Can each type of Metal be progressive?

Just ignore philippe, he's a joke but a bad one.

philippe wrote: certainly

    

have you considered therapy?

certainly

you are just on the defensive I understand

progressive music has to do with informality, abstraction, gradual process or changeable harmonic expressions. The sources come from "concepts" which emerged outside of popular music; coming from avant garde, classical music and non-western music. I see this genre as abstract expressionism or music for the brain...none metal pigheads can pretend to reach this musical aesthetic.

Heavy Metal is derived from Heavy Rock, a hybrid of electrified Rock and Blues. Prog metal is a vary recent form of metal to my ears, though many metal "genres" are over-complicated since most bands can be associated with many categories not just one.......

Edited by mystic fred - September 10 2006 at 04:15

oliverstoned wrote: All that is pure invention. You can invent all sub genres and categories you want, there's not the smallest progressive element in all that. This is just garbage teenage music, IMO!

Olivier, of course you have every right to express your opinion... Only remember that here there are people who like that genre, and not all of them are teenagers (I also like some metal, as you might remember, and I'm definitely NOT a teenager!) - and opinions can and should be expressed in a more subdued way to avoid offending others.

As to invention or the presence of progressive elements, I think this is an ongoing debate, and that on this website or others there is no agreement on what constitutes progressive... This is what you think, but no one can say it's the gospel truth. We're not talking hard sciences here, but an art form.

1.classic metal - Iron Maiden
2.power metal - Helloween
3.progressive metal - Queensryche
4.glam/hair metal - Twisted Sister
5.thrash Metal - Destruction
6.death metal - Death (what else?)
7.black metal - Emperor
8.atmosheric/goth - bands like As Divine Grace or 3rd And The Mortal
9.nu metal - Machine Head
10.folk metal - Skyclad
11.grind metal - Napalm Death
12.NWOSHM - In Flames
13.US/hardcore metal - Lamb Of God

(14.White Metal - Strypes )

Oh man... genreizing makes my head hurt... But I will try to contribute something.

In my observation, I have found music to be very cyclical.  You can never not be influenced by someone else, yet on the other hand, you must distinguish yourself as an individual artist.  So being an artist is almost an exercise in contradiction.  This contradiction is magnified within the boundaries of progressive rock, thanks to how we popularly characterize what is "prog" as fans.  Today's "prog" is supposed to be influenced by older "prog"; but "prog" is supposed to push the boundaries, be unique and unprecedented—in other words, it's supposed to be "progressive."  So anything we label as prog is cursed with this intense contradiction.

Therefore, I don't think the question is whether one of these definitions of "prog" is better than the other; I think the goal of the artist is to balance these two seeming contradictions.  Nothing any artist makes will ever be completely new.  Nevertheless, the artist takes what s/he knows and makes it different, makes it better, makes it their own.

So if genreizing is your thing, then I have this to say:  it would be possible to make/classify any type of metal as progressive.  But due to the arbitrary rules and definitions we create, we may ourselves keep this from happening.  Example:  I really wouldn't consider System of a Down as prog.  But why is this?  I believe it would be their influence:  I have a hard time hearing any prog influence at all in their sound (though that doesn't mean it's not there).  On the other hand, with a blend of modern (and bordering on the extreme) metal and world music, there's no doubt SoaD are fairly unique and original, and thus fairly "progressive". 

It seems to me that the definition we stick with for prog-metal is a metal band with notable prog influences or a prog band with notable metal influences—characteristics most of us would give for Dream Theater, Pain of Salvation, etc.  So the cycle lives on...  We love the bands who respect the past, and we love the bands who embrace the future.  Hopefully these two mindsets can coexist and thrive.

(Hope that makes sense.)


Edited by xtopher - September 10 2006 at 02:45

Trickster, for progressive power metal Symphony X would be a suitable choice?

It may be difficult to think of Symphony X this way, I guess; we are quite used to think of them as a 'prog metal' band. But if there is not such a subgenre, then this example would not fit?