Meshuggah on prog archives???

I don't hate it - I just don't find it prog - at least, not as prog as say Metallica.

I don't see how it is progressive - I picked it apart in absolute minutae, and can hear a very few progressive elements, but certainly nowhere near enough for prog rock.

We must be listening with different ears - the death grunts are there for all to hear! I have nothing against them, being a fan of Chuck Shuldiner's Death, but there's no mistaking that style of vocals.

If they're not a prog band, they shouldn't be in the archives, and if the albums aren't prog, they can't get 4 or 5 stars, since those ratings only apply to prog albums - this isn't Amazon.

Let's get Queen, Deep Purple, System Of a Down, Muse and Cradle of Filth in the archives, quick!

Useful_Idiot wrote: You're not listening to me.  I consider Catch 33 a prog album, but that doesn't mean I consider them a prog band.  See my reviews for Contradictions Collapse and Destroy Erase Improve.  As a result, am I not allowed to consider Catch 33 a masterpiece of prog, despite it not necessarily having been made by a prog band?

Exactly. But I think that they are on their way to become a prog band. I think that Nothing, "I" and Catch 33 qualify as prog, everything before that is simply complex Thrash. When they continue that direction with the next album, they can be called a prog band ... as long as only two of 5-6 albums (don't know how many the have) are prog, it remains to be seen if they continue to be progressive. 

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Useful_Idiot wrote: You're not listening to me.  I consider Catch 33 a prog album, but that doesn't mean I consider them a prog band.  See my reviews for Contradictions Collapse and Destroy Erase Improve.  As a result, am I not allowed to consider Catch 33 a masterpiece of prog, despite it not necessarily having been made by a prog band? Exactly. But I think that they are on their way to become a prog band. I think that Nothing, "I" and Catch 33 qualify as prog, everything before that is simply complex Thrash. When they continue that direction with the next album, they can be called a prog band ... as long as only two of 5-6 albums (don't know how many the have) are prog, it remains to be seen if they continue to be progressive.

Potential for prog is not good enough, IMO - otherwise why aren't Muse here? As I said, Catch 33 is NOT a prog album.

Hmm - you also said that you would consider Catch 33 a prog album - pardon the repeated questioning, but in what ways would you consider it prog as opposed to progressive.

I'm happy to accept that I must be missing something - neither you or Useful are the "fanboy" types, indeed, quite the reverse - but I don't even see it as borderline any more than Led Zeppelin would be borderline.

I checked out "I", and that is not prog to my ears either. I really like it, and for metal, it's quite progressive - although not as progressive as Cradle of Filth, and I've been laughed at for suggesting that CoF should be in the archives. Probably rightly so...

The question I still have is what have I missed that makes "Catch 33" or "I" prog rather than simply progressive in one or two aspects?

Useful_Idiot wrote: Certif1ed wrote: Hmm - you also said that you would consider Catch 33 a prog album - pardon the repeated questioning, but in what ways would you consider it prog as opposed to progressive. I'm happy to accept that I must be missing something - neither you or Useful are the "fanboy" types, indeed, quite the reverse - but I don't even see it as borderline any more than Led Zeppelin would be borderline. I checked out "I", and that is not prog to my ears either. I really like it, and for metal, it's quite progressive - although not as progressive as Cradle of Filth, and I've been laughed at for suggesting that CoF should be in the archives. Probably rightly so... The question I still have is what have I missed that makes "Catch 33" or "I" prog rather than simply progressive in one or two aspects? Okay, let's look at "I" for a second.  It's an extended track with numerous different sections, which could easily be given individual titles and be divided into a "suite".  It contains numerous different time signatures (which are extremely complex, of course), which it alternates through every couple of minutes.  In addition, there are some extremely fusion influenced guitar solos.  What I'm being forced to wonder is... what is it you're looking for that would make it "prog" but aren't finding?  Just because it doesn't sound like Yes or Genesis, doesn't mean it isn't prog.  As somebody who fought valiantly for Radiohead's inclusion on the site, I figured you of all people would know that Cert... Also, I disagree with the idea of giving something 2 stars just because it isn't prog.  Tool's Undertow isn't a prog album, but Tool is on here and I love Undertow, so I gave it 4 stars.  Same goes for No-Man's Wild Opera.  Brian Eno's Ambient 1: Music For Airports isn't prog either, but I gave it 3 because I consider it a pretty good album, regardless of what genre it may fit under.  Trashing something for "not being prog" is what created that whole Radiohead debacle back when they were added, and is still consistently a problem among the reviews on this site.  That's just my opinion though, and who am I to criticize your rating system?

You'd think I was indulging in some heavy-duty bashing... I'm only asking simple questions!

On the first point, Venom wrote a 23-minute track called "At War With Satan", with different sections that could easily be given individual titles, but that's not prog.

Time signatures alone do not make it prog - are you familiar with Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring"?

The guitar solos are the weakest part - there is little or no technical creativity in the solos.

It doesn't have to sound like Genesis or Yes, of course - but it does have to be progressive. If rhythm was the only aspect a band needed to become prog, then Steve Reich's "Drumming" and much of Philip Glass's minimalist catalogue would be prog. And how about Harrison Birtwhistle?

Metal with interesting time signatures is metal with interesting time signatures. You could say it was progressive, but it was just as progressive of Jimmy Page to play the guitar with a violin bow.

This is a single approach used all the way through "I", and it stops being progressive very quickly, as it simply becomes a style - do you get the difference? The music does not "grow", it simply changes over time. That's but a single, some might say compelling reason why it is not prog.

The textures rarely vary, there is no apparent influence from other genres, there is no melodic or harmonic development, form is pretty much ignored, and rhythmically, the goal is to be as complex as possible. Vocally, there's not much to say - a subtle variation on a single style that has been done so many times before in the last 20 years.

And you wonder why I don't hear any prog?

I've posted the site guidelines and the rating system into another thread because you're not the only one having difficulties understanding how to rate a prog album.

3 is a fair rating for "Airports", as the 3 rating concedes that the album is not for every collection of prog rock - to me it suggests an album that falls somewhere just outside of prog, but is still interesting to a progger.

I have not trashed anything for not being prog - I'm not trashing "I", simply evaluating it in terms of prog. I even said in my review that I liked it. 

As far as the Radiohead debacle is concerned, all I did was inject some common sense - I didn't "Fight valiantly" - but I could, if you wanted...

I had many PMs from people who finally "saw the light" - not so much converts to Radiohead, but greater understanding of why their music is so very progressive thanks to their inclusion.

MorgothSunshine wrote: A band is not necessary prog because of the complexity of the music...prog is not only complexity!

Thanks for clarifying that, I had no idea ... now I've seen the light!