| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Certif1ed 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
 Posted: September 04 2008 at 08:16 |
 MikeEnRegalia wrote:
[QUOTE=Certif1ed]
OK, let's examine this;
"complex compositional structures".
Just about every "Prog Metal" piece I've heard from "representative" bands lacks these in abundance, and where the structures are "complex", they tend to be mere extensions of the type of structures that Metallica brought to Heavy Metal. I analysed this ages agon in a thread in which you participated, so will not repeat the process here.
Just earlier today in the thread about the new Metallica album you analysed Cyanide and raved about how it - in a nutshell - is so similar to what Genesis did ... then later you said that it uses a "A B A B C A B" form (or something like that). What's it gonna be?
You've taken this entirely out of context and not understood what I wrote. The word "similar" is key here, and my second listening showed things I didn't notice on my first - like how simple it really is.
Not ONE matches the complexity of, say "The Musical Box" or "On Reflection" - until there is a piece of Prog Metal that does match the complexity in form of Prog Rock, this statement is actually false and misleading.
The word "complex" can be seen in many ways. For some complexity is achieved by using a time signature like 7/8. For others a guitar solo in a phrygian scale might sound complex if compared to natural minor. Your standards are *way* too high, and there are very few prog rock bands who come close to what Genesis were doing in terms of form. But I'll tell you this: Albums like Fates Warning - A Pleasant Shade of Grey or Pain of Salvation - One Hour by the Concrete Lake are perfect examples for complex form in metal. It may be a different, perhaps less spontaneous or organic type of music, but that doesn't change the indisputable fact that it's much, much more complex than your typical mainstream metal.
At last, examples! And please, do not ignore the fact that the definition is clearly saying that these are the complex compositional structures of progressive rock - you're getting mired in details.
"odd time signatures and intricate instrumental playing of progressive rock"
I don't find riffing particularly intricate - anyone can play power chords. The intricacies of Prog Rock stem from the musicians playing independent parts that make up a greater whole. The "intricacies" of heavy metal lie more in challenging techniques, usually made challenging by one or more of the components, rather than an attempt to express something.
Yeah right ... like prog metal bands don't use complex interplay. It's one of the cornerstones of the genre and can be heard in almost any song you pick (except maybe for post metal, but also for post rock then).
OK, I pick "Hessian Peel" by Opeth. Hmm. I suppose you're going to tell me that intricate is relative too. Next, I pick "Pull Me Under" by Dream Theater. Intricacies of Progressive Rock? Yeah, right, to use your terminology.
Got any better examples?
Again, the two examples of Prog Rock I chose are good examples of where techniques are adapted primarily for the expression of the song.
That's your subjective interpretation here ... I can't challenge it, as you can't challenge me when I say that the same applies to the to albums I mentioned above.
No it isn't my subjective opinion, for goodness sake - listen to the music. You can't challenge it, because it's true.
And of course I can challenge you, if it turns out to be untrue about those albums you mention - and, of course, will have to agree if it turns out that they're using technique for expression - but that doesn't change the FACT that the albums you mentioned are hardly ever referred to as typical of the genre in definitions.
In short, the techniques are NOT those of progressive rock, but those of progressive metal, which is why this definition is wildly misleading (and the thrust of Teo's argument).
But they are. Progressive Metal is more complex, more intricate, and uses odd time signatures to a greater extent than "regular" metal.
Um, you've just agreed with what I said in that sentence. Prog Rock is not simply a more complex form of Rock using odd time signatures - although it does tend to use them more than "regular" rock, I'll give you that.
The difference is in *how* the bands achieve that complexity ... and even though I would agree that there is a difference,
...and again... it's the difference we're interested in here - the definition you posted merely burbles on about the tenuous similarities!
there are also many common elements.
Yes, but there are common elements in all music - like notes - elements prove very little, and side-step the main issue of providing a definition.
Face it, prog is - among other things - about odd time signatures. It doesn't matter that many people would add "as long as they're used in the appropriate situations" ... the fact remains that odd time signatures are a trademark of prog.
Aha - that's what you think. In fact, as the Baldies are so fond of pointing out, odd time signatures are not that common even in Prog - the fact is that they're more common in Prog Metal bands, who seem to think that it's a trademark of Prog, like you do. Anyway, none of that says anything in particular about Prog Metal - except, maybe, that it's a type of Heavy Metal with a time signature fixation?
"influenced by jazz fusion"...
Not many of them - this is not a typical characteristic. Where such influence is apparent, it's usually indirect - e.g. where a guitarist has had lessons from Joe Satriani and practised his modes. The end result does not normally come across as anything to do with jazz - with obvious (rare) exceptions.
Maybe you should listen to Cynic and Atheist some more ... but I agree that Jazz Fusion isn't a big influence for the typical prog metal bands. But then again it isn't a big influence for the typical (symphonic) prog rock bands either ...
No-one's saying it is, except this definition of Prog Metal - you're proving my point very well here.
"Classical Music"
Again, rarely - and what I've heard tends to be cycle of fifths stuff, or a keyboard playing a string sound. This is not a typical characteristic, as it is in Prog.
This is ridiculous. Let's establish for a moment here that real fusions of classical and rock/metal are very rare ... for prog rock Gentle Giant comes to my mind, and many people who aren't trained in musical composition/form would not even realize that this is more related to classical music than your typical symphonic prog rock band - which indeed also use superficial elements of classical music like strings and cycle of fifths, diminished turnarounds, harmonic/melodic minor, counterpoint etc.
Carry on proving my point, thank you.
Do you know Symphony X? Listen to the epic The Odyssey ... or the whole album V: The New Mythology Suite. I dare you to show many any prog rock piece which is more influenced by classical music than this.
OK, listen to almost any album by The Enid.
...actually, that might not be fair, as I haven't listened to that band. Are they typical/representative of Prog Metal?
This is all good - you're providing examples as well as completely backing up my argument that the definition is a load of old cobblers.
"Like progressive rock songs, progressive metal songs are usually much longer than standard metal songs, and they are often thematically linked in concept albums. As a result, progressive metal is rarely heard on mainstream radio and video programs"
Wouldn't you agree that this is tentative stuff? Why doesn't this describe "Master of Puppets"?
It does. Many people call MoP progressive. But in my humble opinion there are quite a few tracks/passages on that album which aren't progressive though, so I wouldn't call the whole album "prog".
Just stick with "it does".
Indeed, all of the above describes "Master of Puppets", except the jazz fusion bit.
In short, the whole definition IS wrong - and that's not my opinion, just the facts staring everyone in the face.
I easily provided contrary views for everything you said. The fact that this is possible shows that we're not talking about facts here, but merely opinions. And sorry for being blunt, but I think that most people would be with me on this.
...hmm. I really wouldn't be so sure of yourself - that's rather arrogant of you, if you don't mind (or even if you do mind) me saying.
[QUOTE=MikeEnRegalia] Agreed. But again, please consider that your claim that there isn't much experimentation in bands like Dream Theater, Pain of Salvation or Fates Warning may not be shared by many people.
|
I didn't mention those other bands, did I? So I can't see what relevance it has to my "claim".
There are two places you're getting tangled up in;
1. Comparing Prog Metal to Prog Rock - which, as this thread is proving, is a somewhat futile effort, since the two are different - and you seem to agree with this sentiment.
2. Comparing Prog Metal to "Regular" Metal, which is a completely different argument. No-one disputes that Prog Metal is more complex than "Regular" Metal - isn't that a given?
Once you stop getting mired in these comparison areas, you might be able to think a bit more clearly about what defines the genre.
Try asking yourself "What is it like in and of itself", instead of "What is it like compared to X", which suggests that it's only an extension or watered-down version of whatever X might be.
Edited by Certif1ed - September 04 2008 at 08:27
|
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
 |
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Online
Points: 21242
|
Posted: September 04 2008 at 10:40 |
Certif1ed wrote:
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
[QUOTE=Certif1ed]
OK, let's examine this;
"complex compositional structures".
Just about every "Prog Metal" piece I've heard from "representative" bands lacks these in abundance, and where the structures are "complex", they tend to be mere extensions of the type of structures that Metallica brought to Heavy Metal. I analysed this ages agon in a thread in which you participated, so will not repeat the process here.
Just earlier today in the thread about the new Metallica album you analysed Cyanide and raved about how it - in a nutshell - is so similar to what Genesis did ... then later you said that it uses a "A B A B C A B" form (or something like that). What's it gonna be?
You've taken this entirely out of context and not understood what I wrote. The word "similar" is key here, and my second listening showed things I didn't notice on my first - like how simple it really is. Most prog rock is equally simple. As I'm always saying ... your standards are way too high. If only 5% of all prog rock can meet them (just for the sake of discussion), then why should prog metal do any better?
Not ONE matches the complexity of, say "The Musical Box" or "On Reflection" - until there is a piece of Prog Metal that does match the complexity in form of Prog Rock, this statement is actually false and misleading.
The word "complex" can be seen in many ways. For some complexity is achieved by using a time signature like 7/8. For others a guitar solo in a phrygian scale might sound complex if compared to natural minor. Your standards are *way* too high, and there are very few prog rock bands who come close to what Genesis were doing in terms of form. But I'll tell you this: Albums like Fates Warning - A Pleasant Shade of Grey or Pain of Salvation - One Hour by the Concrete Lake are perfect examples for complex form in metal. It may be a different, perhaps less spontaneous or organic type of music, but that doesn't change the indisputable fact that it's much, much more complex than your typical mainstream metal.
At last, examples! And please, do not ignore the fact that the definition is clearly saying that these are the complex compositional structures of progressive rock - you're getting mired in details.
Now at first you're glad that there are examples, and then you complain about getting mired in details? Again: What's it gonna be?
"odd time signatures and intricate instrumental playing of progressive rock"
I don't find riffing particularly intricate - anyone can play power chords. The intricacies of Prog Rock stem from the musicians playing independent parts that make up a greater whole. The "intricacies" of heavy metal lie more in challenging techniques, usually made challenging by one or more of the components, rather than an attempt to express something.
Yeah right ... like prog metal bands don't use complex interplay. It's one of the cornerstones of the genre and can be heard in almost any song you pick (except maybe for post metal, but also for post rock then).
OK, I pick "Hessian Peel" by Opeth. Hmm. I suppose you're going to tell me that intricate is relative too. Next, I pick "Pull Me Under" by Dream Theater. Intricacies of Progressive Rock? Yeah, right, to use your terminology.
Got any better examples?
No, professor. I've got news for you: everything is relative. Especially for an attribute like "intricate" you obviously need a point of reference. Would you really object if I said that Hessian Peel is more intricate than your typical Manowar song? It's really relative. and as far as Pull Me Under is concerned: Good job on selecting the track on the album which features mostly unisono parts of guitar and keyboards. The track is prog metal for a lot of reasons, and intricate interplay is a minor one for that track. It's a lot more obvious on Take The Time, Metropolis Pt.1 and Learning to Live, for example.
Again, the two examples of Prog Rock I chose are good examples of where techniques are adapted primarily for the expression of the song.
That's your subjective interpretation here ... I can't challenge it, as you can't challenge me when I say that the same applies to the to albums I mentioned above.
No it isn't my subjective opinion, for goodness sake - listen to the music. You can't challenge it, because it's true.
And of course I can challenge you, if it turns out to be untrue about those albums you mention - and, of course, will have to agree if it turns out that they're using technique for expression - but that doesn't change the FACT that the albums you mentioned are hardly ever referred to as typical of the genre in definitions.
Ok, got it - there's only
your opinion. I suppose you have a unique insight of the thoughts the
composers had when writing the song ... 
BTW: Both albums that I mentioned are important albums of the genre ... I named them because they are good examples of complex *form* IMO. But - as explained countless times - I do agree that complex form in prog metal is not the same as it is in those prog rock tracks which you always use as examples. Prog Metal is different from Prog Rock, that's the whole point of this thread. But that does not mean that Prog Metal is not complex, it is just achieving the complexity in different ways. If these are less valuable to you, or you would say that it's a lower level of complexity, then I won't stop you - but I would say that the average prog rock track is not much more complex than the average prog metal track. The Musical Box is an extreme example of spontaneity and creative composition techniques.
In short, the techniques are NOT those of progressive rock, but those of progressive metal, which is why this definition is wildly misleading (and the thrust of Teo's argument). But they are. Progressive Metal is more complex, more intricate, and uses odd time signatures to a greater extent than "regular" metal.
Um, you've just agreed with what I said in that sentence. Prog Rock is not simply a more complex form of Rock using odd time signatures - although it does tend to use them more than "regular" rock, I'll give you that.
That's where we differ ... I think that most prog rock albums are just that, and only a small subset is on the high level which you are always demanding for every recording that is called "prog".
The difference is in *how* the bands achieve that complexity ... and even though I would agree that there is a difference,
...and again... it's the difference we're interested in here - the definition you posted merely burbles on about the tenuous similarities!
Those are the elements which normal people can recognize. I agree that the intricacies of form are interesting, but it's beyond the typical prog listener IMHO.
there are also many common elements.
Yes, but there are common elements in all music - like notes - elements prove very little, and side-step the main issue of providing a definition.
There are elements common to prog rock and prog metal, but uncommon in "regular" rock or metal. One example for these elements is the odd time signature ... apart from few exceptions those only occur in prog (or classical/jazz, naturally). Wouldn't you agree that the extra 5/8 in the Master of Puppets verse adds to its progressiveness?
Face it, prog is - among other things - about odd time signatures. It doesn't matter that many people would add "as long as they're used in the appropriate situations" ... the fact remains that odd time signatures are a trademark of prog.
Aha - that's what you think. In fact, as the Baldies are so fond of pointing out, odd time signatures are not that common even in Prog - the fact is that they're more common in Prog Metal bands, who seem to think that it's a trademark of Prog, like you do. Anyway, none of that says anything in particular about Prog Metal - except, maybe, that it's a type of Heavy Metal with a time signature fixation?
Apocalypse in 9/8 ... ring a bell? Of course I know that something can be prog and use ordinary signatures. There are many criteria, and each of them makes it more likely for something to be prog.
"influenced by jazz fusion"...
Not many of them - this is not a typical characteristic. Where such influence is apparent, it's usually indirect - e.g. where a guitarist has had lessons from Joe Satriani and practised his modes. The end result does not normally come across as anything to do with jazz - with obvious (rare) exceptions.
Maybe you should listen to Cynic and Atheist some more ... but I agree that Jazz Fusion isn't a big influence for the typical prog metal bands. But then again it isn't a big influence for the typical (symphonic) prog rock bands either ...
No-one's saying it is, except this definition of Prog Metal - you're proving my point very well here.
It's simply one of the criteria. Look at Canterbury ... I'm sure that many will agree that one of the main "ingredients" is the jazz influence. It's also apparent in Cynic and Atheist. Since the addition of Miles Davis we know that all combinations of jazz and rock are prog, so ... where's the problem?
"Classical Music"
Again, rarely - and what I've heard tends to be cycle of fifths stuff, or a keyboard playing a string sound. This is not a typical characteristic, as it is in Prog.
This is ridiculous. Let's establish for a moment here that real fusions of classical and rock/metal are very rare ... for prog rock Gentle Giant comes to my mind, and many people who aren't trained in musical composition/form would not even realize that this is more related to classical music than your typical symphonic prog rock band - which indeed also use superficial elements of classical music like strings and cycle of fifths, diminished turnarounds, harmonic/melodic minor, counterpoint etc.
Carry on proving my point, thank you. Likewise.
Do you know Symphony X? Listen to the epic The Odyssey ... or the whole album V: The New Mythology Suite. I dare you to show many any prog rock piece which is more influenced by classical music than this.
OK, listen to almost any album by The Enid.Is this a prog pissing contest? Ok, then listen to Epica - The Score. Ok, I shouldn't have said "more than" but "at least as ".
...actually, that might not be fair, as I haven't listened to that band. Are they typical/representative of Prog Metal?
They are one of the top 10 key bands of the genre, and more specifically they are neoclassical (following what Yngwie Malmsteen started with Rising Force).
This is all good - you're providing examples as well as completely backing up my argument that the definition is a load of old cobblers.
In your parallel universe, that is.
"Like progressive rock songs, progressive metal songs are usually much longer than standard metal songs, and they are often thematically linked in concept albums. As a result, progressive metal is rarely heard on mainstream radio and video programs"
Wouldn't you agree that this is tentative stuff? Why doesn't this describe "Master of Puppets"?
It does. Many people call MoP progressive. But in my humble opinion there are quite a few tracks/passages on that album which aren't progressive though, so I wouldn't call the whole album "prog".
Just stick with "it does".
How is Leper Messiah thematically linked with Battery?
Indeed, all of the above describes "Master of Puppets", except the jazz fusion bit.
In short, the whole definition IS wrong - and that's not my opinion, just the facts staring everyone in the face.
I easily provided contrary views for everything you said. The fact that this is possible shows that we're not talking about facts here, but merely opinions. And sorry for being blunt, but I think that most people would be with me on this.
...hmm. I really wouldn't be so sure of yourself - that's rather arrogant of you, if you don't mind (or even if you do mind) me saying.
Maybe I picked up some of your ... well, I wouldn't call it arrogance but self assuredness. And I don't mind you calling me arrogant ... telling people that they're wrong is arrogant, but sometimes it can't be helped. But then again this whole discussion arose from you telling all those people who wrote definitions for prog metal that they failed ... how's that for arrogance?
[QUOTE=MikeEnRegalia] Agreed. But again, please consider that your claim that there isn't much experimentation in bands like Dream Theater, Pain of Salvation or Fates Warning may not be shared by many people.
|
I didn't mention those other bands, did I? So I can't see what relevance it has to my "claim".
They happen to be key bands of the genre. Your claim is about prog metal in general, which means that - if your claim is sound - it should apply to those bands, shouldn't it?
Your expectations are always two or three level above those of the usual listener ... at least that is my impression. Meshuggah is child's play, Dream Theater are just simple concatenations of simple parts ...
With that in mind: No, you shouldn't really listen to any of the examples I mention ... the result won't be a surprise for any of us.
There are two places you're getting tangled up in;
1. Comparing Prog Metal to Prog Rock - which, as this thread is proving, is a somewhat futile effort, since the two are different - and you seem to agree with this sentiment.
Yes and no. They share common elements which cannot be found in non-prog music, but there are also unique traits, and the common elements are used in different ways, with different preference. It also depends on the sub genre (Power, Tech, Melodic/Eclectic etc.).
2. Comparing Prog Metal to "Regular" Metal, which is a completely different argument. No-one disputes that Prog Metal is more complex than "Regular" Metal - isn't that a given?
I thought so. You often disagreed with that, or at least criticised this type of complexity.
Once you stop getting mired in these comparison areas, you might be able to think a bit more clearly about what defines the genre.
Try asking yourself "What is it like in and of itself", instead of "What is it like compared to X", which suggests that it's only an extension or watered-down version of whatever X might be.
I'm very sure that without points of reference, you cannot define prog metal. IMO the kind of definition you're looking for is an illusion ... or at least if you ever come up with one it will be useless for 99% of us (the listeners), since it would be much too academic and the better part of all that's currently listed as prog metal would not meet the requirements.
|
|
|
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: September 04 2008 at 12:12 |
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
Most prog rock is equally simple. As I'm always saying ... your standards are way too high. If only 5% of all prog rock can meet them (just for the sake of discussion), then why should prog metal do any better?
|
We're not discussing Prog Rock.
There's a whole argument here for you to lose, but I'm not going down that road.
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
Now at first you're glad that there are examples, and then you complain about getting mired in details? Again: What's it gonna be?
|
Stop trying to make me out to be inconsistent - that doesn't strengthen your argument, rather it shows you haven't got one.
I've been asking for examples for nearly 2 weeks, and it's only through provocation that you provide them.
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
No, professor. I've got news for you: everything is relative. Especially for an attribute like "intricate" you obviously need a point of reference. Would you really object if I said that Hessian Peel is more intricate than your typical Manowar song? It's really relative. and as far as Pull Me Under is concerned: Good job on selecting the track on the album which features mostly unisono parts of guitar and keyboards. The track is prog metal for a lot of reasons, and intricate interplay is a minor one for that track. It's a lot more obvious on Take The Time, Metropolis Pt.1 and Learning to Live, for example.
|
I could only pull examples (at random, BTW) - now you've provided some, I can check them out. As I've always said, I've never heard any examples of the intricacies of Prog Rock - and specifically we're talking about the instrumental playing of Prog Rock - keep your eye on the original article and don't forget we're discussing how useful it is as a definition.
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
Ok, got it - there's only your opinion. I suppose you have a unique insight of the thoughts the composers had when writing the song ...
|
No - it's obvious just by listening. I went into a bit of detail in my review - maybe a better example is the second section of MoonChild, which is quite obviously at least partially an onomatapeic interpretation of the lyrics in the first section. In "Musical Box", the music quite obviously follows emotions described by the lyrics - sometimes in a blatantly onomatapeic way ("and the clock, tick tock, on the mantlepiece"), sometimes more subtly - I suppose I could be the only person in the whole world to spot the literal "ticking" in the percussion, but somehow I doubt it.
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
BTW: Both albums that I mentioned are important albums of the genre ... I named them because they are good examples of complex *form* IMO. But - as explained countless times - I do agree that complex form in prog metal is not the same as it is in those prog rock tracks which you always use as examples. Prog Metal is different from Prog Rock, that's the whole point of this thread.
|
Phew... you could have saved a LOT of time here...
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
But that does not mean that Prog Metal is not complex, it is just achieving the complexity in different ways. If these are less valuable to you, or you would say that it's a lower level of complexity, then I won't stop you - but I would say that the average prog rock track is not much more complex than the average prog metal track.
|
Ah - I thought you were paranoid that this implication was being made.
I can assure you that I'm not making any such implication - just trying to get to an accurate definition, give or take - we've already established it can't be perfect - what I'm saying is that the one from Wikipedia is just plain wrong. There's a good reason that article is only a "Starter" article, and the Prog Rock one is a Class B (only needs a bit more work to turn it into a Class A, but I think the Prog Metal one should catch up).
It's the definition that's weak, NOT the music!!!
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
The Musical Box is an extreme example of spontaneity and creative composition techniques.
|
As is "On Reflection", "Moon Child", and a whole load of other Genesis, Crimson, Magma, Gong, Shub-Niggurath - I can't list them all.
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
In short, the techniques are NOT those of progressive rock, but those of progressive metal, which is why this definition is wildly misleading (and the thrust of Teo's argument).
|
But they are. Progressive Metal is more complex, more intricate, and uses odd time signatures to a greater extent than "regular" metal.
Um, you've just agreed with what I said in that sentence. Prog Rock is not simply a more complex form of Rock using odd time signatures - although it does tend to use them more than "regular" rock, I'll give you that.
That's where we differ ... I think that most prog rock albums are just that, and only a small subset is on the high level which you are always demanding for every recording that is called "prog".
|
Hold on - this is confusing. You think that Prog Rock is just Rock with odd time signatures? I don't think that there are many Proggers who would agree with that.
In my lonely world, Prog Rock just happens to go into odd time signatures a bit more often than "regular" rock - it's not really a key feature any more than, say the Mellotron.
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
The difference is in *how* the bands achieve that complexity ... and even though I would agree that there is a difference,
...and again... it's the difference we're interested in here - the definition you posted merely burbles on about the tenuous similarities!
Those are the elements which normal people can recognize. I agree that the intricacies of form are interesting, but it's beyond the typical prog listener IMHO.
|
Pity the actual definition is wrong then!
The "typical" listener needs a bit more to go on - even you'd agree that not all Prog metal is in an unusual time signature, and it's apparent to me from the literally hundreds of modern metal bands I've heard on Garageband that use of time signatures other than 4/4 is undergoing a bit of a craze in metal - not just the Prog camp.
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
there are also many common elements.
Yes, but there are common elements in all music - like notes - elements prove very little, and side-step the main issue of providing a definition.
There are elements common to prog rock and prog metal, but uncommon in "regular" rock or metal. One example for these elements is the odd time signature ... apart from few exceptions those only occur in prog (or classical/jazz, naturally). Wouldn't you agree that the extra 5/8 in the Master of Puppets verse adds to its progressiveness?
|
It should be noted that the "other elements" are conspicuous by their absence from the definition you've provided... and also that a definition requires more than just the Typical Characteristics - see the definition for Progressive Rock on Wikipedia.
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
Apocalypse in 9/8 ... ring a bell? Of course I know that something can be prog and use ordinary signatures. There are many criteria, and each of them makes it more likely for something to be prog.
|
One single section of a 20-minute piece? How much of the rest of it is in 4/4, out of interest...?
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
Since the addition of Miles Davis we know that all combinations of jazz and rock are prog, so ... where's the problem? |
Don't even go there.
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
Do you know Symphony X? Listen to the epic The Odyssey ... or the whole album V: The New Mythology Suite. I dare you to show many any prog rock piece which is more influenced by classical music than this. OK, listen to almost any album by The Enid.Is this a prog pissing contest? Ok, then listen to Epica - The Score. Ok, I shouldn't have said "more than" but "at least as ".
|
You seem to be turning it into one - you asked me for an example, I provided it.
I could be wrong, but I doubt that anything by Symphony X can match the Enid - and you did say any prog rock piece, didn't you?
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
They are one of the top 10 key bands of the genre, and more specifically they are neoclassical (following what Yngwie Malmsteen started with Rising Force).
|
Hah! Should be neoBaroque then.
That's hardly Classical, it's a simplified interpretation - nowhere near the likes of Gentle Giant, or The Enid.
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
But then again this whole discussion arose from you telling all those people who wrote definitions for prog metal that they failed ... how's that for arrogance?
|
How's that for me simply telling it like it is.
Someone had to point out to the rest of the world that this planet is not, in fact flat.
>Irrelevant stuff snipped<
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
I'm very sure that without points of reference, you cannot define prog metal. IMO the kind of definition you're looking for is an illusion ... or at least if you ever come up with one it will be useless for 99% of us (the listeners), since it would be much too academic and the better part of all that's currently listed as prog metal would not meet the requirements.
|
But you cannot define it by points of reference alone, and if the points of reference are wrong to start with, you're fighting a losing battle trying to define it, and I suspect that really you've given up and are just happy with the load of old tosh that currently exists.
There are PLENTY of older Proggers, and people familiar with Prog who simply do not accept Prog Metal as being related to Prog. There are posts in this very thread which are evidence to that, and comparing the music side by side does not make the similarities evident to many.
Yes, it's hard getting your ideas across to me - harder, because you seem to take all my observations as an attempt to crush Prog Metal into the ground, which is a long way from reality - but it's next to impossible to get it across to dyed-in-the-wool Prog heads who have not accepted Prog Metal.
The other difficulty is that you seem to think that loosening the strong ties that this definition vainly attempts to give itself to Prog Rock, that somehow Prog Metal will be seen as a lesser genre.
I think it will be seen as a stronger genre in its own right, if it's defined for what it is, and I can choose whether it's academic in style or not.
Anyway, I'm giving up on providing a definition for this site, if the Prog Metal Collaborators just want to argue the whole time and tell me I'm incapable of giving them a little bit of help because I don't understand the music, would prefer to assault my assistance, and insult my intelligence rather than raise themselves to my impossibly high level (most of which I learned on the street in a touring technical metal band, by the way), and just want to dodge the whole issue and waste time.
I'm going to rewrite the Wikipedia article - it needs it, as it's High Importance, the lowest quality rating an article can be, and factually inaccurate.
I'm a Wikipedia Copy Editor - so what I say goes 
Edited by Certif1ed - September 04 2008 at 12:15
|
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Online
Points: 21242
|
Posted: September 04 2008 at 14:07 |
Ok ... sorry if something I said insulted you, that was not my intention. I'll try to respond in a constructive way ... 
Certif1ed wrote:
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
Most prog rock is equally simple. As I'm always saying ... your standards are way too high. If only 5% of all prog rock can meet them (just for the sake of discussion), then why should prog metal do any better?
|
We're not discussing Prog Rock.
There's a whole argument here for you to lose, but I'm not going down that road.
|
Then I won't go there either ... let's save that for another day.
Certif1ed wrote:
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
Now at first you're glad that there are examples, and then you complain about getting mired in details? Again: What's it gonna be?
|
Stop trying to make me out to be inconsistent - that doesn't strengthen your argument, rather it shows you haven't got one.
I've been asking for examples for nearly 2 weeks, and it's only through provocation that you provide them.
|
You're only going to tear apart anything that I come up with ... sorry, but it honestly seems to me that you've already made up your mind. All we do here is highly subjective ... most of the examples we throw at each other here can be used both ways. Like the time signature dispute ... you think it's superficial, I don't. Sorry, but I think that there is no point in going on beyond that point.
Certif1ed wrote:
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
No, professor. I've got news for you: everything is relative. Especially for an attribute like "intricate" you obviously need a point of reference. Would you really object if I said that Hessian Peel is more intricate than your typical Manowar song? It's really relative. and as far as Pull Me Under is concerned: Good job on selecting the track on the album which features mostly unisono parts of guitar and keyboards. The track is prog metal for a lot of reasons, and intricate interplay is a minor one for that track. It's a lot more obvious on Take The Time, Metropolis Pt.1 and Learning to Live, for example.
|
I could only pull examples (at random, BTW) - now you've provided some, I can check them out. As I've always said, I've never heard any examples of the intricacies of Prog Rock - and specifically we're talking about the instrumental playing of Prog Rock - keep your eye on the original article and don't forget we're discussing how useful it is as a definition.
|
I thought the topic was "The REAL problem with prog-metal: is not prog-rock".
Certif1ed wrote:
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
Ok, got it - there's only your opinion. I suppose you have a unique insight of the thoughts the composers had when writing the song ...
|
No - it's obvious just by listening. I went into a bit of detail in my review - maybe a better example is the second section of MoonChild, which is quite obviously at least partially an onomatapeic interpretation of the lyrics in the first section. In "Musical Box", the music quite obviously follows emotions described by the lyrics - sometimes in a blatantly onomatapeic way ("and the clock, tick tock, on the mantlepiece"), sometimes more subtly - I suppose I could be the only person in the whole world to spot the literal "ticking" in the percussion, but somehow I doubt it.
|
LOL ... sorry, of course I don't think that you're the only person in the whole world to spot the literal "ticking" there ... but you might be the only one in this forum to call it "onomatapeic".
Well, there are many onomatapeic passages in prog metal ... just listen to the instrumental section of Metropolis Pt. 1, in which the erratic time signatures symbolise the cold, mechanical city life. Another nice one would be the ending of The Big Machine on Pain of Salvation's One Hour By The Concrete Lake ... you can literally hear the machine stop. Fantomas - Debut Album is a no brainer ... the whole album is onomatapeic. Also, in The Odyssey (Symphony X) Romeo did a really good job at "depicting" the events of Homer's odyssey ... most notably the sirens.
Well done ... we've identified one more element.
Certif1ed wrote:
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
BTW: Both albums that I mentioned are important albums of the genre ... I named them because they are good examples of complex *form* IMO. But - as explained countless times - I do agree that complex form in prog metal is not the same as it is in those prog rock tracks which you always use as examples. Prog Metal is different from Prog Rock, that's the whole point of this thread.
|
Phew... you could have saved a LOT of time here...
|
Certif1ed wrote:
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
But that does not mean that Prog Metal is not complex, it is just achieving the complexity in different ways. If these are less valuable to you, or you would say that it's a lower level of complexity, then I won't stop you - but I would say that the average prog rock track is not much more complex than the average prog metal track.
|
Ah - I thought you were paranoid that this implication was being made.
I can assure you that I'm not making any such implication - just trying to get to an accurate definition, give or take - we've already established it can't be perfect - what I'm saying is that the one from Wikipedia is just plain wrong. There's a good reason that article is only a "Starter" article, and the Prog Rock one is a Class B (only needs a bit more work to turn it into a Class A, but I think the Prog Metal one should catch up).
It's the definition that's weak, NOT the music!!!
|
Sorry ... I can't see the point you're trying to make here. But I do know that you've often said that prog metal is inferior, maybe not directly but indirectly by pointing out that most that's really great about prog rock is absent from prog metal. Correct me if I'm wrong ...
Certif1ed wrote:
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
The Musical Box is an extreme example of spontaneity and creative composition techniques.
|
As is "On Reflection", "Moon Child", and a whole load of other Genesis, Crimson, Magma, Gong, Shub-Niggurath - I can't list them all.
|
Neither can I list all the fascinating tracks of prog metal. But as I said before: spontaneity is something which occurs less often with prog metal than with prog rock. Prog Metal tends to be more structured and disciplined ... that Spastik Inc track you recently posted in the other thread is a good example of what I'm refering to.
Certif1ed wrote:
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
In short, the techniques are NOT those of progressive rock, but those of progressive metal, which is why this definition is wildly misleading (and the thrust of Teo's argument).
|
But they are. Progressive Metal is more complex, more intricate, and uses odd time signatures to a greater extent than "regular" metal.
Um, you've just agreed with what I said in that sentence. Prog Rock is not simply a more complex form of Rock using odd time signatures - although it does tend to use them more than "regular" rock, I'll give you that.
That's where we differ ... I think that most prog rock albums are just that, and only a small subset is on the high level which you are always demanding for every recording that is called "prog".
|
Hold on - this is confusing. You think that Prog Rock is just Rock with odd time signatures? I don't think that there are many Proggers who would agree with that.
In my lonely world, Prog Rock just happens to go into odd time signatures a bit more often than "regular" rock - it's not really a key feature any more than, say the Mellotron.
|
What I meant was that most prog rock is just a more complex form of rock, just like most prog metal is just a more complex form of metal. In some cases the complexity is not really necessary and added for its own sake ... because the musicians think they have something to prove or whatever other superficial motive, in other - rarer - cases it really adds to the music and can create something that's more than the sum of its parts. Of course complexity does never just mean odd time signatures ... I guess we could identify dozens of techniques which are used by the bands.
Certif1ed wrote:
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
The difference is in *how* the bands achieve that complexity ... and even though I would agree that there is a difference,
...and again... it's the difference we're interested in here - the definition you posted merely burbles on about the tenuous similarities!
Those are the elements which normal people can recognize. I agree that the intricacies of form are interesting, but it's beyond the typical prog listener IMHO.
|
Pity the actual definition is wrong then!
The "typical" listener needs a bit more to go on - even you'd agree that not all Prog metal is in an unusual time signature, and it's apparent to me from the literally hundreds of modern metal bands I've heard on Garageband that use of time signatures other than 4/4 is undergoing a bit of a craze in metal - not just the Prog camp.
|
Who said that it's all about time signatures? There's a plethora of things an artist can do to make the music more ... sorry, the best word is "complex" IMO. If it annoys you ... maybe we could use "sophisticated", "intricate" or more generally "artistic" instead.
Certif1ed wrote:
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
there are also many common elements.
Yes, but there are common elements in all music - like notes - elements prove very little, and side-step the main issue of providing a definition.
There are elements common to prog rock and prog metal, but uncommon in "regular" rock or metal. One example for these elements is the odd time signature ... apart from few exceptions those only occur in prog (or classical/jazz, naturally). Wouldn't you agree that the extra 5/8 in the Master of Puppets verse adds to its progressiveness?
|
It should be noted that the "other elements" are conspicuous by their absence from the definition you've provided... and also that a definition requires more than just the Typical Characteristics - see the definition for Progressive Rock on Wikipedia.
|
Where did I provide a definition? Not in this thread ... I'd remember that.
BTW: thanks for avoiding to answer the interesting questions.
Certif1ed wrote:
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
Apocalypse in 9/8 ... ring a bell? Of course I know that something can be prog and use ordinary signatures. There are many criteria, and each of them makes it more likely for something to be prog.
|
One single section of a 20-minute piece? How much of the rest of it is in 4/4, out of interest...?
|
Does it matter? There are many tracks which you listen to just because of a magical, 30 second part.
I'm in fact coming back from there. Went there, didn't like it.
(not the music, but the discussion)
Certif1ed wrote:
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
Do you know Symphony X? Listen to the epic The Odyssey ... or the whole album V: The New Mythology Suite. I dare you to show many any prog rock piece which is more influenced by classical music than this. OK, listen to almost any album by The Enid.Is this a prog pissing contest? Ok, then listen to Epica - The Score. Ok, I shouldn't have said "more than" but "at least as ".
|
You seem to be turning it into one - you asked me for an example, I provided it.
I could be wrong, but I doubt that anything by Symphony X can match the Enid - and you did say any prog rock piece, didn't you?
|
I'll gladly listen to The Enid again ... it's been a long time, and I can't say that I'm an expert on them ...
Certif1ed wrote:
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
They are one of the top 10 key bands of the genre, and more specifically they are neoclassical (following what Yngwie Malmsteen started with Rising Force).
|
Hah! Should be neoBaroque then.
That's hardly Classical, it's a simplified interpretation - nowhere near the likes of Gentle Giant, or The Enid.
|
Ok, I'll burn my copies of this inferior rubbish then.
lol ... of course I won't. Luckily, most people aren't hindered in the enjoyment of neoBaroque music by their musical education.
Certif1ed wrote:
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
But then again this whole discussion arose from you telling all those people who wrote definitions for prog metal that they failed ... how's that for arrogance?
|
How's that for me simply telling it like it is.
Someone had to point out to the rest of the world that this planet is not, in fact flat.
>Irrelevant stuff snipped<
|
*Bows to the enlightened being which knows what's irrelevant and what isn't*>irrelevant answer snipped<
Certif1ed wrote:
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
I'm very sure that without points of reference, you cannot define prog metal. IMO the kind of definition you're looking for is an illusion ... or at least if you ever come up with one it will be useless for 99% of us (the listeners), since it would be much too academic and the better part of all that's currently listed as prog metal would not meet the requirements.
|
But you cannot define it by points of reference alone, and if the points of reference are wrong to start with, you're fighting a losing battle trying to define it, and I suspect that really you've given up and are just happy with the load of old tosh that currently exists.
|
The points of reference are historic fact. If you want to define a genre which contains Metallica's first 4 albums and a handful other post NWBHM albums ... go ahead, but please don't use the label "Progressive Metal", it's already in use for something else.
Certif1ed wrote:
There are PLENTY of older Proggers, and people familiar with Prog who simply do not accept Prog Metal as being related to Prog. There are posts in this very thread which are evidence to that, and comparing the music side by side does not make the similarities evident to many.
|
In fact I'm thinking about making a side by side comparison ... but on my own website. I do think it will be useful, but of course some people will not be willing to go into those details.
Certif1ed wrote:
Yes, it's hard getting your ideas across to me - harder, because you seem to take all my observations as an attempt to crush Prog Metal into the ground, which is a long way from reality - but it's next to impossible to get it across to dyed-in-the-wool Prog heads who have not accepted Prog Metal.
|
You just did some of that crushing in the previous paragraphs.
Certif1ed wrote:
The other difficulty is that you seem to think that loosening the strong ties that this definition vainly attempts to give itself to Prog Rock, that somehow Prog Metal will be seen as a lesser genre.
I think it will be seen as a stronger genre in its own right, if it's defined for what it is, and I can choose whether it's academic in style or not.
|
The genre is defined by things you don't like. Are you sure you want to write a definition for it?
Certif1ed wrote:
Anyway, I'm giving up on providing a definition for this site, if the Prog Metal Collaborators just want to argue the whole time and tell me I'm incapable of giving them a little bit of help because I don't understand the music, would prefer to assault my assistance, and insult my intelligence rather than raise themselves to my impossibly high level (most of which I learned on the street in a touring technical metal band, by the way), and just want to dodge the whole issue and waste time.
|
I resigned from the prog metal team ... for various reasons. I don't want to insult your intelligence, I just think that someone who cannot appreciate the music bands like Dream Theater or Fates Warning stand for is not the ideal candidate to write a good definition for the genre.
But who knows ... with me out of the way, maybe you can get into the prog metal team and finally set things right.
Certif1ed wrote:
I'm going to rewrite the Wikipedia article - it needs it, as it's High Importance, the lowest quality rating an article can be, and factually inaccurate.
I'm a Wikipedia Copy Editor - so what I say goes |
I always valued your input ... I'm still quite disappointed that you don't use my website at all. But of course you reach far more people with Wikipedia and PA ... as I said above, with me out of the way you might just be able to change history.
Edited by MikeEnRegalia - September 04 2008 at 14:09
|
|
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65416
|
Posted: September 05 2008 at 03:47 |
|
maybe you guys could step back a bit from the intensive debate (which is mostly very interesting) and start to also look at the bigger picture.. all great documents were born of strong disagreement and divergence and I see you two working as partners in this much needed definition. Toward this, you could think about a simplifying/qualifying statement up front, something like;
Defining what precisely Progressive Metal is - technically and historically - reveals a coming together of Heavy Metal with musically progressive tendencies. Though genetically, Progressive Metal can most often be traced to Heavy Metal in its pure early forms as it expanded, giving way to more ambitious sub-forms, there is also an observable relation to, or impact by, Progressive Rock and its qualities. However strong that impact was, however, it is generally agreed that Prog Metal is a family member of Heavy Metal and the attributes of relative complexity, increased musicianship and thematic material are attributes shared by both Prog Metal and Prog Rock.
I'm not a ProgMetal expert , but you see what I mean..
|
|
trackstoni
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 23 2008
Location: Lebanon
Status: Offline
Points: 934
|
Posted: September 05 2008 at 03:48 |
hey stars holders , why do we have to go to wikipedia to get the answer , it's already in our site , So why don't you throw a poll to get the right answer to this critical question =
do you believe that Progressive metal can be related , one way or another , to Progressive rock , and why ?
this public poll must give us other members opinion regarding this important and critical question !!!!
So far i'm concerned , and to be honest , this forum was really interesting , but surely no one wins , and convince other members that he's simply right , but i agree on one point , that metal's roots came out from the rock mania of the 60's , 70's and 80's . Bands like Dreamtheater , Opeth , Symphony X , Therion , and even cemetery of screams , Haggard and Manowar have some excellent stuff can be related to progressive music .
|
|
Tracking Tracks of Rock
|
|
mr70s
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 21 2008
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 121
|
Posted: September 05 2008 at 06:41 |
|
That was an interesting verbal exchange. Real toe-to-toe last round stuff. Had these guys been on the Krell 'educator' machine ?
|
|
Trademark
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
|
Posted: September 05 2008 at 11:24 |
I've followed and participated in, (when I felt I had something to contribute) these various and sundry prog METAL / PROG rock discussions. I've never once had the impression that Cert had anything against the genre in general terms, or made any attempt to do the genre harm. Rather, the opposite is true from what I've seen. To clarify what it ( progMETAL) is and is not allows the genre the chance to stand on its own rather than having to beg Prog rock's indulgence for its existence. If I understand Mr. T's intentions correctly this might be the goal of the thread; the emancipation prog METAL. I say its about time! A visual might help. I think Cert sees the two genres (in fairly broad agreement with Mr. T's fine thread) in the following manner and why he sees the Wiki definition of prog METAL as being wrong which I agree with. Cert, feel free to correct me or clarify If I get this wrong. PROGrock and progMETALThe relative size of the type here is meant to represent the dominant driving force in composition of the best and most representative artists in the genre. I think that something along these lines is also what Mr. T has proposed in the opening post. This should not be seen in any way to diminish what any given prog METAL band does. For myself, I'd be of the opinion that prog METAL might be better suited to prog-related. Better yet a distinction could be made between two different " progressive" approaches to music in general; one being based on progression in the area of composition and structure (the best and brightest of PROG rock) and the other on the progression of instruemtal technique (most often cited as primary areas of progression in prog METAL). Instrumental virtuosity in PROG rock is more of an outgrowth of the ideas in the structures. Virtuosity in prog METAL is an essential "for its own sake". It's almost a certainty that John Petrucci can play faster than Gary Green and no member of Van der Graaf Generator (often cited as the MOST progressive band in these parts) could compare to the technical musicianship on display in DT. prog METAL is often more demanding instrumentally than PROG rock illustrating two radically different and often un-related approaches to music. ` Time signatures, mellotrons, and high pitched vocals, etc. are irrelevant. They are symptoms, not a cause. Having the sniffles and a sore throat does not identify the cause of the common cold, and for many of us it is the "cause" that makes prog rock what it is, not the symptoms. Complexity is NOT relative; it is a continuum. Any given listener's lack of knowledge of say, Brian Fernyhough's work does not change the fact that it is more complex than Iron Maiden or Meshugah (I can't be bothered to look up the spelling  ). If you want to have a term that can be "relative to experience" you might consider sophistication, but relative terms are relatively useless. Complexity (separated into carefully outlined categories) can be compared and measured and this IS useful for the purpose of definition. I'm also of the opinion that we should never dumb down definitions in order to make them understandable by everyone. This, in fact increases the lack of understanding rather than the opposite. For example, if I define DNA as "some gooey stuff inside you which combines with other gooey stuff and makes you what you are." I have not only given an incomplete definition, but one that opens up all kinds of misleading possibilities. So my definition, which I think "everyone" can understand is, as a direct result of my goal of inclusiveness, useless to the scientist and misleading to the layman. Mike, If I asked you about the math involved in some of the algorithms used on your web site I would not expect you so say that they are "some numbers that when combined with other numbers, do cool things." If I have a lack of knowledge of mathematics (and I do), I'd still expect an accurate explanation so that, if I developed an interest (unlikely), I would be able to actually make use of your answer. Definitions MUST be written (or at least be proof-read) by experts in the field, therefore, musical definitions must be written by experts in music. it is the responsibility of the interested lay-person to learn enough to understand the definition.
Edited by Trademark - September 05 2008 at 12:25
|
|
debrewguy
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596
|
Posted: September 05 2008 at 11:40 |
|
In the quest to prove that Prog Metal is prog or not; or is it that Prog Metal is not Prog Rock ???
Anyways, I'll bring back a question I asked earlier :
namely, using the vague term Prog Rock as the standard ... what genre of prog rock is being used ?
Folk music is not rock, but we have Prog Folk. How can it be Prog Rock, if the base form (folk) used as the identifier, is not a Rock genre ? It is not a genre where one would look for musical complexities, eh.
Krautrock ... ??? Prog Metal out-complexies, out-virtuositesses, and out-concept-taceives it, eh ? But is it Rock ?
Prog electronica - not really rock, innit ?
Raga/Indo rock - rock n roll raga anyone ?
RPI - usually looks towards classical music than rock music ...
And frankly, the arguement that prog rock needs to be associated with capital R Rock, is questionable. The original Metal bands and many others afterwards considered themselves the flag bearers for true rock n roll. And metal is a genre within Rock. period.
Maybe , the whole suite of genres and their attendant sub-genres should be completely reviewed, as much of the system, according to the arguements put forth by the PM naysayers, would disqualify just about everything outside of Symphonic Prog, with a few exception like King Crimson, Rush, and maybe Pink Floyd.
Of course, I may right ... I mean wrong, right ?
Edited by debrewguy - September 05 2008 at 12:31
|
|
"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.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: September 05 2008 at 12:53 |
 Excellent post Trade, even if I don't fully agree with everything you've written, I think there are exceptions in both Prog Rock and Prog Metal (as Harry said in the post above). I do agree that the elements generally accepted as being indicative of Prog are symptoms rather than the cause, however defining the actual cause could prove to be elusive given the broad palate of what we now consider to be Prog, and the influence-base it draws from.
I believe there should be a balance between technical and accessible in genre definitions - not dumbing-down per-se, but a degree of simplification and self-explanation - a proportion of the readers are music fans not musicians yet they can appreciate and recognise Progressive music without knowledge of music theory. Evidently their lack of theoretical knowledge does not change the music, but I'd hazard a guess that many of the Prog musicians are of a similar school and that didn't change the music either.
Where technical terms are both unavoidable and necessary there should be in-built explanations of those terms so that are instantly understandable, with readily available examples where such techniques are used. In that way the lay-person reading it can still garner something from the text without having to delve into text books or enrolling in evening classes.
Of course, there is no reason why genre definitions cannot be two-tiered, with general and esoteric views.
|
|
What?
|
|
mr70s
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 21 2008
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 121
|
Posted: September 05 2008 at 13:21 |
Too much waffle after too little sleep.
Edited by mr70s - September 05 2008 at 17:25
|
|
Toaster Mantis
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 12 2008
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 5898
|
Posted: September 06 2008 at 04:26 |
Reading this thread I get the impression that prog- metal is neither fish nor fowl... a lot of metal fans think most prog- metal is just prog-rock in metal clothing (for example, a running in-joke on the metal-rules.com forums is to reply to threads about Dream Theater with "GENERAL FORUM!") which is the opposite of what the OP says here. 
Edited by Toaster Mantis - September 06 2008 at 04:27
|
|
"The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook
|
|
splyu
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 06 2008
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 316
|
Posted: September 07 2008 at 18:30 |
|
Wow, eight pages on this, and I'm still wondering how there can even be a question about this... prog rock and heavy metal have been intertwined since the very beginning. It's impossible to seperate them. Almost every prog rock band has metal elements in its music, and vice versa. Black Sabbath has proggy stuff. Genesis has heavy stuff. Rush walk the line so skillfully that it is impossible to even determine for sure on which side they fall. It is impossible to draw a clear line. Well, I'm sure I've said nothing new here... but seriously, I feel this is a non-issue.
|
|
steve j
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 30 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 164
|
Posted: September 09 2008 at 08:53 |
|
I don't really care how people pigeon hole the music I like. But if pushed you can classify the music I love as Steve J's prog! It won't be very helpful to anyone else, but it would be useful to me. Now can we stop talking garbage and get back to listening to some prog!
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Online
Points: 21242
|
Posted: September 09 2008 at 09:14 |
splyu wrote:
Wow, eight pages on this, and I'm still wondering how there can even be a question about this... prog rock and heavy metal have been intertwined since the very beginning. It's impossible to seperate them. Almost every prog rock band has metal elements in its music, and vice versa. Black Sabbath has proggy stuff. Genesis has heavy stuff. Rush walk the line so skillfully that it is impossible to even determine for sure on which side they fall. It is impossible to draw a clear line. Well, I'm sure I've said nothing new here... but seriously, I feel this is a non-issue.
|
This is about prog metal. That means: not Black Sabbath, heavy Genesis songs or Rush, but Dream Theater, Fates Warning etc.. That music is quite different from "Heavy Prog", and that is the point of this thread.
|
|
|
|
splyu
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 06 2008
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 316
|
Posted: September 09 2008 at 09:54 |
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
This is about prog metal. That means: not Black Sabbath, heavy Genesis songs or Rush, but Dream Theater, Fates Warning etc.. That music is quite different from "Heavy Prog", and that is the point of this thread.
|
Well yes, I got that. I just disagree, that's all. That distinction seems nonsensical to me.
|
|
debrewguy
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596
|
Posted: September 10 2008 at 20:50 |
|
Hard to see why Rush , from Fly by Night to Hemispheres, could not be considered Prog Metal ???
Call 'em Heavy Prog, then ask me about Power Windows to Counterpoints ...???
|
|
"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.
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65416
|
Posted: September 10 2008 at 21:12 |
|
well Rush were never really metal of any kind despite sometimes being thought of that way - a subtle but quite distinct separation between bands that had strong hard rock/metal elements as Rush, Queen, Zep, UFO, AC/DC but not emphasizing what Priest, Sabbath and Maiden were tonally, structurally and thematically.. so if Rush didn't do metal they didn't do ProgMetal either ..as to their later period not being particularly heavy, I'd point out that to this day Rush is essentially still a guitar based progressive hard rock band, as evidenced by Snakes&Arrows not to mention a strong guitar backbone on albums as Test for Echo and Power Windows
|
|
debrewguy
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596
|
Posted: September 10 2008 at 21:26 |
|
I beg to differ. Hard Rock is usually considered to have a "rock n roll" side to it. The last Rush tune that could be said to be a "rocker" was I Think I'm Going Bald(one of my fave Rush songs). Back in the day, as I remember, they were described as "heavy rock", and/or heavy metal . Heavy Rock was a generic term used until a certain critical mass of distinctly "metal" bands had achieved success. But it usually went beyond the basic boogie and blooze, evil woman/party all night/I'm the MAN, Man/party party party etc lyric subject matter.
So BTO, Foghat, Kiss, Aerosmith, Nugent, can be called hard rock, though some critics derided them as metal acts (yes, the term was often used dismissively). Sabbath, Zep, and other acts such as Blue Cheer, Thin LIzzy were tagged as heavy metal, although compared to later metal scenes and genres, only Sab can be said to fit in.
So as Rush could not be said to be a "rockin" group, they were considered "metal". As they were progressive, or using prog elements, they could be considered prog metal from that point of view.
|
|
"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.
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65416
|
Posted: September 10 2008 at 21:50 |
|
true, but the question would be weather that point of view - that Rush were or are a metal band - still has merit in the scheme of rock history as we hear it rather than how it's taught ..the only thing that could have made Rush metal is if Lifeson was primarily a metal guitarist, I say he was not but he certainly could have been had he wanted.. beyond that, you don't really have many identifiable metal aspects to the music IMO
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
The REAL problem with prog-metal: is not prog-rock
