What is so wrong with Prog metal

Nothin wrong, only it ain't much to bother about, IMO.

^ All I meant was that this particular album is stylistically too far away from modern metal to be a direct influence for albums like Operation: Mindcrime, which was released 12 years after that. There were many groundbreaking albums in between - for example all early Iron Maiden albums, which were undoubtedly a big influence on Queensryche ... or the later Judas Priest albums.

AtLossForWords wrote: I'd have to agree Mike.  Judas Priest is a blueprint for metal, but it's not as much of a direct influence as a band like Iron Maiden was.  I think you could call Iron Maiden's A Number of the Beast the first modern metal album.

I would say that Black Sabbath's "Heaven and Hell" was the first modern metal album - had you considered that?
    

And even earlier: Van Halen - 1 (1978). Although I admit that only some songs are metal (Running With the Devil for example) and others are a kind of Heavy Blues Rock.


Edited by MikeEnRegalia - June 05 2006 at 16:57

Certif1ed wrote: AtLossForWords wrote: I'd have to agree Mike.  Judas Priest is a blueprint for metal, but it's not as much of a direct influence as a band like Iron Maiden was.  I think you could call Iron Maiden's A Number of the Beast the first modern metal album. I would say that Black Sabbath's "Heaven and Hell" was the first modern metal album - had you considered that?

 

MikeEnRegalia wrote: I did not say that it doesn't have anything to do with metal - I just said that it did not influence Operation: Mindcrime more than it influenced any other metal album of the 80s. And I'm really sure that most 80s metal is more influenced by the later Priest & Maiden album which had already progressed into what I call "modern metal". That Priest album is - along with the Rush, Sabbath etc. albums of that time - still clearly "pre-modern metal".

The whole style is totally modern - it's even got thrash on it. It's the production and execution that let it down and make it sound old - don't let the lack of "bling" confuse you.

And none of that stops it being metal - you're just chucking in the "modern" comment to save face.

You also DID say "I fail to see what that album has to do with metal", or are you calling me a liar as well as a hateboy, opinionated bigot and general prog-metal basher?

You said you wrote the review after a single listen - well, that's a mistake. It took me a while to get it properly - sometimes I listen to it now and still think there's stuff I missed.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: I see how you can get to that conclusion based on the early Queensryche albums up to The Warning. But I try to see beyond simple observations like "High Pitched / falsetto vocals -> Priest influence".

But the vocals sound like a cross between Rob Halford and Bruce Dickinson. There's no escaping that. Geddy Lee doesn't sound like either, and nor do Thom Yorke or Matt Bellamy - I can tell the difference, really I can.

And the twin guitar leads, and the basis of the riffs... the list goes on - there are too many similarities for anyone to ignore.

So to say they're like Judas Priest is completely fair comment.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: On Operation: Mindcrime they had found their own style, which I don't find particularly interesting in itself ... the twin guitar leads are characteristic (with the melodies a little more American/AOR than Maiden) and the atmospheric acoustic guitar songs (2nd half of Operation: Mindcrime) are not to be found in either Priest or Maiden. their style is much more apparent on Empire, which is THE key album of Queensryche IMO (not their best, but the one that shows their own unique style in perfection).

I'll review "Empire" when I get some time - but doesn't what you are saying add up to you agreeing with me that it's not the highly proclaimed masterpiece that many metalheads hold it to be?

And I find the guitar lead melodies to be a watered-down version of Maiden/Lizzy/Priest (pick your twin-barreled assault here) - not one would pass the "Old Grey Whistle Test", and not one holds any true drive or drama, since the harmonic progressions are bland and unadventurous.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Another opinion on which you stand alone: That 2 star ratings mean "good".

Out of 5, on a scale of not Prog to Prog, it gets 2.

That's nearly 50% - and there's me saying that it's not really Prog.

Maybe I should downgrade my mark.

Certif1ed wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: - you are bashing the album even as a plain metal album. Indeed - but maybe that's because I think it deserves it?

That's quite right - *YOU* think it deserves that. I just take offense on you assuming that most people agree with that. You talk about people who think otherwise as if they're fools.
[/quote]

Oh no I don't, etc.

But it should be apparent to anyone still bothering to keep up with all of this that all I've done is to respond rationally to your comments, which are unfair and unfounded.

Stop telling me what I think - you don't know what I think or how I think - you are a different person to me and think differently, etc, etc, etc.

Discuss the music instead of what you think of me and things might go better.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: I'm not complaining about the review - I'm complaining about you using this review against me. It's just your opinion, not more, not less.

I'm not using it against you - I don't see how you can think that.

And of course it's my opinion - that's what I said... several times I think.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ...maybe becoming a hateboy is not a good solution either.

Mike - I'm not a hateboy just because I don't like a particular album as much as you do or hold an opinion that is different to yours.

Please get over yourself.
    

AtLossForWords wrote: Certif1ed wrote: AtLossForWords wrote: I'd have to agree Mike.  Judas Priest is a blueprint for metal, but it's not as much of a direct influence as a band like Iron Maiden was.  I think you could call Iron Maiden's A Number of the Beast the first modern metal album. I would say that Black Sabbath's "Heaven and Hell" was the first modern metal album - had you considered that?          I don't think Black Sabbath did anything that was particularly metal.  The overall tonality is similar in a few aspects, but the composition is much different.  Heaven and Hell comes close, but still has more in common with hard rock.  Black Sabbath's lyrical content was more "metal" than anything else they did.

    
What I mean is that Iommi almost completely changed his riffing style to fit around Dio's comedy metal lyrics. "Turn Up The Night" is as metal as you like - I don't know how old you are, but if you'd heard that in 1980, like I did, you would have jumped out of your chair with excitement - there's nothing from 1980 to compare it to.

The NWOBHM was all about heavy metal - that was when it was properly defined. Black Sabbath were regarded as Heavy Metal then, and I think deserve the title: The riffs are chugging, the vocals are soaring, the drums are pounding - and the lyrics are about dragons, kings and Rainbows - how much more metal can you get?

I am very confused about your phrase "overall tonality is similar in a few aspects, but the composition is much different":

The "tonality" of metal always was - and still seems to be very simple. Power chords abound, with a few tasteful changes from major to minor to promote a modal feel, with perhaps a harmonic minor scale thrown in for effect among the pentatonic minors - but almost entirely diatonic.

The formal composition of metal has never really changed: Simple rock somg form with perhaps a few additional bridges, an extended solo and a coda - nothing fancy at all.

Certif1ed wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: I did not say that it doesn't have anything to do with metal - I just said that it did not influence Operation: Mindcrime more than it influenced any other metal album of the 80s. And I'm really sure that most 80s metal is more influenced by the later Priest & Maiden album which had already progressed into what I call "modern metal". That Priest album is - along with the Rush, Sabbath etc. albums of that time - still clearly "pre-modern metal". The whole style is totally modern - it's even got thrash on it. It's the production and execution that let it down and make it sound old - don't let the lack of "bling" confuse you. And none of that stops it being metal - you're just chucking in the "modern" comment to save face.

Why I'm chucking in that term is my decision ...

Certif1ed wrote: You also DID say "I fail to see what that album has to do with metal", or are you calling me a liar as well as a hateboy, opinionated bigot and general prog-metal basher?

No, I did say that. I was implicitly referring to "modern metal", as always.

Certif1ed wrote: You said you wrote the review after a single listen - well, that's a mistake. It took me a while to get it properly - sometimes I listen to it now and still think there's stuff I missed.

It wasn't a proper review - that's why it says "First Listen". Eventually I'll listen some more and write a proper one.

Certif1ed wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: I see how you can get to that conclusion based on the early Queensryche albums up to The Warning. But I try to see beyond simple observations like "High Pitched / falsetto vocals -> Priest influence". But the vocals sound like a cross between Rob Halford and Bruce Dickinson. There's no escaping that. Geddy Lee doesn't sound like either, and nor do Thom Yorke or Matt Bellamy - I can tell the difference, really I can.

Sure Tate sounds like that sometimes, but there is also another dimension to his singing - a deep, somewhat whiny voice that those two singers rarely used (except maybe Dickinson on Ayreon - The Universal Migrator). Also I'm not considering the similarity of voices as an indicator for similar styles ... singning techniques - yes, but not the voices. Otherwise Coheed & Cambria would be a Rush clone, which they clearly aren't.

Certif1ed wrote: And the twin guitar leads, and the basis of the riffs... the list goes on - there are too many similarities for anyone to ignore. So to say they're like Judas Priest is completely fair comment.

IMO they share many attributes, especially on the pre-Mindcrime albums, but not enough to call them similar. Please don't make me resurrect my poll about the meaning of the word similar ;-)

Certif1ed wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: On Operation: Mindcrime they had found their own style, which I don't find particularly interesting in itself ... the twin guitar leads are characteristic (with the melodies a little more American/AOR than Maiden) and the atmospheric acoustic guitar songs (2nd half of Operation: Mindcrime) are not to be found in either Priest or Maiden. their style is much more apparent on Empire, which is THE key album of Queensryche IMO (not their best, but the one that shows their own unique style in perfection). I'll review "Empire" when I get some time - but doesn't what you are saying add up to you agreeing with me that it's not the highly proclaimed masterpiece that many metalheads hold it to be?

It's not a masterpiece of prog, but a really nice album. I love it - see the review on my website. But while the album scores 14.7/15 on my scale (which is not supposed to be objective - just how much you like the tracks), it's only 2.x/10 on the progressiveness scale. And even that's only due to Suite Sister Mary and Waiting for 22.

I don't mind at all if you don't like the album. But that opinion is part of a small minority, whatever that means.

Certif1ed wrote: And I find the guitar lead melodies to be a watered-down version of Maiden/Lizzy/Priest (pick your twin-barreled assault here) - not one would pass the "Old Grey Whistle Test", and not one holds any true drive or drama, since the harmonic progressions are bland and unadventurous.

"watered down" ... some think they're brilliant. A melody doesn't have to be particularly adventurous in order to be great. Some of the best melodies that were ever conceived are inherently simplistic.

Certif1ed wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: Another opinion on which you stand alone: That 2 star ratings mean "good". Out of 5, on a scale of not Prog to Prog, it gets 2. That's nearly 50% - and there's me saying that it's not really Prog. Maybe I should downgrade my mark.

Do whatever you think makes sense.

Certif1ed wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: - you are bashing the album even as a plain metal album. Indeed - but maybe that's because I think it deserves it?

That's quite right - *YOU* think it deserves that. I just take offense on you assuming that most people agree with that. You talk about people who think otherwise as if they're fools.
[/quote]

Oh no I don't, etc.

But it should be apparent to anyone still bothering to keep up with all of this that all I've done is to respond rationally to your comments, which are unfair and unfounded.

[/QUOTE]

I can't comment on that - any comment would make me look bad. so I'll leave your comment here for the others to judge.

Certif1ed wrote: Stop telling me what I think - you don't know what I think or how I think - you are a different person to me and think differently, etc, etc, etc. Discuss the music instead of what you think of me and things might go better. MikeEnRegalia wrote: I'm not complaining about the review - I'm complaining about you using this review against me. It's just your opinion, not more, not less. I'm not using it against you - I don't see how you can think that.

You're referring to your reviews as if they were evidence which supports your statements. That's what I mean.

Certif1ed wrote: And of course it's my opinion - that's what I said... several times I think. MikeEnRegalia wrote: ...maybe becoming a hateboy is not a good solution either. Mike - I'm not a hateboy just because I don't like a particular album as much as you do or hold an opinion that is different to yours. Please get over yourself.

A "fanboy" is defined here as someone who is giving unusually good ratings to albums (much above the average). A "hateboy" is someone which does the exact opposite, which is what you're doing. Isn't that what you're doing? Maybe I should rephrase it to "overly harsh critic"? It's an opinionated term, but as you're throwing around terms like "fanboy", a little reciprocity can't hurt, can it?

^ The question is: which album progressed past the NWOBHM. IMO Modern Metal can be defined like that, with the exception of American "Party" Metal which evolved from Blues Rock.