non-progressive !!!

Certif1ed wrote: While I'm on the subject, what's so progressive about Opeth? I haven't heard any prog in their music whatsoever. Some metal riffs with a few quieter bits. Iron Maiden did that, didn't they?

Time for the resident Opeth fanboy to launch into action.

If you really need justification for qualifying Opeth as prog, just listen to Damnation.  The album is shamelessly progressive, on the Lamentations DVD Mikael declares "That song was a Camel ripoff" after the band plays "Ending Credits".  It's saturated in mellotron, and while it's not their most complex effort, it would sound like something a seminal 70s prog band could have made were it not for Steven Wilson's fantastic and very advanced production.

In addition to that, listen to any of their metal albums.  They've explored concept albums, they have extremely complex song structures which cover countless moods and sounds (not to mention have more time signature changes than one can count), their musicianship is incredible, yet (unlike some bands... *cough*Dreamtheater*cough*) never excessive, instead designed more for the purpose of creating mood and atmosphere.  To dismiss them simply as "metal riffs with a few quiet bits" absolutely fails to do their diversity justice.  Listen to their new album Ghost Reveries.  "Ghost of Perdition" sounds almost like a Tool song and "The Grand Conjuration" utilizes some weird polyrhythms and time signatures while almost touching on black metal, while "Atonement" wouldn't be out of place on a 60s psychedelic album and "Hours of Wealth" is almost bluesy sounding.  My Arms, Your Hearse delivers material like the gorgeous and extremely Floydian "Epilogue" or delicate acoustic balladry with "Credence", yet alternately switches to crushing yet highly ambitious death metal on tracks like "Demon of the Fall" or "Karma".  Or on Blackwater Park... I'm doubtful that anybody unfamilliar with Opeth could listen to "The Leper Affinity" and "Patterns in the Ivy" while having any idea that it's the same band.

I feel sort of bad for Opeth, their music puts them in a bad position.  Metal communities consider them boring and pretentious, yet prog communities question their credentials as a prog band (although after Damnation and Ghost Reveries, I really struggle to see how).  I realize that I'm not going to sway you on this one Cert, but they should at least be given credit for breaking new ground and pushing the boundaries in the increasingly stale death metal scene (I realize that doesn't make them prog, that's not my point here).

Pafnutij wrote: chopper wrote: ulver982 wrote: Cruachan, Abigor, Grimfist, Primordial, Absu, Acid Bath, Aeternus, Agathodaimon, Anal c**t, At The Gates, Bal Sagoth, Bethlehem, Bloodbath, Dark Funeral, Dissection, Destoryer 666, Godkiller, Isengard, Khold, Moonspell, My Dying Bride, Old Man's Child, Opera IX, Rotting Christ, Samael, Sear Bliss, Stormlord, Troll, Twin Obscenity, Unholy, Ved Buens Ende, Elend You just made all those up! You're too optimistic.

No, those are definitely all real bands. Some of them aren't bad either...all obscure metla bands.

penguindf12 wrote: who the hell cares?!!!

Penguin...I have noticed you have become a bit of an a-hole around here of late. You used to be a nice kid...what happened?

Hard to argue with the above sentiments- I utterly love 'Deep Purple In Rock', and always found 'Child In Time' to be one of the great prog epics. Its influence is huge- certainly bands like Quatermass, Uriah Heep (apparently in the opposite studio where DP recorded 'In Rock') and Atomic Rooster had heard it. Certainly little before it sounded quite like this- that makes it progressive rock, surely?

I like Dream Theater and would take them over the insipid indie by bands like Coldplay any day, but I can't ever remember much about their stuff after its over. I do think it's more metal than prog really, but there is definitely a prog element- I hear the influence of Metallica, Steve Vai, Queensryche and Megadeth, but also the influence of Rush, King Crimson and Yes in DT's work.

i'd rather have supertramp in prog than the who

and opeth and coheed & cambria are at the forefront of the prog resurgence

Queen are prog - Queen II is a masterpiece of prog rock. Who needs synthesisers? It's about the MUSIC!!!

Radiohead are prog - OK Computer is a masterpiece of prog rock, and bot Kid A and Amnesiac are pretty damn awesome.

I've yet to hear anything resembling prog rock in Dream Theater, so that's my choice. They are not prog - hell, they're not even progressive. Regressive and regurgitative, more like.

While I'm on the subject, what's so progressive about Opeth? I haven't heard any prog in their music whatsoever. Some metal riffs with a few quieter bits. Iron Maiden did that, didn't they?

There's more prog in Deep Purple or Uriah Heep than Opeth. And that ain't my opinion neither.

"Crime of the Century" by Supertramp contains more prog than Opeth and Dream Theater's back catalogue to date as far as I can hear.

QUEEN ARE NOT PROG

Suki wrote: The Miracle wrote: ok, from a different category: Britney Spears Spice girls Eminem 50  cent Linkin Park Limp bizkit Christina aguilera Hilary duff and more....   God. I've never seen a list that terrible in my life...

pretty soon some of these may be in the top 100 prog listing

Wait, so is the general opinion here that prog is everything besides the really crappy bands 13 year olds listen to?

[QUOTE=tortellino]

QUEEN ARE NOT PROG!

They never used synthesizers, the instrument another topic deemed "almost necessary" to prog bands; when they did use them, it was to record an awful DANCE album!

Also, no prog band (to my knowledge) released a posthumous album 4 years after the death of the singer...

And, last but not least, remember that Brian May got to play on a single with boyband 5IVE (We Will Rot You!)... What about Steve Hackett soloing on next BLUE album?

'Nuff Said

Idiot