The fathers of Prog Metal

progbethyname wrote: octopus-4 wrote: True, but I've never heard the word "prog" before the 80s. Sabbath, Zeppelin and Deep Purple were actually labeled "Hard Rock" while for bands like Genesis and Gentle Giant, at least in Italy, they were referred to as generic "pop/rock" (very misleading) This is quite truthful. Think about a band like 'Rainbow' who came into the fold around 1974 I believe and they are a band that I feel gave birth the genre 'Hard Rock' with the album RICHIE BLACKMORE's RAINBOW. It wasn't quite Metal and it wasn't traditional(classic) rock music either...It was Hard Rock! In 74' and a bit before that, Sabbath were creating music that was far more metal based and not Hard Rock, so yeah it took a while for the terms to be set correctly and I agree with you that it didn't start till the 80's. :)

Hard rock existed before Rainbow, i.e. Deep Purple.

octopus-4 wrote: True, but I've never heard the word "prog" before the 80s. Sabbath, Zeppelin and Deep Purple were actually labeled "Hard Rock" while for bands like Genesis and Gentle Giant, at least in Italy, they were referred to as generic "pop/rock" (very misleading)

This is quite truthful. Think about a band like 'Rainbow' who came into the fold around 1974 I believe and they are a band that I feel gave birth the genre 'Hard Rock' with the album RICHIE BLACKMORE's RAINBOW.
It wasn't quite Metal and it wasn't traditional(classic) rock music either...It was Hard Rock!
In 74' and a bit before that, Sabbath were creating music that was far more metal based and not Hard Rock, so yeah it took a while for the terms to be set correctly and I agree with you that it didn't start till the 80's. :)

I have personally discovered the word "prog" in the middle of the 90s...I was liking something since decades and I didn't know how it was called. I was still calling it "pop".

True, but I've never heard the word "prog" before the 80s. Sabbath, Zeppelin and Deep Purple were actually labeled "Hard Rock" while for bands like Genesis and Gentle Giant, at least in Italy, they were referred to as generic "pop/rock" (very misleading)

I remember the first time I've listened to Motorhead. I though to them as the metal version of Ramones, also because of the length of the songs.

From Wikipedia

 

The first heavy metal bands such as Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple and Black Sabbath attracted large audiences, though they were often derided by critics, a status common throughout the history of the genre. In the mid-1970s Judas Priest helped spur the genre's evolution by discarding much of its blues influence;^[4][5] Motörhead introduced a punk rock sensibility and an increasing emphasis on speed. Bands in the New Wave of British Heavy Metal such as Iron Maiden followed in a similar vein. Before the end of the decade, heavy metal fans became known as "metalheads" or "headbangers".

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?

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.

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

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.