Necrophagist, Yay or Nay?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: General Music Discussions
Forum Description: Discuss and create polls about all types of music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=52550
Printed Date: March 03 2025 at 12:17
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Necrophagist, Yay or Nay?
Posted By: Treasure
Subject: Necrophagist, Yay or Nay?
Date Posted: October 13 2008 at 19:31
|
YAY.
------------- 
http://www.last.fm/user/YertGuy - http://www.last.fm/user/YertGuy |
Replies:
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: October 13 2008 at 19:48
|
Perhaps this should be Yay for it's Prog, or Nay for it's not Prog. ;) Though it's been suggested more than once and had some support, Necrophagist is not in the archives, so expect this topic to be moved. The Prog Metal team rejected it (from the progfreak chart).
|
Posted By: Treasure
Date Posted: October 13 2008 at 19:56
|
<:(
-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/YertGuy - http://www.last.fm/user/YertGuy |
Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: October 13 2008 at 19:56
You know. This brings some disturbing imagery to mind. And reminds me of an ex-girlfriend of mine who once asked me upon reading the word sarcophagus, if it was pronounced "Sar co fag iss" (really "sar coff ig us") hence the disturbing imagery...you put the pieces together.  ------------- I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you? |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: October 13 2008 at 20:29
I believe that it was rejected at least two years ago, and the Prog Metal parameters may have changed enough for it to be considerable again (and the team has some different faces/ ideas). Now that this has been moved to "Suggest New Bands" rather than "General Music Discussions" (where I thought it might be moved), the power-that-be (he who moved it) is, to an extent, offering it another chance -- at least when it comes to members voicing their opinions on its prog-worthiness in the suggestions forum intended for such things. As to whether the Prog Metal team want to reconsider, that's up to them. I know your yay/nay question referred to whether people like them or not, but since this was moved to this Suggestions forum rather than General Music Discussions, it would be more appropriate for it to mean "Is it Prog, or not?" Yay for Prog, nay for not Prog. Oh, and what about Cephalic Carnage? ;) |
Treasure wrote:Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: October 13 2008 at 20:58
Incidentally, for those that don't know the band, here is the official myspace page ( http://www.myspace.com/necrophagistde - http://www.myspace.com/necrophagistde ), the official website ( http://necrophagist.de/ - http://necrophagist.de/ ), and a wikipedia page on the band ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necrophagist - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necrophagist ).
For what it's worth, Wikipedia lists it under Progressive Metal groups as well as in other categories: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Progressive_metal_musical_groups - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Progressive_metal_musical_groups |
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: October 13 2008 at 22:26
|
I love Necrophagist and still can't wait for the day they come to Melbourne to do a gig. But for the "are they prog or not" question, it's a nay and to be honest, I don't think they will be reconsidered by the prog metal team again. They are Technical Death Metal, and while being one of the best in the genre IMO, they are nothing more, nothing less. In a way, I can liken them to the Joe Satriani situation..... very obvious virtuosity, some experimentation, but for the most part nothing really progressive about it. Necrophagist use a lot of the same/similar song structures for many of their songs, are not compositionally complex at all and don't have much experimentation either. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Jake Kobrin
Date Posted: October 14 2008 at 00:15
|
They're quite technical. Tech Death not prog IMO. Still an awesome band!
------------- http://www.facebook.com/pages/Dr-Neil-Kobrin/244687105562746" rel="nofollow - SUPPORT MY FATHER AND BECOME A FAN Jacob Kobrin Illustration |
Posted By: Jake Kobrin
Date Posted: October 14 2008 at 00:20
|
Hey, if Necrophagist gets in then Nile should be allowed in too!!!
------------- http://www.facebook.com/pages/Dr-Neil-Kobrin/244687105562746" rel="nofollow - SUPPORT MY FATHER AND BECOME A FAN Jacob Kobrin Illustration |
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: October 14 2008 at 00:33
|
I doubt either band will make it in ever, but now that I think about it, I tend to think Nile does show at least a tiny bit of "prog relatedness" in their sound, but not enough to get into PA in any way or form though.
-------------
|
Posted By: Moatilliatta
Date Posted: October 14 2008 at 01:11
|
Definitely nay. Decent, highly skilled band having very little to do with prog. But at this point we might as well throw them and Nile into prog related, and we can just change the category to "bands that don't belong here but several members enjoy." ------------- www.last.fm/user/ThisCenotaph  
|
Posted By: Avantgardehead
Date Posted: October 14 2008 at 01:35
|
Is virtuosity all of the sudden progressive?! Come on, guys...
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Avantgardian |
Posted By: Angelo
Date Posted: October 14 2008 at 02:58
Logan's observation was correct. Moved. 
------------- http://www.iskcrocks.com" rel="nofollow - ISKC Rock Radio I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected] |
Posted By: UMUR
Date Posted: October 14 2008 at 05:38
| Where has this discussion been moved to ? I would like to make a comment. |
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: October 14 2008 at 05:44
|
Oh crap. Now that it's moved, it would change the meaning of the poll completely. I already voted Nay:( but now that it's here in General Discussions, it's a Yay. Goddamnit:\ -------------
|
Posted By: npjnpj
Date Posted: October 14 2008 at 07:10
|
I don't see a problem with them under prog-related.
It seems that that genre has hardly a problem here when deciding about right-wing (ultra-conservative) bands such as Rainbow and balks at something coming at it from left-field.
|
Posted By: UMUR
Date Posted: October 14 2008 at 10:14
|
Necrophagist is ultra brutal death metal first and foremost, but that doesnīt mean they shouldnīt be on PA IMO. I think there are lots of elements on Epitaph that should earn them a place here. First of all because of the extreme virtuosity displayed. There are time signature changes here and there that is not ordinary on other death metal albums and of course the beautiful classical influenced sweeping guitar solos. Iīll admit that necrophagist is on the edge of what PA should include, but they are not much different from other tech death metal bands which are already included on this site: Martyr, Gorod and Death for instance.
And Logan: Cephalic Carnage. Oh Yeah why not. Great innovative band. They are most definitely progressive IMO.
Not so long ago I suggested Decapitated to the metal team and sadly they turned them down. Thatīs another tech death metal band Iīm having a hard time understanding why people donīt want on PA.
Cryptopsy ? Anyone ?
The list is long and I can probably find a few more in a heartbeat, but it seems that the nay sayers have a hard time differentiating between ultra fast and brutal death metal like Suffocation and ultra fast and brutal tech death metal like Necrophagist. Thereīs a difference IMO and that difference should earn at least some of the most obvious tech death metal bands a place on PA.
|
Posted By: Rocktopus
Date Posted: October 14 2008 at 11:44
|
My question: Yey or Nay polls; Yey of Nay? I'm gonna have to go with Nay. ------------- Over land and under ashes In the sunlight, see - it flashes Find a fly and eat his eye But don't believe in me Don't believe in me Don't believe in me |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: October 14 2008 at 14:17
|
After listening to the myspace page, while recognising that that often is not an ideal way, or sufficient, to judge a band for a Prog category, I would say that this is a Tech/Death metal band with some progressive tendencies. That said, I'm hardly an expert on the style of music. Interestingly, though wikipedia does not list it, Cephalic Carnage has a stronger case from what I know, but I know CC better. Nay for me, to be honest (whichever the question is). I'm not really a fan of death metal, and based on my too limited listening experience, and inexperience with the style, it's not really Prog (though I discern a certain prog metal relatedness). However, some who know the music and style much better than I (which is a ton of people really) think it proggier. I love to share my ill-informed opinions. :) |
Posted By: topofsm
Date Posted: October 14 2008 at 15:53
|
The more I hear Necrophagist's work the more I'm impressed by it. At first, it sounds like just basic extreme metal with nothing but noise, but the more I listen the more bits of melody and harmony come in, and some sections stick out.
Necrophagist and Nile are definetely progressive extreme metal bands. Whether they will ever be here remains to be seen, though I would love to see them here. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Jake Kobrin
Date Posted: October 15 2008 at 01:23
|
Strapping Young Lad deserves to be on here before any of the above mentioned bands.
------------- http://www.facebook.com/pages/Dr-Neil-Kobrin/244687105562746" rel="nofollow - SUPPORT MY FATHER AND BECOME A FAN Jacob Kobrin Illustration |
Posted By: UMUR
Date Posted: October 15 2008 at 05:52
|
Even though I would really like to see many of the above mentioned bands here on PA I agree with the statement that SYL absolutely needs to be here and someone needs to get working on that inclusion right away. Now thatīs progressive metal/ tech metal. If you doubt that statement just take a listen to Alien. Great |
Posted By: UMUR
Date Posted: October 15 2008 at 05:54
| Great you brought SYL up Jake. |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: October 15 2008 at 07:56
Virtuosity != Prog, but is rather more likely to be found in Prog than other genres.
On the contrary, unusual time signatures are so much in vogue at the moment that they're practically de rigeur - especially in Death Metal, it seems. I listen to a LOT of up and coming bands at Garageband, and almost every other band uses time signatures and changes.
Plenty of pop songs also use unusual time signatures - it's just not a good criteria to judge Prog on. The definitions of Prog metal on the Internet generally are plain misleading with their lists of elements - these are not how to ascertain Prog credentials!
...as used by those virtuosi Yngwie J Malmsteen, Kai Hansen, and Herman whatshisname from Dragonforce, among 1,000s of others. It's true, they're well done, but they show a distinct lack of appreciation of classical music, more an appreciation of the kudos for being able to sweep-pick like that, which is impressive, I'll grant.
I've never agreed with Death's inclusion - I find it laughable really.
Technical != Prog. Prog is about turning the music around and playing with form, introducing ideas external to the genre, and a host of other things. Technique is purely a means of expressing that, not the sole vehicle.
There - you said it. Tech Death Metal. That's exactly what I hear in Necrophagist's music. It's Death Metal, written using various techniques in order to produce the riffs that underpin standard song structures with instrumental sections that feature several tempo changes - in exactly the way Metallica laid down on "Ride The Lightning" back in 1984. It was progressive then, but 24 years is time enough for it to become an over-milked formula.
The techniques are nothing new - I 've heard a huge number of bands using those precise techniques over the past decade especially. That's not to belittle them - it's impressive, and I'm still practicing like a maniac to try to play that fluently, so it's not easy - but the point is, it's not new or progressive.
I find it relatively easy to distinguish between different heavy metal acts (although it is harder when the overall style and sound is so similar, it's not so tough when you listen to what is done with the music itself), and I have my own idea of what constitutes Prog in music (as detailed at length in my blog).
And it ain't about time signatures or being able to play various techniques at speed - that's just gravy to pour on the roast beef of Prog. ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: UMUR
Date Posted: October 15 2008 at 10:27
|
Well my friend it seems that you and me have totally different parametres as to what is progressive. Thatīs the great thing about this forum of course. But ask yourself this question: If you only wanted artists here that invented genres or did something new there wouldnīt be many artists on PA. Is that really what you wish for ?
Take for instance the whole progressive metal genre. Lots of Dream Theater clones wouldnīt be here even though they are widely recognized as progressive.
|
Posted By: UMUR
Date Posted: October 15 2008 at 10:30
| And laughing at Deathīs inclusion on PA ??????? They are not the most technical band by any means but their importance for the technical part of the death metal genre cannot be questioned IMO. If you only aknowledge artists who invents new genres and does something new Death would definitely fit that description. |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: October 15 2008 at 16:03
You're asking the wrong question - you're loading it as if I'd said something I didn't actually say.
I didn't say that artists had to invent genres.
But doing something new is an essential part of Prog - otherwise it's a contradiction in terms, isn't it?
What are the parameters you use to describe something that's progressive?
That seems reasonable - I'm not actually aware of any Dream Theater clones per se, but then I don't know every band in the archives. A band that simply apes another is not progressive.
However, on the flip side, if they really are progressive (as opposed to "widely regarded", which is simple straw-manning and only useful in determining a band's status in terms of introduction to the band), then they deserve a place.
Death didn't invent Death metal - I thought that was widely known.
What new genres and new things did Death do?
I reviewed 2 of their albums, and only on "Scream Bloody Gore" did I hear them playing music that sounded new. "The Sound of Perseverence" is the same, but with many, many hours of music theory and practice sessions. The form of the music and the ballpark style is no different for the techniques to my ears. ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: UMUR
Date Posted: October 15 2008 at 16:18
|
I donīt give much of a damn about who influenced Death ( of course I know both Seven Churches and Painkiller), but playing jazz influenced drums in death metal is progressive IMO. And it doesnīt matter how many times itīs done and by how many bands. I still consider it progressive. And yes I consider odd time signatures progressive as well. If there are any commercial bands using them I welcome them into the archives too. I think PA should cover all prog related artists in the world and that includes bands like Necrophagist IMO. Tech/ Extreme progressive metal inclusions are obviously a very controversial subject on PA and I think it shows in the above poll ( right now itīs 50 % Nays and 50 % Yays) that itīs very hard to get anything from that genre included. Too bad people are not more open minded. |
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: October 16 2008 at 01:06
I know all these bands fairly well. The "classically influenced sweeping" is more the result of influence from 80s neo classical metal guitarists. You see, while the original 80s innovators were genuinely influenced by Baroque music, many of today's neo-classical shredders like Muhammed Suiįmez, are influenced not by the baroque music, but the 80s neo-classical guitarists like Yngwie Malmsteen, and the effec that this has is that the actual classical influence is watered down. Compositionally Necrophagist really are a death metal band, I don't really hear classical music at all in their music. By the time it gets to this watered down level, the apparent "classical-ness" you hear is extremely "Superficial" at best and merely just uses baroque melodic motifs, arpeggiated lines (such as the sweep picked arpeggios), pedal point lines etc, without going as far as using complex classical forms, more complex musical devices like counterpoint, polyphony et al (techniques demonstrated in the band Cacophony). And if you think time signature changes/use of odd time in death metal is odd... well no offense, but I don't think you're heard much very death metal at all. Cryptopsy ? Anyone ? Great band, but just a tech death band mate. Technical complexity, sure, but no serious development happens compositionally at all. "Not so long ago I suggested Decapitated to the metal team and sadly they turned them down. Thatīs another tech death metal band Iīm having a hard time understanding why people donīt want on PA." There you go... you yourself even listed a reason why they weren't add... they're tech death. Tech death does not=tech prog death. Again, great band IMO, nothing against them, but hardly suited for this site. Now that I mention Cacophony, they are clearly more progressive than any of the bands you listed... they used counterpoint, polyphony, were extremely innovative in the field of virtuosic electric guitar, at least had some compositional development to their songs as well. But yet, I sure as hell wouldn't suggest them. Think about it, if a band like Cacophony has no chance of being in PA... how can bands clearly less progressive and compostionally complex like Necrophagist, Decapitated ad Cryptopsy have a chance? Cacophony had a fair amount of innovation going, but due to their lack of popularity, their influence on modern metal is not that great (but if you look around, they have their devoted fans and bands that are heavily influenced by them). -------------
|
Posted By: UMUR
Date Posted: October 16 2008 at 01:24
|
Our opinions on what is progressive just differs from each other. As I stated before I think challenging ( mildly or obvious) music is progressive and that includes tech death metal like Necrophagist and Decapitated too.
"well no offense, but I don't think you're heard much very death metal at all."
 Iīm not sure if this is an offense, but Iīve listened to metal for the last twenty years. I believe I know a thing or two. Again it comes down to different opinions on what is progressive. Death metal comes in many forms and shapes and thereīs a big diffence between the old school sound of bands like Obituary, Dismember and Cannibal Corpse and the more technical bands in the genre.In regards to your statement that Muhammed Suiįmez is influenced by neo classical guitar heroes from the eighties like Yngwie rather than actual classical music, I fully agree, but that doesnīt mean that his playing isnīt challenging ( and in my world progressive).
Marty Friedman and Jason Beckerīs Cacophony. Interesting band for sure. I have one of their albums, but their style never really excited me. I havenīt heard enough to evaluate if I think they would fit on PA though. I think that album ended up in the basement somehow.
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: October 16 2008 at 02:44
I do, and the point is that what Death did was nothing new - and you have not disputed that.
But it isn't - can't you see that?
Hundreds of psychedelic bands in the 1960s were influenced by jazz, and we're not going to include them in the archives, because they were psych, not prog.
The same goes for Death metal - "jazz influenced" drums are just a feature of some Death Metal, not the criterion for identifying Prog.
I expect to see your support for The Stranglers then
 Odd time signatures are just an element - not a defining criteria. Please understand that.
OK, but I'd like to see you join in discussions on non-metal bands that are prog-related.
Not at all - Technical is technical, and not progressive.
Our Prog Metal experts understand the difference - and, while I freely admit to not being a Prog Metal expert, I do have a reasonable understanding of what is at the heart of Progressive music.
You said it.
Try to understand that Prog is not just a bunch of elements, but an approach which is much harder to define, rather "felt", and you'll get on the right track.
Since you won't divulge what you think "Prog" is, I'll just have to assume that, like most people, you're not too sure.
Please check out my blog - you don't have to agree with it, but it should help you understand the bigger picture and it may open your mind a bit: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=49384 - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=49384
------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: UMUR
Date Posted: October 16 2008 at 05:54
|
I only join discussions about artists and genres I know something about ( unlike others it seems)
About Death all I stated was that they have been extremely important in the development of the technical part of Death metal. Human is one of the first Death metal albums to include jazz influenced drumming. And again yes I consider that a progessive move.
|
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: October 16 2008 at 06:16
I don't dispute that Muhammed Suiįmez isn't challenging. He would probably laugh at me if I tried to emulate his level of technique in front of him...my sweep picking sucks sh*t compared to his. But you don't explain what is "progressive" about his playing, you merely say IT IS. "Death metal comes in many forms and shapes and thereīs a big diffence between the old school sound of bands like Obituary, Dismember and Cannibal Corpse and the more technical bands in the genre" Correct, but bands like Necrophagist and Nile are just more modern sounding and technical, no more progressive in any way or form. "Marty Friedman and Jason Beckerīs Cacophony. Interesting band for sure. I have one of their albums, but their style never really excited me. I havenīt heard enough to evaluate if I think they would fit on PA though. I think that album ended up in the basement somehow" Trust me, their music is more complex than anything any straight Tech Death band has to offer. But I still wouldn't call Cacophony prog by any stretch of the imagination. -------------
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: October 16 2008 at 06:24
Well, I do know something about Death Metal - as I've proved - and I know a few things about Progressive music (although I'm still researching it, of course) - so I don't know what your winky is supposed to mean, unless you simply refer to the many others who post in musical threads without any knowledge of the subject matter.
That also looks a bit of a cop-out - why not listen to other bands and develop and understanding of different music - it will expand your Prog horizons and open your ears considerably.
I don't know that album - I'll deathinately check it out, especially as it was released in the same year as "Painkiller", one of my favourite Priest albums.
However, important in the development of the technical side of things is very different to Prog, and a progressive move does not imply Progressive music - otherwise why not put up a battle for Judas Priest, who laid down a considerable part of the foundations, including fundamental technical aspects without which much Death metal might not exist. ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: UMUR
Date Posted: October 16 2008 at 07:57
|
My winky was a a good humoured tease. Nothing else. I of course respect your opinion even though itīs very different from mine.
If you look at my profile I think youīll find that I have other interests than extreme metal.
Judas Priest. Hell Yeah finally we agree on something. Iīm not a big fan but I love both Rocka Rolla and Sad Wings of Destiny and I think they deserve to be here in the prog-related or proto-prog catagory with Iron Maiden and Black Sabbath. Most of the rest of their output are a bit too macho leather raise your fists in the air metal for my taste. Theyīve made lots of classic heavy metal songs Iīll aknowledge that though ( including Painkiller of course). I think thereīs an active thread for Judas Priest inclusion already by the way.
Well it still comes down to this: Are Necrophagist worthy of inclusion on PA in the tech/ extreme prog metal catagory? This poll shows that itīs a break even and with so many nays itīs doubtful that it will ever happen. Too bad IMO.
To Hughes who wrote:
I don't dispute that Muhammed Suiįmez isn't challenging. He would probably laugh at me if I tried to emulate his level of technique in front of him...my sweep picking sucks sh*t compared to his.But you don't explain what is "progressive" about his playing, you merely say IT IS.
I already explained that unlike you and Certif1ed I consider technical playing to be a progressive. I really canīt explain it better than that. So what level of technical playing qualifies as progressive youīll probably ask? Hard to tell but Necrophagist has a couple of things going for them as I wrote in my first post that I consider progressive and should win them a place on PA. ( Iīd much rather see Decapitated here though)
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: October 16 2008 at 09:09
|
The problem with considering technique as progressive is when you're faced with technique innovators like Yngwie, Randy Rhoades, Jason Becker and Satch - not to mention Eddie Van Halen, Michael Schenker, Eric Clapton and Jimi Hendrix - see how tricky it gets?
Then you need to consider which techniques you're talking about - obviously you can't restrict it to guitar, so what about other instrumentalists, like Stanley Clarke, Billy Sheehan or other non-prog artists?
Come to that, what about arrangers who demonstrate high-level techniques - Jim Steinman and Bjorn Ulveas (ABBA) for starters, and producers like Trevor Horn. TaTu, anyone?
This is why technical playing, while it may be progressive, is not an essential aspect of Progressive music.
Listen to Hawkwind, Pendragon, Pink Floyd, Barclay James Harvest, Amon Duul II, Guru Guru or Can - there's next to no technical prowess in their music, and yet they're unmistakably Prog, because (and this is important) the music itself is progressive, not the methods of playing.
Hence I support Judas Priest, but not Necrophagist, as the music I've heard by them is not inherently progressive - rather it adheres to current fashions and techniques in the music, and sticks within a well-defined ballpark with straightforward parameters.
It's a common mistake to confuse "progressive" with Progressive music - the two are not the same.
Hence Led Zeppelin and Iron Maiden are Prog Related, and not Prog, despite their relative technical prowess. To say something "just is" progressive smacks of lack of understanding of what progressive is - how can you say it "just is" without any justification? Especially when the facts indicate that it isn't?
We might just as well vote on everything and see what the majority think, instead of leaving it to scientists to show us how the earth really is round and not flat.
The people vote "Flat", ergo it's flat, right?
------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: October 16 2008 at 19:19
If technical playing was considered progressive, let's add Ozzy Osbourne's first two records with the brilliant Randy Rhoads at the helm, let's add Van Halen's rather simple hard rock records to the Archives too. You do realize, if technical playing was enough to be considered progressive, PA would have thousands and thousands more artists who make music with no real connection to prog at all. Let's see, we can add Joe Satriani according to your reasoning, Guthrie Govan, Shawn Lane, Megadeth, Greg Howe, Vinnie Moore, Malmsteen, Jason Becker, Marty Friedman,.. and the list would take me another 12 hours to compile, you get what I mean. Technical playing is just an element of prog... and not even exclusive to prog at that. -------------
|
Posted By: mithrandir
Date Posted: October 16 2008 at 19:32
| nah, not my type of Heavy... |
Posted By: UMUR
Date Posted: October 17 2008 at 01:21
|
Technical playing is just one thing I consider progressive in Necrophagist music. I agree that technical playing is only an element in prog but compared to Ozzy Osbourne or any of the other artists you mention all members of Necrophagist are technically skilled. Besides I donīt hear Ozzy Osbourne or Van Halen playing with time signatures which is another thing I consider progressive. In fact Iīm pretty sure everything they ever played were in 4/4 ( maybe with the odd exception).
Certif1ed mentioned bands like Hawkwind and Pink Floyd because of their lack of focus on technical playing and that the music itself is progressive. Thatīs how I feel about most Tech death metal bands. What they play and the soul of their music is progressive. They are innovaters. Pushing boundaries.
The poll does show that you might reconsider ( or at least aknowledge that there is another opinion) your universal conception of what it means to be progressive. About half of the people who voted here are of a different opinion than yours.
Now I never meant to start a discussion of what the universal meaning of the word progressive is. To me itīs a gut feeling and some of the parametres I have mentioned above: Technical playing, play with time signatures, classical ( or neo classical. I donīt give a ....) influences and a general lust to experiment within the strict confines of the death metal genre.
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: October 17 2008 at 06:11
|
^It's basically about understanding your viewpoint.
I hear a non-progressive band, you hear a progressive band - aren't you curious as to why that might be?
Innovation is doing something new - and most Death Metal bands don't do anything new, but play in the fashionable styles using common techniques.
Hence I disagree that they push boundaries - which boundaries do you think are being pushed?
You say "lust for experiment", yet there is next to no actual experimentation - it's all been done before, hasn't it? What's so new and experimental?
If they're experimenting within the strict confines of the genre, then that seems to decide it - unless a band experiments outside the genre and creates something new, then it's not Progressive music, but possibly it could be a progressive form of that specific genre - which doesn't count.
After all, there is Progressive Trance, Progressive House, IDM, etc - and I'd really like to see Autechre in the archives - their music IS experimental; http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=v9lpy6UROF4&feature=related - http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=v9lpy6UROF4&feature=related
The "Classical influences" tend to be marginal at best - do you mean use of arpeggios or actual bona fide Classical influences?
How is the music progressive?
Lets go back to Hawkwind - simultaneously one of the hardest and easist cases.
Some people find it hard to hear progressiveness because they hear simple riffs and extended jams topped with wooey noises, and that's it.
It's the combination of everything, and the absolutely unique sound that really make Hawkwind stand out - you can say that bands sound like Hawkwind, but not the other way around - unless you consider less well-known bands, such as Sam Gopal, Twink, etc - and even then, the similarities are superficial, as Hawkwind's space-rock sound influenced a galaxy of such bands in Germany.
Underpinning Hawkwind's best work is musical experimentation - listen to "Warrior on the Edge of Time".
The same can be said of Pink Floyd - many, many bands ape their sounds and styles, but Floyd are unique.
The same cannot be said of most Death Metal bands - if you can identify the sound and style as Death Metal, it's already a lost cause from most angles.
Gut feelings are fine - but can be supported with musical evidence. After all, the "Classic" Prog bands are unquestionably Prog, because of not only gut feeling, but an inherent musical approach that is best described as Progressive.
If the overall musical approach can be heard in simpler forms of rock music, then the grounds for inclusion in a Progressive music collection are weakened.
Of course there are other opinions, but opinions mean nothing without some element of reasoning.
I have a gut feeling that I'm going to win the lottery this weekend - but I could be wrong. ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: UMUR
Date Posted: October 17 2008 at 08:41
|
Iīm sensing you have a hard time understanding the soul of extreme metal.
If you donīt think that Necrophagist approach to the genre is progressive. I donīt think youīve heard much death metal. But youīre welcome to prove me wrong.
By the way I forgot to ask you this question which I should have asked long before this discussion got going. Have you even heard Epitaph ? Really sat down and listened to that album from start to finnish ?
About Hawkwind and Pink Floyd. I love them both. Great bands and yes no bands really sounded like them before, but the same can be said about Necrophagist. They are an original band. Not just a clone of someone else like you seem to think. Their basic ideas are death metal related. Growling vocals, power chord and tremolo riffing, but itīs a matter of how itīs done that sets them apart from bands like Napalm Death ( well they actually only made one real death metal album but Harmony Corruption is a classic in the genre so Iīll mention them), Obituary, Malevolent Creation, Monstrosity, Entombed, Dismember, Benediction, Bolt Thrower and Bloodbath just to mention some of the most prolific.
None of the above mentioned bands are artists that I would suggest for addition to PA, but as I stated earlier there is a difference between old school death metal and tech death metal. The technical playing and the use of elements from other genres ( Baroque like notes and runs, time signature changes) in the death metal genre makes them progressive IMO. Just because they donīt find their influences in classic seventies prog like Opeth or Enslaved donīt mean that bands like Necrophagist are not prog related.
Now I read a couple of your reviews and I see that you donīt even consider Meshuggah to be progressive????? I think that shows exactly how little you understand about metal. You seem to think and I quote from you Catch 33 review: Although a lot of thought has clearly gone into the details and subtle changes, the overall effect is of a single riff used for an excessive length of time, with some simple effects and death-metal vocals. Iīm sorry but this is laughable. One single riff ??? I think a groundbreaking band like Meshuggah commands a bit more respect than that. Again I think it shows exactly what your feelings are towards tech metal. And by the way. Jens Kidmanīs vocals are widely not considered to be death metal growls ( at least if you ask people who know anything about metal that is). Extreme distorted vocals yes but death metal growl no. This is the kind of nuance youīre missing when you say that that Necrophagist is not a progressive band ( not that weīre talking about vocals here, but it goes to show your lack of appreciation for detail).
There seems to be an agenda here that you donīt think any extreme metal belong here ? If thatīs the case letīs drop this discussion because then our opinions simply differ too much and this discussion will be fruitless. I canīt convince you with my high school english anyway. I donīt think about music in such academic terms.
|
Posted By: Jake Kobrin
Date Posted: October 17 2008 at 19:21
You're the one who said all of that sh*t about Watershed and said that it wasn't at all progressive. If THAT'S not proggy enough, then I don't think you consider any tech/extreme metal progressive. That's in the top three for the proggiest tech/extreme albums ever. There's no point in arguing with this guy, he'll NEVER see Death as progressive. ------------- http://www.facebook.com/pages/Dr-Neil-Kobrin/244687105562746" rel="nofollow - SUPPORT MY FATHER AND BECOME A FAN Jacob Kobrin Illustration |
Posted By: UMUR
Date Posted: October 18 2008 at 06:13
| Yeah I see that now. A lost conservative purist. |
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: October 18 2008 at 07:17
-------------
|
Surely you do.Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: October 18 2008 at 07:42
You see, it's almost as if you think it's a loss if Necrophagist don't get into PA. Why does it seem to bother you? Necrophagist are a great band, surely that is enough? Even if they aren't prog, they are still widely discussed on heavy metal forum boards elsewhere. They get a lot of recognition for what they do, because they are good at what they do, which is pure tech death metal, plain and simple. It's not like it's any loss for Necrophagist either in terms of getting extra fans, because I know any intelligent metal fan is going to go over to heavy metal forum/discussion boards to find out about metal bands they don't know yet. I know, because as one of those intelligent metal fans, I go to other sites to look for news/info on metal well before I come to PA, because quite simply there are far better resources for metal than PA (and no offence intended to PA). -------------
|
Posted By: UMUR
Date Posted: October 18 2008 at 09:23
|
About Ozzy I did add with the odd exception, so please letīs not start a discusion about that.
I realise there have been many tech metal and tech death metal bands before Necrophagist, but that doesnīt mean that Necrophagist shouldnīt be considered as progressive as them. Again I must lead your attention to the thousand of Dream Theater clones which are considered progressive even though they basically do the same old tricks Dream Theater have done for about 20 years and then adding their own touch to the music. No one seems to think those bands are not progressive ?
I never claimed that Necrophagist invented a new genre, and I emphasized that less does the trick for me. Itīs a question of understanding progressive as something new and innovative ( which is the essense yes I get that), but once a genre is generally considered to be progressive should anyone who wantīs to be considered progressive stop playing this genre ?
Itīs fine if you donīt find tech death metal to be a progressive genre but thatīs where we disagree.
As for my stuborn behaviour yes I think itīs a loss for PA if bands like Necrophagist are not added. As I stated above I think itīs progressive music and as a matter of course I want it added to PA. For me thatīs the most natural thing in the world.
The name of this site is Prog Archives not prog rock archives of prog metal archives which IMO means that everything with the slightest progressive touch should be here. We will probably never agree on the definition of the term progressive, but I urge you to understand that you donīt own the universal opinion when it comes to that
 . |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: October 18 2008 at 14:27
| Prog is an abbreviation of Progressive Rock (metal being a sub-category of rock, or evolution of rock so Progressive Metal is also considered Prog). Progressive Jazz (as a style/ genre), for instance, was around before Progressive Rock, but is not included, though Progressive Jazz-Rock is (and of course jazz is a common element in various kinds of Prog). Not all progressive music is Prog, and not all Prog is progressive. It is easier for a clone/ heavily influenced by a Prog band than a really innovative band that is not that similar to other bands here. Progressive as an adjective describes newness and moving forward, but Prog is a noun which can refer to a movement and styles/ genre (I don't think of it as a specific genre with subgenres, but like to think about approach). It is important to differentiate progressive (adjective) from Prog (noun), but I value the progressive attribute in Prog (the expansion/ advancement of the rock genre... breaking or moving away from established conventions. A reason why I appreciate the approach of Rock and Metal in Opposition bands which go against industry/ commercial conventions/ expectations). |
Posted By: mithrandir
Date Posted: October 18 2008 at 17:19
| for my money Necrophagist and Nile aren't all that progressive to me, I always thought Pan.Thy.Monium and the early Alchemist records were gleaming examples of 'Progressive' Death Metal, |