Bands that don’t belong to Progarchives

penguindf12 wrote: Ummm....who cares?!! Anyone added is fine with me, I'd rather expand the archives rather than limit it with stupid bickering of what is prog or not. Of course, we shouldn't just rush out and add everything that's obviously not prog, because it'd just waste time. But arguing about things already added is pointless, if they're taken off that'd just be even more time wasted. I personally wouldn't care if Britney Spears herself was added, and while it'd be very baffling and annoying, I wouldn't really care too much unless they dropped the real prog bands. So borderline stuff is fine by me, prog isn't an exclusive club, it's a fairly ill-defined disaffected musical genre. I wouldn't mind if they added the Beatles, the Who, Queen, Led Zeppelin, even Black Sabbath would be okay. I really don't care. Go waste your time somewhere else, don't bicker about this stuff. As long as real prog is here, it doesn't matter what else is added (unless it goes to an extent that it interferes with real prog). And honestly, I think Max and Rony know what they're doing. And no, Britney Spears is not going to be added any time soon.

Well I cannot agree that the more bands we add, the better. We should stick with prog rock groups. Nobody would like a 'progressive rap' band added for example!

Cheers

marktheshark wrote: I can do without Styx in there. To me they're what I call pseudo-prog. A hard-rock group throwing in a few prog moments here and there.

Yea.........but America has to have SOMETHING on this site.  That's the closest our country comes to Prog.    They are'nt that bad. 

Man Overboard wrote: As for Dream Theater?  Yes, they're progressive.  A bit technical and showoffy, but we've had that in prog before.  How can you listen to something like "A Change Of Seasons" and say "Well, this just isn't prog, not in any sense of the word"?  That's like looking down at your cock and saying "Durrr!  I'm a guuuurl!"  (replace genders/organs if you're a female.)

Playing scales and arpeggios in unison for 15 minutes IS NOT PROGRESSIVE, it's retarded.  You got one thing correct.  Most of the prg-metal is very derived from KC.  The difference is that KC was into rhythmic interplay.  How many scale sessions have you ever hear them do for entire albums?  Changing the tempo in the middle of a song does NOT MAKE IT PROGRESSIVE.  Change of Seasons is like the longest pile of poo that I ever heard try to be passed as prog rock.  It's a wanna be pop/rock/metal/prog/ballad wank fest that fails at every single thing it tries to be.

Snow Dog wrote: How can it fail if so many enjoy it?

I didn't say they couldn't enjoy it.  There is lots of crappy music that I enjoy just because it's fun.  That doesn't make it great or original or anything other than enjoyable.  Also, just because I like prog doesn't mean every band that has extended solos qualifies as a prog band. 

I even enjoy listening to DT sometimes.  But it isn't prog.  I respect the guys in DT as very good musicians.  But it isn't prog.  There are zillions of great jazz and classical and heck even country guitarists/drummers/bass players etc... that are just as good as those guys.  Just because they are the high school and college metal band du jor, doesnt make them great.  People are finally starting to figure out what a bunch of crap metallica is.  But for 10 years people thought they were the greatest thing since sliced bread.  I actually think Metallica hit some better song development than DT in their middle albums.  But, it sure wasn't prog.

Snow Dog wrote: You said - It's a wanna be pop/rock/metal/prog/ballad wank fest that fails at every single thing it tries to be. Well it doesnt fail at everything if its succesful and people like it..or does it?

no you are right, it doesn't fail at all of it.  It is a very successful wank fest.  Very nice scales.

Dude, again...I'M not saying they suck.  I'm saying that it isn't prog.  I'm also saying the musical concepts are not new.  They also aren't that complicated other than the technical skills required to play the scales. 

Seriously, DT would be better compaired to jazz fusion than progressive rock.  It's much closer to say something like metal fusion than it is progressive.  Fusion is music based around melodies derived from scales over non-traditional meter.  In that comparison though their ability to develop melody out of solo lines is extremely limited and narrow (in other words they repeat themselves endlessley).  Mostly because the scales/solos are right out of practice books.  It's the stuff that the 2nd and 3rd year music college students are all doing. 

Prog is not about solos, fast, slow or otherwise.  It's about broad melodic exploration of themes.  One thing about prob singers is that when things are going well none of the playing stops, the song continues un-abaited by the addition of the voice.  DT and even the old veteran proggers are in the habit of stopping the song to let the singer sing for a bit, then they jump back in for the solos.  This is bastardized pop rock NOT prog.  One of the things that made the first several Genesis albums so great is that they did NOT get bogged down by solos.  The real genius of Tony Banks isn't that he's the fastes keyboard player ever, it's the fact that he can carry so much of a song through texture and infurence.  They were also great at letting the shape of the instrumental interplay, including the voice, carry the song from section to section.

None of that exchange happens with DT.  They are much more in line with the old jazz fusion concept of "ok, your turn".

Asia, Radiohead, Mars Volta?