It's time to get Death in the archives under Progressive Metal, at least for their three latest records.

Thoughts?

maidenrulez wrote: BRING DEATH TO PROG-METAL

or that

It has been discussed and debated and argued over and blah blah blah.

I personally think they should be here,based on their albums from Human to their last album The Sound of Perseverance.After all,Control Denied is here.

But don't hold your breath.

RIP Chuck,some people here recognize your brilliance.

maidenrulez wrote: BRING DEATH TO PROG-METAL

What is it with you trying to basically bait prog metal fans today???????

That thread you created that Tony closed was a blatant attempt at baiting people into an argument.

TheProgtologist wrote: maidenrulez wrote: BRING DEATH TO PROG-METAL What is it with you trying to basically bait prog metal fans today??????? That thread you created that Tony closed was a blatant attempt at baiting people into an argument.

Cool down man, there always will be ignorants, just do a big smile on them brother.

By the way, R.I.P. Chuck!

Marc Baum wrote: TheProgtologist wrote: maidenrulez wrote: BRING DEATH TO PROG-METAL What is it with you trying to basically bait prog metal fans today??????? That thread you created that Tony closed was a blatant attempt at baiting people into an argument. Cool down man, there always will be ignorants, just do a big smile on them brother. By the way, R.I.P. Chuck!

hah i like some prog metal bands like dream theater, ayreon,opeth and tool and whatever but it was just a joke...sorry it was just to tempting

Nice to see that some collabs too see the prog elements of DEATH. I think they are just too aggressive and modern to fit the big picture. I still wouldn't do the I-must-leave sabre dance for them!

edit: Critical spelling errors!

Marc Baum wrote: I think Death contains many progressive elements, specially on "Human", "Individual Thought Patterns", "Symbolic" and "The Sound Of Perseverance". The whole idea of a combination between progressive rock and death metal came long before Opeth with Death and their "Human" record, but you can't really compare these two bands, Death is more Death Metal than Opeth though, but not much less progressive IMO. I only ask myself: If there are bands like Brainstorm or Rhapsody in the archives, why not Death?

Rhapsody are Symphonic Metal ... Brainstorm are here by accident. They should be removed, but no one seems to care.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Marc Baum wrote: I think Death contains many progressive elements, specially on "Human", "Individual Thought Patterns", "Symbolic" and "The Sound Of Perseverance". The whole idea of a combination between progressive rock and death metal came long before Opeth with Death and their "Human" record, but you can't really compare these two bands, Death is more Death Metal than Opeth though, but not much less progressive IMO. I only ask myself: If there are bands like Brainstorm or Rhapsody in the archives, why not Death? Rhapsody are Symphonic Metal ... Brainstorm are here by accident. They should be removed, but no one seems to care.

I really like Brainstorm, but I agree: Remove them and add Death! They are at least 67 % more prog-compatible! They are even more prog than Rhapsody and Brainstorm together!

Death defined Death Metal with "Scream Bloody Gore" (a fantastic album), and have certainly progressed a little with "Sound of Perseverence" - but it's what I would consider Technical metal rather than progressive metal.

I don't think they add anything to Prog Archives except more metal. The playing and composition standards are average.

That's not to say I don't like it, it's just nothing new or progressive except for the band themselves.

Cradle of Filth are far more progressive in sound, style, arrangement and instrumentation - especially vocally - and I know of at least one collaborator who is against their inclusion.

So I disagree totally with Death.

Great band though

We all are different. I like Cradle of Filth, but would not add them. I'd like to see Blind Guardian get added, as well as Tom Waits, Muse, Marty Friedman, Tony MacAlpine, ... Death have little priority for me, because they're not melodic enough for my taste. I can see why they're considered to be prog though and will support their inclusion.

Why are Death considered prog, Mike? Because they do "technical" stuff?

It's not about liking a band, it's whether, in fact, they are progressive or not.

But how are they progressive? I've heard "Sound of Perseverence", and it's not very progressive at all, now, is it? Let's be honest here.

Just saying "They Are" is not a very convincing argument.

Certif1ed wrote: But how are they progressive? I've heard "Sound of Perseverence", and it's not very progressive at all, now, is it? Let's be honest here. Just saying "They Are" is not a very convincing argument.

No offense, but why should I bother to even try to explain my reasons to you? I mean, you don't think that Dream Theater are prog, they're not even metal for you. There is no basis for a meaningful conversation.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Certif1ed wrote: But how are they progressive? I've heard "Sound of Perseverence", and it's not very progressive at all, now, is it? Let's be honest here. Just saying "They Are" is not a very convincing argument. No offense, but why should I bother to even try to explain my reasons to you? I mean, you don't think that Dream Theater are prog, they're not even metal for you. There is no basis for a meaningful conversation.

Of course there is a basis for meaningful discussion.

I like to think that I know metal (and other types of music) when I hear it, and I post my opinions backed up with considered thought and careful research.

You don't have to bother doing anything - that is your choice.

But trying to claim that Death (the original Death Metal band) are somehow prog is laughable to say the least - especially when you (or anyone else) says that Cradle of Filth aren't, with the amount of evidence there is in the latter's music - unless there is some evidence outside of Death's music that backs that up.

I don't like Dream Theater, it's true, and I don't think they're very progressive or particularly Metal - Metal is partly about attitude, and DT just don't have it. Prog is about progressive music, and Dream Theater are simply stylised - it is not really progressive.

If you think my statements are meaningless, you obviously don't understand what prog really is - I have my doubts that you do.

Or maybe I don't understand what prog really is.

That's the point of discussions about prog music.

It really doesn't matter who is right or wrong, I just like to understand the reaonsing behind it and totally dislike the flat statements as if such things are common knowledge. They're NOT. It's up to the mindless minority to question this sort of stuff in my opinion.

And I AM that mindless minority.

Cert:

You're an intelligent person. What do you think is more likely:

1. The hundreds of thousands of people who believe that Dream Theater are one of the core bands of Prog Metal are all wrong - the definition of prog (metal) needs to be changed and history rewritten.
2. You are wrong - your rules to determine prog are highly subjective and are a mystery to everyone but yourself.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Cert: You're an intelligent person. What do you think is more likely: The hundreds of thousands of people who believe that Dream Theater are one of the core bands of Prog Metal are all wrong - the definition of prog (metal) needs to be changed and history rewritten. You are wrong - your rules to determine prog are highly subjective and are a mystery to everyone but yourself.

Oh,oh.....

These two guys will show everyone how to have an impassioned, intelligent,cogent,but heated debate,but stay within the rules by showing respect...watch and learn everbody.

Certif1ed wrote: But how are they progressive? I've heard "Sound of Perseverence", and it's not very progressive at all, now, is it? Let's be honest here. Just saying "They Are" is not a very convincing argument.

Before you go any further, I REALLY think you need to hear Symbolic...

If you already have, argue on

Certif1ed wrote:   I don't like Dream Theater, it's true, and I don't think they're very progressive or particularly Metal - Metal is partly about attitude, and DT just don't have it. Prog is about progressive music, and Dream Theater are simply stylised - it is not really progressive.

You're backing down a little bit from the bold statements you made in other threads about Dream Theater ... are they prog metal or not? And please don't try to avoid the subject by bringing new words like "stylised" into the discussion without proper definition. 

Certif1ed wrote: If you think my statements are meaningless, you obviously don't understand what prog really is - I have my doubts that you do. Or maybe I don't understand what prog really is.

 I leave it to the others to decide who is more obviously wrong here.

Certif1ed wrote: That's the point of discussions about prog music. It really doesn't matter who is right or wrong, I just like to understand the reaonsing behind it and totally dislike the flat statements as if such things are common knowledge. They're NOT. It's up to the mindless minority to question this sort of stuff in my opinion. And I AM that mindless minority.

There really is no right or wrong in this discussion ... we can all have our own definition of prog. But one can define right and wrong by taking into account which bands are historically considered to be prog. If your set of rules excludes many of these bands and includes some which are normally not considered to be prog, I would say that this set of rles of more wrong than right.

 (We're taking all of this much too seriously.)

Human and Indie Patterns describe them even better than SoP as a progmetal band. Thing is, if Atheist and Cynic are in the archives, Death shouldn't even be a question, as the two bands based their career on Death's later efforts.

Much like Marillion wasn't in the archives, while the other neo prog bands would be.

First, remove Deep Purple from the Archives!  

And regarding the topic, I dont think Death should be added. Just not enough prog elements.

Eetu Pellonpää wrote: By the way, maybe this should be moved to some another area than "non-prog music"?

yes ... Death to the prog area!

maidenrulez wrote: BRING DEATH TO PROG-METAL

That would be a great Christmas gift 

krauthead wrote: maidenrulez wrote: BRING DEATH TO PROG-METAL That would be a great Christmas gift

http://imageshack.us">

Sorry to interrupt the "family dinner table" discussions, but I could think of many artists that are not featured on the Archives. Never mind that they are prog in the classical sense and they have been for the last 30-35 years! I have little sympathy for another forced inclusion debated in the metal genre - while other, undisputable articles are ignored.

The reason being that many of you weren't even born at the time of their input, they have little recognition and support on the pages. How could they? Few of you ever heard some of the names, let alone being aware of long deleted albums. And as such, those albums will not be re-released without demand. Your loss is my loss, too.

What I really meant to say is that stretching the boundaries is fine by me, but not at the expense of articles gathering dust for lack of exposure. Gee, it makes me feel like an old fart and perhaps that's what I am in comparison, but that doesn't quell my passion for prog as I understand.

Oh, somebody get that colostomy bag ready, please...... and don't remind me of "death" either....  

^ Well, most of the bands I appreciate did their records before I was born (1976 that is). I also think that the boundaries of the prog classification have been stretched with the bands from the old days as much as newer bands, by adding DEEP PURPLE and QUEEN to the archives for example. They suit me fine, so why should anybody be upset about adding DEATH here? I'm quite sure that many of the opposers of this band haven't even heard their music, or would want ever to hear it, as it has groaning vocals and transistor amplifiers. I think they are prog, though most of the prog I listen are categorized as prog folk, jazz, psychedelia and kraut. I listened death metal as a kid during the early 90's, and still I like to listen some of them in small amounts.

If you have some old gems to be added, lets do work for getting them listed here! I collect vinyls, and I would appreciate information of the material you described!

What we have here is very simply stupid. Prog-this. Prog-that. Prog-rock. Prog-metal. Prog-jazz. Prog-disco. Prog-opera. Prog-country. Prog-western. Prog-festival. Prog-dinner. Prog-bed. Prog-man. Prog-woman. Prog-sh*t. Pfttt. Prog-stupid.

vogre wrote: Certif1ed - did you hear any of the last albums except Sound of Perseverance? Try listening to the Individual Thought Patterns and Symbolic. Anyway techno thrash like Voivod and Watchtower *is* progressive and included on this site. So a band with close songwriting with growls instead of clean singing should be differently categorized. About your Cradle of Filth comment - I am not that familiar with them but from the songs i heard they seemed like a very generic band with boring thrash like riffs and some synthesizers. Maybe it's catchy but it didn't seem very prog to me.

Nope - "Sound of Perseverence" was recommended to me as one of their most progressive albums. It's enough to let me know that their overall style has changed somewhat, but I doubt very much that anything else they've done will instantly make me think "Hmm. Prog", as the standard of composition is too basic. Riffs that go off at tangents are not progressive - they show a deep non-understanding of how to grow music organically. Gentle Giant are perhaps the best illustration of how this should be done.

I don't think that VoiVod are progressive either - at least, not progressive as in Prog Rock. There is progressive as in Led Zeppelin, and Prog Rock as in King Crimson, and the two have a very fuzzy border.

As far as CoF are concerned, I'm not bothered about the catchiness, but the orchestration, the lights and shades, the key and time changes - you know, all the stuff that makes up prog - the elements. I'm not saying I think the band are prog, just more prog than some bands I could mention who are in the archives, and some that are under consideration.

Oh, and I get lazy with my Shift key, which is why sometimes I use prog with both small and large "p"s.

Death Kicks Ass

Cert:

I know that Prog is not easy to nail down ... for me it is a combination of:

• Complexity
• Artistic ambition
• Historic importance (innovation)
• Instrumentation (either very rare or unusual instruments, or instruments used in unusual ways)
• ...

The point is that how you apply those criteria is entirely subjective:

• Each of the criteria can be argued about. "Measuring" complexity is subjective, and the same applies to the other criteria. What makes it even worse is that people can listen to music which is obviously complex, but deny the complexity (I see that happening frequently with Dream Theater).
• Not all the criteria need to be present for something to be considered prog. But there are no rules about where the transitions are ... how complex must something be in relation to the other criteria. Does one of the criteria suffice under certain conditions? Are there counter indications (some elements which preclude any possibility that it is prog)?

We don't have to agree here ... I'm sure that there ISN'T ANY consensus. But it's fun to discuss it, so let's continue.

TheProgtologist wrote: It has been discussed and debated and argued over and blah blah blah. I personally think they should be here,based on their albums from Human to their last album The Sound of Perseverance.After all,Control Denied is here. But don't hold your breath. RIP Chuck,some people here recognize your brilliance.

I agree, except I think Spiritual Healing was when Death started to get more progressive. Imo it's one of Death's best albums, and epic songs like the title track showed the band developing musically  from it's early days. On Human the progessive influences were more overt, but like I said, I think they started creeping into the music on the album prior, Spiritual Healing. Human is one of my favourite albums of all time though. RIP Chuck, you're genius will never be forgotten!

I hear prog moments on Saxon's debut album.

Certif1ed wrote: I hear prog moments on Saxon's debut album.

SAXON covered "In The Court of The Crimson King"!

Eetu Pellonpää wrote: Certif1ed wrote: I hear prog moments on Saxon's debut album. SAXON covered "In The Court of The Crimson King"!

Was that before or after their cover of "Tales..."?

All I find prog about Death is unusual time sigs and tempo changes ("What's up with that beat-changing bullsh*t? It's like they can't decide which song to play!" - Yngwie Malmsteen on "The Philosopher"). The riffing is pretty standard metal stuff. It seems like they're forcing themselves to be prog (though a lot of bands probably do that).

I'd rather quote George Bush than Yngwie Malmsteen. I mean, seriously, who values that rat's opinion about... anything?

Certif1ed wrote: So therefore, since Motorhead and Metallica re-invented metal, they're both prog.

You yourself said early Metallica was prog.

And I think the 'prog' element in prog metal is achieved differently than in prog rock... but maybe you're right, after all in the end we would have to include the Sabs as well. 

Actually, Sabbath released at least 4 progmetal masterpieces.

In terms of progression, KEA was Metallica's most progressive album, but in terms of progginess, one of the 3 albums after KEA will do.

Death was pretty much heavily influenced by Atheist's sound on their later recordings... Atheist is in the archives at the very least.

Gentle Ronnie wrote: I'd rather quote George Bush than Yngwie Malmsteen. I mean, seriously, who values that rat's opinion about... anything?

I just put that quote in cause it was funny. And Malmsteen IS a good musician - just an uncreative and close-minded one.

Gentle Ronnie wrote: I always thought being a good musician was all about creativity and songwriting.

And what about classical musicians - virtuosos who ONLY perform music which was not written by them and which allows little (if any) own contributions?

goose wrote: Practically all of Bach's, Mozart's and Beethoven's pieces for virtuosos invite improvisation. Even when the notes themselves aren't improvised there's nearly always a clear difference between any two performers, and often even any two performances

I would guess that's because all three were maestro improvisers themselves, and the score is just a refinement or simplification of what they themselves would actually play.

The main differences between them and Mr Malmsteen is that Malmsteen's improvisatory skills (by comparison) are completely non-existent, and Mr Malmsteen cannot compose for toffee. Although he can be hugely entertaining, of course.

John Gargo wrote: I don't know if it's been mentioned in this thread, but PESTILENCE deserves a place in this website as well, given the progressive nature of their last two albums and the shared band members with ATHEIST.

You should post that in the "Organizing Prog Metal" thread ...  

MikeEnRegalia wrote: John Gargo wrote: I don't know if it's been mentioned in this thread, but PESTILENCE deserves a place in this website as well, given the progressive nature of their last two albums and the shared band members with ATHEIST. You should post that in the "Organizing Prog Metal" thread ...

Sorry, I see how many pages and pages of responses that one has and I just stear clear of it!