"Prog Goes Metal" vs. "Metal Goes Prog"

Hmm, I am a metalhead and barring the absolute top tier of prog metal, it doesn't do much for me.  I would rephrase what you said and say that at least to like the melodic side of prog metal, you need to like 80s hair/glam metal or even 80s pop rock like Toto a lot. I do like some aspects of Toto, but it's not my favourite kind of music and that kind of slick, over-conscious mode of expression doesn't agree with me. Unfortunately, it's a very pervasive element of prog metal where metal is brutal (pun intended) abandon.  

All I know is, it's two great tastes that taste great together.

watchmen wrote: Maybe, like Triceratopsoil said, but I think that Shadow Gallery is more "prog goes metal" than "metal goes prog"; at least their first album is more in that way.

Since metal is an established and defined genre, it's the first approach that is, at least in theory, more progressive.  Except, prog goes metal to me really means stuff like Red, Larks Tongue In Aspic PtII, Pantagruel's Nativity and so on.  I cannot really draw such a significant line of distinction between say DT and SX.  DT have become more and more metalized over the years, but even from the beginning the main difference between them and SX was that DT's base was the more commercial and mainstream 80s hair metal and to an extent heavy metal, with some influence of Metallica in the riffs where SX's was traditional and power metal.  However, the base for both was clearly metal to begin with and not progressive rock.  PoS are a step away from what you describe in some songs and ACT get even closer and er, they get called eclectic prog. 

Edited by rogerthat - August 22 2010 at 03:56

aye maybe