DT... already a prog legend?

Certif1ed wrote: This doesn't make it "more Prog", but it's very interesting, and what these sort of discussions are about to me - this is something I would never have picked up on, as I don't really enjoy fusion as a genre - I've tried listening to Corea and Di Meola, but yup, what I've heard sounds like scale practice to me.   Can you be specific, so I don't have to trawl through back catalogues?   Sections of Corea and Di Meola that bear resemblances to particular sections of DT tracks?

Yeah I know what you mean - that's what I don't like about Fusion. However there's different Fusion, namely Fusion focused on music rather than instrumental skill display. As a Genesis fan, you'd definitely like Brand X, Phil Collins' jazz-rock band, especially the album Unorthodox Behaviour. My other top favourite from this genre is Weather Report's Black Market.





If you already know them, my apologies.

There's also been a very interesting movement during the last two decades, Fusion meets Metal - do you know this stuff? Very prog, and very good.

Anyway, coming back to the topic, I was recently listening to something by Return To Forever from the era when the band featured both Corea and Di Meola (I think it was the album Where Have I known You Before) and much to my disappointment (the first guitar-less albums are amazing!) I found myself thinking "I don't like this at all, it's like Dream Theater but in the 70s!"

angelmk wrote: progressive wrote:  Why can't brutal imitating music be sophisticated? Maybe if people like something or think it as natural music, it's sophisticated; for example, for me post-rock seems to be mainly just poser music, quasi-sophisticated and not straight from the heart. But it's just me. It isn't only because I don't like post-rock so much... I see some sophistication in many music, but nothing's perfect and there must be something wrong with other people and their music because... it's not me.  It's just you. Did i get you right that you reffer ''brutal imitating music'' to Post-rock? if you do, i think you are wrong, post rock bands try to be original and inovative, some succeed , some not, but that is the case in all genres IMO,  there are countless clones of Genesis, Pink Floyd, Dream Theater, King Crimson, and other most noticable bands. Bands like Godspeed You! Black Emperor, Sigur Ros, Mogwai, Tortoise set the standards that others follow. And it is far from 'imitating music' cos all post rock bands try to incorporate some elements that distinguish from others.  GY!BE mastered the long cinematic suites, using samples, creating haunting dramatic atmosphere; unlike them 65daysofstatic creates uplifting, energetic, heavy post rock, using electronic quite a lot. On the other side we have The Album Leaf, The American Dollar, ambient based post rock, extenssively using electronics creating one  etherial, dreamy tone rather different from the bands i mentioned before. Then we have Russian Circles, exploring the havier side of post rock; This Is Your Captain Speaking, Hammock, Balmorhea,Tarentel,  creating some lo-fi post rock, slow paced rhythm dominates. Grails , jazzy oriented post rock; I'msonic Rain reaching the realms of psychedelia, noise and so on.. and Why is post rock ''poser'' music? is it fancy nowadays  to listen Post Rock? is it some mainstream genre? well i don't think so. simple example,  In Macedonia, the country where i live, few people have heard of Post rock, and in larger scale of events , post rock has never gained that popularity as other genres of rock or metal. And about how sophisticated post rock is, we can't argue, it is subjective, you called 'quasi' one, i call it elegant, inovative, so it's causes different effects to different people. 'Not straight from the heart'?? well where does it come from then? maybe from their knee? an elbow maybe?  . of course it comes from the heart. I assume you haven't seen Mono in live concert? well i saw, and they left their hearts on stage, majestic performance, so intense,  touching indeed. and one doesn't  need words to describe his feelings, music do that instead. But again, this note is also subjective one. and one more thing,  Is ''natural music'' something that comes from nature,like birds singing ?

Well, my point was just the opposite. I think clones are OK, and I think post rock isn't brutal at all (though sometimes a bit). And for example ELP is cheesy, pompous, brutal... I like ELP clones, at least if they're good (lol). You just said how those bands are innovative etc, but I don't care about that so much, I care about the music. And I don't prefer elegant music, I prefer childish music if it's good. Anyway, I also like all those post-rock bands, but mostly as background music. But there's also post-rock bands that I like more than that, like Disco Inferno, Grayceon, LITE and Mutyumu.

I know it comes from heart, at least mostly ;), but many times there's associations to other things. Like elegantism... I know many people that seems to be listening to "adult" music, usually because it's "easy listening" and relaxing (like post-rock.. so I don't mean the "genre", Easy Listening), and intellectual in some ways - but it seems that for example intellectual lyrics are enough, or maybe professional musicians make it intellectual...

Well, some people have said that I am a poser because I'm into weird music. Maybe they're right to some extend, and I think I'm right about quasi-prog listeners, but maybe we all just listen to what we like.

***

DavetheSlave wrote: The sax in Another Day blew me away. It's all a taste thing though. Some people aint interested in prog - they will listen to jazz or classics or heaven forbid - pop.

The sax in Another Day or the song on the whole isn't prog. Maybe you should listen to jazz + pop more.


***

How metallica is more progressive than DT? Well, any band or genre that evolves and is different from the rest can be progressive but... I think one of the main reasons to think so is that Metallica is more sophisticated. But in a way that I described earlier. Sophisticated means actually... mature pop!!! F*uck cool jazz and ambient music that hasn't annoying parts. Listen to annoying ELP.

***

rogerthat wrote: No, I certainly wasn't and metal is a far more helpful term for me than piano music, which is quite a useless, lazy term anyway.

How is that? At least if it means academic music (so there's no really so much differences between jazz or classical because it's... well, academic), not for example piano rock. And as a free-minded pianist, I think any (good) piano music weill go. And I  think there's much more metal and it's more popular and easy to find, so it's not so useful. Though I think the term "metal" should be used only when it doesn't fall on any metal subgenre, or for example it could be used when speaking of "pop/rock" metal.

rogerthat wrote: ...could you please tell me what is so accurate or helpful about the term symphonic metal other than that it refers to metal that "sounds" symphonic?  I have not seen much evidence of symphonic influences in the bands that I have heard, so could you name bands that actually marry symphony in the correct usage of the word with metal?  I could do the same with symphonic prog as well...I think Cert1fied himself had brought this up once before and it had been suggested that the term had been retained simply because it had become too commonly used in prog circles and reclassifying bands would cause confusion.  As you can see, a lot of sub genre classifications are very lazy and unreliable...unless of course, listening to what it sounds like be the only criterion that matters.    And which, in turn, is what leads to so many classifications. How many times have I heard people denying that a band is say thrash metal simply with the refutation that "I know what thrash sounds like, and this is not what it is."

Yes, I see it, but as I maybe said, genres should be used more accurately. For example symphonic metal can be gothic metal, some power metal.. or in some cases, really classically oriented. So there could be for example genre "neo-classical metal" though in that case many would think of Yngwie Malmsteen. BTW, do you know WINDHAM HELL? It's nicely neoclassical. However, they're not symphonic. Usually you can guess what kind of symphonic metal the band represents by looking at the other genres attached to it, but not always. And for example if there's not progressive rock attached, it cannot be like symphonic prog. Anyway - if you look at the symphonic prog bands here on this site, some of them are mostly symphonic rock, not prog. So... are genres any use? I think they are, but they should be fractalized more.

rogerthat wrote: progressive wrote: "By the way, why exactly is music best when it is in one genre?" - Who said this? At least it's totally opposite with my thoughts. I really think mixing up is good, and I even think that even most prog is just bad, because it's not mixed enough. Not even my favourite bands or some great avant-prog. Apparently, you did ...though it seems either your memory is extremely short term or you were not fully in possession of your faculties when you said this: progressive wrote: but it really seems that there's always too little crossover music and... well usually music is best when it has its own genre If you meant something totally different from what the plain reading of this line implies , please clarify.

Yes, I meant I like crossover music, so maybe you could figure out what the last sentence means. By its own genre I mean that when it's really mixed up, it becomes original. And when something is original, it's different from the rest so it's its own genre.

***

I see you're talking about if DT is progressive. I think no one can disagree about them being not prog, technically. But to be a legend, band must be progressive... sophisticated... mature...? Or it should be the fist to play some kind of crossover music, like jazz in metal? I don't think so. Usually in metal, those things are in openings or in solos, but DT has everything everywhere. And you can name many "original" bands like DT, and even more original, but that doesn't mean DT couldn't be original. And like I said about Another Day, it isn't prog and I think it doesn't even make DT more progressive.

But what DT doens't have is maybe some organic sound and free parts, for example there isn't "natural" solos, it all sounds so.. composed. For example, Black Sabbath sounds like prog in many places, but it really isn't. DT doesn't sound like that... organic. Anyway if you could count a diversity index, DT would be high because the music is so complicated - besides, it's very much pop at the same time, and it even has soul = some "symphonic" metal in it. Also, what I think DT's music lacks, is weird harmonies and melodies, and experimental sound, oops, I mean, organic... and some other art too. No one likes polished music, because it's so childish. Technical music is childish too.

Maybe DT had elements that other had before DT, but like I said, I think timeline isn's to important. Many prog bands today are somehow clones. If they make it well, they must be prog bands. If they're not prog bands, I think not even the ancestors are prog. For example, a PF imitating band might not sound prog or progressive, but what about PF then? It can be progressive, but prog...? If the clone is a good clone and doesn't sound (I don't mean the _sound_ of it) prog.... decide yourself.





Edited by progressive - March 15 2010 at 09:24

progressive wrote: How is that? At least if it means academic music

There you are, you are having to clarify. This is what I was trying to say: piano music could be Magma or it could be Tori Amos.

progressive wrote: Yes, I see it, but as I maybe said, genres should be used more accurately. For example symphonic metal can be gothic metal, some power metal.. or in some cases, really classically oriented. So there could be for example genre "neo-classical metal" though in that case many would think of Yngwie Malmsteen. BTW, do you know WINDHAM HELL? It's nicely neoclassical. However, they're not symphonic. Usually you can guess what kind of symphonic metal the band represents by looking at the other genres attached to it, but not always. And for example if there's not progressive rock attached, it cannot be like symphonic prog. Anyway - if you look at the symphonic prog bands here on this site, some of them are mostly symphonic rock, not prog. So... are genres any use? I think they are, but they should be fractalized more.

You do not follow at all...symphonic metal is in itself an inaccurate term based simply on what the music sounds like and more subdivision won't help, which by the way is exactly what has happened...they clarify it as symphonic power metal, symphonic gothic metal, symphonic death and so on until the boundaries for a band within any of these niches are so narrow they can't help imitating the leaders. 

Fieldofsorrow wrote: jampa17 wrote:   Which avatar is better: Field of sorrow or mine...??? that's better to discuss...    VS Now that could be interesting. Close call if you ask me.

Tricky indeed, but Jampa's looks cooler so I'm going with that one.

Can an admin lock this thread. It now serves no purpose other than to create quote pyramids of pain.

By now this discussion might be worthy of this one ;-)

Petrovsk Mizinski wrote: This is STILL GOING? Come on guys, geezus

I agree with you Dave, and thanks for mentioning Deep Purple, as I believe they are also very relevant To PA.

DavetheSlave wrote:   On a different note - I've heard a lot of praise for Ronnie James Dio here when compared to La Brie. I used to love RJD's voice but after time it became very one dimensional to me. Sort of a vocal one trick pony.

One dimensional, indeed!  Listen to Too Late and look at the contrast between his mellow and gritty tones...nobody else in metal manages so much contrast and so effectively. Even Akerfeldt needs to switch to a growl to achieve such contrast...but not Dio!  And could you please explain how somebody who can sing the blues rock on Elf and the crushingly heavy metal music on Dehumanizer equally well is a vocal one trick pony?  I guess the bands and artists you don't lavish your praise on are most unfortunate indeed because you don't seem to give them much attention at all in judging them.