Prog Metal: Organizing the categories

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ivan_2068 wrote: Mike wrote: ^ Ivan: I don't think that Symphonic Prog is the fusion of Rock and classical genres ... far from it. It rather is the principles of classical composition applied to Rock. Mike please.........it's exactly the same thing but in other words. Classical music is the main influence of Symphonic and that's the point, you and I know it, we can change the words but it's exactly the same thing. If you apply the principles of Classical Music to Rock, you're making a union of both genres, it's obvious, but if you want, use your own words. If you listen Close to the Edge or Watcher of the Slkes you will find Baroque keyboard solos played by Wakeman and Banks that could have easily been made by Johan Sebastian Bach...Isn't that a fusion???? Listen to Deep Purple - concerto for group and orchestra, and you'll see the difference. One is merely putting together a rock band and an orchestra, the other is composing rock songs with the same complexity that classical music uses.

Well I never said Deep Purple was Symphonic or Progressive Rock, only that they were ancestors of Progressive Metal, so I don't see what you want to prove with this.

I said that SYMPHONIC PROGRESSIVE was the blending of Rock and different eras of Classical Music, so I gave you three examples none of them includes Deep Purple.

But to clarify it for you:

1. Classical Music depending on the era and author hjas different degrees of complexity, you can't compare Brahms Lullaby (A simplistic tune considered classical) with for exammple Toccatta & Fugue by Bach, and you can't compare the straightforward (even if amazing music) of Johan Sebastian Bach with the incredibly complex Rachmaninoff or Alberto Ginastera.
2. Staruss Waltzes are considered Classical Music even when most of his music structure is so simple that was Dance Music.
3. I don't believe adding Orchestra to anything makes it complex you have James Last, Ray Conniff, etc to prove that, not even Symphony Orchestra like for example Days of Future passed where The Moody Blues play simple songs with (IMO) artificially adapted Symphony Orchestra to the beginning and the end of the tracks (Listen Nights in White Satin, it's a simple ballad played over and over by  The Moody Blues taking out the artificial intro and ending with Symphony Orchestra).
4. When I talk of fusion of Clasical and Rock in Symphonic Progressive, I talk aboout:

• Influence
• Technique
• But mainly STRUCTURE

So still domn't get your point and you never answered the rest of my post, seems like Houdini has a lot of followers here.

Iván

 

Ivan? You think Deep Purple were ancestors of Prog Metal? I don't think so. Many of the Prog bands today are NOT influenced by Deep Purple, plus if they were influenced by Deep Purple, Dream Theater was also influenced by Iron Maiden and Metallica, if you want to call them Prog Metal...., then ok, but one thing I'm sure of:

Deep Purple might be PROG RELATED, but not very Metal in their substance.

^ There we go! Good idea, because Doom/Gothic Metal IMO is an entirely genre...

I'm wondering about many bands in the experimental category, the category itself is a bit vague. Mike, please feel free to justify the existence of the category, it's a bit unclear to me.

Looking at the description of extreme prog metal, I'd certainly put Spiral architect and Spastic Inc in Extreme. I even think Devin Townsend would fit there.

In the Woods, Opeth, Psychotic Walz, Anathema I find suitable in Heavy Prog Metal.

I'm not saying that these band are similar, I feel that Prog Metal bands are very rarely even remotely alike, but if we are splitting prog metal, then split it in a way that makes sense on a high level. There are certainly heavy elements in Opeth, Psychotic Walz and Anathema (but I wouln't associate them very strongly to melodic or extreme). Spiral Architect and Spastic Inc certainly have strong Extreme elements.

IMO, The experimental category is too hard to specify in order for it to be a useful category. The experimental attributes of the bands can be mentioned in other ways, e.g., on the band page of the bands, but do they justify a completely separate category? We are still looking at general categories (three in my mind) where the bands in one category are far from similar, but it's a huge improvement to what it has been with just Prog Metal.

What do you think? Am I all alone with my thoughts on the experimental category? What common denominator (that describe the music itself) do the bands in that category really have?

I don't think there's much use killing yourself over this.  Prog Rock and Hard Rock of the seventies was often one in the same.  For example, Yes-Gates of Delerium, or Genesis-The Knife is hard prog rock.  Zeppelin and Black Sabbath were considered heavy metal, but in many cases didn't get much heavier than the above songs.  Therefore I think genre crossing was much more common in the early seventies rock scene.  Rock was Rock.  I think, towards the end of the seventies you start seeing rock split into different genres.  Some bands getting softer, others getting heavier, some going pop, some going disco.  This is when you have modern heavy metal and prog metal.  Even today, it's still very hard to seperate bands.  Look at the Mars Volta, it seems we can't agree if they're punk, prog, or metal.

Edited by Gianthogweed

I'll be very busy with work today ... stay tuned for more elaborate answers - and some more changes to the chart - tomorrow.

About new bands: I'll try to add bands which aren't in the archives to the chart - it started with the bands in the archives, but why not add other suggested bands as well? Eventually they might be added - or not, we'll see. Bands that are not yet in the archives are in italics, by the way.

Mike

After taking a look at the new chart this morning, some thoughts:

I'm not certain about using "Heavy" and "Melodic" as labels.  Your definitions are going to have to be very carefully written in order to distinguish the two. 

Changing Orchestral to Orchestral/Gothic means that you can probably leave Saviour Machine there. 

Changing Power to Doom/Power (and I think it should maybe be Power/Doom, as the majority of bands there are Power rather than Doom) means that Veni Domine should definitely be there.

Ice Age and Dali's Dilemma - maybe Neo rather than Symphonic?

And I'm still supporting my idea of making only one split - The Heavy and Melodic bands in one category, and the Experimental and Extreme in the other.

If this genre reorganization occurs, I just hope it does not lead to the addition of bands unrelated to prog. The only category I think so far is significant enough to be separated from simply Prog metal is Extreme Prog metal (Opeth, Cynic, Atheist) , which is sufficiently different from DT and the likes. I guess Power metal may have to be separated too , although i dont think any Power metal bands belong here in the first place. Regarding others such as Doom, I dont think there's many "doom prog" bands around, unless this leads to the addition of the likes of Candlemass and such (I hope Not!)

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Citanul wrote: Mike I'm not certain about using "Heavy" and "Melodic" as labels.  Your definitions are going to have to be very carefully written in order to distinguish the two.  Maybe I'll move the Doom bands to Orchestral/Gothic ... I'm aware that "Heavy" is not the ultimate name for the category, it's just a working title. The category is meant to contain bands that are relatively close to their original metal genre, so they can be more or less heavy, depending on the genre. Still I'm convinced that the split between these and the more melodic bands is a good thing.

I find the split between Heavy and Melodic very natural. The bands in the heavy category have a sound more reminicent of traditional metal, and is at times quite heavy. Melodic bands are much more versatile in their playing, use keyboards more prominently in different ways, the song structures are often complex. Hmm, I'm having problems putting the differences into words, hopefully you'll not misinterpret it. The important thing is that I find the split natural. Of course there are band currently in one of these categories which many will argue does not fit the name, but that's what should be worked on.

As for the names, I think there is a golden opportunity to even invent new names to prog metal categories, without being chained to old categories that have been useful in prog for many decades. The names should be intuitive, and I think MikeEnRegalias current options are already ,after just a few days of iteration, very satisfactory.

^ I think that the really tough decision is between Neo and Symphonic, and that's why I most definitely will keep those two categories together. Maybe we can establish a set of rules that can determine whether a band is Neo or Symphonic, but at the moment I don't see how such a determination can be made. There are some bands which are obviously more Neo than Symphonic, and some that are more Smyphonic than Neo, but most of the bands are really both.

During all of this you should all keep in mind that eventually the genres will be applied to individual albums. Many of the problems arise because artists/bands change ... some of them start as relatively traditional bands with a progressive edge and then even evolve into a Symphonic band, an Experimental band or even an Extreme band.