The REAL problem with prog-metal: is not prog-rock

mr70s wrote:   I am stating the obvious, but a musician working alone, playing to backing tracks has the luxury of being able to record many takes and produce the 'perfect performance.' But how musical is this ? Could this be why so much modern music sounds like a 'digital piano roll' ? If we crush the humanity from music we are left with this cold, unsatisfying product.

I don't agree. Of course it's amazing if someone can deliver a magnificent performance in the first take, but that doesn't mean that it's spontaneous ... the musician might have practiced that *many* times at home. Classical musicians spend hours working on short passages of their performance until they get it right.

mr70s wrote:   Why be so defensive when someone expresses an opinion that does not coincide with your own ? If you don't want to hear it, don't post the links. But ultimately, you mount a shaky defence of a track that is by your own admission, 'not in my top 100'. That is some accolade.   Please don't put words in my mouth. I did not say that Spastic Ink were mediocre, but that the track was.

This wasn't directed at me ... nevertheless I'd like to say that while I like the track I can see why some people might not like it. I would use attributes like "cold" and "technical" to describe it ... whether you like that or not is a matter of taste.

mr70s wrote:   Ah...'widdly' means bluff. So when people describe Vai, Satriani, Gilbert and Petruccui as widdly, they mean they are bluffing ? 'Widdly' is a feeble term born of lazy journalism, but if I had to use it, I would say that i like widdly guitar, widdly bass, widdly keys and widdly drums. Never cared much for widdly essays though.

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=J9Y9Davme-s

That's "widdly". It's not particularly good IMO, but I wouldn't join the one who posted the video in calling it "idiot with a guitar playing widdly stuff". It shows how some people perceive technical, fast parts ... they "shut" their ears and immediately judge them as being flashy, unnecessary and immature. Now, in my opinion they often are, but it totally depends on the situation. Some will say that there simply should not be too much of it in a song, but IMO anything can make sense. There can be beautiful tracks which consist of 100% shred (Steve Vai - Juice, anyone?) and there can be tracks which hardly feature any "short notes" at all. That's the beauty of music.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Logan wrote: Incidentally, this highlights my concern with Metallica being considered a  proto-prog metal band since I had thought that the Prog aspect in bands such as DT comes more from Prog rock than heavy metal bands such as Metallica. I understand what you mean. I would look at it from a different angle: In the early 80s metal bands like Iron Maiden and Metallica were playing around with progressive elements in their music ... but after reaching a peak from 86-88 those progressive elements got rarer again. During this peak the first prog metal bands arose (Fates Warning, Dream Theater, Queensryche) who - in a way - picked up those progressive elements and refined them, creating a new style of metal which not only contained progressive elements but made them the central part. Does that make sense?

I understand what you mean...

Digressions: I had a friend into heavy metal in the '80s, and I thought Metallica more "progressive" (and better speaking from personal taste) than Iron Maiden.

 I still value progressiveness more highly than retro-Prog qualities.

I like the more avant metal bands particularly (not the ones with growling so much), and jazz-metal fusion bands.  I really should explore more "chamber metal."

mr70s wrote: Certif1ed wrote: Rocktopus wrote: Certif1ed wrote:   Spastic Ink mediocre rock?   That shows a lack of understanding of what they're doing. Please come back and debate this topic when you understand it a bit better.     Please also note that again, I am pointing out facts, not delivering a personal insult.   As usual you have no idea have you come across. Your approach only works when the music's made by your squarehead rules. Take that Spastic Ink track out on the street, and try it out. Just to check if your gut feel's still intact.   I am stating the obvious, but a musician working alone, playing to backing tracks has the luxury of being able to record many takes and produce the 'perfect performance.' But how musical is this ? Could this be why so much modern music sounds like a 'digital piano roll' ? If we crush the humanity from music we are left with this cold, unsatisfying product. It's as musical or as unmusical as the performer feels it to be. Not everyone appreciates the details of virtuosic playing, and that's completely fine. If say, Steve Vai (a favorite of mine) missed half the notes he was playing because he was "human", to my ears it would lose half the feeling. Being able to perfectly execute that alternate picked run, hit every note in a sweep picked arpeggio, or whatever, can make or break me being able to feel the fire and passion in the solo. Vai does from time to time slip up live, but his technique is good enough that there are many of his performances that are quite literally, flawless. It was still music to my ears, shock, oh the shock and horror. Some people love Jimmy Page or Hendrix stuff live, good for them, so do I sometimes. But sometimes their playing has been so horribly sloppy, that it has the effect of leaving me cold and unsatisfied. Now that I have some ear training under my belt, out of tune bendin and, bad vibrato is like screeching nails on a chalkboard to my ears, but to some people they simply don't hear that and wont cringe like I will.   Why be so defensive when someone expresses an opinion that does not coincide with your own ? If you don't want to hear it, don't post the links. But ultimately, you mount a shaky defence of a track that is by your own admission, 'not in my top 100'. That is some accolade.   Please don't put words in my mouth. I did not say that Spastic Ink were mediocre, but that the track was. You're original post implied that Spastic Ink were medicore, but thank you for clearing that up

mr70s wrote:     Why be so defensive when someone expresses an opinion that does not coincide with your own ? If you don't want to hear it, don't post the links. But ultimately, you mount a shaky defence of a track that is by your own admission, 'not in my top 100'. That is some accolade.   Please don't put words in my mouth. I did not say that Spastic Ink were mediocre, but that the track was.

       Disagree about your replys from the beginning of this forum , till the end  . too much theories & definisions . So far no one said ,  that Prog Metal Is a kind of freak , i've just simply said  that Metal must be separated from Progressive , it doesn't belong to progressive rock that we knew since 1968 . If it is a crime , please  tell me ?????????    I told you , i have no problem with this mania , as i was in the early 70's . bands like Black Sabbath , Deep Purple , Uriah Heep , Dust , Budgie , Led Zep , cannot be compared with Yes , Van Der Graaf , Jethro Tull , King Crimson , Le Orme , PFM  , Mahavishnu & Zappa . And to dig wider Gong , Soft Machine , Caravan , Agitation Free , it's completely different styles , Genres , Mentality , techniques , and  Period .   I like Heavy Metal , but it's only serving for one purpose , no matter what definitions & Theories you're gonna invent , so , do not use your stripes or stars to convince us , it doesn't make any sence to compare Van Der Graaf , Yes or King Crimson , not even Renaissance with Dreamtheater or Symphony X or any one else , so be reasonnable , and enjoy what you've had from previous generations , and what you have now  .    And , about Spastic Ink , it will take me with my team to do what they have done few hours , but perform Thick as a Brick , Siberian , Sailor tail , the Musical box , or the Sleepwalkers , i believe , that we  can't  just get close to , no matter what , so , take it easy , and , let it go , cause i don't like guitar riffs to contol my dreams , Anyway //////////  we respect your opinion , so respect ours .      Toni

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ I'm interested in defining prog metal, you simply don't accept my approach - or that of the rest of the world, for that matter.

Certif1ed wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ I'm interested in defining prog metal, you simply don't accept my approach - or that of the rest of the world, for that matter.   Where have I rejected your approach - or anyone else's?   All I am doing is reading the current "definitions" and noting that, in fact, they do not describe the music, let alone define it.

Please, where's the difference between you saying that "they do not describe the music" and me saying that you don't accept them? Can't I safely assume that you won't accept a definition if it - in your opinion - fails to describe or define the item it is about?

Certif1ed wrote: I don't think the rest of the world is happy with this - this thread would appear to be clear evidence that there is still ignorance about the music (and ignorance is not in itself an insulting term, please note my careful use of it), which stems from poor definitions - or we could use the looser word description instead, if you prefer.

I'll ignore the insulting connotation of the word "poor" for now ...

With all due respect, I don't think the definitions are nearly as horrible as you describe them. The definitions which I wrote for PA are rough drafts, and I would say myself that they need improvement. But The definition at wikipedia for example is quite usable IMO. If I had more time on my hands and got around to improving the drafts I wrote last year, I guess that the result would not be all that different from what's currently on wikipedia.

have a look at the current introduction at wikipedia:

"Progressive metal (often referred to simply as prog metal) is a sub-genre of heavy metal music which blends the powerful, guitar-driven sound of metal with the complex compositional structures, odd time signatures, and intricate instrumental playing of progressive rock. Some progressive metal bands are also influenced by jazz fusion and classical music. Like progressive rock songs, progressive metal songs are usually much longer than standard metal songs, and they are often thematically linked in concept albums. As a result, progressive metal is rarely heard on mainstream radio and video programs."

Nothing wrong with this, and it is also quite compatible with what Teo is saying - and I agree, for that matter - that prog metal is quite different from prog rock.

It even confirms the split we made some time ago:

"Recently, with a new wave of popularity in shred guitar, the previously shunned idea of "technical metal" has become increasingly prevelant and popular in the metal scene. This has led to a resurgence of popularity for more traditional progressive metal bands like Dream Theater and Symphony X, and also has led to the grouping of the "prog metal" scene bands that do not necessarily play in the traditional "prog metal" style such as Nevermore, Children of Bodom, Into Eternity and indeed Opeth and Meshuggah as well. These bands are, rightly or wrongly, often labelled as "progressive metal" as they do play relativly complex and technical metal music that cannot be entirley associated with other metal subgenres. Technical death metal bands like Necrophagist and Arsis are also often associated with the same subculture of heavy metal fans as well."

This is also how I see things ... these bands are not "progressive metal" as in the type of music which initially defined the movement. They are included because they - together with Post Metal, Avant-Garde Metal and what I would call Art Metal - take the spirit of experimentation and development, which both Prog Rock and Prog Metal have in common, to new styles and concepts.

debrewguy wrote: So prog metal is really a sub-genre of metal. And Jazz Fusion is a sub-genre of Jazz. And Jazz Fusion is considered prog despite the fact that it is not descended from prog rock. Is folk prog , as it really is a folk genre ? Is there actually a genre that is named Prog, and nothing else to qualify or clarify or even define what type of music it is ? Ya know, like Yes are a Prog band. Just like Tull are a prog band. And Rush are a Prog Band. And Renaissance are a prog band. And Faust are a prog band. RIGHT !!!!!!!!!!

Certif1ed wrote:   OK, let's examine this;   "complex compositional structures".   Just about every "Prog Metal" piece I've heard from "representative" bands lacks these in abundance, and where the structures are "complex", they tend to be mere extensions of the type of structures that Metallica brought to Heavy Metal. I analysed this ages agon in a thread in which you participated, so will not repeat the process here. Just earlier today in the thread about the new Metallica album you analysed Cyanide and raved about how it - in a nutshell - is so similar to what Genesis did ... then later you said that it uses a "A B A B C A B" form (or something like that). What's it gonna be?   Not ONE matches the complexity of, say "The Musical Box" or "On Reflection" - until there is a piece of Prog Metal that does match the complexity in form of Prog Rock, this statement is actually false and misleading.   The word "complex" can be seen in many ways. For some complexity is achieved by using a time signature like 7/8. For others a guitar solo in a phrygian scale might sound complex if compared to natural minor. Your standards are *way* too high, and there are very few prog rock bands who come close to what Genesis were doing in terms of form. But I'll tell you this: Albums like Fates Warning - A Pleasant Shade of Grey or Pain of Salvation - One Hour by the Concrete Lake are perfect examples for complex form in metal. It may be a different, perhaps less spontaneous or organic type of music, but that doesn't change the indisputable fact that it's much, much more complex than your typical mainstream metal. "odd time signatures and intricate instrumental playing of progressive rock"   I don't find riffing particularly intricate - anyone can play power chords. The intricacies of Prog Rock stem from the musicians playing independent parts that make up a greater whole. The "intricacies" of heavy metal lie more in challenging techniques, usually made challenging by one or more of the components, rather than an attempt to express something. Yeah right ... like prog metal bands don't use complex interplay. It's one of the cornerstones of the genre and can be heard in almost any song you pick (except maybe for post metal, but also for post rock then).   Again, the two examples of Prog Rock I chose are good examples of where techniques are adapted primarily for the expression of the song. That's your subjective interpretation here ... I can't challenge it, as you can't challenge me when I say that the same applies to the to albums I mentioned above.   In short, the techniques are NOT those of progressive rock, but those of progressive metal, which is why this definition is wildly misleading (and the thrust of Teo's argument). But they are. Progressive Metal is more complex, more intricate, and uses odd time signatures to a greater extent than "regular" metal. The difference is in *how* the bands achieve that complexity ... and even though I would agree that there is a difference, there are also many common elements. Face it, prog is - among other things - about odd time signatures. It doesn't matter that many people would add "as long as they're used in the appropriate situations" ... the fact remains that odd time signatures are a trademark of prog.     "influenced by jazz fusion"...   Not many of them - this is not a typical characteristic. Where such influence is apparent, it's usually indirect - e.g. where a guitarist has had lessons from Joe Satriani and practised his modes. The end result does not normally come across as anything to do with jazz - with obvious (rare) exceptions. Maybe you should listen to Cynic and Atheist some more ... but I agree that Jazz Fusion isn't a big influence for the typical prog metal bands. But then again it isn't a big influence for the typical (symphonic) prog rock bands either ... "Classical Music"   Again, rarely - and what I've heard tends to be cycle of fifths stuff, or a keyboard playing a string sound. This is not a typical characteristic, as it is in Prog. This is ridiculous. Let's establish for a moment here that real fusions of classical and rock/metal are very rare ... for prog rock Gentle Giant comes to my mind, and many people who aren't trained in musical composition/form would not even realize that this is more related to classical music than your typical symphonic prog rock band - which indeed also use superficial elements of classical music like strings and cycle of fifths, diminished turnarounds, harmonic/melodic minor, counterpoint etc. Do you know Symphony X? Listen to the epic The Odyssey ... or the whole album V: The New Mythology Suite. I dare you to show many any prog rock piece which is more influenced by classical music than this.   "Like progressive rock songs, progressive metal songs are usually much longer than standard metal songs, and they are often thematically linked in concept albums. As a result, progressive metal is rarely heard on mainstream radio and video programs"   Wouldn't you agree that this is tentative stuff? Why doesn't this describe "Master of Puppets"? It does. Many people call MoP progressive. But in my humble opinion there are quite a few tracks/passages on that album which aren't progressive though, so I wouldn't call the whole album "prog".    Indeed, all of the above describes "Master of Puppets", except the jazz fusion bit.     In short, the whole definition IS wrong - and that's not my opinion, just the facts staring everyone in the face.   I easily provided contrary views for everything you said. The fact that this is possible shows that we're not talking about facts here, but merely opinions. And sorry for being blunt, but I think that most people would be with me on this.   MikeEnRegalia wrote: Nothing wrong with this, and it is also quite compatible with what Teo is saying - and I agree, for that matter - that prog metal is quite different from prog rock. It even confirms the split we made some time ago: "Recently, with a new wave of popularity in shred guitar, the previously shunned idea of "technical metal" has become increasingly prevelant and popular in the metal scene. This has led to a resurgence of popularity for more traditional progressive metal bands like Dream Theater and Symphony X, and also has led to the grouping of the "prog metal" scene bands that do not necessarily play in the traditional "prog metal" style such as Nevermore, Children of Bodom, Into Eternity and indeed Opeth and Meshuggah as well. These bands are, rightly or wrongly, often labelled as "progressive metal" as they do play relativly complex and technical metal music that cannot be entirley associated with other metal subgenres. Technical death metal bands like Necrophagist and Arsis are also often associated with the same subculture of heavy metal fans as well." This is also how I see things ... these bands are not "progressive metal" as in the type of music which initially defined the movement. They are included because they - together with Post Metal, Avant-Garde Metal and what I would call Art Metal - take the spirit of experimentation and development, which both Prog Rock and Prog Metal have in common, to new styles and concepts.   I can accept some of the above, but this more accurately describes the music of Dream Theater (for example) than the Progressive Metal definition does.   Again, Metallica fit perfectly here. Not as "related" or "proto", but their early output fits both descriptions, particularly (but not solely) when you look at the historical context (which all of this ignores).   The "spirit of experimentation and development" as you call it is the most tentative part - I don't think it's the same spirit at all, there's really not that much experimentation, and "development" means something completely different to a musician, as an element that is present in classic Prog Rock but not in Progressive Metal, which I've discussed many times - but these are long discussions all by themselves that should have their own threads. Agreed. But again, please consider that your claim that there isn't much experimentation in bands like Dream Theater, Pain of Salvation or Fates Warning may not be shared by many people.