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

Why should prog be limited to the 70's?
90% of what i listen to is post 80's music and about 90% of it id consider progressive.
progressive rock is two things at once. an idea, and a movement. some people cant seem to separtate the two.

You know what the problem with progressive metal is: Honestly I don't want kids when you ask them Name progressive rock bands. and they say : DT , Tool , or Opeth , in spite of Yes Genesis KC or ELP.

Lionheart wrote: The T wrote:  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. Dear T - thank you for your insightful thoughts. Your post is truly one of the best posts I have read on ProgArchives. I think you raise a very good point about the definition (or re-definition) of prog metal.

true, his post is very well written. But it uses 'prog" as an amorphous and undefined qualifier. If you go through the major genres PA has listed, Prog Metal compares well in terms of many "requirements" that are often stated by fans of some of the Prog types.
Put Prog Metal up against Krautrock, RIo/Avant-Garde (not all acts , but some), Symphonic Prog, Neo, Crossover, Eclectic, Jazz/Fusion, Heavy Prog, among the more "popular" ones. Then, try to apply a cover-all bases description or adjective that is specific. You can't. Even in very vague generailzed terms, one genre or another ( or some of the acts withing these "questionable" genres) will come up lacking in prog credentials for some here.
So we come back to the arguement of whether it is prog. Yet, the questioning that Prog Metal is put through, the doubt that is harboured towards it, well ... Neo is not accepted as true prog or even seen as progressive by many at PA. Heavy Prog has more than a few entries that are said to be iffy by some. Eclectic & Crossover prog are probably  the two genres where you would have to call in the army if PA ever set up a discussion forum and let PA members debate and decide as to who in these two sections should be dismissed or deleted from this site. And Proto-Prog, in the opinion of others, is too often comprised of bands that put out one album or a few songs on their early releases that are "prog", and are here because the older crowd remember them as being part of the progressive scene of the late 60s and early 70s (Uriah Heep anyone?  In the mid 70s, I just remember  reviews and articles refering to them as Heavy Metal, not as prog. I do like them, and am not questioning their place here though, I'm just using them as an example).
So the problem is not whether Prog Metal is prog, but rather why Prog Metal is held to a different, and in a way, higher "prog" standard than other PA genres ? After all, it seems to be accepted that it "shares" aspects with the general description of prog. But then , name a prog genre that can be said to meet all the prog requirements as too often proudly and too loudly proclaimed by the anti-PMers ...
Think about it ...


Edited by debrewguy - September 18 2008 at 13:23

^ so you're using "Progressive" for what I call "Progressive Approach" and "progressive" for what I call "prog (by) style". Seems we're all talking about the same things ...

It's ferush's first post, so I think we should be a little more lenient, so instead of focusing on the aesthetics, focus on the content.  Welcome Fernando!

Certainly "Progressive" as a musical attribute goes back much farther than Progressive Rock.  I'm also big on Progressive Jazz, incidentally.  I had known that it was used as a term to describe music going back so far, though I could well imagine that qualifier being added.

As Firdous has stated: I look at metal as being a kind of rock, so progressive metal is just another kind of progressive rock to me. 

I don't look at it as being nearly so different from classic Prog as some, as I know that classic Prog has been an important influence on Progressive Metal (a fusion, in many cases, of classic Prog and heavy metal).

SINCE CENTURIES AGO THE PROGRESSIVE TERM IS ADDED FOR ALL REAL MUSICAL PIECE; AND EVEN ZEPPELIN, SABBATH AND PURPLE HAVE THE BEATLES, MOODY BLUES, KING CRIMSON, STONES AND THE WHO ROOTS; IT'S ONLY A MATTER OF TERMS AND THE ADVANCE OF WORLD MUSIC.

Atavachron wrote: 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

I'm just recalling the "tag" that was put on many a heavy rock band back in the 70s. Zep, Sabbath, And Deep Purple MKII were considered the top tier. Yet, Led Zeppelin's music included a lot of acoustic guitar, and Deep Purple had its' share of blues based tunes. Sabbath was really the only one that would be used over the years by acts like Kiss and Ted Nugent to differentiate (and deny) their sound as rock n roll as opposed to Heavy Metal.
So most of the 70s hard rockers were in some magazines, and in some music journalists' view, heavy metal. That included boogie rockers like Foghat, and in a few cases, Kansas and , yes, Styx. Uriah Heep of course, had more than its' share of sl*gging, and were often used as an example of the worst of heavy metal excesses (fantasy lyrics, repetitive riffs, awful covers, overly serious singing, not my opinion, just my mermory of some reviews).
But I come back to the dichotomy - metal went beyond overly amplified blooze and boogie riffs, and Chuck Berry rip-offs. Some of those riffs had influences from Zep and Sabbath's heavier stuff. Immigrant Song is not rock n roll. It is one of the first truly distinct metal riffs. But that was just one part of The group's musical pallette. Again, the last Rush rocker was I Think I'm Going Bald, and after that, nothing they did could be said to be blues based. It came to be called Rock, and eventually classic rock, but it wasn't rock n roll.
Heck, even Grand Funk were called heavy metal, and I just see them as heavy.

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

 

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

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.