System of a Down

I finally found that this was a thread about 3 years ago, but as I was putting together my top 50 albums, SOAD was in my list. I was thinking "How in the heck are some of the bands on this site considered prog and SOAD is not?" I think the reason is that they are a punk-inspired band, and since those Punks are the arch-nemesis of Proggies, there is some visceral aversion to including them. The 2005 thread certainly had some folks freaking out about the idea. Metallica just got added who are much less prog than SOAD.

they may contain some progessive elements, but I wouldn't label the band as prog.  same would go for rage against the machine, deftones, etc....

Edited by moe_blunts - December 18 2008 at 11:31

There is plenty of punk inspired material here, so no, not really.

Edited by Henry Plainview - December 18 2008 at 13:08

would make it hard to take this site seriously anymore

Yeah, a quick check of the bands database reveals there is actually a fair amount of 'punk inspired' bands here.
In fact, bands which contain actual punk in it musically.
The 'Punks are the arch-nemesis of Proggies', I don't get it, why people still believe that.
Punk has been inspired/incorporated musically into prog for soooooo long now, it's just ridiculous people believe punk is the enemy of prog.

/Rant over.

And yeah, " believe the teams have more pressing issues than trying to add every band that incorporated proggish elements in some fashion"
Also, this.

Metallica much less prog than SOAD?
Seriously?
And Metallica didn't even get added to a prog genre, they got added to Prog Related.
And they are easily more progressive than many of the metal bands in Prog Related, like Iron Maiden, Black Sabbath, to name a few.

"SOAD uses dissonance (intentional, not random), time changes, exotic tonality, and complex rhythms and many textures"

Yeah, and what's your point?
I can think of a bazillion death metal bands that are straight, non prog death metal that do that too.
And heaps of bands were doing that WELL before SOAD.
So shouldn't those bands be considered too?
It's a fact that most of today's modern straight metal bands, are more complex and technical than metal bands of the 70s

"They get grouped with nu-metal, but what nu-metal band approaches the level musicality or even really sounds like them?"

Okay, but people argue Korn is not nu metal because they didn't sound 70 per cent like all the bands that were to be later called nu metal.
Slipknot is not nu metal because they had death metal/thrash metal in their sound, because they were more experimental.
Coal Chamber is not nu metal because they formed years earlier than nu metal's popularity peak.
Limp Bizkit is not nu metal........it's rapcore.
Deftones are not nu metal because they used a very textural sound, because they had dream pop influences, because they have hardcore influences, because they are too experimental.

And you wanna know something?
Of these bands, the only one I like is Deftones. And even as a fan, I call them a nu metal band, and I'm proud to say they were the best nu metal band IMO, because nu metal doesn't have to a dirty.
Just because people's favorite nu metal band gets the nu metal tag, they have to get defensive and say "BUT IT'S NOT NU METAL", but the fact is, SOAD was one the bands that defined the nu metal sound, was completely in the nu metal scene, and much of their music has nu metal written all over it.
If you like a nu metal band, you don't have to be embarrassed because I ain't gonna judge you, and even if I did, you could feel free to say Deftones suck in your opinion and I'd just accept that anyway.


Oh and I just saw someone mentioned Rage Against The Machine in this thread.
A band that gets bashed for 'being simple music.
And you know what? I still listen to RATM on just about a weekly basis at the very least, learnt about 75 per cent of Tom Morello's from RATM's discography riffs on guitar and I personally think they are an amazing band, and have been listening to them for about 6-7 years now, and can't imagine a time where I would stop listening to them.
And people that say "RATM is simple", try to emulate the sounds Tom Morello made on his guitar.
Never in a million years, will someone re create those sounds perfectly, let create them in the first place.
Few guitarists did so much with such a modest guitar setup like he did.
He is a progressive guitarist as they come..............but he ain't "prog" though

And Shawn Lane in your avatar.
Easily a progressive guitarist, one of the most innovative guitarists of all time (sadly, relatively obscure and unknown outside of guitar enthusiast circles), who developed innovative approaches to the legato technique, wide stretch single string diminished arpeggio patterns and innovations in the approach to alternate picking.
The guy was just as innovative as Joe Satriani, Steve Vai, Steve Hackett, but he just couldn't get out to a big enough audience. And I myself is particularly saddened by the fact I only discovered him last year, several years after his death.

And yeah, I've heard all of SOAD's stuff, so you can't call me close minded, but even after hearing their whole discography, I decided I didn't like them.
I just kinda realized that was one of my more ranty, inspired-to-write-more-than-normal type posts, but hopefully it actually conveyed something meaningful:P

^And that too
Yeah, if SOAD was a suggestion for prog metal, we wont be taking them on board anyway and prog related has been a real sticking point as of late.

Negoba wrote: As guitarists go, Shawn Lane scares Paul Gilbert. nuf said. I've been one of those guitar nerds, er, enthuists for 20+ years, and no one touches Shawn Lane. And he can play keyboard at least as well if not better than any of the guys who played for Dream Theater. He was a once in a generation talent or better.

What does that have to do with a progressiveness discussion? "Prog" is not about how well people can play their instruments. Sure, some key prog bands are also famous for their virtuosic players, but that doesn't mean that all virtuosic players are prog, or those who are on a lesser level are not. Besides, you can't really compare Classical/Jazz-Fusion players with Rock/Metal players ... the former will usually have better technique and/or improvisational skills, but it doesn't mean they're better. I couldn't listen to Shawn Lane all day ... I'd be glad to put on some Paul Gilbert "in-between".

Negoba wrote:   Is "Disco Volante" prog?

Yes - and no. It's in the Avant-Garde section, and depending on your point of view, none of those artists might be prog. When I joined this website many years ago, I found it quite odd that Zappa was included ...

i'd really love to know the name of these punk influenced bands everyone is mentioning.

lady wrote: i'd really love to know the name of these punk influenced bands everyone is mentioning.

^Dude, it's not so much about it being bumped after 12 days, but more about what the posted was asking which is not helping this thread progress in anyway, and plus, this thread should just be dead, this band isn't going to be here anyway.
But yes, Henry answered the question sorta.
Fall Of Troy is pretty post hardcore-ish, not really post rocky at all.