Rainbow and the creation of Dragon Rock.

Certif1ed wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ But I've read that Blackmore "ran" Rainbow like a company where he was the boss. So essentially they all had to do as he said. Which must have been the main reason for DIO to leave. I don't know why they became more mainstream after that though. BTW: You still can't leave Prog Metal alone, can you? It's amazing how you can get from early Rainbow to Queensryche ... As I've said MANY times before, I do not have anything against Prog Metal. I wouldn't listen to so much of it if I did - but the more I hear, the more I wonder where the Prog is. It was easy to get from early Rainbow to Queensryche; Rainbow, Black Sabbath, Dio (via RJD). Holy Diver was released in 1982 and The Last In Line in 1983. 1983 was when Queensryche released their first (and definitely Non-Prog) album, so the comparison is a fair one. Ritchie may have run Rainbow like a business, but RJD's influence is highly apparent - especially when you compare it with the other stuff he did.

Bands like Dream Theater, Pain of Salvation, Opeth, Tool and Symphony X define the genre. As long as you don't accept them as prog, you don't accept Prog Metal ... you more like build your own definition of Prog Metal which differs from that of most other people.

What would be your definition of prog metal? Which would be the key bands of a genre which combines prog and metal?

Combining Prog and Metal would be a good start.

And from the few Dream Theater and Opeth albums I've heard (the ones that are reputed to be the masterpieces), there is precious little on either that resembles Prog Rock.

In all honestly, I'm beginning think that "Prog Metal" is a style - not something that's actually related to "Real" Prog Rock.

Can you honestly say that you hear such a common style between Jethro Tull, King Crimson, Yes, ELP, Genesis, VDGG, Pink Floyd or any of the other "Classic" bands?

Prog Rock emphatically isn't a style - it's really difficult to define (although I think I'm getting there...).

 

Certif1ed wrote: Combining Prog and Metal would be a good start. And from the few Dream Theater and Opeth albums I've heard (the ones that are reputed to be the masterpieces), there is precious little on either that resembles Prog Rock. In all honestly, I'm beginning think that "Prog Metal" is a style - not something that's actually related to "Real" Prog Rock. Can you honestly say that you hear such a common style between Jethro Tull, King Crimson, Yes, ELP, Genesis, VDGG, Pink Floyd or any of the other "Classic" bands? Prog Rock emphatically isn't a style - it's really difficult to define (although I think I'm getting there...).

(thanks for the reccomendation by the way, I'll look into Heaven And Hell)

I don't think that prog. metal is like the classics at all, I think it's more related to heavy metal bands who experiment heavily as the classics did. Bands like Dream Theater and Opeth definetely aren't conventional metal bands. They combine complex musicianship, odd time signatures, and often some sort of classic dabblings into their music, and the lyrical themes are often quite progressive compared to most metal. They combine the complexity of fusion bands with the experimentation of prog. rock with the thundering power of heavy metal to create something very unlike regular metal bands.

As far as Rainbow is concerned, they combined the majesty of medieval music, the complexity of classical music (Blackmore did, anyway) with metal, which is more progressive than any metal band of their day, or a while after their day for that matter.


Edited by Stargazer

I'm all for Rainbow being here under 'prog related' myself; their first 3 studio albums are genuine 'prog metal' for me anyway. They were by far the best and proggiest of the Deep Purple spin off groups; Gillan was mainly straightahead heavy rock and Whitesnake were blues rock underachievers to me most of the time.

Glad to see some Dio fans here too.

I also propose (yet again) Magnum for prog related; their albums like 'Chase The Dragon' and 'Magnum II' are pretty much prog albums with a strong heavy rock influence.

As for post Ozzy Sabbath? Well I think all of their albums up to about 'Dehumaniser' (which I thought was somewhat we have much to commend them- I tend to play them way more than anything Ozzy did post Randy Rhoads. Some of my all time favourite songs of theirs came from this era; 'Sign Of The Southern Cross' and 'Eternal Idol' for example. Don't think Sabbath belong here really though myself...wouldn't really complain if they were though.

Definitely not prog metal. Not if I can help it ...

Seriously, Deep Purple are not considered to be prog metal here, and neither should be Rainbow or even Black Sabbath. We're talking about the 70s albums of these bands here, and they don't have much to do with prog metal ... they sound differently, the songwriting is really different etc. etc.. Maybe one could call it "Proto Prog Metal", but I don't like this genre ... just call it Heavy Prog Rock (or Heavy Prog Related, if you will) and get on.

I think they were prog metal in their day, which is what I was driving at, but they wouldn't really fit amongst the other bands of the genre here. Thus why 'prog related' seems the best alternative..

In the 1970s Heavy Rock,Heavy Metal and Hard Rock were just different words for the same thing.It seems quite obvious to me that for every Motorhead you are going to have something more sophisticated like Rainbow at the other end of the spectrum.It s all just heavy rock and I love most of those bands.The natural progression,if you mix up Purple,Zep,Rush,Rainbow and later,Iron Maiden and Metallica is,to me at least,what we now call "Prog-Metal".Surely Prog-Metal is an off-shoot of the metal genre and not from Prog Rock?

Take the so-called classic era Prog Bands: Genesis,Yes,Gentle Giant,Tull,ELP,Camel,PFM et al and then show me how Meshuggah,Ulver,Dream Theater and friends are compatible with these.......

 

Certif1ed wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: I didn't say that Prog Metal is Prog Rock combined with Metal. Essentially it is (Prog Rock - Rock) + Metal I hope you get what I'm trying to say here. Prog Metal really is - like you're beginning to think - an entirely different style. But you said on numerous occations that Prog Metal doesn't seem to be like Metal either, so I guess we're not yet done here. Prog Rock and Prog Metal are definitely related, but not as closely as some people think. Dream Theater are of course influenced by Yes - just listen to Surrounded from Images & Words. But that doesn't mean that they are like Yes. And Dream Theater are (heavily) influenced by Metallica, but they don't sound like them - only when you drill down to the "riff level". Yes - I get what you're saying. And I also deliberately left the word "Rock" from the term "Prog" above. I'm not working on a definition of Metal at the moment, but suffice to say, I think the NWOBHM bands as a conglomerate sum it up very well indeed. I don't include post NWOBHM bands like the "Hair Metal" bands, although I very much include Judas Priest as a band that defines what Metal is (and are a major influence on Metallica, along with Budgie, Diamond Head, Killing Joke, Misfits et al). The NWOBHM was largely progressive by default. Although a lot of these bands had hit singles, it has to be said that record companies weren't impressed by bands that didn't, so it is largely the non-single and early material that I'm concentrating on. Bands like Angelwitch, Praying Mantis, Iron Maiden, Raven, Gillan and even bands like Motorhead, Saxon and Def Leppard actively progressed the music and created genre-defining sounds and riffs that weren't based on Judas Priest (with the exception of Def Leppard), and explored possibilities within the music that Rainbow had long ago given up on. "I Surrender", anyone? Originality was the key here. Diamond Head were obviously (to my ears at least) the strongest and most original, but spectacular invention could also be heard in Ozzy Osbourne (at least, Randy Rhoades) and some European and American bands such as the Scorpions and Riot (respectively). Metal is more than chugging riffs with a distorted guitar sound and widdley guitar solos. And, when done properly, it Rocks - so the Rock part is still very valid - if barely defined. I'll revisit "Surrounded" - but must admit that the very first thing I noticed when I first heard Dream Theater - especially "Images and Words" were the Metallica riffs. No "drilling down" was needed - they jumped out at me as something blatantly obvious, and still do. When you listen to the "Classics", nothing so obvious jumps out - ever (except in the case of Yes). Each band had a unique sound that they built upon and developed. In Yes's case, the Crosby, Stills and Nash style vocals still bug me to this day, and the Beatles' "influence" on their early albums is unmissable. Admittedly, the bass sound is to die for - but this is a different discussion.   Prog (large P, never mind the Rock part) is not a style and almost always feels spontaneous - as if the band are making the music up as they go along. The form is rarely standard song form, or if it is, it's hidden very well - or it's just a (usually bad) song... Metal is more of a style, but it's still progressive by nature and feels largely spontaneous - although more stongly song-form based. Progressive Metal (not sure of case) is, as you seem to agree, largely a style, and does not seem to be progressive or evolutionary by nature, but rather obsessed with the periphery in the music rather than in the main body of it - ie unusual time signatures, fast and complicated solos and riffs, passages of decoration between verses, choruses and bridges, etc. It almost never feels spontaneous as "Classic" prog does, but rather feels strongly calculated. Formally, it's rock song through and through, but with added bridge and coda passages.   I am not saying that any of this is a bad thing - but it does suggest, as you also seem to be saying, that Progressive Metal and Prog/Progressive Rock are not the same things at all - or even close relations; at least, not as closely related as Prog Rock (particularly Neo-Prog) and NWOBHM are. Note that I am endeavouring to make these suggestions based on impartial observations, rather than biased judgements based on opinion

  Superb post. Nice to see the NWOBHM mentioned in such detail and Riot; I recently bought 'Narita' remastered (alongside a very drab and dull album by a band called Coney Hatch on the same reissue label...) and the title track does have an element of prog to it I must admit...Also, Angelwitch's debut album and a song from 'Metal For Muthas' called 'Baphomet', plus a classic by Vardis called 'If I Were King' is quite a proggy track (although I had an album of theirs once which was dull, dull, dull...). Indeed, it's probably only Def Leppard who didn't really attempt at prog in some form, and I've always considered them to be the weakest NWOBHM band anyway. It's also true that most of the better metal bands (ie- no 'hair metal' bands...) have elements of prog somewhere imo; I used to think it was only me that saw the prog in bands like Iron Maiden and Judas Priest...this site has proved otherwise though. 

As for Randy Rhoads and Ozzy? Well as far as I'm concerned Ozzy's career has never recovered since Randy died in terms of creativity- the first 2 'Blizzard Of Ozz' albums easily equalled Sabbath's best but nothing he's done since even approaches 'Born Again' for me in terms of enjoyment.

 

Yet again this is splitting into all kinds of (off-topic) strands - I'd like to address all of those points individually, but the end result would be a huge multi-coloured affair that no-one else would even want to read.

I'll pull out one or two salient points and leave it at that - each could constitute a new discussion (non "Dragon Rock" related... ).

1) The whole spontaneous feel of some NWOBHM music had plenty to do with Prog Rock. In the best cases, song structure could easily be lost, and textural, rhythmic and melodic development was common. "Classical" quotations and pretensions were often heard, and Ronnie James Dio (among others) was famous for his operatic voice. The two genres have more in common than most progholes would like to admit - although no NWOBHM band ever made a bona fide Prog Rock album TTBOMK.

2) Using material that sounds like another band might have written it is uncommon among Prog Rock bands - almost unheard of in the Classics - it is is distinguising feature. There's no need to rush to DT's defence so hurriedly .

I have played almost every Metallica song with Tranceplant (my old band) - and we used to cover the other "Bay Area" bands, including Megadeth, Slayer, Anthrax and Sacred Reich to help people get into the wierd stuff we were playing. DT used Metallica riffs in almost the same way Queensryche used Judas Priest and Iron Maiden riffs - except that I could tell exactly which riff was being used by DT (see my reviews). It doesn't matter who has a patent on what - if someone tried to pass off "Smoke on the Water" as their own riff, there would be an outcry from Deep Purple fans, just as Queen fans hated Vanilla Ice in the 1990s. Using a technique such as sweep-picking (which Malmsteen did not invent) or thrasing (which Metallica did not invent) is one thing, using actual riffs written by another band is just lazy and not progressive.

When I first heard Dream Theater (I forget which song), all I could think of was "Sanitarium" by Metallica (a song Metallica borrowed heavily for - but from an unheard of band called Bleak House; the song was called Rainbow Warrior - and Metallica did it better). So we've obviously had different experiences - but I can't be the only person to hear the similarities in the riffs, because they are most definitely there.

3) NWOBHM crosses the 1970s and 1980s - it was more "active" in the 1980s, but the really progressive stuff (apart from Diamond Head's) is the earlier material, not the 1980s stuff. I think that Black Sabbath's "Heaven and Hell" is the boundary LP - the real progressor, followed by Diamond Head's entire output - but Judas Priest were there first in everything except production quality and exection precision. "Exciter", on "Stained Class" is the first thrash track I can identify, followed by "I Don't Know" by Ozzy Osbourne on "Blizzard of Oz". NWOBM didn't culminate in Metallica/thrash, it was being killed off by over-commercialism and the underground didn't like it. Thrash divided the "men from the boys" in terms of metal. Many NWOBHMers gave up on metal there and then. Those into thrash got caught up in the whole "mine is bigger than yours" aspect of it all - everything had to be faster, more technical and whatever - although it didn't really get more technical; that's just an illusion. As I said; Metal as a genre is progressive by default. This is largely due to its competitive nature.

4) Prog Rock does not have Prog Rock influences. It just is Prog Rock. Most metal (excluding "Pop" or "Nu" metal) and much hard/heavy rock has Prog Rock influences.

 

Maybe we need 2 sites here...?

 

Just a thought.

"Prog Archives, where you'll find progressive rock, plus all the other diverse musical forms that progressive rock fans listen to, as well as Dream Theater, and all the other stuff that Dream Theater fans enjoy."

Whatever. Bring 'em all in -- its inevitable.

Progrophenia:  beauty and grandeur meet "death growls" and machine-gun riffing....

 

Edited by Peter