As for your 8 point logic chart to illustrate your deductive reasoning for the fathers of Prog is interesting and I do agree with a lot of what you said except for your timeline 1987-1989 where prog metal became more refined from the beginnings of typical metal. I'd scale it back, and this is just my opinion cause I'm not gonna say your 'wrong', but consider between 1984-1986 as the obvious Prog metal evolving period. Look at albums like Queensrÿche's The Warning (1984) Rage for Order (1986) Fates Warning: Awaken The Guardian (1986) Metallica's Master of Puppets (1986) and lastly Ironic Maiden's Somewhere In Time (1986) :) I think all of these albums are albums that consistantly show an emergence of the metal primordial soup as you call it. So all in all, I think this would be the key time period of refined, consistent Prog metal emergence. Just an opinion of course.

Also, from your logics chart I think Queensrÿche hit 7 of 8 where by not being 'Niche' point 2 would fit the bill for the ryche cause they were pretty experimental from the get go and you can really get a good ear full of that on their 1983 ep Queen of The Ryche, but to be clear I'd put Queensryche a little before Maiden. Maiden started to get more experimental with 1982's Number of the Beast, but it wasn't a full on Prog album. 1983-1984 with the ryche's ep and first full length album was, in my opinion, the first major emergence of a different kind of Metal that was not anything like traditional metal. ie Black Sabbath, Priest etc. If by chance queensryche's The Warning álbum is not fresh in your head give it a spin...it might chance your mind, but I doubt it. Still a great listen though and would not be a waste of your time. Again, just an opinion though.

And lastly Sir Dean, this is a bit off topic though, for a man that greatly discredits philosophy you certainly have a love for Logic in the critical thinking manner of things. Surely you must see that. Take for example Aristotilian Logics like the use of the Syllogism. It's very similar to how you deduce your reasoning to ultimately gather a conclusion that is logical to your premise. You solve problems very similar to Aristotle. My opinion, and don't hate for this, but philosophy is with in you big-time. Come on...embrace the love. It's ok. Logic is good. I only bring that up cause I remember your distaste for philosophy on an academic level in secondlifesyndrome's forum 'The Prog Mind' or as you called The Prog Borg or something. Funny nonetheless. All in good fun though.

Dean wrote: progbethyname wrote: Well Almonds are the big misconception because they taste and look like a nut, but in fact they are not a Nut. So 'Almond' could represent some misrepresentations in the whole genology metal...like certain classifications that are in the metal tree, but aren't supposed to be. Overall though, I see your point but I think this analogy still works on level where Misrepresentation and classification errors are in 'Metal.' I mean it is an absolutely huge amount where by so many people are led to believe that an almond is a nut just people think metal is just metal (typically the yelling and screaming sort.) I think that is why The Almond is is quite significante here, but botanically speaking it doesn't fit into the genealogy, but the 'Almond' can serve as a very useful lesson to learn proper classification. :) The nut analogy has run its course, any further stretching, twisting, bending and massaging is pointless, it's never going to work. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and swims like a duck, and if it has feathers and webbed feet and associates with ducks we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family Anatidae on our hands. We cannot define a genre by what ill-informed people who have no knowledge of the genre think it is - that's dumbness of the first order - if some dumbass people think metal is yelling and screaming then they are ill-informed, unknowledge, uneducated, ignorant (in the dictionary definition, not the playground definition) and nescient ..,.which can be summarised in one word: wrong. I don't see the logic in changing something to accommodate people who are not (and who will never be) interested in it.   The misconception or misunderstanding is not with the fans of the genre or with anyone who understands it. progbethyname wrote: Ok Dean. Level with me in regards to the main topic of this forum. Who, in your opinion, can be counted as a father of Prog metal. Actually, plural would be better. I would like to hear what you think if you haven't listed it already...I might have missed that. ;) I said way back on Page 1 - Ironing Maiden.   For plural I'd add Metallica, but they would be playing second guitar.   The logic is simple.   1. It has to be a Metal band. 2. It has to be a Metal band that were not niche. 3. It has to be a Metal band that is not wholly Progressive Metal. 4. It has to be a Metal band that is widely regarded as influential on Metal and Progressive Metal. 5. It has to be a Metal band that is influenced by Progressive Rock. 6. It has to be a Metal band that used non-standard song structures. 7. It has to be a Metal band that experimented. 8. It has to be obvious.    There is a ninth prerequisite, which is they have to been successful prior to Progressive Metal appearing as a subgenre, and for that I'd consider any date between 1987 and 1989 as being the period where Prog Metal emerged from the primordial Metal soup, so only bands that hit the big-time before 1987 would qualify. Several of the nascent Prog Metal bands (Queensrÿche, Fates Warning, Savatage, Voivod) released albums before this time but they were neither Prog Metal nor were they not well known enough to be influential at that time.   Lots of bands can tick three or four of those boxes, several can tick five or six. I believe that only Metallica can tick seven boxes and only The Irons can tick all eight. (Metallica only tick seven boxes if we take their whole discography into account - if we only consider their first four albums as being influential on Prog Metal then they'd only tick six boxes (IMO)). The two poll options don't tick all eight boxes.     Of course other's may disagree with that, and they are welcome to.

Your logic may be technical correct, but on the other hand, it is pretty clear, that with the options given in the Poll, you reasoning to what check boxes was needed to answer the question, was not those the poll maker had in mind.

Edited by tamijo - September 19 2013 at 08:28

tamijo wrote: Your logic may be technical correct, but on the other hand, it is pretty clear, that with the options given in the Poll, you reasoning to what check boxes was needed to answer the question, was not those the poll maker had in mind. So, either the pool-maker did not understand his own question , or there is something about the definition of the term "father" of XX-genre. That differs between Your reasoning and what he had in mind.

dean wrote: Of course other's may disagree with that, and they are welcome to.

octopus-4 wrote: But the only bands I can think of basing on Dean's prerequirements are Black Sabbath, Deep Purple and Led Zeppelin, isn't it?