Announcing the Prog-Metal split

cacha71 wrote: I venture into some areas of prog metal and will certainly find it useful to have it categorised, though some of the sub-categories are a bit confusing and need explaining... I think the main problem the administrators will have with this will be to decide which category each band belongs to, especially given that bands often change style mid-career... which is being proved by the other posts on this thread!

We will try to find the best fitting category for each band. If the band changed their style from album to album then we'll try to focus on their best and/or most important albums, and of course we won't consider the less progressive albums which occur in some discographies.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Sckxyss wrote: I personally think Opeth would fit into Extreme/tech (because of their heavier style) or the traditional Progressive Metal (because of their style of composition) rather than post/experimental, from which I can find no similarities. Can you name one traditional Prog Metal band which has a style of composition similar to Opeth?

Gamemako wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: Gamemako wrote: debrewguy wrote: Er ... why would we segregate albums by groups that are not listed at PA ? Unless, of course, you believe that many out and out completely un & non prog bands have managed to slip into these pure pages ??? Blind Guardian? Star One? Yeah, those. Anyway, I think I could point out the parallels between Zero Hour and Meshuggah, but I don't think anybody would be listening. Minds are made up, and there are higher-profile listings to debate (see: Opeth). Minds are *not* "made up", but unfortunately people like you usually bail out when it comes to proving their claims, as is the case here. I want to debate on a musical level, not on one of preconceptions. You quoted to very same reference I made as a counter-example. I don't see you budging in any way with respect to this. Furthermore, back up your own claims before you attack others -- you said they're nothing alike, so YOU prove it. Otherwise, you have no justification for your affront. It's much easier to prove a statement like "X is similar to Y" than a statement like "X is not similar to Y". You mentioned some parallels between the bands, with only a little more effort you could have listed those parallels to back up your point. I on the other hand don't really know where to begin, since these two bands are so different from each other. If it makes you happy I'll simply mention the vocal style, the symphonic/melodic elements which are an inherent part of ZH's music but totally absent in Meshuggah's music, the heavily downtuned guitars of Meshuggah (they even had 8 string guitars custom made) combined with their trademark low-register microtonal bends which you don't have with Zero Hour. But what do I know ... Speaking of Opeth, I see both experimental and extreme but neither technical nor post-rock, so I won't bother making the judgment. You've made your bed, now sleep in it. So if they're experimental they can go to "Experimental Prog Metal" ... where's the problem? They simply fit better there *musically* than in Extreme. Compare them to Into Eternity or Death and you'll hear the difference. I won't bother making the judgment. People won't be happy wherever it goes. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to put them in the genre which fits best. Classic prog-metal would make sense. Adding traditional to the name would imply the that the likes of Orphaned Land and Agalloch belong there. You misunderstand the word "traditional" ... the sad thing is that you don't even consider the possibility that it might have more than one meaning. Quite the contrary. The problem is that the word has more than one meaning, and when you say traditional, the label is nothing more than hopelessly confusing. When discussing a proper label, the idea is that you criticise to find the best one, not to accept a bad label because it works. Let's call Prog Folk Traditional Prog and see what happens. It's not that it's wrong, per se; it's just not nearly as precise as it needs to be. I didn't choose the label, exactly for those reasons. Maybe I simply found it odd that you would choose one of the lesser known meanings to make your point. I doubt that many people would think of this particular meaning when the word "Traditional" is combined with "Prog Metal".

spacemetal wrote: Edit: Actually I was because for some reason being Avant-Garde makes you Tech/Extreme rather than Experimental.  Don't know quite how that works...

No. Essentially you could say that "Experimental" and "Avant-Garde" mean the same thing ... most Avant-Garde bands can be called Experimental, and most Experimental bands can also be called Avant-Garde.

But for some reason "Avant-Garde" has acquired an additional meaning: Quirkyness. I don't know how it happened, maybe because Zappa was one of the first artists who was called Avant-Garde, and the RIO movement too and all these artists were quite quirky and technical.

So: Yes, you could say that "Avant-Garde" makes you "Technical", although I would rather say that being "Experimental" and "Technical" makes you "Avant-Garde".

Personally I would rather use the two words interchangeably ... but somehow "Avant-Garde/Experimental/Technical/Extreme Prog Metal" and "Avant-Garde/Experimental/Non-Technical Prog Metal" seem a bit too lengthy to me.

Gamemako wrote: debrewguy wrote: Er ... why would we segregate albums by groups that are not listed at PA ? Unless, of course, you believe that many out and out completely un & non prog bands have managed to slip into these pure pages ??? Blind Guardian? Star One? Yeah, those. Anyway, I think I could point out the parallels between Zero Hour and Meshuggah, but I don't think anybody would be listening. Minds are made up, and there are higher-profile listings to debate (see: Opeth). Minds are *not* "made up", but unfortunately people like you usually bail out when it comes to proving their claims, as is the case here. I want to debate on a musical level, not on one of preconceptions. Speaking of Opeth, I see both experimental and extreme but neither technical nor post-rock, so I won't bother making the judgment. You've made your bed, now sleep in it. So if they're experimental they can go to "Experimental Prog Metal" ... where's the problem? They simply fit better there *musically* than in Extreme. Compare them to Into Eternity or Death and you'll hear the difference. Classic prog-metal would make sense. Adding traditional to the name would imply the that the likes of Orphaned Land and Agalloch belong there. You misunderstand the word "traditional" ... the sad thing is that you don't even consider the possibility that it might have more than one meaning.

spacemetal wrote: The "metal" that they do is closest to death metal.  If they are metal at all, then they are death metal, at least that's how i see it.

Aurally, they share nothing in common with death metal. The drumming style is nowhere near death metal, and their guitar lines are far more akin to doom (which can also contain growled vocals). They are definitely, definitely, definitely not death metal.

debrewguy wrote: Avantgardehead wrote: cuncuna wrote: I think it is useful somehow. Though I'm not interested in prog metal at all, orientation is always needed. Now, there's also a "Bad - prog" label need. Albums with low rating should all be sub labeled "bad prog". I was thinking about something along this line. Something like "Non-Prog" for albums from bands that aren't prog (which there are plenty). Er ... why would we segregate albums by groups that are not listed at PA ? Unless, of course, you believe that many out and out completely un & non prog bands have managed to slip into these pure pages ???

I could have phrased that better. I'm referring to non-prog albums by prog bands.

spacemetal wrote: Am I missing something with Opeth and Orphaned Land not in the Tech/Extreme category while Alchemist and Arcturus are in there?  They should trade places IMO.

Er, for the one metal album Orphaned Land has thus far done, much of it does not contain death vocals, and it's certainly not technical.

Whew, I think I can sleep better at night from now on.

[QUOTE=MikeEnRegalia]
Q: Is not progressive tech metal a little redundant? It should just be tech
metal and drop the progressive part.A: If we dropped the word "Prog" from that label then people would read it and think it contained non-prog "Technical Metal" bands. I think there is a fine line between progressive technical and non-prog technical bands ... not all technical bands are automatically prog, and that's why the word must stay. An example for non-prog technical bands would be - most Death Metal bands actually. If you look at bands like Cryptopsy, Nile or related bands like In Flames, Children of Bodom etc. then it's clear that they're quite technical, yet they aren't prog.


Cool I did not know that!