What is so wrong with Prog metal

I think Queensryche's inclusion on here has more to do with historical reference than actual musical content.  I would agree that ...And Justice For All or even Master of Puppets have as much prog merrit as Operation: Mindcrime, but QR are generally remembered as a prog-metal band and left a huge influence on that particular scene (even if they've fallen way off-track on recent efforts).  Metallica, on the other hand, have never been in any way associated with prog, despite any elements of it they may have encorperated into their sound, so their inclusion on here would seem a little out of place.

The thing with a genre like prog is that it's as much a classification as it is a challenge to see whether Band A has enough elements of prog to be listed under this genre.  Whether Queensryche deserve to be or not, they are widely considered a progressive metal band.  Since it's our goal at PA to provide the most complete progressive metal database on the internet, Queensryche would have been a glaring omission from the prog-metal catgeory.

Has anyone said this before??

Bryan wrote: Queensryche would have been a glaring omission from the prog-metal catgeory.

Which again validates precisely what I have been saying. Maybe one should consider a spinoff called PMA?

Teaflax wrote: Bryan wrote: Queensryche would have been a glaring omission from the prog-metal catgeory. Which again validates precisely what I have been saying. Maybe one should consider a spinoff called PMA?

Edited by AtLossForWords - June 04 2006 at 18:50

I get your point Teaflax - but the problem comes in when we try to assess what "prog value" and "generic value" are when we don't even have a decent definition of "prog"

What is prog teaflax? And at what point do youstop  measuring "generic music" value and start measuring "prog value"?

You seem to have a good handle on it




Edited by Hierophant - June 04 2006 at 19:23

Ah, you ask important and well-founded questions, Hierophant. That's all hard to quantify, of course, and much of it will be about taste and such.

But all I am campaigning for is that people start listening to more than the just the solos and instrumental parts for where they find the Prog. Imagine if you removed all the fiddly bits, what would be left and how would that sound on its own. Would it stand out as being something different and/or noteworthy? Is there anything going on in the chord structures, melodies, phrasing, arrangement, tonality or meter that makes this special, apart from a mainstream genre and its other bands?

I argue that for Queensryche the answer is no, unless you like Metal. And even then you wouldn't have to remove much.

Now, much as I rag on The Flower Kings or even Dream Theater, you would have to remove a hell of a lot of what they do to get the Prog out. So while I don't hink TFK are the Prog Meisters they're all too often made out to be, they are indubitably Prog, albeit with a specific, rather mainstreamy slant as soon as the vocals come in.

Some of Progitude can be quantified, certainly, other things will be a matter of opinion. But I think the main idea is this: how much would you have to take out before this band's music could be considered mainstream or normal?

A'swepe wrote: If you are in fact a "card carrying member of the prog snob comminuty", you should understand how some people don't like prog-metal.   Personally, I love DT - in small doses. There's no denying their talent, or their devotion to their craft. It's not all about how many notes you can play in one measure.   Prog-metal has its place, as does 70's era symphonic prog.  There are tons of bands who no longer make music together who still enjoy a large audience. Doesn't make the music any less valid.   Part of the problem is the "Prog-Snob" attitude. You either like it or you don't. Some people like to express their opinion more that others.   I'm not disagreeing with you, this is just my opinion, for what its worth.

Dream Theater is not ALL about tons of notes and playing technical, even though most of their songs have those elements. Listen to "Surrounded" (off Images & Words) or "These Walls" (off Octavarium), these are amazing songs because of the incredible songwriting, there's very little in these songs in the way of shredding or anything.

Certif1ed wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: Certif1ed wrote: Try reading my review  (of Operation: Mindcrime)      I just did ... and what a great experience that was. Now I know that you don't like the album, and while saying that it's not a bad album in any way, you give it two stars.IMO you're just pissed about Queensryche being in the archives while Metallica are not. What a silly thing to even compare these two bands (let alone Operation: Mindcrime and Justice) in the first place ... No need for me here to say anything else ... your review is yet another one in a long series of curiosities (right up there with some 1 star Terria reviews - or Ok Computer for that matter, jsut to mention a band you like for a change).      Don't be silly. Just because you don't "get" my reviews, there's no need to read stuff in that isn't there. Why is it silly to compare Metallica and Queensrcyche? They're both metal bands, and they're both influenced by Judas Priest, so the comparison is perfectly fair. It's silly to suggest otherwise, if I may put it that way.

Now we have a situation where I would like to create a poll to prove that you're silly and I'm not - but the poll would be deleted by the admins. So we'll have to leave it at that - let those who follow this thread make that decision for themselves.

And as for the Judas Priest influence: there is no evidence of that in Queensryche's music ... at least not more than in any other metal band of that time. I don't see the relevance of Judas Priest in this discussion ... but I'm sure that you'll enlighten me. Just make it simple, I'm a stupid idiot who is just talking about metal to wind you up.

Certif1ed wrote: I don't see why my review of OK Computer should be a Curiosity - plenty of others have also seen the light, even if you have not. And who are Terria? I've never even heard Devin Townsend, if that's what you mean! You're gabbling, man!

Simply look up odd 1 or 2 star reviews for these albums and you'll see what I mean - I just didn't want to name the collabs who wrote them. IMO it's pretty obvious that they were written to make a statement - to complain about 5 star reviews of those albums, to lower their average rating or whatever. A bit childish, if you ask me.

Certif1ed wrote: And I just re-read my review of "OM" - it's rubbish, by which I mean very badly written as I was fed up with hearing Queensryche by that stage. My first Queensryche review is much better and doesn't come across as weary with it all. I'd just reviewed their first two albums, and all 3 sounded so alike that I was baffled at their Prog Metal status - that's all. I'm not spearheading a campaign to get Metallica in, whatever it looks like - just reporting what my ears tell me.

Whatever - I'd rather discuss music than wasting my time with these ridiculous quarrels.


Incidently: Those of you who have been following my Prog Metal - related posts should know that I don't consider Operation: Mindcrime to be particularly progressive. So I'm wondering why I'm targeted here again ...


Edited by MikeEnRegalia - June 04 2006 at 22:04

Teaflax wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: Maybe you should create the TPA (Teaflax Prog Archives). I guess that would be the only website that you could agree with. If you don't want to debate it, that's fine. But I think there's validity to my approach, more so than the circular reasoning of "It's Prog if it's ProgMetal + they're considered ProgMetal = we have to include them" approach.

I would love to debate that question, only not with so much backstabbing and negativity.

Ok, so you haven't understood what the archives are about. It's an archive of all music which is considered to be Prog and Rock. Metal is considered to be a sub genre of Rock, so Prog + Metal is ok too. Prog + Jazz is also accepted if it also has a strong Rock component (=Fusion). Some Electronic music is also accepted (Tangerine Dream etx.) if those bands also worked in a Rock context in the widest possible sense.

With that definition, is it so hard to accept that Squarepusher will most likely not be added?

Teaflax wrote: Not only does that set a very very low default level for what is Prog, it does so based on spurious reasoning from the genre name and some often minor parallel aspects of composition, while completely ignoring other aspects.

It has nothing to do with levels - there's just a historic component. If a band was called "progressive metal" in magazines, interviews etc. ... then we add them. You can be the most clever person in the universe with the most clear and undefeatable definition of what's prog and what isn't, but you can't change history. You can however write a review and tell people that calling Queensryche prog was an historic error, that's your prerogative.

Teaflax wrote: I still have no response on why other genres with "Progressive" in their name don't automatically have their main bands listed on PA. It seems to be the absolutely No 1 argument for much Prog Metal, yet it does not apply elsewhere.

Because they are not Rock bands? That's the usual reason. Don't ask me why that is so ... I'm all for including all other non-rock genres. If you haven't noticed yet: I don't run this website. I run another one which accepts all genres.

AtLossForWords wrote: Music is not a quantifiable art form, art itself is impossible to quantify.

Nonsense. If you believed that, you would not be debating me, except to say just that.

There are plenty of quanta to be taken into consideration and that can be compared, you just did so in your post above. So until you take care of that internal contradiction, I find it really difficult to know which direction to approach you from.

AtLossForWords wrote: Refer to Wiggenstein if you would like to know why.

Who is that? Frankenstein's transvestite brother?