The REAL problem with prog-metal: is not prog-rock - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

mr70s

Forum Senior Member

Joined: July 21 2008
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 121

Posted: August 31 2008 at 06:01

Certif1ed wrote:

and this is exactly why there should at least be a definition - even if it's not 100% correct, or even 50% correct (most current definitions of Prog Metal on the internet appear to be factually incorrect)

The only useful definitions are those that are applied retrospectively, when we look back on a period of music upon which the dust has settled.

LeInsomniac View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: December 22 2006
Location: Portugal
Status: Offline
Points: 315

Posted: August 31 2008 at 10:29

ihatethesnp wrote:

Prog metal only exists in the Americas.................DT couldn't lace Iron Maidens boots.

I've heard it and it stinks.

Hey man what happened to you? Did prog-metal slapped you in the face or what? Open-mind is a good thing from time to time, and even if you don't like it, it shows you're a real mature person and a music listener by coming here and delivering a present like you did.

Happy Family One Hand Clap, Four Went On But None Came Back

trackstoni View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: February 23 2008
Location: Lebanon
Status: Offline
Points: 934

Posted: August 31 2008 at 12:20

Disagree about insulting other peoples choice & opinion , we're from different spots of this wonderful planets , different cultures , and different attitudes . So , what i meant in my post , was that metal music is completely different from Progressive that we know , if progressive has died in the late 70's , as someone said , i'm not gonna die for progressive , So i have to discover new dimensions in this case , and i believe i did , Bands like Porcupine Tree , Opeth , Dreamtheater , Satellite , winger , blackfield , arena ,Pendragon , Marillion and so many others are ok , and fine to my taste . WE can't simply compare Giants ( Van Der Graaf , King Crimson , Yes , Genesis , ELP , Pink Floyd and Jethro Tull , to any other band , performing now
So please , questionning is good , but Globing things the way you want is untolerated , and i believe that closing this conversation is a must in this case , cause progressive music from 1968 till 1999 was completely different . TracksToni

Tracking Tracks of Rock

Certif1ed

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559

Posted: August 31 2008 at 12:28

mr70s wrote:

Certif1ed wrote:

The only useful definitions are those that are applied retrospectively, when we look back on a period of music upon which the dust has settled.

I'd say that those are simply more useful - not the only useful definitions.

A definition would certainly be useful to address criticisms like this one posted earlier;

ihatethesnp wrote:

My problem with so called prog metal, is that it doesn't exist, except in someones mind.

You'd have to listen to a very wide cross-section of Prog Metal to be able to come to that decision in an informed way - listening to one Dream Theater album isn't going to tell you what it's all about - and, as the title of this article declares, it's not Prog Rock.

Try this and reconsider your opinion; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DAeYaehLD0&feature=related

The important thing is not to stop questioning.

Statutory-Mike View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: February 15 2008
Location: Long Island
Status: Offline
Points: 3737

Posted: August 31 2008 at 15:41

trackstoni wrote:

WE can't simply compare Giants ( Van Der Graaf , King Crimson , Yes , Genesis , ELP , Pink Floyd and Jethro Tull , to any other band , performing now

Why can't we? Who's to say any band past, present, or future can't be compared to them?

burritounit View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 18 2007
Location: Puerto Rico
Status: Offline
Points: 2551

Posted: August 31 2008 at 15:42

MisterProg2112 wrote:

trackstoni wrote:

WE can't simply compare Giants ( Van Der Graaf , King Crimson , Yes , Genesis , ELP , Pink Floyd and Jethro Tull , to any other band , performing now

Why can't we? Who's to say any band past, present, or future can't be compared to them?

I agree with this. Modern prog bands can be just as good as the so called Giants.

"I've walked on water, run through fire, can't seem to feel it anymore. It was me, waiting for me..."

Avantgardehead View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: December 29 2006
Location: Dublin, OH, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1170

Posted: August 31 2008 at 16:09

Modern prog doesn't have a chance until it starts progressing and breaking ground like the aforementioned giants did.

http://www.last.fm/user/Avantgardian

russellk

Prog Reviewer

Joined: February 28 2005
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 782

Posted: August 31 2008 at 16:14

^ Which of course, given it includes avant-garde elements, is exactly what it is doing.

trackstoni View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: February 23 2008
Location: Lebanon
Status: Offline
Points: 934

Posted: August 31 2008 at 16:58

   hey fellows , Hi , when i first joined Progarchives , i had no idea about how things are running in your spot , but still i had the pleasure to discuss about the music i like with other peoples , from around the world .
i've earned , maybe , my second star just yesterday ( thanks Progarchives ) . but stars meant nothing to me , as an ex . pilot , i was too close to grap one than most of you .
This thread was the most interresting one i've seen in this site , but , please take it easy on me with your opinions about sounds , harmonies , and empty definitions , just to justify something was not available since the beginning of our movement . if you want the < metal > to be in progarchives , i have no problem to review all these activities . But , if you want to post reviews about Metal from now till the end of times , nothing will convince me that Metal belongs to our spot .
   First there's no Metal rock , a rock is a rock , and a metal is a metal .
   Second , you cannot consider that there is , not even there was a progressive metal , it makes no sence .
   third , if yu're all of you proggers , from different cultures , different continents , agreed that Metal should be included in the Progressive rock archive , i don't have a problem . But please , for God sake , do not defend the idea that Metal took the place of Progressive rock for the next decade , not even close to , what Giants did 40 years ago , it makes no sence to compare a precious stone ( the rock ) maybe a diamond ,
with the so called metal . So , take it easy my friends , things cannot be sofisticated in this regard .

Tracking Tracks of Rock

mr70s

Forum Senior Member

Joined: July 21 2008
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 121

Posted: August 31 2008 at 17:10

Certif1ed wrote:

[QUOTE=mr70s][QUOTE=Certif1ed]

A definition would certainly be useful to address criticisms like this one posted earlier;

[QUOTE=ihatethesnp]My problem with so called prog metal, is that it doesn't exist, except in someones mind.

On the contrary, this illustrates my point that definitions applied to present day music simply don't work - for reasons I have mentioned previously.

crimson87

Prog Reviewer

Joined: January 03 2008
Location: Argentina
Status: Offline
Points: 1818

Posted: August 31 2008 at 17:16

ihatethesnp wrote:

Prog metal only exists in the Americas.................DT couldn't lace Iron Maidens boots.

I've heard it and it stinks.

However , DT stinks NOW.It has very good records There are lots of prog metal bands that have loads of cheese like POS Ayron or Kamelot.Stratovarius owns all those bands.

Avantgardehead View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: December 29 2006
Location: Dublin, OH, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1170

Posted: August 31 2008 at 17:19

I often find myself wishing that progressive metal would take more after the 70's prog dinosaurs than the 80's abominations. Cry

http://www.last.fm/user/Avantgardian

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: August 31 2008 at 17:31

This thread appears to be wandering away from the original topic.

This is not a Prog Metal vs. Prog Rock discussion nor is it about the merits of individual Prog Metal bands.

What?

debrewguy

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596

Posted: August 31 2008 at 20:15

Certif1ed wrote:

An interesting and very dense group of questions...

debrewguy wrote:

If Jazz Fusion is a mix of Jazz & Rock, should JF be considered prog ?

That depends on how close to Prog it gets. If it's clearly just a jazz/rock fusion, then probably not. If the goal is to create something different through that fusion, then we're closer. If the music itself progresses such that we forget we're listening to a fusion of jazz and rock, and develops in interesting ways, then that's probably Prog (or related). Mahavishnu's "Inner Mounting Flame" is a good example, of a fusion album that's close to Prog, if you can ignore the widdly guitar.

If Krautrock was influenced by Psychedelia and politics and drugs, where is the prog element.

Depends on the Krautrock album in question... Not all Krautrock stems from psychedelia (e.g. Can, Faust), some strays into heavy metal territory (The Scorpions, Necronomicon, Eloy), and many show a deep Pink Floyd influence. Floyd, despite being deeply psychedelic, rarely if ever played music that bears any resemblance to "straightforward" psychedelia.

If psychedelic influences are sufficient for "progginess", should all psychedelic bands (mostly from the 60s) be considered prog and have their own sub genre here at PA ?

Not all of them, but Psych Rock is undoubtedly the breeding ground from which Prog Rock arose, so there is a very clear link, and many Psych bands were part of the "Progressive Music" scene - so there is a clear case for adding progressive Psych bands. We already have Hapshash and the Coloured Coat (who weren't even a proper band!), and there are many other deserving cases.

If progressive electronic includes many groups that would now be called "new age" or "ambient" in today's media subdivision of music, should modern "new age" and "ambient" groups have the door opened to them ?

There are many who think they should, and I find it hard to disagree. The Orb, for example, have clear Prog links, in the Pink Floyd samples they used, and Steve Hillage behind the production knobs, IIRC. It's not just New Age or Ambient that should be considered, if you pursue this avenue, but so-called "Intelligent" and "Progressive" dance music too, as the differences are very blurry.

At what point does avant-garde become routine or formulaic ? and therefore no longer avant-garde ?

Heh - it's not going to be a point, but there is something about a band that chooses to err towards noise that seems to perpetually keep them at the "Avant-garde" edge - bands such as Autechre, for example.

Is it possible that a metal group be progressive or proggy ? If yes, what do the declaimers insist should be part of the musical presentation ? Moogs, Mellotrons, Hammond B3s ? Lower volume ? Obeissance to the Apocalypse in 9/8 ? Exploration of other types of Oceans ? Side long suites ?

It's totally possible, because Progressive Rock descended from Heavy Metal as well as Rock - the "split" from Rock to Metal was a gradual one. The heaviness of "The Heavy Metal Kids" I mentioned above is only really apparent if you've listened to a lot of psych, and if you follow their career path, it's plain to see how they influenced all the early greats from Zeppelin, Purple and Sabbath to Judas Priest. Yet when they started out, the Progressive Music scene was in its infancy. ITCOTCK owes at least as much to Heavy Metal in this embryonic form as it does to the Blues, Jazz or Avant-Garde, as witnessed by the very first track.

The "elements" are by and large irrelevant, unless combined in such a way as to make the music progressive. Any can be present or missing - it's all in the music, just as it is with Prog.

Please set out the criteria for which you would or could or should consider a musical genre progressive / Then make a comparison from your favourite groups to the Prog metal groups or ask the more informed members here for examples that match those set by your template setting prog heroes.

I've already done that - and asked the question about Prog Metal. I'm currently prodding the Prog Metal Team for answers, and the results are looking very promising, as they love talking about their favourite music.

Methinks that the contradictions will surpass those of many a religious holy book. (Complex passages ? Yes. And No. Time signatures outside of 4/4. Yes. And No. Long long multi part songs. Yes. And No. Virtuosic playing. Yes. And No. Can you see that accepting one choice only would disqualify seemingly clearly progressive groups or genres. Gentle Giant never went for 20 minute suites. Prog, are they ? The Krautrockers are not know for their technical expertise at their instruments. Prog, are they ? Rush never went for mellotrons and Hammond B3s. Prog , are they ? King Crimson never really wrote "symphonies". Prog , are they ?
Using one criteria to elimate or negate a genre's claim to being prog music can be too easily applied to most genres here, and even to many bands within the other genres.

Defining music by elements alone is impossible, because elements of music are like elements of anything else - mere building blocks.

You couldn't categorise pieces of music that contained the note "E", for example, because, if there's a guitar in the band, chances are that an "E" will be played.

You probably wouldn't want to categorise your music collection into pieces that are written in the key of E, pieces that contain Mellotrons, pieces that are over 20 minutes lons or pieces that are in 7/4, because those would be the ONLY links between the pieces of music. All the pieces would most likely be in completely different styles.

Even a checklist of a combination of these elements is next to useless unless there is further qualification and even then, most "genres" of music are extremely fuzzy around the edges - this isn' t an exact science.

If you don't like it. Say so. If, in comparison to everything else at PA that has passed the Prog test, a genre, be it Prog Metal, does not compare or match up to the rest, then present the case with specifics, and make sure that your conclusions cannot be used against other bands or genres from PA's database. Self defeat saves others time. Better to take time and save face.

As per my note above, this is being done - there simply aren't any workable definitions available YET

Prog Metal requires its own test, as it has followed a different path to Prog Rock, just as Jazz Fusion has...

I think you caught the gist of the message. It seems like Prog Metal is dismissed as prog by some for some specific reasons, without considering that other prog sub-genres might not pass the same tests either (complexity not enough, complexity required and so on). Yet, none of the Prog Metal naysayers would want their fave prog genre's (symphonic, electronic, folk) "progness" judged as measured against another genre. Imagine determining whether VDGG are prog by comparing their music to PA's description of Krautrock or Jazz Fusion. Just think of the fun that would emanate from a debate as to how progressive "Neo" is if you use RIO/Avant-Garde as the measure of all things prog. Would Electronic Prog be considered a valid prog sub genre if we use Prog Folk as the measuring stick ?
Maybe we count the different time signatures divided by the number of chords times the length in minutes of a song minus the lines lof lyrics that are actually decipherable and then add the quantity of multi-mutli-syllabic words used in song titles.

"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.

trackstoni View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: February 23 2008
Location: Lebanon
Status: Offline
Points: 934

Posted: September 01 2008 at 01:11

Reasonable way of thinking , a perfect arrangement of Questions & Answers . I agree with every single word in Debrewguy's reply . Things are very clear , and deserves a wide look , and a special reconsideration .
This point of view is in fact the nearest to my opinion regarding Progressive metal , sometimes things can be really funny & surprising !!!!!!
The more you know , the less you need ///////// Tracks Toni

Tracking Tracks of Rock

Certif1ed

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559

Posted: September 01 2008 at 03:41

trackstoni wrote:

(...)But , if you want to post reviews about Metal from now till the end of times , nothing will convince me that Metal belongs to our spot .
First there's no Metal rock , a rock is a rock , and a metal is a metal .

Don't forget that metal is extracted from rock - and the geological metaphor works for music; First there was rock, then metal was "discovered" in the rock, then then metal became refined, and alloys were created.

Second , you cannot consider that there is , not even there was a progressive metal , it makes no sence .

It makes as much sense as Progressive Rock, surely?

Progressive Jazz was the first "Progressive" music I'm aware of, around 20 years before people started talking about Progressive in relation to rock. Since metal emerged from rock, it makes sense that Progressive Metal should emerge in the wake of Progressive Rock.

third , if yu're all of you proggers , from different cultures , different continents , agreed that Metal should be included in the Progressive rock archive , i don't have a problem . But please , for God sake , do not defend the idea that Metal took the place of Progressive rock for the next decade ,

I don't think that anyone's suggesting that metal is taking the place of the original bands - it seems to me that this is a complementary form of music.

No-one is writing Progressive Rock as it was in the early 1970s - people are copying the styles and approaches, but don't seem to have learned the all-important lesson of what it's all about - and I rather suspect that this is because the definitions that exist are generally poor.

not even close to , what Giants did 40 years ago , it makes no sence to compare a precious stone ( the rock ) maybe a diamond ,
with the so called metal .

I don't think that Prog Metal artists are trying to create the same sort of music - in some ways it doesn't make sense to compare the two, but in others, it does:

Most definitions of Prog Metal claim that the music uses ideas from Progressive Rock - and some, like long songs and concepts, are undeniable. It's the other stuff like "virtuosity" and "complexity" that's really under scrutiny and requires context within the metal realm rather than the Rock realm.

debrewguy wrote:

I think you caught the gist of the message. It seems like Prog Metal is dismissed as prog by some for some specific reasons, without considering that other prog sub-genres might not pass the same tests either (complexity not enough, complexity required and so on). Yet, none of the Prog Metal naysayers would want their fave prog genre's (symphonic, electronic, folk) "progness" judged as measured against another genre. Imagine determining whether VDGG are prog by comparing their music to PA's description of Krautrock or Jazz Fusion. Just think of the fun that would emanate from a debate as to how progressive "Neo" is if you use RIO/Avant-Garde as the measure of all things prog. Would Electronic Prog be considered a valid prog sub genre if we use Prog Folk as the measuring stick ?

I'm not convinced that the reasoning is generally specific - some Prog fans seem to attribute greater prowess to, say, Rick Wakeman, than someone who is demonstrably more musically literate, virtuosic and creative.

debrewguy wrote:

Maybe we count the different time signatures divided by the number of chords times the length in minutes of a song minus the lines lof lyrics that are actually decipherable and then add the quantity of multi-mutli-syllabic words used in song titles.

When I set out to define Prog Rock, I attempted to use a unique set of "measurements" - and I think that Prog Metal deserves the same. Any equation would only be a theory, not a definition, and the theory would require explanation - which would possibly serve as a reasonable definition.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Progressive Metal is a natural development of Heavy Metal, a form of Rock Music that emerged from Psychedelic Rock in 1966-7.

The original Heavy Metal (as I see it) was a form of Psychedelic Rock that placed an emphasis on tight riffs and precision in soloing - it was a refined form of rock. As it developed, it became clear that it was an all-inclusive form of music, like Progressive Rock (and Rock as an overall genre), in that folk-like acoustic numbers, jazz-inspired and classical-inspired music would sit alongside heavy riffs that erred towards the dark and nihilistic side of the blues - and ultimately, kicked away the blues roots altogether.

At one end of the spectrum, musicians tended towards the showy, the classically inspired, the theatrical and a stretching of the old song format, adding decoration to elongated phrasing in a similar manner to classical composers (almost always confined to simplified Baroque or Classical constructs rather than earlier or later periods).

Keyboards and other "non-rock" instrumentation were quite rare in Metal, except at the "showy" end I described above, as were vocal harmonies.

The film "This is Spinal Tap", which I may stop quoting one day, highlights this really - the line between simple rock band and pretentious swaggerers claiming all manner of influence is an image many seem to have or Progressive Metal - but its interesting to see that exactly the same principles apply to Progressive Rock (at it's worst).

I think that "Progressive Metal" has always been there, with Progressive Rock - it's simply that many bands who actually played Metal have been re-christened into the Rock fraternity (whereas the music is actually BOTH), and it's the ones with most technical prowess that have earned the promotion so that Metal as a genre gets overlooked.

Contrary to popular opinion, Heavy Metal was not invented in the 1990s, and does not have to sound like Metallica (the album) or Killswitch Engage.

Deep Purple, Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, AC/DC - all have been referred to as Heavy Metal - and yet how different the music is, to the point that 3 out of these 4 have been accepted as "Prog Related", but many would prefer to refer to them as Rock bands instead of Metal because of some wierd sort of stigma that Heavy Metal has ALWAYS had - like it's somehow a lesser form of music than anything else.

Yes, it's a simplified version of the ideal of Progressive Rock, but then so are most Progressive Rock bands - there are actually only a very few exceptions that live up to the ideal.

And this is exactly the same situation that Progressive Metal finds itself in - the main problem is that a large contingent haven't heard the progressive side (the Prog) in Heavy Metal, and hence deny even the possibility of its existence.

From what I've heard, it seems that Progressive Metal is doing what Metal has always done. It's working towards the ideals, and will never stop until it has attained them.

Edited by Certif1ed - September 01 2008 at 03:46

The important thing is not to stop questioning.

mr70s

Forum Senior Member

Joined: July 21 2008
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 121

Posted: September 01 2008 at 05:54

Certif1ed wrote:

Try this and reconsider your opinion; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DAeYaehLD0&feature=related

Just curious, do you think this is a good piece of music ?

Certif1ed

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559

Posted: September 01 2008 at 06:25

I like it...

It sounds like Progressive Rock - it's more focussed on technique than "Classic" prog, possibly too much, but at the same time, it seems very musical, and everything seems to be there for a reason beyond mere prowess demonstration.

It's based on minimal changes rather than dynamic overall development, and I can go back and hear stuff I missed on previous listens. It also makes it very clear that it's riff-based metal, but manages to produce an overall sound that is very different to, say, Killswitch Engage (or perhaps Fear Factory would be a better, more contemporary comparison).

That said, it doesn't really sound like something that's a "Classic", there's not an awful lot of band interplay - rather it's guitarist support (nothing wrong in that approach, it's a feature of a fair amount of Zappa's work) - and I do like lyrics with my Prog, so it's not in my top 100 or anything like that.

I think it proves beyond question that there IS such a thing as Prog Metal, and yes, I think it's a pretty good piece of music.

The important thing is not to stop questioning.

Rocktopus

Forum Senior Member

Joined: March 02 2006
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 4202

Posted: September 01 2008 at 06:30

mr70s wrote:

Certif1ed wrote:

Try this and reconsider your opinion; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DAeYaehLD0&feature=related

Just curious, do you think this is a good piece of music ?

Everything might be right about this track for Certif1ed perfect pitch ears, but I'm glad my ears are more primitive, so I'm able to tell when everything's wrong. Horrible, pointless music.

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

MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21206

Posted: September 01 2008 at 06:38

^ wonderful. I think that those two posts show the essence of the very problem we are facing with defining prog rock - or prog metal, or any of the other labels we're throwing around here: Reasoning/Science vs. Intuition/Taste. A dilemma which is impossible to solve - from either direction. One could come up with perfect reasoning, explaining that something is prog ... yet there will always be people who strongly disagree. They might acknowledge that the reasoning is sound, but still not accept it at all.

Recently listened to: