How is this Prog?

^I feel bad by not saying that it's a favorite of mine also, but it does cause me to scratch my head.

Black Sabbath and solo Dio were using keys in the early 80's.  Though they did keep the keyboardist off stage for the longest time.

Özzÿ = Prog

Edited by Catcher10 - August 12 2015 at 13:41

rushfan4 wrote: Ancient_Mariner wrote: SteveG wrote: A concept album with heavy metal songs about a drug controlled kid named Nicky that does things against his will. It's a good story if you can follow it, but does creating a concept around metal songs make this album prog? And the group progressive metal? How is this Prog? One of my 10 desert island albums but I don't see how QR is progressive, even this wonderful album. One long song and some interludes in a concept album.  But the songs are mostly standard structures, verse/chorus stuff, and while the musicianship is excellent I don't think its a technical mindblower.  If this is prog why isn't King Diamond? I think that it is a timing thing.  When Queensryche came on the scene metal bands didn't stray from playing straight up metal and keyboards were a no-no.  I'd say that Promised Land is probably a proggier album.  That doesn't answer to the King Diamond question though.

I've mentioned before that I don't consider The Who or Zeppelin as prog and of course I was reminded by an esteemed forum member that they are prog related  and not technically prog....yet they are on PA.

GKR wrote: But is still strange to see his 1959 album in the top 100 of PA...

Yeah. Kind of Blue is kind of strange here.

Questionable is a also ambient music in progressive electronic cathegory but I'm not against this kind of additions as long as there is at least one album in the artist's discog. connected with rock or any kind of beat underlying in the music.

rushfan4 wrote: Two types come to mind:  1) Anything that is minimalist or ambient. 2) Artists that are just guitar, bass, and drums.  No keyboards or synths included; no winds or brass instruments either.

This instrumentation is tipical for prog but is it necessary? A good example is Automatic Fine Tuning (prog metal before prog metal).

terramystic wrote: rushfan4 wrote: Two types come to mind:  1) Anything that is minimalist or ambient. 2) Artists that are just guitar, bass, and drums.  No keyboards or synths included; no winds or brass instruments either. This instrumentation is tipical for prog but is it necessary? A good example is Automatic Fine Tuning (prog metal before prog metal).

Prog does not require keyboards or flutes, so says I. There I've said it. It's done (but I do like flute and occasional keys are not always a bad thing).

dr wu23 wrote: I've mentioned before that I don't consider The Who or Zeppelin as prog and of course I was reminded by an esteemed forum member that they are prog related  and not technically prog....yet they are on PA. Thoughts on these two bands....?

the Who.. the better case.. one could say they sort of put the ART in Art Rock. The reason however they are such a legendary band is they were far more than that.

a sin that taints other addition here.. like Floyd.  One reason some have such a problem seeing them as prog.. they were great.. because they transcended being a mere prog band.

Zeppelin.. sh*t.. didn't agree with that and fought hard against it..great band.. but outside of one song..  the barest of related...
 but once added?  Stopped caring the second they were added.  More power to those that wanted them added.. variety is the spice of life.  Lots of additions I supported that others didn't.

micky wrote: dr wu23 wrote: I've mentioned before that I don't consider The Who or Zeppelin as prog and of course I was reminded by an esteemed forum member that they are prog related  and not technically prog....yet they are on PA. Thoughts on these two bands....? the Who.. the better case.. one could say they sort of put the ART in Art Rock. The reason however they are such a legendary band is they were far more than that. a sin that taints other addition here.. like Floyd.  One reason some have such a problem seeing them as prog.. they were great.. because they transcended being a mere prog band. Zeppelin.. sh*t.. didn't agree with that and fought hard against it..great band.. but outside of one song..  the barest of related...  but once added?  Stopped caring the second they were added.  More power to those that wanted them added.. variety is the spice of life.  Lots of additions I supported that others didn't.

It's quite funny because we've got all the hard-rock stuff that could *possibly* be connected to prog rock (The Who via the concept albums, Zep by a few longer pieces, Queen, Iron Maiden, Black Sabbath (really? I mean, just f**king really?) etc) but any time I suggested Dire Straits (who, incidentally, fit our super-loose definition of symphonic prog to a tee) everyone started sharpening knives and saying they were obviously not prog and could never be and there are REASONS.