DT... already a prog legend?

If Prog Metal wasn't just tangentially Prog, they most certainly would be.

But if you believe Prog means more than mainstream music with technically proficient interludes, it's hard to call them a Prog band. To me, they're a Prog band in the same way that Avatar is an animated feature or, to use musical terms, the way Avril Lavigne is a Punk artist.

And this isn't an argument about quality - there's absolutely no dobt that DT are incredibly good at what they do and fantastically skilled musicians. I just question the assertion that a band with such a heavy mainstream component could ever really be considered Prog. It may that the definition has changed from when it was first defined in the 70s, but if it has, that is due very much to DT (and Spock's Beard).

I think the difference between Prog Metal - where Prog is an adjective, meaning that Metal is still the main component - and Prog Rock (which really has precious little to do with Rock other than some instrumentation) should be maintained.

Are DT Prog Metal legends? Absolutely. They're defining act of the genre. Are they that much of a Prog band? Not really.

I think the change of compositional approach of which rogerthat speaks is indeed what has changed. For some, it has regressed considerably I think, because the style of writing is on the whole much less akin to classical music nowadays. Modern prog bands I think have a tendency to blast from one riff to another without a huge amount of room for development. A generalisation, I know, but I think Dream Theater often write songs which follow a more predictable structure from some of the early greats, and this may well for some people appear to be a backwards step.

But Dream Theater have pushed the envelope elsewhere - their blending of a way of thinking with a way of playing that just felt so natural, not to mention the crispness and refinement that purely thrash based bands had never produced. Personal preference dictates whether that clarity was good for metal, but it's hard to admit that Dream Theater weren't a little bit unique in the realms of their genre.

Teaflax wrote: If Prog Metal wasn't just tangentially Prog, they most certainly would be. But if you believe Prog means more than mainstream music with technically proficient interludes, it's hard to call them a Prog band. To me, they're a Prog band in the same way that Avatar is an animated feature or, to use musical terms, the way Avril Lavigne is a Punk artist. And this isn't an argument about quality - there's absolutely no dobt that DT are incredibly good at what they do and fantastically skilled musicians. I just question the assertion that a band with such a heavy mainstream component could ever really be considered Prog. It may that the definition has changed from when it was first defined in the 70s, but if it has, that is due very much to DT (and Spock's Beard). I think the difference between Prog Metal - where Prog is an adjective, meaning that Metal is still the main component - and Prog Rock (which really has precious little to do with Rock other than some instrumentation) should be maintained. Are DT Prog Metal legends? Absolutely. They're defining act of the genre. Are they that much of a Prog band? Not really.

Fieldofsorrow wrote: rogerthat wrote: Not just a bit unique, VERY VERY unique for the then metal scene.  There had never been a metal band quite like DT before.  People often cite Fates Warning's Parallels as something made a little earlier that already established the DT style of prog metal but I don't hear the 'parallel'...I&W and Awake are at a different level altogether.  It's disappointing that they moved further and further away from this approach but at least at that point of time, they were a potentially great band.  Because of what you - Fieldofsorrow -  and I just discussed,  it becomes a little difficult to compare these albums to what are considered as the classic 70s prog albums but in their own right, certainly a band like few others...at least before they blew it (well, for me they did anyway, I know a lot of people here like SFAM/Six Degrees more than those two albums). Oh yes, I thought they were very unique too - I just understated it for emphasis. 'Parallels' was an interesting album, but I feel it was somewhat premature compared to the works that Theater produced a few years down the road. But however difficult it may be to compare DT's music to 'Close To The Edge' or whatever, that serves as a good indication to me that they were not generic in their writing, and whilst capturing a lot of the attributes of prog twenty years before (stylistic elements such as unusual time changes/extended compositions) they managed to cultivate a sound of their own. Thus, perhaps it is best that I&W does not fulfil all of the ideologies of classic prog - it's a point in favour of their innovation.

In fifty years, no-one will care what year something came out in as long as its good. There's a 20 year difference between Close To The Edge and Images and Words. And what is 20 years in the grander scheme of things? Nothing. It's the blink of an eye. So, assuming that a lot of popular music survives into the mid to late 21st century, DT will be lumped in with Yes, KC, and all the others. 

Rush and Pink Floyd aren't prog.

Actually I thought they were examples of bad influences. From many viewpoints, they aren't very much progressive, at least Pink Floyd. And if they we're much prog and truly DT's roots, why wouldn't DT be prog? Those all bands mentioned are mainstream in a way or another, though Yes is much more controversial. The structure of DT's music is much more progressive than Pink Floyd's. Pink Floyd may have more other artistic elements and other kind of progressiveness.

How?

Not funny...

So do you mean I'm not providing explanations? Maybe I should try to give some examples, though I don't know musical theory.

And that's the problem here and in other discussions like this. The thing is so complex. Also, there is much too little genres or at least too little real analysis on music.

PS Do you even listen to prog?

I don't know Eric Clapton very well, so maybe you're right. At least I know he plays guitar quite progressively, but maybe it's soloing or something.

If something is somehow progressive, it's progressive in that way. But some other band could be progressive in another way, and if they both are prog, there's a probable problem.

Wow, this thread is still going? Impressive how long a flamewar can go.