Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: December 27 2012
Location: Oakland, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 308
Posted: February 23 2017 at 15:48
verslibre wrote:
King's X aren't a progressive metal band. IMO, they're not even a metal band, but a hard rock band.
My initial reaction is to want to disagree vehemently with you - to me they have a lot of the elements of progressive rock and are also very metal.
But I think that where I disagree the most is with the whole attempt to categorize them at all - they exceed any simple attempts to define them or limit them to one genre. Paradoxically to my argument, in that sense I think that they are very progressive. Gretchen Goes To Nebraska and Faith, Hope, Love to me are their peak - all the various elements, the vocal harmonies, the varied dynamics between heavy and acoustic, the obscure lyrics, etc. come together perfectly. Maybe Dogman is more metal and less prog, though maybe the "heavy" part of Heavy Metal is more appropriate than the "metal" part.
Because they are one of the original prog metal bands. Kind of like Queensryche, they were adding/doing things that metal bands really hadn't done before. I agree that they aren't very progressive in comparison to most progressive metal bands that have followed, but they were kind of a proto-prog metal type of band; I guess.
To quote their bio writer (Me): KING'S X have been included
on ProgArchives because their music is a mixture of BEATLES-like melodic
harmonies and BLACK SABBATH-like hard rock/heavy metal with progressive
rock leanings, especially early in their career.
I guess my point is that I don't hear much "metal" in their music. In fact, in many cases, it's no where near metal. Yeah, they've had some heavier periods but it's never been a focus of their music. Iron Maiden is metal. Metallica is metal. Kings X? Not really
Check out "Pillow" from Dogman, that's pretty metal to me.
Joined: March 29 2014
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 2164
Posted: February 24 2017 at 05:15
Pastmaster wrote:
Jeffro wrote:
rushfan4 wrote:
Because they are one of the original prog metal bands. Kind of like Queensryche, they were adding/doing things that metal bands really hadn't done before. I agree that they aren't very progressive in comparison to most progressive metal bands that have followed, but they were kind of a proto-prog metal type of band; I guess.
To quote their bio writer (Me): KING'S X have been included
on ProgArchives because their music is a mixture of BEATLES-like melodic
harmonies and BLACK SABBATH-like hard rock/heavy metal with progressive
rock leanings, especially early in their career.
I guess my point is that I don't hear much "metal" in their music. In fact, in many cases, it's no where near metal. Yeah, they've had some heavier periods but it's never been a focus of their music. Iron Maiden is metal. Metallica is metal. Kings X? Not really
Check out "Pillow" from Dogman, that's pretty metal to me.
Agreed. Moanjam is too but those are the exceptions in their music.
Joined: December 27 2012
Location: Oakland, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 308
Posted: February 26 2017 at 00:16
I still think that if you think King's X isn't metal, you're nuts!
But rather than be frustrated, I'm instead going to take it as an opportunity to go back and listen to some King's X! I have a lot of driving to do this coming week so will throw some CDs in the car.
I totally get that they aren't only metal, or that they aren't pure prog, but I feel that they have very strong prog elements, and that they are often very metal - the metal characteristics that I would point to are the heavy distorted guitars, the crazy distorted bass, the downtuning, and definitely the RIFFS - a lot of their songs are very riff-based.
What's more important, the genre or the music itself?
Joined: December 27 2012
Location: Oakland, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 308
Posted: February 28 2017 at 00:42
Jeffro wrote:
I redact my statements. Kings X is f**king METAL! MOTHER f**kING METAL!!
YEEEAHHHHH! PLAY SOME SLAYER!
Come on - at least back up your opinion, don't just state your opinion as fact - if you have an opinion back it up, believe in what you say, otherwise it's just empty, worthless, why bother even saying it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, a lot of people here spout on and on about whether something does or doesn't fit a certain genre without ever giving any definitive characteristics by which we can determine whether or not a certain piece of music or band fits within a given genre. That's the easy way out, how about we study music and listen deeply to the music we love, instead of saying "x isn't this, it's that" - are you even a fan of this band you claim to understand genre-wise? Maybe one of the reasons I love King's X so much and have followed them, buying every single CD I can get my hands on for the past almost 30 years, is the cold hard reality that they actually transcend genre, listen to them because you love them and love the music they put out! If you're just categorizing them I guess I can just ignore you, what I probably should have done in the first place...
Joined: March 29 2014
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 2164
Posted: February 28 2017 at 04:48
hieronymous wrote:
Jeffro wrote:
I redact my statements. Kings X is f**king METAL! MOTHER f**kING METAL!!
YEEEAHHHHH! PLAY SOME SLAYER!
Come on - at least back up your opinion, don't just state your opinion as fact - if you have an opinion back it up, believe in what you say, otherwise it's just empty, worthless, why bother even saying it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, a lot of people here spout on and on about whether something does or doesn't fit a certain genre without ever giving any definitive characteristics by which we can determine whether or not a certain piece of music or band fits within a given genre. That's the easy way out, how about we study music and listen deeply to the music we love, instead of saying "x isn't this, it's that" - are you even a fan of this band you claim to understand genre-wise? Maybe one of the reasons I love King's X so much and have followed them, buying every single CD I can get my hands on for the past almost 30 years, is the cold hard reality that they actually transcend genre, listen to them because you love them and love the music they put out! If you're just categorizing them I guess I can just ignore you, what I probably should have done in the first place...
I agree with you that they transcend genre which makes categorizing them as metal even more perplexing. That's my point.
Okay, I got sarcastic with my Slayer post. Big f**king deal. However, if you feel like you have to ignore me after interactions in one thread, then so be it. Go for it. No hard feelings.
Joined: July 01 2004
Location: CA
Status: Offline
Points: 17223
Posted: February 28 2017 at 09:07
hieronymous wrote:
I still think that if you think King's X isn't metal, you're nuts!
They're too eclectic to be distilled down into a single word like that, be it metal, prog or whatever.
Songs like "Summerland," "Shot of Love/It's Love," "The World Around Me," "Send a Message," "Flies and Blue Skies," etc. aren't metal. I know Ty's guitar playing (and his covetable tone) might be the single greatest element to suggest they may be a "metal" band, but to me it's always been an example of how versatile those three guys are.
I'd rather discuss why aren't recording a new album, though.
Joined: December 27 2012
Location: Oakland, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 308
Posted: February 28 2017 at 22:47
Jeffro wrote:
I agree with you that they transcend genre which makes categorizing them as metal even more perplexing. That's my point.
Okay, I got sarcastic with my Slayer post. Big f**king deal. However, if you feel like you have to ignore me after interactions in one thread, then so be it. Go for it. No hard feelings.
I apologize - I was drunk when I made that post! I did express what I was feeling but it shouldn't have been directed at you. I think I just don't belong here - I find discussions of genre very frustrating. To me the best Progressive Rock bands transcend genre, but of course there are also bands that fit into the molds cast by the pioneers. The crazy thing is we may have actually been saying the same thing!
The good thing is that it has me listening to them again - they are a band I have come back to again and again over the past almost 30 years.
Joined: December 27 2012
Location: Oakland, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 308
Posted: February 28 2017 at 22:58
verslibre wrote:
hieronymous wrote:
I still think that if you think King's X isn't metal, you're nuts!
They're too eclectic to be distilled down into a single word like that, be it metal, prog or whatever.
Songs like "Summerland," "Shot of Love/It's Love," "The World Around Me," "Send a Message," "Flies and Blue Skies," etc. aren't metal. I know Ty's guitar playing (and his covetable tone) might be the single greatest element to suggest they may be a "metal" band, but to me it's always been an example of how versatile those three guys are.
I'd rather discuss why aren't recording a new album, though.
I have to disagree here - I think that "The World Around Me" is very metal, as is "It's Love". So our understanding of what metal is is different.
But I don't think I am saying that King's X ARE METAL or ARE PROG-METAL - I was frustrated at the statement that they AREN'T METAL - to me, heavy metal is a fundamental part of their musical identity and aesthetic, but they can't be adequately explained by just that one word.
Joined: March 29 2014
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 2164
Posted: March 01 2017 at 05:08
hieronymous wrote:
Jeffro wrote:
I agree with you that they transcend genre which makes categorizing them as metal even more perplexing. That's my point.
Okay, I got sarcastic with my Slayer post. Big f**king deal. However, if you feel like you have to ignore me after interactions in one thread, then so be it. Go for it. No hard feelings.
I apologize - I was drunk when I made that post! I did express what I was feeling but it shouldn't have been directed at you. I think I just don't belong here - I find discussions of genre very frustrating. To me the best Progressive Rock bands transcend genre, but of course there are also bands that fit into the molds cast by the pioneers. The crazy thing is we may have actually been saying the same thing!
The good thing is that it has me listening to them again - they are a band I have come back to again and again over the past almost 30 years.
No problem. I apologize for the sarcasm. There's lots of things on the internet that are frustrating to discuss.
I once heard a Muse track over the radio. I can't remember it. That's about it regarding this poll. King's X? Doesn't ring a bell. I keep thinking of this Finnish band called Kingston Wall...but it's not exactly the same methinks.
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.188 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Kings X vs Muse
Topic Options
verslibre wrote:
