What is so wrong with Prog metal - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

AtLossForWords View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

Joined: October 11 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6699

Posted: June 04 2006 at 22:39

Teaflax wrote:

Who is that? Frankenstein's transvestite brother?

It's similar to your relation to FleaTax.

NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.

or else you may lose this:

Edited by AtLossForWords - June 04 2006 at 22:42

"Mastodon sucks giant monkey balls."

VanderGraafKommandöh View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

Joined: July 04 2005
Location: Malaria
Status: Offline
Points: 89372

Posted: June 04 2006 at 22:40

Post of the year!

Teaflax

Forum Senior Member

Joined: June 26 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1225

Posted: June 04 2006 at 22:41

MikeEnRegalia wrote:

I would love to debate that question, only not with so much backstabbing and negativity.

If you feel you are being backstabbed, I certainly apologize. The negativity is only there because I feel strongly about the subject at hand; that very superficial aspects seem to signal Prog to a great many people.

Some Electronic music is also accepted (Tangerine Dream etx.) if those bands also worked in a Rock context in the widest possible sense.

Very wide, then.

With that definition, is it so hard to accept that Squarepusher will most likely not be added?

Eh. What it means to me is this; Prog Rock came about to break the strictures and rules that surrounded Rock music. It did this in all aspects; sonically, structurally, compositionally, melodically, etc. Yet this legacy and spirit is to be ignored because it has its grounding in Rock (which I see as utterly incidental - that was the only real way for most young kids to make music at that time), something it moved away from rather quickly. I find that sad, limiting and and prejudiced.

It has nothing to do with levels - there's just a historic component. If a band was called "progressive metal" in magazines, interviews etc. ... then we add them.

So this is not a Progressive Rock site, is what you're saying. It's a Progressive Rock/Progressive Metal site, and the confusion and problems probably arise from the different criteria these two sides use.

Otherwise you really would have to approach each possible inclusion from a Prog Rock perspective, not - as you say you do - from a Prog Metal Historical perspective. And that's how the bar drops so low that you get to even discussing Evanescence in the first place.

Teaflax

Forum Senior Member

Joined: June 26 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1225

Posted: June 04 2006 at 22:44

I wouldn't want representation. One presentation is enough for me.

Wiggenstein was priceless, though. I still imagine RuPaul with a bolt through his neck.

Edit: Had to edit after the edit. I'm very close to Edith.

Edited by Teaflax - June 04 2006 at 22:47

valravennz View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: March 20 2005
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 2546

Posted: June 04 2006 at 23:14

MikeEnRegalia wrote:

Paul K. wrote:

MikeEnRegalia wrote:

Paul K. wrote:

In my opinion it's heaviness that confines it. However, if it wasn't heavy we wouldn't call it metal.
Vicious circle

Think of it the other way: Metal doesn't need to be heavy all the time.

Of course metal doesn't need to be heavy all the time, but it is. It can range from soft to heavy but primary sound emphasizes on heavy side.

So in a way somebody *could* call all other genres "confined", as they exclude the heaviness.

And of course somebody could say that, but that's just my opinion - borders of heavy sound confine prog musicians (!! that's just my opinion !!

)
I can name only few prog-metal bands which I *really* enjoy:

Dream Theater
Pain Of Salvation
Tool
Spiral Architect

Of course a band like Pain of Salvation has more heavy songs than "soft" songs ... that's why they're categorized as Prog Metal. But they have so many brilliant soft songs, I'd say that the ratio is 70% heavy vs. 30% soft. You could compile more than 1 CD full of soft Pain of Salvation songs - their live album 12:5 is completely unplugged, and I didn't even take that into account.

So: It's not really important that a band uses all kinds of stylistic elements on every album. It's important that a band uses the right elements in the right situations, and most Prog Metal bands do that (or are at least trying to).

I have been following this discussion from the beginning and it seems to be deteriorating into a round of pedantic gymnastics centred on the word "progressive". This in no way adds any constructive opinion as to why a metal band is considered for the Archives. Please take a look at my highlighted quote from Mike. This is the criteria for a metal band being approved for the archives, put simply and in understandable language. I can not see why there is such a problem with this with some forum members. The criteria is clearly not up for debate. No matter how much spurious use of pedantics and mathematical quantification to back up arguments this is not going to change the site policy and imo, rightly so. Boundaries have to be drawn and if the classification of a band falls outside those boundaries, Prog Metal or other prog genres, then so be it.

I agree that nothing should be accepted blindly without opinion being expressed. However, I do object to confusing terminology and arguments that for argument sake only. I respect opinion offered that, whether the forum member likes or dislikes Prog Metal, is clear enough for all to understand. I for one, like Prog Metal and though I don't agree with some groups inclusion or exclusion, as I have stated in a previous post, I accept the outcome of the Prog Metal teams decisions... and I move on. Life is too short to dwell on ambiguous sentiments.

"Music is the Wine that fills the cup of Silence"
- Robert Fripp

Teaflax

Forum Senior Member

Joined: June 26 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1225

Posted: June 04 2006 at 23:26

^Ah, well. Again I type and type only to be misinterpreted - I wish I could be clearer and in less words, too. I apologize both for my obtuseness and logorrhaeic tendencies, but I shall try to put it clearly and briefly:

It has nothing to do with the word "progressive" per se. It has to do with what Prog Rock was at its inception, why it came about, what it was meant to do and where people were trying to go with it.

In stepping back from that - even if it is in only one subgenre specifically - one is doing a disservice to the legacy of the pioneers and diluting the concept. You have held the barbarians from the gate, only to have them slip in the back door.

That is all.

Certif1ed

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559

Posted: June 05 2006 at 02:51

MikeEnRegalia wrote:

Teaflax wrote:

Bryan wrote:

Queensryche would have been a glaring omission from the prog-metal catgeory.

Which again validates precisely what I have been saying. Maybe one should consider a spinoff called PMA?

Maybe you should create the TPA (Teaflax Prog Archives).

I guess that would be the only website that you could agree with.

It's quite obvious to me that Teaflax is making some carefully considered and very good points, Mike - and you are arguing against them using the same confused terms that you come back to my arguments with. It seems that you simply don't understand the other side of the fence, and your comments here validate this.

You yourself have said in the past that Prog Metal is more about the style than Prog Rock - which is why so much of it sounds so very similar, and why there is little real development of form or variation in style compared to Classic Prog Rock.

Bryan's point about Quennsryche being a glaring omission from the Prog Metal category speaks volumes about Prog Metal in general that underlines this.

The important thing is not to stop questioning.

Certif1ed

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559

Posted: June 05 2006 at 03:11

MikeEnRegalia wrote:

And as for the Judas Priest influence: there is no evidence of that in Queensryche's music ... at least not more than in any other metal band of that time.

So in other words, you want to disagree with me, but can't, because what I said is true.

Why not leave it there?

MikeEnRegalia wrote:

I don't see the relevance of Judas Priest in this discussion ... but I'm sure that you'll enlighten me. Just make it simple, I'm a stupid idiot who is just talking about metal to wind you up.

I wouldn't say that...

...but if you can't see the relevance of Judas Priest in a discussion about Prog Metal - especially when referring to Queensryche, then you should listen to more Judas Priest. I recommend "Sad Wings of Destiny". It's very progressive.

MikeEnRegalia wrote:

Simply look up odd 1 or 2 star reviews for these albums and you'll see what I mean - I just didn't want to name the collabs who wrote them. IMO it's pretty obvious that they were written to make a statement - to complain about 5 star reviews of those albums, to lower their average rating or whatever. A bit childish, if you ask me.

Aha - it seemed that you were talking about my reviews of those albums, not those by other reviewers.

This makes it clearer - you're accusing me of writing the Queensryche reviews in order to complain about the 5 star reviews.

Which I did not.

I wrote them because I had bought the entire Queensryche back catalogue in order to study in depth the history of Prog Metal - and Queensryche are widely recognised as an important band in that respect. This is something I disagreed with 20-odd years ago, and now, having listened even more carefully than I did then, still disagree with.

MikeEnRegalia wrote:

Whatever - I'd rather discuss music than wasting my time with these ridiculous quarrels.

That isn't true, or you wouldn't keep coming back to quarrel.

MikeEnRegalia wrote:

Incidently: Those of you who have been following my Prog Metal - related posts should know that I don't consider Operation: Mindcrime to be particularly progressive. So I'm wondering why I'm targeted here again ...

No-one's targeting you - you reply to people's posts, people reply to yours, and so the wheel of the discussion forum turns.

If you agree with me, what's the problem?

Edited by Certif1ed - June 05 2006 at 03:11

The important thing is not to stop questioning.

Bryan

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 01 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3013

Posted: June 05 2006 at 03:23

Certif1ed wrote:

MikeEnRegalia wrote:

Teaflax wrote:

Bryan wrote:

Queensryche would have been a glaring omission from the prog-metal catgeory.

Which again validates precisely what I have been saying. Maybe one should consider a spinoff called PMA?

Maybe you should create the TPA (Teaflax Prog Archives).

I guess that would be the only website that you could agree with.

All I was saying is that historically, Queensryche are an important part of the prog-metal movement, and since prog-metal is a subgenre of prog, our site's efforts to be the "most complete database on the internet" would be hindered by them not being present.

And you're right by the way, Judas Priest have some very progressive work, though I'm not quite sure their inclusion on PA would be suitable.

MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21174

Posted: June 05 2006 at 03:41

Teaflax wrote:

And that's how the bar drops so low that you get to even discussing Evanescence in the first place.

That's it - I'm not talking about music with you anymore, Teaflax. Come back when you've taken your head out of your ass ... and I mean it.

Recently listened to:

Teaflax

Forum Senior Member

Joined: June 26 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1225

Posted: June 05 2006 at 03:53

What? A leads to B and I'm accused of having performed craniorectal autoinsertion for pointing it out?

How, pray tell, did B even come about if not that way? Surely it was not a spontaneous event, but part of a sequence of decisions.

Edited by Teaflax - June 05 2006 at 03:54

MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21174

Posted: June 05 2006 at 03:53

Certif1ed wrote:

MikeEnRegalia wrote:

And as for the Judas Priest influence: there is no evidence of that in Queensryche's music ... at least not more than in any other metal band of that time.

So in other words, you want to disagree with me, but can't, because what I said is true.

Why not leave it there?

because I'm not as arrogant as you - in my previous point I suggested to leave the decision to the reader. Here you suggest to leave it at "Cert is the supreme winner of the discussion, Mike is an idiot." And sorry - that is not the case here. You just can't leave things without having the final word AND saying therein that you're right, can you?

Certif1ed wrote:

I wouldn't say that...

I reviewed it this week on my website - you're welcome to read it. It's just a "first listen" review though. BTW: I fail to see what that album has to do with metal. It's not much more heavy than Rush's 2112.

Certif1ed wrote:

I guess you didn't listen to them then ... you say that the first 3 albums all sound alike, which couldn't be more wrong. How could anyone describe The Warning and Operation: Mindcrime as even remotely similar?

Certif1ed wrote:

MikeEnRegalia wrote:

Whatever - I'd rather discuss music than wasting my time with these ridiculous quarrels.

That isn't true, or you wouldn't keep coming back to quarrel.

My love for metal keeps me coming back ...

Certif1ed wrote:

No-one's targeting you - you reply to people's posts, people reply to yours, and so the wheel of the discussion forum turns.

If you agree with me, what's the problem?

Generalisation is the problem. I don't agree with you at all, even if our assessment of the progressiveness of that album may match, it still does for different reasons, and we draw different conclusions.

BTW: My fundamental problem with your review is the low rating - you are bashing the album even as a plain metal album. You're free to do so, but you're going against EVERY other professional opinion there. I'm talking about press, musicians, websites (prog websites, metal websites) etc. etc. ... they all say that it is a masterpiece. So while I won't ASK you to change your rating or your review, I WILL criticise it and certainly object to your claim that it represents the only logical, objective conclusion that exists about that album, and that anybody who disagrees is an idiot. Which you haven't spelled out like that - I know, but frankly - aren't you saying just that?

Recently listened to:

Teaflax

Forum Senior Member

Joined: June 26 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1225

Posted: June 05 2006 at 03:56

MikeEnRegalia wrote:

How could anyone describe The Warning and Operation: Mindcrime as even remotely similar?

I'm guessing because both are Metal? Just a shot in the dark here...

MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21174

Posted: June 05 2006 at 03:58

Teaflax wrote:

What? A leads to B and I'm accused of having performed craniorectal autoinsertion for pointing it out?

How, pray tell, did B even come about if not that way? Surely it was not a spontaneous event, but part of a sequence of decisions.

Well, you certainly win the prize for the best "talking in riddles" in a heated argument ...

In English please.

Recently listened to:

MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21174

Posted: June 05 2006 at 04:10

Teaflax wrote:

MikeEnRegalia wrote:

I would love to debate that question, only not with so much backstabbing and negativity.

It's not just between me and you. I just notice a general trend of negativity against those who are supporting the guidelines of the archives. If you disagree with those you should take it up with Max, who (with ProgLucky) owns this place.

Teaflax wrote:

Some Electronic music is also accepted (Tangerine Dream etx.) if those bands also worked in a Rock context in the widest possible sense.

Very wide, then.

With that definition, is it so hard to accept that Squarepusher will most likely not be added?

Leave me alone with this discussion - I'm not interested in it, it was not my decision. I don't really care.

Teaflax wrote:

It has nothing to do with levels - there's just a historic component. If a band was called "progressive metal" in magazines, interviews etc. ... then we add them.

Yes and no. Yes, this is a rock/metal website (funny that you didn't notice from the start), and no, no different criteria are used. It's just that Rock is very different from Metal ...

Teaflax wrote:

Otherwise you really would have to approach each possible inclusion from a Prog Rock perspective, not - as you say you do - from a Prog Metal Historical perspective. And that's how the bar drops so low that you get to even discussing Evanescence in the first place.

The "historical" perspective applies to all genres, not just metal. It's therefore not a metal issue.

Edited by MikeEnRegalia - June 05 2006 at 04:10

Recently listened to:

Teaflax

Forum Senior Member

Joined: June 26 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1225

Posted: June 05 2006 at 04:25

MikeEnRegalia wrote:

Well, you certainly win the prize for the best "talking in riddles" in a heated argument ...

In English please.

It's the same thing I've been saying all along, so never mind me repeating it at length. We'll have to agree to disagree. I basically think much of the not-very-Prog-at-all ProgMetal gets a free ride (and similarly that many yes-it's-Prog-but-not-fully bands get lauded as The Second Coming). You don't agree. C'est la vie.

And "craniorectal autoinsertion" I assume you got.

Edited by Teaflax - June 05 2006 at 04:25

MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21174

Posted: June 05 2006 at 08:23

^ What you don't seem to understand is that most music enthusiasts don't have a theoretical background on music - they're not scientists. So if 80% of all Queensryche fans back in 1988 chose to call Operation Mindcrime a masterpiece of Prog Metal - then that's that. It happened, it can't be changed.

now what we progarchives "experts" need to do is to find a balance between all these criteria that might - in combination - lead to something being called "prog". Accepting Operation: Mindcrime as prog doesn't mean that anything will be accepted ... it's a decision that's made album by album.

BTW: I always lobbied for Steve Vai to be accepted as prog. Result: he's in prog related. I don't make a big deal about the issue - I accept that my point of view is not that of the majority. I could rant all day long about most people judging Vai without knowing the important parts of his discography, or his background ... but I'm not doing that. why? because I know that this matter will not be solved to everyone's satisfaction ... so I

Let It Go.

Recently listened to:

Certif1ed

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559

Posted: June 05 2006 at 08:30

MikeEnRegalia wrote:

I'll leave that decision for the reader.

MikeEnRegalia wrote:

I reviewed (Sad Wings of Destiny) this week on my website - you're welcome to read it. It's just a "first listen" review though. BTW: I fail to see what that album has to do with metal. It's not much more heavy than Rush's 2112.

...and I thought you understood metal.

It's clear now that I was sadly mistaken.

You fail to see what that album has to do with metal?

I fail to see how you can possibly arrive at that conclusion - it practically defines most of what metal is!

MikeEnRegalia wrote:

I guess you didn't listen to (the Queensryche albums) then ...

I always listen to an album as I review it - it's part of my strategy.

And I always "live with" an album for a good few months before reviewing it, as I know that some albums can take time to "get".

MikeEnRegalia wrote:

you say that the first 3 albums all sound alike, which couldn't be more wrong. How could anyone describe The Warning and Operation: Mindcrime as even remotely similar?

Easy - 1. They do, and 2. Read my reviews of them, noting other reviews which also say that just about every Queensryche album sounds like a conglomeration of Iron Maiden and Judas Priest - it's not just me.

I don't understand why you feel the need to force your opinion on me - what you said has no basis in fact or even reality - it's just your unreasoned opinion. You haven't even bothered trying to justify it, in a kind of "Mike is the supreme winner of the discussion, Cert is an idiot" kind of way.

MikeEnRegalia wrote:

BTW: My fundamental problem with your review is the low rating

Why should I not award the rating it deserves among luminaries such as Gentle Giant, Frank Zappa and Radiohead? My ratings are comparative, as the star system here suggests - and only 1 means that the album is bad - all the others mean it's good. Queensryche would not appeal to some people, they are not Prog in the sense that many other bands are, so the rating is fair.

MikeEnRegalia wrote:

- you are bashing the album even as a plain metal album.

Indeed - but maybe that's because I think it deserves it?

MikeEnRegalia wrote:

You're free to do so,

Clearly not - you're complaining about it!

MikeEnRegalia wrote:

but you're going against EVERY other professional opinion there. I'm talking about press, musicians, websites (prog websites, metal websites) etc. etc. ... they all say that it is a masterpiece.

So I'm supposed to submit and follow the masses? I'm talking about my own opinion - that's what goes into a review, along with more objective matter to back it up.

Why should I take the side of fanboys if I think the music sucks?

MikeEnRegalia wrote:

So while I won't ASK you to change your rating or your review, I WILL criticise it

Jolly good - keep it up; I'd hate to think no-one read my reviews!

MikeEnRegalia wrote:

and certainly object to your claim that it represents the only logical, objective conclusion that exists about that album, and that anybody who disagrees is an idiot. Which you haven't spelled out like that - I know, but frankly - aren't you saying just that?

As you say, I haven't said that, and just to make sure it's fully understood, I'm not saying that at all. I don't think that everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot, I just think that hold a different opinion to me - which seems a reasonable supposition.

What I am saying is "Here is my review, this is what I think and (crucially) this is why I think it. Would you care to discuss it in the forums over a nice cup of tea and a biscuit, or would you prefer to throw things at me?"

And if you throw things at me, don't be surprised if stuff gets thrown back.

The important thing is not to stop questioning.

Trickster F. View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

Joined: February 10 2006
Location: Belize
Status: Offline
Points: 5308

Posted: June 05 2006 at 08:43

Haven't we all agreed on Judas Priest being Milk-Metal? In any case, I don't see this discussion going to any logical conclusion.

Now listening: Celtic Frost - Dethroned Emperor

-- Ivan

sig

MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21174

Posted: June 05 2006 at 08:53

Certif1ed wrote:

I did not say that it doesn't have anything to do with metal - I just said that it did not influence Operation: Mindcrime more than it influenced any other metal album of the 80s. And I'm really sure that most 80s metal is more influenced by the later Priest & Maiden album which had already progressed into what I call "modern metal". That Priest album is - along with the Rush, Sabbath etc. albums of that time - still clearly "pre-modern metal".

Certif1ed wrote:

MikeEnRegalia wrote:

you say that the first 3 albums all sound alike, which couldn't be more wrong. How could anyone describe The Warning and Operation: Mindcrime as even remotely similar?

It's not just you - but very few people see it that negatively.

I see how you can get to that conclusion based on the early Queensryche albums up to The Warning. But I try to see beyond simple observations like "High Pitched / falsetto vocals -> Priest influence". On Operation: Mindcrime they had found their own style, which I don't find particularly interesting in itself ... the twin guitar leads are characteristic (with the melodies a little more American/AOR than Maiden) and the atmospheric acoustic guitar songs (2nd half of Operation: Mindcrime) are not to be found in either Priest or Maiden. their style is much more apparent on Empire, which is THE key album of Queensryche IMO (not their best, but the one that shows their own unique style in perfection).

Certif1ed wrote:

I don't understand why you feel the need to force your opinion on me - what you said has no basis in fact or even reality - it's just your unreasoned opinion. You haven't even bothered trying to justify it, in a kind of "Mike is the supreme winner of the discussion, Cert is an idiot" kind of way.

MikeEnRegalia wrote:

BTW: My fundamental problem with your review is the low rating

Another opinion on which you stand alone: That 2 star ratings mean "good".

Certif1ed wrote:

MikeEnRegalia wrote:

- you are bashing the album even as a plain metal album.

Indeed - but maybe that's because I think it deserves it?

That's quite right - *YOU* think it deserves that. I just take offense on you assuming that most people agree with that. You talk about people who think otherwise as if they're fools.

Certif1ed wrote:

MikeEnRegalia wrote:

You're free to do so,

Clearly not - you're complaining about it!

I'm not complaining about the review - I'm complaining about you using this review against me. It's just your opinion, not more, not less.

Certif1ed wrote:

No need to do that - but maybe becoming a hateboy is not a good solution either.

Certif1ed wrote:

MikeEnRegalia wrote:

So while I won't ASK you to change your rating or your review, I WILL criticise it

Jolly good - keep it up; I'd hate to think no-one read my reviews!

I'm trying to avoid "throwing things". I also try to avoid saying "he started it" or "I'm innocent - others started the fight" ... it always takes two for such arguments to unfold.

I guess I'll have to review Operation: Mindcrime ... then there'll be our reviews for all to read, without the possibility for mud slinging that a forum allows.

Edited by MikeEnRegalia - June 05 2006 at 08:58

Recently listened to: