Question: Is Neo-Classical 'Prog'? - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

Ghandi 2

Forum Senior Member

Joined: February 17 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1494

Topic: Question: Is Neo-Classical 'Prog'?
Posted: December 16 2007 at 04:33

I agree, but I didn't want to force my opinion on anyone. ;-)

Philéas

Forum Senior Member

Joined: June 14 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 6419

Posted: December 15 2007 at 10:10

Ghandi 2 wrote:

Real neoclassical is Stravinsky (which is arguably much more progressive since Stravinsky broke all the rules).

I wouldn't even say arguably. It is much more progressive.

Raff

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: July 29 2005
Location: None
Status: Offline
Points: 24429

Posted: December 15 2007 at 04:42

micky wrote:

never understood why it isn't.. but not really a fan.. so never pushed for answers

I, and others, have mentioned Malmsteen several times...I think he would get in without much problem.. well but for two... one to 'champion' him so to speak... and the biggest... where in the world to put him.

Heavy Prog? I think David would be very much in favour of his inclusion. As to myself, I am not an expert (haven't heard anything from him for years), so I would defer to the 'real' ones.

Ghandi 2

Forum Senior Member

Joined: February 17 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1494

Posted: December 15 2007 at 04:31

They're not neoclassical, they're neoclassical metal. There's a huge difference. Real neoclassical is Stravinsky (which is arguably much more progressive since Stravinsky broke all the rules).

Edited by Ghandi 2 - December 15 2007 at 04:51

King Crimson776 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 12 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2779

Posted: December 15 2007 at 01:28

^^ Plenty of unprogressive bands on here. Malmsteen mixes classical and rock, that's what alot of prog bands do. Not saying that he should be on here, but, I dunno, Symphony X and Kamelot are...

Edited by King Crimson776 - December 15 2007 at 01:29

ProgBagel

Prog Reviewer

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2819

Posted: December 14 2007 at 23:31

Neo-classical metal to me...like the above user said is just regressive. It's nothing new to the stuff made centuries ago. Not progressive at all.

aapatsos

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: November 11 2005
Location: Manchester, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 9226

Posted: December 14 2007 at 22:24

darqdean wrote:

^ you had me confused for a minute because I was under the impression that darkwave groups like Dead Can Dance were neo-classical and Stravinsky was Neoclassical, whereas I concider Nightwish to be Symphonic Metal.... So I wiki'd Malmsteen and discover he is Neo-classical Metal.

So, back to your question. I think that all metal sub-genres have the potential to be Progressive Metal, but not all the bands in those sub-genres. For example, Nightwish have made the transition from Symphonic Metal to Progressive Metal, but Edenbridge, have not. Therefore each band must be judged on their own merits and accomplishments regardless of the metal sub-genre they are allied to.

You have a clear point on that Dean, I apologise for your initial confusion...Maybe I have not made my thoughts clear.

Another artist that could be well regarded as neo-classical is Uli Jon Roth. His solo works are pretty impressive and his live performances even more... I am also a bit confused about how prog or not such an artist would be, but how much progressive do you see in such works?

Is neo-classical really progressive or 'regressive' ?

Edited by aapatsos - December 14 2007 at 22:33

cuncuna

Forum Senior Member

Joined: March 29 2005
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 4318

Posted: December 14 2007 at 22:05

Same here... neo classical I regard as symphonic (straight symphonic) composers movement going back to classical in terms of method, Stravinsky, Prokofiev and the else...

¡Beware of the Bee!

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: December 14 2007 at 21:52

So, back to your question. I think that all metal sub-genres have the potential to be Progressive Metal, but not all the bands in those sub-genres. For example, Nightwish have made the transition from Symphonic Metal to Progressive Metal, but Edenbridge, have not. Therefore each band must be judged on their own merits and accomplishments regardless of the metal sub-genre they are allied to.

What?

micky

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46833

Posted: December 14 2007 at 21:39

never understood why it isn't.. but not really a fan.. so never pushed for answers

I, and others, have mentioned Malmsteen several times...I think he would get in without much problem.. well but for two... one to 'champion' him so to speak... and the biggest... where in the world to put him.

The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip

aapatsos

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: November 11 2005
Location: Manchester, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 9226

Posted: December 14 2007 at 21:25

This has just struck my mind. Do prog fans consider neo-classical as prog?
I can't decide easily on that issue, but some bands and artists I consider neo-classical
(Nightwish, Theodore Ziras) are in the Archives, while other, more popular and highly
regarded are not (Malmsteen).

No, I am not proposing anyone for addition or rejection... LOL

So what is your opinion on the subject?

EDIT: What is your general perception of neo-classical relating to prog?

Edited by aapatsos - December 14 2007 at 22:29