DT... already a prog legend?

Petrovsk Mizinski wrote: No, no I don't listen to prog. I'm only a collaborator at this website. You wont find such bands as SikTh, Meshuggah, Pelican, Between the Buried and Me, Scale the Summit, The Mars Volta, Opeth etc all of which are listed in my sig on this site. So no chance I listen to prog. Seriously now, were you kidding with Pink Floyd and Rush not being prog?

progressive wrote: Rush and Pink Floyd aren't prog.

Petrovsk Mizinski wrote: No, no I don't listen to prog. I'm only a collaborator at this website. You wont find such bands as SikTh, Meshuggah, Pelican, Between the Buried and Me, Scale the Summit, The Mars Volta, Opeth etc all of which are listed in my sig on this site. So no chance I listen to prog. Seriously now, were you kidding with Pink Floyd and Rush not being prog?

If those are prog, DT have to be prog.

At least Pelican isn't progressive rock and others are more art metal or progressive metal, which basically means technical, usually not prog (like DT is). Well, there is not genre "art metal", but you know what I mean, experimental/post-metal etc. Scale the Summit seems to be more prog, but bad music can't be prog ;) (tthough I like Scale the Summit), and it's just mostly "instrumental"-sounding. I wonder why there isn't genre like that.

I can see prog in those artists, but I really began to doubt if you listen to "real" prog. It would be nice if you said some other bands, too. I don't know what you've collaborated, so sorry for that.

Prog and art are different things, technicality and prog are different things...

CCVP wrote: Kashmir75 wrote: progressive wrote: Rush and Pink Floyd aren't prog. So what is, then? ABBA

Again, not funny. Think some other artists. Those two are prog at some parts, but PF is mostly art & psychedelic rock and Rush is quite mainstream rock. At least DT is more complex.

Petrovsk Mizinski wrote: Prog rock is not prog rock

Did you say that because I said "Actually progressive rock shouldn't be prog, if we start to think like you. Avant-Prog should be prog"?

Well, I said that because if we get rid of the other part of "progressive rock", which is rock, we have "pure" prog, that is - in some occasions - avant-prog.


Edited by progressive - March 04 2010 at 19:44

Your points are weakly explained. We've agreed DT are not legends yet amd maybe they never will or maybe they will. But last time I checked, we all agreed PF and Rush, while not the most revolutionary bands ever, were 100% prog.

The T wrote: Your points are weakly explained. We've agreed DT are not legends yet amd maybe they never will or maybe they will. But last time I checked, we all agreed PF and Rush, while not the most revolutionary bands ever, were 100% prog.

This is quite much agreement: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=65172

And I remember some polls where both PF and Rush are voted awaywards from prog.

If you really say they are 100 % prog or that's what voted, you are clearly lying.

Maybe DT will be voted 66 % prog (and 77 % prog actually because prog metal is prog, or maybe if it's 50 % prog, then the overall is 71 %)

Maybe PF will be voted to be, let's say 84 % prog. That's very much.

But again, if DT isn't prog and people have voted like that, we could say voters are wrong. And really, this seems not to be very proggy website to me

And for some people prog refers to some typical sounding prog from 70's, and it's somehow even weird to say that Magma is prog. And for example some electronic music that is clearly prog isn't referred to as prog. But prog is progressive + ROCK? How can avant-prog be prog if it isn't rock (sometimes it is, sometimes not)? I think it doesn't matter whether it's "rock" or not. And even if it wouldn't be like that, DT has made also progressive ROCK songs.

Ps I think Pink Floyd IS revolutionary, but it depends... And I don't think prog has to be revolutionary, even to be legendary.

But fanbases etc... I don't know if it matters. I mean, to me there's very many "legends" that even most proggers haven't heard. One example that everyone knows is Dün.




Edited by progressive - March 05 2010 at 04:56

DavetheSlave wrote: The T - we can't agree or disagree as to whether or not DT are legends. They either are or they're not. I would say that their huge fan base as well as the albums Images and Words, Awake and the live albums Budokan and XOX on their own make DT a legend. but time will tell, I definately won't. DT have fought record labels, critics, and anyone who stood in the way, to keep their own identity and to play the music that they want to play. That in itself is commendable. The fact that there are a lot of wannabees and emulators out there tells it's own tale. There are a lot of Dream Theater bashers around but that also tells its own tale. To me bashing Dream Theater is akin to bashing old Genesis, Yes, Deep Purple, Golden Earring - there isn't a point. The points have been made all by themselves.

progressive wrote: The T wrote: Your points are weakly explained. We've agreed DT are not legends yet amd maybe they never will or maybe they will. But last time I checked, we all agreed PF and Rush, while not the most revolutionary bands ever, were 100% prog. This is quite much agreement: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=65172   Agreement about DT being prog-metal. Not about them being legends.  And I remember some polls where both PF and Rush are voted awaywards from prog. Oh there's always the people that say things like that...  If you really say they are 100 % prog or that's what voted, you are clearly lying. I'm just saying what is common knowledge here. Rush and PF are prog. Only few members, usually new ones who try to impress, say they are not. (and a few respected members whose opinions are only the exception to the rule).  Maybe DT will be voted 66 % prog (and 77 % prog actually because prog metal is prog, or maybe if it's 50 % prog, then the overall is 71 %) Maybe PF will be voted to be, let's say 84 % prog. That's very much. But again, if DT isn't prog and people have voted like that, we could say voters are wrong. And really, this seems not to be very proggy website to me What??? Couldn't follow you there....  And for some people prog refers to some typical sounding prog from 70's, and it's somehow even weird to say that Magma is prog. And for example some electronic music that is clearly prog isn't referred to as prog. But prog is progressive + ROCK? How can avant-prog be prog if it isn't rock (sometimes it is, sometimes not)? I think it doesn't matter whether it's "rock" or not. And even if it wouldn't be like that, DT has made also progressive ROCK songs. What does this have to with anything??? Ps I think Pink Floyd IS revolutionary, but it depends... And I don't think prog has to be revolutionary, even to be legendary. Correct. Like RUSH.  But fanbases etc... I don't know if it matters. I mean, to me there's very many "legends" that even most proggers haven't heard. One example that everyone knows is Dün. With this I agree. They're legends apparently.. for the 64 people that know them...

CCVP wrote: The T wrote: But fanbases etc... I don't know if it matters. I mean, to me there's very many "legends" that even most proggers haven't heard. One example that everyone knows is Dün. With this I agree. They're legends apparently.. for the 64 people that know them...  lol, my thoughts on zehul exactly.

Sounds a bit negative (though I don't know what do you exactly mean). Are they inferior to more known legends?


Rottenhat, I'd go with this "A story about mythical or supernatural beings or events". At least band's aren't persons.

The T, oops, that poll was at wrong place. But it wasn't only "agreement about DT being prog-metal", but also prog rock.

About PF and Rush being prog or not - I don't know so much about what people think of it, but you don't have evidences either. :P

And I can gladly categorize them to prog, because there isn't so many descriptors in use. This situation is more visible in prog metal when the metal has much elements of other genres, but isn't very progressive. Still it's sometimes called prog metal and it's acceptable. But anyway, in every genre and in every artist, even in every song there's more or less prog. Rarely it's "100 %" prog. And if we really could count how progressive something is, why not adding for example 30 % prog here? Of course they will be added, and the progressiveness should be mentioned in some way, so that it's easier to find the music if someone wants prog. And of course there is less-prog artists here, and it's a good thing. Mostly it's not a problem, because besides prog, people can enjoy other artistic parts of the music, not only the complexity.

Symphonic/art/experimental/psychedelic rock etc.  = prog? Why not. Maybe so, at least if there's some prog occasions, too.

I like PF very much but I think it's too often in 4/4.



Edited by progressive - March 05 2010 at 13:45

So much fail in this thread it makes my head ache.

Last page is awesome.