Announcing the Prog-Metal split

I also fail to see the Post/Experimental element in Opeth. Extreme Prog-Metal is what I've always called them, but if you put them in that category it would mean that they are also technical... While they are, that's hardly a quality as important as other bands possess, so I guess there's no better category out of the three we've got at the moment.

Trickster F. wrote: What really does bother me is that one of the three subcategory has kept the main of the subgenre. Is there no better name to sum up Dream Theater, Fates Warning, PoS than 'Progressive Metal'? I mean, the other two categories ARE also P-M, after all. Not an easy task, I know, but has the team thought about this?

I have to say I agree with Ivan, since I had thought much the same thing a couple of days ago. Of course, as you all know, I'm no expert, but what about calling it  Classic Progressive Metal, or something to that effect?

^ it will be explained in the definition. "Classic Progressive Metal" would begin to describe it ... but the genre also contains modern bands and albums. It's essentially the "core" movement of progressive metal, it includes the classic bands and albums and most of the subsequent bands and albums which continued "vaguely" along that line. Another possible name would be "Melodic/Symphonic/Power Progressive Metal", since this is an approximation of the common denominator of those bands, but it's kind of lengthy. If any of you happen to know the perfect name to describe all this - by all means do tell!

Mike, I saw the word "Classic" more as an indication of style than of chronology. However, I understand it's rather vague, and would probably elicit some not exactly enthusiastic reactions.

I know its early days but this deffinition of Experimental/Post metal needs to change: "This group represents bands which belong to neither of the first two groups and achieve their progressiveness by being substantially more experimental and/or artistic than their peer ... including the whole movement of Post Metal.".

It starts off sounding like it is trying to describe a single band, and the "first two groups" part is as well, or it could be reffering to the other parts to Prog metal which actually appear after E/PM in the list at the top of the main page (lets keep it logical, shal we?).

I'm not too familier with many of the bands in here so I dont think I would be much use in suggesting what could replace the current definition.

To paraphrase Trickster, how about "Accessible Prog Metal".

rushfan4 wrote: To paraphrase Trickster, how about "Accessible Prog Metal".

Why not even "Mainstream Prog Metal"? It's all true to some extent, but especially those two are not really fair ... some of the most original, inventive and - dare I say it - truly progressive bands are in that genre.

But I like "Melodic Progressive Metal" ... although currently I'm inclined to just leave it at "Progressive Metal".

@darqdean: I agree. These bands represent what was originally known as Progressive Metal in the late 80s and early 90s, and most which followed afterwards and can still be seen as closely related in terms of stylistic bandwidth/scope.


Edited by MikeEnRegalia - October 24 2007 at 14:35

I still don't know what eclectic prog means.   Can this be Eclectic Progressive Metal?

I think it is useful somehow. Though I'm not interested in prog metal at all, orientation is always needed. Now, there's also a "Bad - prog" label need. Albums with low rating should all be sub labeled "bad prog".

cuncuna wrote: I think it is useful somehow. Though I'm not interested in prog metal at all, orientation is always needed. Now, there's also a "Bad - prog" label need. Albums with low rating should all be sub labeled "bad prog".

I was thinking about something along this line. Something like "Non-Prog" for albums from bands that aren't prog (which there are plenty).