megadeth

i don't really understand.. Metallica?!? Progressive?! that's an absolute Contradiction, they boring 10 minutes riffs are the worst thing in the world and every song is just the same, where is the virtuosity and the Classical Melodical Symphonic Inspiration?

Metallica is nor progressive

a real prog metal band is dream theater... everything before werent prog metal, queensryche maybe, but fates warning not.. metallica less...

x_X

Certif1ed wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ But a band like Wobbler is Prog Rock, although they are not progressive at all. But are they Prog Rock, though? How can they be, if they're not progressive at all? Talk about a contradiction in terms. (I've never heard Wobbler, I'm asking questions...). Can you think of another band that are Prog without being progressive?

I think that "Prog Rock" is a genre, not more.

It seems to have become that, and I think that is a great pity. I would prefer to see it for what it originally was, and keep some meaning in there so that the genre label "does what it says on the tin", ie, describes the music.

I hate labels that are meaningless twaddle, and it would be a pity if Prog Rock has become meaningless.

A genre is determined by its key bands, and other bands which make similar music are put in the same genre. So if a band copies another band's style - or simply records music that is very similar to that of the original bands to show their appreciation for that style (which is what Wobbler do - listen to nearly half an hour of their music at  http://www.wobblermusic.com/music/) - then they might share the same genre, even if the original bands were very original, inventive and progressive, and the band in question is derivative and not adding many own ideas.

The essence of what I'm trying to say is that genres are about the music, not the musicians or their motivation.

But if the genre of Prog Rock is about the music, and it's about the original bands that define it, then we need to examine the music to see what gave rise to the label - and the very ESSENCE of progressive rock is that it is progressive rock. Literally - it's NOT a style.

Here are some examples of bands which I would label prog, but not progressive:
Wobbler, Anglagard, Dream Theater clones like Mind Key and Circus Maximus

Again, I don't know the music of those bands - except Dream Theater who I agree, are not progressive, so do not deserve to be under the genre progressive metal - or what's the point of the genre?

And some bands which I would not label prog, but which are very progressive:
Nevermore, Bumblefoot, Metallica, Death Angel (on Act III)

Again, I only know Metallica of those, and Metallica were progressive in a complete and literal way - exactly as the original Prog Rock bands were, hence they are Prog.

Prog has not changed - peoples definitions of it have, and everyone has a different definition. But mine is the more accurate.

What makes something prog rock if it's not actually progressive?

That's a contradiction in terms!

i don't really understand.. Metallica?!? Progressive?! that's an absolute Contradiction, they boring 10 minutes riffs are the worst thing in the world and every song is just the same, where is the virtuosity and the Classical Melodical Symphonic Inspiration?

It's quite clear that you don't understand Metallica...

Who cares about virtuosity or Classical Melodical Inspiration? Neither of those is essential to prog rock.

You might find the riffs boring, others might not - ever think of that?

Metallica is nor progressive

On the contrary, sir, they are one of the most progressive bands ever to have hit the planet.

a real prog metal band is dream theater... everything before werent prog metal, queensryche maybe, but fates warning not.. metallica less...

Queensryche were not progressive - what's progressive about recycling Judas Priest and Iron Maiden riffs?

Dream Theater are not progressive - as Mike says. What's progressive about recycling METALLICA riffs?

x_X

Ok, fair enough. I think that the members of the prog metal team will make the right decision.

But still I think that some Metallica albums are more progressive than many prog metal albums in the archives. If Metallica aren't accepted even as prog related, I fear that it might not be because of the music, but because of their reputation.

But IMHO St. Anger was nowhere near as embarrasing as some of the albums Phil made ...

Ok, fair enough. I think that the members of the prog metal team will make the right decision.

But still I think that some Metallica albums are more progressive than many prog metal albums in the archives. If Metallica aren't accepted even as prog related, I fear that it might not be because of the music, but because of their reputation.

But IMHO St. Anger was nowhere near as embarrasing as some of the albums Phil made ...