Forum Home Forum Home > Progressive Music Lounges > Prog Blogs
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - What makes Progressive Metal progressive?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedWhat makes Progressive Metal progressive?
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2345>
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Certif1ed View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 19 2008 at 07:52
Re: Rush - I suppose it must be a geographical thing.
 
Iron Maiden were viewed in some areas as Progressive, but not in their home country.
 
Rush were viewed as Progressive - but crucially got lumped in with metal, as they were to metal to be Prog Rock. This might not have been the case everywhere on earth.
 
The point is, that there's a reason Rush were considered this way - all this discussion of labels sticking is bogus - I'm trying to get away from labels and into essence - REALITY.
 
 
The line in Steppenwolf's song is so often quoted it's not funny - but yes, that music is considered Heavy Metal by some - and who is to say they're wrong?
 
Before Steppenwolf released that song, there was an album released in 1967, which featured one of the heaviest bands of the time, Art, who later became Spooky Tooth, who created stuff that sounds like Deep Purple, Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath (who used one of Spooky Tooth's 1968 riffs on "Master of Reality", IIRC), before those bands released anything. A song from that same album was covered by Judas Priest - famously, as it got them into trouble. There is no question that Judas Priest are Heavy Metal, yet they did not change the song (apart from allegedly hiding messages in it... Wink).
 
 
The album I refer to is called Hapshash and the Coloured Coat, featuring the Human Host and the Heavy Metal Kids (Art). Heavy Metal refers to the music they played, and is the first reference I know of in popular music. 
 
It's also true to say, as I pointed out in my "What is Prog?" blog, that the first released album to refer to the music contained on it as "Progressive Rock" is Eclection's self-titled debut - yet who else has even heard of that, let alone heard it?
 
 
This discussion has changed to "What is Heavy Metal?" - and I feel another blog coming on (as if I didn't have enough in progress...).
 
If you're going to classify, you need to identify more explicit ways of identifying it, rather than succumbing to pressure from what is felt to be "popular" opinion.
 
Imagine if popular opinion was that humans couldn't possibly be related to apes... would scientists agree?


Edited by Certif1ed - June 19 2008 at 07:55
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Online
Points: 21180 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 19 2008 at 08:11
^ these labels have little or nothing to do with scientific reasoning. That's one of the reasons why on my website I'm trying to move from complex genre labels to simple, clearly defined tags. Of course some of the "fuzzy" labels are difficult to split ... I'm not sure if I can find a set of simple tags which you could use to construct the genre label "metal" with. But it can't hurt to try! 
Recently listened to:
Back to Top
Certif1ed View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 19 2008 at 10:37
The labels themselves have nothing to do with scientific reasoning, it's true, but, under analysis, there are clear connections between groups that tend to get labelled a certain way. People want to label and classify, which is why there are so many labels around.
 
Generally, this is more true of popular music until the end of the last millenium - it is a very recent thing to get as fuzzy as it currently is, for which the Internet is mainly to blame. There have always been fuzzy edges in defining any type of music, we're not talking about Euclidean geometry or anything as precise as that.
 
 
Fuzzy logic is as good a term as any to describe what I'm thinking about.
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Online
Points: 21180 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 19 2008 at 10:46
The problem is that labels are not properly defined ... they're "coined", and usually by people with no certified (sic) background in music, such as fans or reviewers. They lump bands or albums together because in their opinion they're similar, based on whatever criteria they see fit. I guess we both have the same motive: We attempt to unify the criteria used to define these genre labels. But since the way they're commonly used conflicts with this scientific approach, our attempts might be doomed to fail.

Maybe the best solution is to come up with a brand new label, one that hasn't been used before. My suggestion: "difolkaw". Yeah, "Difolkaw Rock" and "Difolkaw Metal", that will clear things up!Wink
Recently listened to:
Back to Top
StyLaZyn View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 22 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4079 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 19 2008 at 11:23
Originally posted by CCVP CCVP wrote:

What the?

As far as i know and as far as anyone that i know who is old enough to have lived that period Rush was NOT a progressive rock band neither a progressive metal one (what the hell?), just a terrific HARD ROCK band. It just happens that people who lived when history is in the making don't know the exact outcome of things and, about Rush, that was what happened. some years later (i think on the early 90's, already in internet chat things) Rush's classification changed widely to progressive rock wile it was still a hard rock band, which was quite reasonable since they for sure had some of the progressive rock elements.

Nowadays its classification is changing again to progressive metal. People, we HAVE to remember that, if we are going to change Rush's classification we'd better change also Deep Purple's and Led Zeppelin's to metal and also keep in mind that the measuring stick for old school metal is Black Sabbath. Come on, think about it: if Rush indeed was a progressive metal band, they would not had only invented progressive metal, but also they would be one of the inventors of metal itself.

Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

It reminds me a little of the dilemma Bruce Lee's followers had after he died.  The form of martial art he developed and taught, Jeet Kune Do, was designed to be always evolving, fluid, and able to adapt to any opponent or situation.. essentially a progressive fighting style, a 'way of no way' as he put it.  But over the years as his approach was taught to others, it became a rigid system with rules and techniques never meant to be adhered to.  Sorry, had to slip in the martial arts analogy Smile


i wish i could have thought that, since it falls right into what i just said: some classifications are just forced, like putting Rush in the prog metal genre. Just let it be where it belongs: the hard rock session (and occasionally on the prog rock Tongue).
 
I want to interject here. It was with Rush's second release, the first with monster Peart, that they headed into Prog. By-Tor and the Snow Dog was, IMO,  a creation with inadvertent  Prog elements. Yes, they were hard rock, but they turned the corner with this release. Only those well versed in their material witnessed this. Those that only knew Fly By Night, the song, would see them as merely hard rock.
 
They contributed heavily to the future of what would be Prog Metal. I think investigating some current Prog Metal band inspirations will show this.
 
Back to Top
CCVP View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: September 15 2007
Location: Vitória, Brasil
Status: Offline
Points: 7971 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 19 2008 at 11:25
/\
Mike, you meant labels like progressive rock, hard rock and progressive metal right? Because Death metal was properly coined by Possessed and black metal was properly coined by Venom. . . .

Strangely enough, Spooky Tooth is labeled progressive rock on Wikipedia . . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spooky_Tooth


Edited by CCVP - June 19 2008 at 11:25
Back to Top
StyLaZyn View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 22 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4079 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 19 2008 at 11:27
Another point with labeling, what heavy metal was back in 1981 is not what it is today. I remember well those old days as a teenager. What was deemed heavy metal? Ever see the animated movie with the same title? Hello? Sammy Hagar was added to the genre.
Back to Top
CCVP View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: September 15 2007
Location: Vitória, Brasil
Status: Offline
Points: 7971 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 19 2008 at 11:34
Originally posted by StyLaZyn StyLaZyn wrote:

I want to interject here. It was with Rush's second release, the first with monster Peart, that they headed into Prog. By-Tor and the Snow Dog was, IMO,  a creation with inadvertent  Prog elements. Yes, they were hard rock, but they turned the corner with this release. Only those well versed in their material witnessed this. Those that only knew Fly By Night, the song, would see them as merely hard rock.
 
They contributed heavily to the future of what would be Prog Metal. I think investigating some current Prog Metal band inspirations will show this.
 


That is not any problem viewing them today as a progressive rock band, but i personally know people who lived that time and they say that Rush is merely a INCREDIBLE, TERRIFIC, etc, hard rock band, just like Uriah Heep, and thats it. They recognize that they had some prog elements, but that don't change the fact, for them, that Rush is a hard rock band.

Maybe Rush should be left as a had rock band with progressive elements or a hard/heavy/whatever progressive rock band, but never a heavy metal neither a progressive metal band. Hell, even Geddy Lee dislikes the label, just like he said (if i am not mistaken) on the documentary METAL: A Headbanger's Journey (available on Youtube).
Back to Top
CCVP View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: September 15 2007
Location: Vitória, Brasil
Status: Offline
Points: 7971 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 19 2008 at 11:36
Originally posted by StyLaZyn StyLaZyn wrote:

Another point with labeling, what heavy metal was back in 1981 is not what it is today. I remember well those old days as a teenager. What was deemed heavy metal? Ever see the animated movie with the same title? Hello? Sammy Hagar was added to the genre.


Well, he is not on Metal Archives . . . Tongue
Back to Top
StyLaZyn View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 22 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4079 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 19 2008 at 11:40
Originally posted by CCVP CCVP wrote:

Originally posted by StyLaZyn StyLaZyn wrote:

Another point with labeling, what heavy metal was back in 1981 is not what it is today. I remember well those old days as a teenager. What was deemed heavy metal? Ever see the animated movie with the same title? Hello? Sammy Hagar was added to the genre.


Well, he is not on Metal Archives . . . Tongue
 
Nor should he be! Wink 
Back to Top
CCVP View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: September 15 2007
Location: Vitória, Brasil
Status: Offline
Points: 7971 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 19 2008 at 11:53
Originally posted by StyLaZyn StyLaZyn wrote:

Another point with labeling, what heavy metal was back in 1981 is not what it is today. I remember well those old days as a teenager. What was deemed heavy metal? Ever see the animated movie with the same title? Hello? Sammy Hagar was added to the genre.


Anyway, this happened because this kind of music evolved into something different, unlike what happened to Rush: their music still recorded inside their albums, just like 30 years ago! The only thing that changed is our heads! We must not give in to these foul influences and make our ground: Rush is NOT progressive metal.
Back to Top
Certif1ed View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 19 2008 at 13:39
Originally posted by CCVP CCVP wrote:

/\
Mike, you meant labels like progressive rock, hard rock and progressive metal right? Because Death metal was properly coined by Possessed and black metal was properly coined by Venom. . . .

Strangely enough, Spooky Tooth is labeled progressive rock on Wikipedia . . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spooky_Tooth
 
I don't find that strange at all Wink
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
Back to Top
CCVP View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: September 15 2007
Location: Vitória, Brasil
Status: Offline
Points: 7971 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 19 2008 at 14:29
/\

lol me neither LOL
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Online
Points: 21180 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 19 2008 at 14:51
Originally posted by CCVP CCVP wrote:

Originally posted by StyLaZyn StyLaZyn wrote:

Another point with labeling, what heavy metal was back in 1981 is not what it is today. I remember well those old days as a teenager. What was deemed heavy metal? Ever see the animated movie with the same title? Hello? Sammy Hagar was added to the genre.


Well, he is not on Metal Archives . . . Tongue


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBz8Vw2JXwg

I *love* that song!Big%20smile
Recently listened to:
Back to Top
CCVP View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: September 15 2007
Location: Vitória, Brasil
Status: Offline
Points: 7971 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 19 2008 at 15:46
Originally posted by MikeEnRegalia MikeEnRegalia wrote:

Originally posted by CCVP CCVP wrote:

Originally posted by StyLaZyn StyLaZyn wrote:

Another point with labeling, what heavy metal was back in 1981 is not what it is today. I remember well those old days as a teenager. What was deemed heavy metal? Ever see the animated movie with the same title? Hello? Sammy Hagar was added to the genre.


Well, he is not on Metal Archives . . . Tongue


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBz8Vw2JXwg

I *love* that song!Big%20smile


O crap, the cheese is flowing through my computer screen LOL
Back to Top
Atavachron View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65258 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 19 2008 at 16:48
Rush were considered prog rock - not metal - way back in the early 80s, at least on the U.S. West Coast, especially when compared to other non-progressive bands popular at the time (Police, AC/DC, Priest, Zeppelin)   ..let's try to get a grip
Back to Top
CCVP View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: September 15 2007
Location: Vitória, Brasil
Status: Offline
Points: 7971 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 19 2008 at 18:21
Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

Rush were considered prog rock - not metal - way back in the early 80s, at least on the U.S. West Coast, especially when compared to other non-progressive bands popular at the time (Police, AC/DC, Priest, Zeppelin)   ..let's try to get a grip


Sure!

ALL YOU GUYS GER BACK TO TROPIC !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

or else . . . .



Back to Top
StyLaZyn View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 22 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4079 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 19 2008 at 18:56
Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

Rush were considered prog rock - not metal - way back in the early 80s, at least on the U.S. West Coast, especially when compared to other non-progressive bands popular at the time (Police, AC/DC, Priest, Zeppelin)   ..let's try to get a grip




Wait, there was Prog Metal genre in the early 80s?
Back to Top
heyitsthatguy View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 17 2006
Location: Washington Hgts
Status: Offline
Points: 10094 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 19 2008 at 18:59
Originally posted by CCVP CCVP wrote:

Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

Rush were considered prog rock - not metal - way back in the early 80s, at least on the U.S. West Coast, especially when compared to other non-progressive bands popular at the time (Police, AC/DC, Priest, Zeppelin)   ..let's try to get a grip


Sure!

ALL YOU GUYS GER BACK TO TROPIC !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

or else . . . .








ok now what do we do
(sorry, had to Wacko Wink)


Edited by heyitsthatguy - June 19 2008 at 19:01


Back to Top
CCVP View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: September 15 2007
Location: Vitória, Brasil
Status: Offline
Points: 7971 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 19 2008 at 19:01
Originally posted by StyLaZyn StyLaZyn wrote:

Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

Rush were considered prog rock - not metal - way back in the early 80s, at least on the U.S. West Coast, especially when compared to other non-progressive bands popular at the time (Police, AC/DC, Priest, Zeppelin)   ..let's try to get a grip




Wait, there was Prog Metal genre in the early 80s?



Well, as far as i know now there was brutal raw black metal on the early 70's! Confused
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2345>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.258 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.