lack of metal knowledge in some reviews

avalanchemaster wrote: I am just trying to point out the incongruencies in terms of reviewers, reviewing material they have sampled only slightly from.  Once something becomes "old hat" or one grows used to the style, it is easier to separate the dross from the pinnacle artists, but again that is all subjective.  Like I said, this may be merely neurotic quibbling....

How can you be so sure about that? If you know an album very well and you decide for yourself that it's very good, you have to accept the possibility that others might listen to the album a couple of times and have a very different opinion. In any case you can't deduce from the fact that their opinion differs from yours that they didn't give the album a fair chance.

crimson87 wrote: Man , you should all realize that Prog archives was meant to be a prog rock site.Now if for unknown reasons bands like Kreator(as an example) end up in the "tech-extreme-metal" category.Thats another issue. Growling vocals cant be compared to angelical- Jon Andersonish-singing.

Kreator will not be added to the archives. Why did you choose them as an example? Death are in the archives, but not for their earlier albums (which are a bit similar to Kreator) but for their later albums.

fuxi wrote: Pnoom! wrote: The only truly prog music coming out these days that arguably rivals 70s prog is prog metal, but the overload of cheese makes so much of it unlistenable. I don't agree. Anekdoten (from Scandinavia), Kenso (from Japan) and Discus (from Indonesia) are just as passionate and inventive as any of the great 1970s prog bands, and you could say the same about the Mars Volta or Porcupine Tree. These bands have nothing to do with cheese, and very little with metal - even though there is some growling on Discus' masterpiece TOT LICHT.

I'll grant you Anekdoten.  Kenso I haven't heard, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.  You can also have The Mars Volta, though they have plenty to do with cheese (but at least it's mostly confined to the lyrics, not the music).

Discus isn't really true prog, they are a part of the avant-garde splinter that's sort of half-prog, half-not.  Porcupine Tree is no longer a pure prog group.  They are currently an alternative metal/pop/psych band with proggy leanings (and with FoaBP, they have moved more towards prog, I will admit).

Their earlier releases were prog, but they also weren't terribly original, so they don't fit all the criteria.

So yes, there are some modern bands that are prog and that rival the 70s bands, but, on the whole, the modern prog scene is in prog metal.  TMV, Anekdoten, and any others like them are the exceptions, not the rule.

Pnoom! wrote: Discus isn't really true prog, they are a part of the avant-garde splinter that's sort of half-prog, half-not.

Sorry Pnoom, but this doesn't make sense. You could say the same kinda thing about Zappa or Henry Cow, who can be found under RIO/Avant-Prog. But Zappa as well as Henry Cow are considered to be "progressive" artists. Their presence on Prog Archives is essential. Furthermore, on Discus' TOT LICHT, avant-garde elements are much less pronounced than on most RIO; in my opinion, you might as well call their music "symphonic prog", since their epic numbers sound as exuberant as Yes at their most optimistic.

fuxi wrote: Pnoom! wrote: Discus isn't really true prog, they are a part of the avant-garde splinter that's sort of half-prog, half-not.  Sorry Pnoom, but this doesn't make sense. You could say the same kinda thing about Zappa or Henry Cow, who can be found under RIO/Avant-Prog. But Zappa as well as Henry Cow are considered to be "progressive" artists. Their presence on Prog Archives is essential. Furthermore, on Discus' TOT LICHT, avant-garde elements are much less pronounced than on most RIO; in my opinion, you might as well call their music "symphonic prog", since their epic numbers sound as exuberant as Yes at their most optimistic.

We are arguing for two different definitions of prog, so we cannot possibly see eye to eye.

If we accept rio/avant as pure prog, then yeah, my argument falls apart.  But it, and Krautrock, and jazz-fusion, and crossover, and other sub-genres PA recognizes are *not* purely prog sub-genres.

Pnoom! wrote: fuxi wrote: Pnoom! wrote: Discus isn't really true prog, they are a part of the avant-garde splinter that's sort of half-prog, half-not.  Sorry Pnoom, but this doesn't make sense. You could say the same kinda thing about Zappa or Henry Cow, who can be found under RIO/Avant-Prog. But Zappa as well as Henry Cow are considered to be "progressive" artists. Their presence on Prog Archives is essential. Furthermore, on Discus' TOT LICHT, avant-garde elements are much less pronounced than on most RIO; in my opinion, you might as well call their music "symphonic prog", since their epic numbers sound as exuberant as Yes at their most optimistic. We are arguing for two different definitions of prog, so we cannot possibly see eye to eye. If we accept rio/avant as pure prog, then yeah, my argument falls apart.  But it, and Krautrock, and jazz-fusion, and crossover, and other sub-genres PA recognizes are *not* purely prog sub-genres.

Not purely prog, but then what is prog?

It's an oxymoron.

I'd much rather use two or three phrases in conjunction, when referring to avant-prog:

Innovative
Progressive
Experimental

Prog in the classic sense is just a "term" for experimental and innovative, mostly long and complex composed pieces played by virtuosos.

I tend to think P.A. embodies Innovation, Experimentation as well as Progressiveness, which is why we have a panoply of "genres" of Prog.

However, I personally use the term Avant-prog for more rock-orientated bands/artists and avant-garde, for more pop, classical and minimalist bands/artists.  Rock in Opposition is just a sub-set of Avant-prog, rather than a genre.  It was a movement of like-minded bands/artists who just happened to mostly play avant-garde rock, or avant-garde progressive rock music.


Edited by James - May 04 2008 at 13:36

James wrote: However, I personally use the term Avant-prog for more rock-orientated bands/artists and avant-garde, for more pop, classical and minimalist bands/artists.  Rock in Opposition is just a sub-set of Avant-prog, rather than a genre.  It was a movement of like-minded bands/artists who just happened to mostly play avant-garde rock, or avant-garde progressive rock music.

a) I know this
b) they didn't "just happen" to play avant-garde rock music, they were chosen because they did

Pnoom! wrote: James wrote: However, I personally use the term Avant-prog for more rock-orientated bands/artists and avant-garde, for more pop, classical and minimalist bands/artists.  Rock in Opposition is just a sub-set of Avant-prog, rather than a genre.  It was a movement of like-minded bands/artists who just happened to mostly play avant-garde rock, or avant-garde progressive rock music. a) I know this b) they didn't "just happen" to play avant-garde rock music, they were chosen because they did

Not exactly.

Stormy Six were much more of a political band who had the attitude Frith, Cutler and Hodgkinson were after, but they were a progressive style folk band initially.  Their later albums were more avant-garde, because they'd been influenced by their fellow Rock in Opposition members, such as Henry Cow.  Of course, their initial folkier albums were still not mainstream, but they certainly weren't avant-prog per se.

So they weren't chosen because of their avant-garde musical tendencies, but due to their outlook and criticism of the music industry.

Infact, Henry Cow came across Stormy Six in Milan before the RIO concept was thought of and they joined the political music movement Franco Fabbri started himself in Italy at the time.


Edited by James - May 04 2008 at 09:42

avalanchemaster wrote: Pnoom! wrote: TheProgtologist wrote: Let's all try to be civil here,this thread is going downhill fast. I don't know about Avalanche's view on our debate, but I'm finding him perfectly civil and I believe I am responding in kind. Especially considering how frustrated I am, since we seem to agree on many points. haha.  I just replied to a post of yours in the Kayo Dot thread, I think we have more in common than you think, maybe we are just misunderstanding each other.  My main point is that Metal is oft misunderstoood and villainized for its agressive (blue collar) roots, and as such has met with staunch refusal towards its legitimacy as music (even in terms of "prog" metal).  those who deem it "noise" will not look past these trappings to find that it does have something to offer.  (mind you that i do not think of "noise" as a negative term though, in fact I love noise/avant garde/deterministic music.....but that is for another thread) sadly the truth remains that there are detractors and denegrators of any artistic expression who will do their best to limit it's expression, because for whatever reason they question its validity.  If we limit music to definitions and limits of logic, we are forgetting that music is merely an expression of emotion on a mathematical and abstract plane.....and every human has those base instincts in common, different genres of music are merely like different dialects of the same universal language, some know the different colloquialisms, others refuse to hear any language outside of their native tongue.  how sad.  I for one try to understand as much as I can, it all comes from the same source of inspiration, and should as such be given a chance (keeping in mind that not all soldiers of said genre/dialect are good at speaking the language) but we all have different ears, and that is what makes us unique in our subjectivity, I just wish people were not so negative/vindictive and reactionary about music that they do not like....... does that clear anything up?  I really just love music and want to see it fairly represented....

avalanchemaster, have i Already said that you are my favorite person over the intenets?

Pnoom! wrote: fuxi wrote: Pnoom! wrote: Discus isn't really true prog, they are a part of the avant-garde splinter that's sort of half-prog, half-not.  Sorry Pnoom, but this doesn't make sense. You could say the same kinda thing about Zappa or Henry Cow, who can be found under RIO/Avant-Prog. But Zappa as well as Henry Cow are considered to be "progressive" artists. Their presence on Prog Archives is essential. Furthermore, on Discus' TOT LICHT, avant-garde elements are much less pronounced than on most RIO; in my opinion, you might as well call their music "symphonic prog", since their epic numbers sound as exuberant as Yes at their most optimistic. We are arguing for two different definitions of prog, so we cannot possibly see eye to eye. If we accept rio/avant as pure prog, then yeah, my argument falls apart.  But it, and Krautrock, and jazz-fusion, and crossover, and other sub-genres PA recognizes are *not* purely prog sub-genres.

Can you prove this?