The REAL problem with prog-metal: is not prog-rock

 

I think that the biggest problem here is that we keep trying to define prog-metal in prog-rock terms. I have finally came to the conclusion that progressive-metal and progressive-rock are two separate entities with different intrinsic elements, even if they share some external ones (i'll define this later) and what really binds them together is, in my view, something extra-musical: the approach each genre has towards regularly-simpler music, rock in one case, metal in the other.

 

As Certf1ed has said 938729387 times before, and I agree, prog-rock was not really about odd times and unusual instruments but about freedom of form and constant experimentation/progression, and also about the combining of rock with more thematically-complex classical music.

 

Metal, "regular" metal to call it that way, is, in essence, simple riff-based music where riffs take center stage and distorsion and (sometimes) speed add to the mix (of course with different techniques). What we call progressive-metal is exactly that: still progressive-metal. It has to be seen under a different light: the light of metal.

 

And in that way the genre will appear in its own glory. Compared with 70's prog-rock, is thematically and harmonically much weaker (one can't do the same with a free harmonic open world as with a strict, rigid riff which is the building block of most metal music). But such a comparison is ABSURD.  Have you ever read people reacting like crazy when they see any genre (name it: punk, pop, etc) compared to prog in disfavorable terms? What's the usual answer? "They are two different things made with different purposes aimed towards different people. Well, that same reply we can also use for prog-metal. It's a different world, governed by different rules, for other people. IT JUST HAPPENS TO SHARE THE SAME NAME BECAUSE OF MINOR EXTERNAL ELEMENTS AND, MOSTLY, BECAUSE THE APPROACH TOWARDS MUSIC IS MORE ARTISTIC AND LESS COMMERCIAL.  

 

Really. Where was the last time you heard a prog-metal band doing a true symphonic song? I mean symphonic as in thematically-developed (let's agree on this poor and simple definition please), not, as many people do, symphonic as in with a symphonic orchestra in the background. (PLEASE: EXCEPTIONS TO THIS ARE PRECISELY THAT, EXCEPTIONS). Well..... I'm still waiting for that answer. When was the last time a prog-metal band's sound really sounded like it was influenced by YES, GENESIS or KING CRIMSON? "Oh, Tool sounds like Crimson!" some will say... really? I'd say CRIMSON actually metallized their music and that's why Tool somewhat reminds people of that band. Another argument: " Opeth and Riverside, among many others, sound like PINK FLOYD". Again, that doesn't help. What they emulate is the psychedelic/spacey sound of said legendary band, which wasn't even pure-prog-rock in 70's terms. "Oh, Portnoy said they are influenced by YES AND GENESIS". Oh yes? Well, DT for sure heard YES and GENESIS, they probably emulate their approach to music, and sometimes they actually emulate their style (like "A Change of Seasons"), but first and foremost the main influence in the music is METAL. The music is still METAL at its core. It hasn't been derived from classical music or jazz or anything. It's just A PROGRESSIVE FORM OF METAL.

 

So what is this progressive-metal that I love and think i finally understand? Well, riff based music with distortion and (sometimes) speed, with different techniques, but... enhanced. Made more "artistic". Unlike the direct, violent, immediate approach of regular "commercial" metal bands, prog-metal bands dare to make music that is more "complex" with much longer songs (not a prog-metal's exclusivity) , displays of technical prowess (not a prog-metal's exclusivity), odd-time signatures and sudden tempo changes (not a prog-metal's exclusivity), and unusual instruments (not a prog-metal's exclusivity). All of these you can also find in more regular metal bands. But the main factor that divides one of the other is, in my view,  that while in regular metal those elements are few, far between, and just little ornaments in songs, in prog-metal they are essential, happen regularly, and used mostly for artistic purposes. Unlike prog-rock where form was free for artists to explore, in prog-metal, the freedom the artists have is that of escaping the prison that a riff-based verse-chorus-verse structure constitutes by doing, in simple terms, whatever they want. I know it sounds poor and it would ultimately mean that a band playing chaotic music is also prog-metal. Well, that's quite true. Think of prog-metal as a metal of EXCESS. Blissful, glorious excess for me. But in general, that's what it is. What other artists like Testament say in two minutes with one 15-second solo and two riff changes and a single tempo, Dream Theater says in 10 minutes, with two 2-minute instrumental sections, with 12 riffs, 4 tempo changes, three different meters, and adding lush keyboards and very technical bass-playing with complex harmonies to the mix. While Testament's bassist plays root notes till exhaustion, Myung plays impossible scales and jazzy figures that dazzle the listener. BUT BOTH ARE SAYING, IN ESSENCE, THE SAME DAMN THING.

 

And thus is how I came to realize that prog-metal is not just a secondary, second-grade version, poor-man's edition of prog-rock. Prog metal can be seen in all its glory precisely as that: as PROGRESSIVE-METAL.  And thus, also, the comparisons end and are balanced: you can't compare the thematic depth of prog-rock with that of prog-metal, but why would you? Would you compare jazz with punk? New-age with blues? I could also say "prog-rock has none of the power that prog-metal has". Why would it? In my view, both are equally capable of deep emotions. YOU JUST HAVE TO FEEL IT IN YOU. If you love metal and see what metal is, you''ll find treasures most non-metal fans will miss. Please, apply the same logic that you apply to other genres when you compare prog-metal with prog-rock. PROG-ROCK IS A PROGRESSIVE FORM OF ROCK. PROG METAL IS A PROGRESSIVE FORM OF METAL. And, especially since METALLICA, rock and metal have been separated so much that they don't even seem to have come from the same father. Actually, they don't. Probably both were born off blues and then rock n' roll. But prog-rock and prog-metal have different fathers. For one, people mention The Beatles, Moody Blues, and, mostly, KING CRIMSON, YES, GENESIS and all the rest. For the other, you can pretty much go back to PURPLE, ZEPPELIN and, of course, the riff-factory called BLACK SABBATH. Then IRON MAIDEN added some elements to the mix, but unlike many people think, more in the external (longer songs, soloing, virtuosism, flashy bass harmonies) than in the internal (thematic development). In all of these cases, metal was still metal. Faster, more virtiosic, more melodic, more "orchestral", but still metal, with some remaining blues in its genes. The real father, in my view, was the band that actually killed the rock/blues part and truly created pure progressive METAL, pure METAL "progressed": the one that, quite adequately, is named after the genre, in the most honest and precise manifestation of principles ever conceived in a band's name. Posterior changes in the band's music and quality, -though that is subjective- don't alter the fact that, for 4 albums, METALLICA really "progressed" METAL , not rock, but METAL. Certf1ed open my eyes to the fact that, really, even "Kill 'Em All" contains a radical new approach where riffs were used, not a chain at a time, but one single one, explored, analyzed, developed. Check the album with open ears and you'll detect it. No question, of course, exists about the other three albums, where all the foundations of what would become DREAM THEATER, FATES WARNING and the rest were created.

 

Basically, prog-metal giants (the equivalent to YES and GENESIS) like DREAM THEATER and FATES WARNING drunk from three fountains, in my opinion: just a little sip from the prog-rock fountain, mostly in its artistic approach towards simple music, and also in their love for musical "excess" (Oh Ye Glorious Excess!!). A larger sip from the school of Iron Maiden and Judas Priest (mostly for technical elements), and the largest one, the definitive one, from the 4 albums that METALLICA released in the 80's. Of other bands usually mentioned like QUEENSRYCHE they mostly copied the decision, the brave idea of creating conceptual music in metal terms.

 

That's why, in my view, a prog-rock website does NOT need Metallica, for example (and this thread/blog/rant/whatever is NOT about that subject, I bring this up because it's just necessary to explain my opinion), and it would be ultimately incoherent to have such an artist in a pure prog-rock site. On the other hand, a progressive-METAL website excluding said band would be like a prog-rock website excluding King Crimson. I don't care what band members say about their music. We HEAR music and WE are here to judge and give opinions, aren't we? And this is what I hear.

 

So, my point is, if this is a website mostly about progressive music, then prog-rock and prog-metal can co-exist. BUT EACH GENRE IS DEFINED IN ITS OWN TERMS. (in my view, prog-metal CAN be defined for its elements). In a prog-rock website, the only way we can understand metal's inclusion is as a side-effect, illegitimate-son of rock, a b*****d child that lived in a different world in a different culture and learned different things. And that's deep inside, what many prog-rock purists feel in their hearts. I understand you. It's logical. We're two different things.

 

 

Should we, then, define prog-metal again? I think that it's necessary. A separate entity that shares the artistic approach of prog and some external elements but that is intrinsically different than prog. A genre that has its own artistic values, and that, when understood, can be as glorious and expressive as progressive-rock.

 

It's just a different thing.