Rainbow and the creation of Dragon Rock.
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Suggest New Bands and Artists
Forum Description: Suggest, create polls, and classify new bands you would like included on Prog Archives
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=17079
Printed Date: January 28 2025 at 10:55 Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Rainbow and the creation of Dragon Rock.
Posted By: Stargazer
Subject: Rainbow and the creation of Dragon Rock.
Date Posted: January 06 2006 at 20:22
Ritchie Blackmore's Rainbow would make an excellent addition to the
prog. metal section of this site. The first incarnation of Ritchie
Blackmore's Rainbow, with Ronnie James Dio and Cozy Powell, featured
very innovate prog. metal, including the innovation of "dragon rock", a
mixture of metal music and medieval music that bands like Iron Maiden
took to new heights. Ritchie Blackmore was the first guitarist to
combine heavy metal music with...Well, anything really, but more
importantly with classical and medieval elements. He arguably created
progressive metal, and METAL in general with his amazing shredding
style. Classical and medieval influences are strewn about his early
works with Deep Purple, and the first four Rainbow albums show them
VERY clearly. Ritchie Blackmore was the most experimentive guitarist of
his generation, and most any progressive metal band, most notably Dream
Theater, have all cited Rainbow and Ritchie Blackmore amongst their top
influences. I can even provide some mp3 files to put on their homepage,
and I'll write up the thingy and put on a band picture and everything.
I really don't understand why they already aren't on here, and the very
near godfathers of progressive metal should be posted on this site.
|
Replies:
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: January 06 2006 at 20:39
I'm a big fan of pre-Bonnet Rainbow,but most of what you say is jusy plain wishful-thinking.There is quite a good case for us adding Rainbow as prog-related though.
I caught them 6 or 7 times live around the UK bit drifted away after Castle Donington.
Most seasoned proggers on this site are very familiar with Rainbow and the ahem "shredding" style of Mr Blackmore.....
|
Posted By: Stargazer
Date Posted: January 06 2006 at 20:46
Why exactly is it wishful thinking? Who played neo-classical style
metal before him? On a side note, if you would listen to any
post-Bonnet Rainbow, you would hear some pretty fast solos in there. I
mean, not exactly M.A.B. or Malmsteen, but he was probably one of the
first shredders. Some good songs for that are Eyes of Fire, Anybody
There, Maybe Next Time, Weiss Heim, and Difficult To Cure.
|
Posted By: The Wizard
Date Posted: January 06 2006 at 22:31
I have never heard Rainbow before but I'm becoming a huge Deep Purple fan so I'll probabley ended up a Rainbow fan soon. From what I hear, you have a pretty good case, but I'd need to hear them.
-------------
|
Posted By: Stargazer
Date Posted: January 06 2006 at 22:36
Yeah, definetely go with the 5 songs I mentioned, and go with the album
"Rising". "Kill The King" and "Gates of Babylon" off of Long Live Rock
and Roll are great, as are "Still I'm Sad" and "Self Portrait" from
their first album.
|
Posted By: ClemofNazareth
Date Posted: January 06 2006 at 23:21
The Temple of the King, Tarot Woman, 16th Century Greensleeves, Gates of Babylon, Lady of the Lake, Weiss Heim, all of these are at least good enough to be called "prog-related", if not "prog metal", if not for the technical skill, at least for Dio's oh-so-awesome vocals, and the better-than-hair-metal lyrics. I personally would be willing to trade Triumph's spot for Rainbow.
------------- "Peace is the only battle worth waging."
Albert Camus
|
Posted By: Pafnutij
Date Posted: January 07 2006 at 04:12
They were a good band, and quite advanced for a rock band, but not enough for progressive rock , or even that pointless prog-related section. As for Blackmore "shredding", that would be the case only if you compare him to sloppy players like Jimmy Page, as he (Blackmore) did have considerable technique for a blues-rock guitarist. However, the very same Page outshone him considerably in the experimetation department.
|
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: January 07 2006 at 06:55
Rainbow are certainly the missing link between Deep Purple and Blackmore's Night, both of whom are now on the site.
|
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: January 07 2006 at 07:08
ClemofNazareth wrote:
I personally would be willing to trade Triumph's spot for Rainbow. |
I'd trade Triumph's spot for Abba,and I used to like Triumph.....
Don't start me on about Triumph being on the archive....
Rainbow should be here under Prog-Related.Not sure they've anything to do with Prog-Metal,except maybe thematically.
|
Posted By: ClemofNazareth
Date Posted: January 07 2006 at 08:38
I believe we have both made our feelings about Triumph known: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=12424&KW=Triumph - Triumph?! Are you sh**ting me?!?
'm not sure I completely agree with Easy Livin that Rainbow is a missing link between Deep Purple (proto-prog, BTW) and Night (Prog folk), since Night is nothing at all like either Deep Purple or Rainbow, and Rainbow was an on-going project during the post-formative years of Deep Purple. Still, he makes a solid point that both of those bands are here, and the main common denominator between them is Blackmore, who was clearly the creative element in Rainbow.
And, since I have a somewhat sympathetic audience, here's a few more Triumph gems that clearly make the case for their presence here <not!>. These guys are nothing more than walking hard-ons, as near as I can tell. And most of these lines wouldn't even work in a singles bar...
"When you turn on your love light you burn me, but it's alright 'cause I'm hooked on you."
"Are we victims of circumstance when our destinies collide?"
"The shivers in your fingers tell no lies, I know I drive you crazy"
"I can't keep givin' you it all, not if you're gonna' tease me"
"I've always wondered what it would be like, just you and me baby"
"Take me, I'm yours for just one night"
"Let me come and lay down beside you, open up your heart"
"If only everybody wished the same things that I do, there would be hope for me and you"
"I know how to treat a lady who knows how to treat her man"
""Don't hold me up girl, don't waste my precious time - won't you lay it on the line"
------------- "Peace is the only battle worth waging."
Albert Camus
|
Posted By: JayDee
Date Posted: January 07 2006 at 08:50
Yay for Rainbow and Blackmores night!!!
Rainbow for prog realted...
-------------
|
Posted By: Stargazer
Date Posted: January 07 2006 at 13:01
Tony R., they should definetely be under metal. If you've ever seen
their live performances, they're WAY heavier than they are in the
studio, and they definetely reach into the heavy metal range.
As for Ritchie Blackmore being a "blues-rock" player and Page being
more experimentive....No. What'd page do that was progressive? Violin
bows? Tuning peg vibratos? That's all of his experiments that I can
even think of, he's hardly more experimental than Blackmore. Blackmore
had more technicality than Page did, and he certainly wasn't "sloppy"
like Page was. His post-Bonnet Rainbow stuff, and the DP reunion stuff,
had some very fast solos. They weren't sloppy, and while they aren't
exactly Malmsteen shredding material, he was still one of the faster
players at that time.
|
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: January 07 2006 at 13:21
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: January 07 2006 at 13:28
ClemofNazareth wrote:
'm not sure I completely agree with Easy Livin that Rainbow is a missing link between Deep Purple (proto-prog, BTW) and Night (Prog folk), since Night is nothing at all like either Deep Purple or Rainbow, and Rainbow was an on-going project during the post-formative years of Deep Purple. Still, he makes a solid point that both of those bands are here, and the main common denominator between them is Blackmore, who was clearly the creative element in Rainbow.
|
Rainbow had an acoustic side with slight folk influences which Purple did not. Track such as "16th Century Green sleeves" and "Catch the rainbow", to name but two, point towards the direction Blackmore's Night would eventually follow.
Hey, we're on the same side though.
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: January 07 2006 at 13:38
Tony R wrote:
ClemofNazareth wrote:
I personally would be willing to trade Triumph's spot for Rainbow. |
I'd trade Triumph's spot for Abba,and I used to like Triumph.....
Don't start me on about Triumph being on the archive....
Rainbow should be here under Prog-Related.Not sure they've anything to do with Prog-Metal,except maybe thematically.
|
They combined classical music (baroque, rather) with metal. I think that Prog Related would be a fitting genre.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa/aoty-2024/vote" rel="nofollow - 2024 Release Poll
Listened to:
|
Posted By: spo1977
Date Posted: January 07 2006 at 14:18
I agree with the original post, except, do we really need another label? Dragon Rock. Not to be rude Stargazer but there are way to many categories here already. I do not think descriptions hurt but some prog fans seem to be somewhat obsessive over where bands "really" belong.
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: January 07 2006 at 14:29
Ronnie James Dio invented and developed "Dragon Rock" almost single-handed - listen to the stuff he did with Elf (before he joined Rainbow), then listen to "Heaven and Hell" (Black Sabbath) and his own band's early albums.
Every track about Rainbows, Dragons, Goblins, and other hocus pocus - and to a track, progressive. Apart from "Long Live Rock and Roll", that is...
Ritchie Blackmore was also a very Progressive guitarist, with lots of great ideas - but when Dio left, the direction of Rainbow as a band changed totally. Conversely, when Dio joined Black Sabbath, the change to their sound overall was immediate and dramatic. It's interesting to compare his influence with that of, say, Ian Gillan...
Add Rainbow, and you'll have to consider adding Elf, Black Sabbath and Dio.
"Holy Diver" and "The Last In Line" are incredibly progressive metal albums - way ahead of, say, Queensryche...
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: January 07 2006 at 14:41
^ But I've read that Blackmore "ran" Rainbow like a company where he was the boss. So essentially they all had to do as he said. Which must have been the main reason for DIO to leave. I don't know why they became more mainstream after that though.
BTW: You still can't leave Prog Metal alone, can you? It's amazing how you can get from early Rainbow to Queensryche ...
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa/aoty-2024/vote" rel="nofollow - 2024 Release Poll
Listened to:
|
Posted By: Stargazer
Date Posted: January 07 2006 at 14:53
Tony R wrote:
Some of his instrumentals are wonderful-Weiss
Heim,Vielleichst Das Nachste Zeit and,of course,Difficult To Cure. The
classical elements he brings to his solos,as SG mentions ,are at times
bewitching:Stargazer and Gates Of Babylon added to the three I have
already mentioned,but he never really moves in to shredding territory. |
Okay okay fine, maybe shredding was too strong a word. He's still an
incredibly techincal player, and I still think Rainbow should be moved
to progressive metal, that was really what I was getting at in the first
place.
Also, I didn't really mean to say we should add a new genre to the
site, I was just saying that Rainbow/Dio really invented dragon rock, I
don't think we should add a new section to the site.
One way or the other, I think Rainbow's first four albums would fit
under prog. metal. It's definetely not something like Queensryche, as
was said, but their immense influence upon the genre should get them a
spot. On a side note, I have a band picture and biography written up.
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: January 07 2006 at 14:54
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
^ But I've read that Blackmore "ran" Rainbow like a company where he was the boss. So essentially they all had to do as he said. Which must have been the main reason for DIO to leave. I don't know why they became more mainstream after that though.
BTW: You still can't leave Prog Metal alone, can you? It's amazing how you can get from early Rainbow to Queensryche ...
|
As I've said MANY times before, I do not have anything against Prog Metal. I wouldn't listen to so much of it if I did - but the more I hear, the more I wonder where the Prog is.
It was easy to get from early Rainbow to Queensryche; Rainbow, Black Sabbath, Dio (via RJD). Holy Diver was released in 1982 and The Last In Line in 1983. 1983 was when Queensryche released their first (and definitely Non-Prog) album, so the comparison is a fair one.
Ritchie may have run Rainbow like a business, but RJD's influence is highly apparent - especially when you compare it with the other stuff he did.
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: January 07 2006 at 14:59
Certif1ed wrote:
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
^ But I've read that Blackmore "ran" Rainbow like a company where he was the boss. So essentially they all had to do as he said. Which must have been the main reason for DIO to leave. I don't know why they became more mainstream after that though.
BTW: You still can't leave Prog Metal alone, can you? It's amazing how you can get from early Rainbow to Queensryche ...
|
As I've said MANY times before, I do not have anything against Prog Metal. I wouldn't listen to so much of it if I did - but the more I hear, the more I wonder where the Prog is.
It was easy to get from early Rainbow to Queensryche; Rainbow, Black Sabbath, Dio (via RJD). Holy Diver was released in 1982 and The Last In Line in 1983. 1983 was when Queensryche released their first (and definitely Non-Prog) album, so the comparison is a fair one.
Ritchie may have run Rainbow like a business, but RJD's influence is highly apparent - especially when you compare it with the other stuff he did.
|
Bands like Dream Theater, Pain of Salvation, Opeth, Tool and Symphony X define the genre. As long as you don't accept them as prog, you don't accept Prog Metal ... you more like build your own definition of Prog Metal which differs from that of most other people.
What would be your definition of prog metal? Which would be the key bands of a genre which combines prog and metal?
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa/aoty-2024/vote" rel="nofollow - 2024 Release Poll
Listened to:
|
Posted By: Stargazer
Date Posted: January 07 2006 at 15:04
In reply to Cerit1ed, I think that adding Dio and Elf would be a great
idea, but I don't know about Black Sabbath. I haven't heard much of
their post Ozzy stuff, is it anything like early Rainbow? I'm betting
that Rainbow still has more prog. influences than Dio-Sabbath does.
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: January 07 2006 at 15:08
Combining Prog and Metal would be a good start.
And from the few Dream Theater and Opeth albums I've heard (the ones that are reputed to be the masterpieces), there is precious little on either that resembles Prog Rock.
In all honestly, I'm beginning think that "Prog Metal" is a style - not something that's actually related to "Real" Prog Rock.
Can you honestly say that you hear such a common style between Jethro Tull, King Crimson, Yes, ELP, Genesis, VDGG, Pink Floyd or any of the other "Classic" bands?
Prog Rock emphatically isn't a style - it's really difficult to define (although I think I'm getting there...).
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: January 07 2006 at 15:09
Stargazer wrote:
In reply to Cerit1ed, I think that adding Dio and Elf would be a great idea, but I don't know about Black Sabbath. I haven't heard much of their post Ozzy stuff, is it anything like early Rainbow? I'm betting that Rainbow still has more prog. influences than Dio-Sabbath does. |
Probably - but "Heaven and Hell" is an amazing album, when you consider the year (1980). If you like Dio/Rainbow and Sabbath then buy it immediately!!!
It's much heavier, with a more robust "Prog Metal" style production, and more ambience - but it's also far more slick than any of their earlier albums. It's a definite progression
|
Posted By: Stargazer
Date Posted: January 07 2006 at 15:17
Certif1ed wrote:
Combining Prog and Metal would be a good start.
And from the few Dream Theater and Opeth albums I've heard (the ones
that are reputed to be the masterpieces), there is precious little on
either that resembles Prog Rock.
In all honestly, I'm beginning think that "Prog Metal" is a
style - not something that's actually related to "Real" Prog Rock.
Can you honestly say that you hear such a common style between
Jethro Tull, King Crimson, Yes, ELP, Genesis, VDGG, Pink Floyd or any
of the other "Classic" bands?
Prog Rock emphatically isn't a style - it's really difficult to define (although I think I'm getting there...).
|
(thanks for the reccomendation by the way, I'll look into Heaven And Hell)
I don't think that prog. metal is like the classics at all, I think
it's more related to heavy metal bands who experiment heavily as the
classics did. Bands like Dream Theater and Opeth definetely aren't
conventional metal bands. They combine complex musicianship, odd time
signatures, and often some sort of classic dabblings into their music,
and the lyrical themes are often quite progressive compared to most
metal. They combine the complexity of fusion bands with the
experimentation of prog. rock with the thundering power of heavy metal
to create something very unlike regular metal bands.
As far as Rainbow is concerned, they combined the majesty of medieval
music, the complexity of classical music (Blackmore did, anyway) with
metal, which is more progressive than any metal band of their day, or a
while after their day for that matter.
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: January 07 2006 at 15:18
Certif1ed wrote:
Combining Prog and Metal would be a good start.
And from the few Dream Theater and Opeth albums I've heard (the ones that are reputed to be the masterpieces), there is precious little on either that resembles Prog Rock.
In all honestly, I'm beginning think that "Prog Metal" is a style - not something that's actually related to "Real" Prog Rock.
Can you honestly say that you hear such a common style between Jethro Tull, King Crimson, Yes, ELP, Genesis, VDGG, Pink Floyd or any of the other "Classic" bands?
Prog Rock emphatically isn't a style - it's really difficult to define (although I think I'm getting there...).
|
I didn't say that Prog Metal is Prog Rock combined with Metal. Essentially it is
(Prog Rock - Rock) + Metal
I hope you get what I'm trying to say here. Prog Metal really is - like you're beginning to think - an entirely different style. But you said on numerous occations that Prog Metal doesn't seem to be like Metal either, so I guess we're not yet done here.
Prog Rock and Prog Metal are definitely related, but not as closely as some people think. Dream Theater are of course influenced by Yes - just listen to Surrounded from Images & Words. But that doesn't mean that they are like Yes. And Dream Theater are (heavily) influenced by Metallica, but they don't sound like them - only when you drill down to the "riff level".
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa/aoty-2024/vote" rel="nofollow - 2024 Release Poll
Listened to:
|
Posted By: salmacis
Date Posted: January 07 2006 at 15:50
I'm all for Rainbow being here under 'prog related' myself; their first 3 studio albums are genuine 'prog metal' for me anyway. They were by far the best and proggiest of the Deep Purple spin off groups; Gillan was mainly straightahead heavy rock and Whitesnake were blues rock underachievers to me most of the time.
Glad to see some Dio fans here too.
I also propose (yet again) Magnum for prog related; their albums like 'Chase The Dragon' and 'Magnum II' are pretty much prog albums with a strong heavy rock influence.
As for post Ozzy Sabbath? Well I think all of their albums up to about 'Dehumaniser' (which I thought was somewhat we have much to commend them- I tend to play them way more than anything Ozzy did post Randy Rhoads. Some of my all time favourite songs of theirs came from this era; 'Sign Of The Southern Cross' and 'Eternal Idol' for example. Don't think Sabbath belong here really though myself...wouldn't really complain if they were though.
|
Posted By: Stargazer
Date Posted: January 07 2006 at 16:07
Wait a second, that's two people who have said that they're prog. metal
and then suggest them being under prog. related. Which is it? Why not
prog. metal?
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: January 07 2006 at 16:14
Definitely not prog metal. Not if I can help it ...
Seriously, Deep Purple are not considered to be prog metal here, and neither should be Rainbow or even Black Sabbath. We're talking about the 70s albums of these bands here, and they don't have much to do with prog metal ... they sound differently, the songwriting is really different etc. etc.. Maybe one could call it "Proto Prog Metal", but I don't like this genre ... just call it Heavy Prog Rock (or Heavy Prog Related, if you will) and get on.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa/aoty-2024/vote" rel="nofollow - 2024 Release Poll
Listened to:
|
Posted By: Stargazer
Date Posted: January 07 2006 at 16:29
Just prog. rock wouldn't work?
|
Posted By: salmacis
Date Posted: January 07 2006 at 16:33
I think they were prog metal in their day, which is what I was driving at, but they wouldn't really fit amongst the other bands of the genre here. Thus why 'prog related' seems the best alternative..
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: January 07 2006 at 16:34
I'm not sure if anyone used the term "prog metal" in these days ... at least I've never read about it.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa/aoty-2024/vote" rel="nofollow - 2024 Release Poll
Listened to:
|
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: January 07 2006 at 16:47
In the 1970s Heavy Rock,Heavy Metal and Hard Rock were just different words for the same thing.It seems quite obvious to me that for every Motorhead you are going to have something more sophisticated like Rainbow at the other end of the spectrum.It s all just heavy rock and I love most of those bands.The natural progression,if you mix up Purple,Zep,Rush,Rainbow and later,Iron Maiden and Metallica is,to me at least,what we now call "Prog-Metal".Surely Prog-Metal is an off-shoot of the metal genre and not from Prog Rock?
Take the so-called classic era Prog Bands: Genesis,Yes,Gentle Giant,Tull,ELP,Camel,PFM et al and then show me how Meshuggah,Ulver,Dream Theater and friends are compatible with these.......
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: January 07 2006 at 16:51
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
I didn't say that Prog Metal is Prog Rock combined with Metal. Essentially it is
(Prog Rock - Rock) + Metal
I hope you get what I'm trying to say here. Prog Metal really is - like you're beginning to think - an entirely different style. But you said on numerous occations that Prog Metal doesn't seem to be like Metal either, so I guess we're not yet done here.
Prog Rock and Prog Metal are definitely related, but not as closely as some people think. Dream Theater are of course influenced by Yes - just listen to Surrounded from Images & Words. But that doesn't mean that they are like Yes. And Dream Theater are (heavily) influenced by Metallica, but they don't sound like them - only when you drill down to the "riff level".
|
Yes - I get what you're saying.
And I also deliberately left the word "Rock" from the term "Prog" above.
I'm not working on a definition of Metal at the moment, but suffice to say, I think the NWOBHM bands as a conglomerate sum it up very well indeed. I don't include post NWOBHM bands like the "Hair Metal" bands, although I very much include Judas Priest as a band that defines what Metal is (and are a major influence on Metallica, along with Budgie, Diamond Head, Killing Joke, Misfits et al).
The NWOBHM was largely progressive by default. Although a lot of these bands had hit singles, it has to be said that record companies weren't impressed by bands that didn't, so it is largely the non-single and early material that I'm concentrating on.
Bands like Angelwitch, Praying Mantis, Iron Maiden, Raven, Gillan and even bands like Motorhead, Saxon and Def Leppard actively progressed the music and created genre-defining sounds and riffs that weren't based on Judas Priest (with the exception of Def Leppard), and explored possibilities within the music that Rainbow had long ago given up on. "I Surrender", anyone?
Originality was the key here. Diamond Head were obviously (to my ears at least) the strongest and most original, but spectacular invention could also be heard in Ozzy Osbourne (at least, Randy Rhoades) and some European and American bands such as the Scorpions and Riot (respectively).
Metal is more than chugging riffs with a distorted guitar sound and widdley guitar solos. And, when done properly, it Rocks - so the Rock part is still very valid - if barely defined.
I'll revisit "Surrounded" - but must admit that the very first thing I noticed when I first heard Dream Theater - especially "Images and Words" were the Metallica riffs. No "drilling down" was needed - they jumped out at me as something blatantly obvious, and still do.
When you listen to the "Classics", nothing so obvious jumps out - ever (except in the case of Yes). Each band had a unique sound that they built upon and developed. In Yes's case, the Crosby, Stills and Nash style vocals still bug me to this day, and the Beatles' "influence" on their early albums is unmissable. Admittedly, the bass sound is to die for - but this is a different discussion.
Prog (large P, never mind the Rock part) is not a style and almost always feels spontaneous - as if the band are making the music up as they go along. The form is rarely standard song form, or if it is, it's hidden very well - or it's just a (usually bad) song...
Metal is more of a style, but it's still progressive by nature and feels largely spontaneous - although more stongly song-form based.
Progressive Metal (not sure of case) is, as you seem to agree, largely a style, and does not seem to be progressive or evolutionary by nature, but rather obsessed with the periphery in the music rather than in the main body of it - ie unusual time signatures, fast and complicated solos and riffs, passages of decoration between verses, choruses and bridges, etc. It almost never feels spontaneous as "Classic" prog does, but rather feels strongly calculated. Formally, it's rock song through and through, but with added bridge and coda passages.
I am not saying that any of this is a bad thing - but it does suggest, as you also seem to be saying, that Progressive Metal and Prog/Progressive Rock are not the same things at all - or even close relations; at least, not as closely related as Prog Rock (particularly Neo-Prog) and NWOBHM are.
Note that I am endeavouring to make these suggestions based on impartial observations, rather than biased judgements based on opinion
|
Posted By: salmacis
Date Posted: January 07 2006 at 17:24
Certif1ed wrote:
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
I didn't say that Prog Metal is Prog Rock combined with Metal. Essentially it is
(Prog Rock - Rock) + Metal
I hope you get what I'm trying to say here. Prog Metal really is - like you're beginning to think - an entirely different style. But you said on numerous occations that Prog Metal doesn't seem to be like Metal either, so I guess we're not yet done here.
Prog Rock and Prog Metal are definitely related, but not as closely as some people think. Dream Theater are of course influenced by Yes - just listen to Surrounded from Images & Words. But that doesn't mean that they are like Yes. And Dream Theater are (heavily) influenced by Metallica, but they don't sound like them - only when you drill down to the "riff level".
|
Yes - I get what you're saying.
And I also deliberately left the word "Rock" from the term "Prog" above.
I'm not working on a definition of Metal at the moment, but suffice to say, I think the NWOBHM bands as a conglomerate sum it up very well indeed. I don't include post NWOBHM bands like the "Hair Metal" bands, although I very much include Judas Priest as a band that defines what Metal is (and are a major influence on Metallica, along with Budgie, Diamond Head, Killing Joke, Misfits et al).
The NWOBHM was largely progressive by default. Although a lot of these bands had hit singles, it has to be said that record companies weren't impressed by bands that didn't, so it is largely the non-single and early material that I'm concentrating on.
Bands like Angelwitch, Praying Mantis, Iron Maiden, Raven, Gillan and even bands like Motorhead, Saxon and Def Leppard actively progressed the music and created genre-defining sounds and riffs that weren't based on Judas Priest (with the exception of Def Leppard), and explored possibilities within the music that Rainbow had long ago given up on. "I Surrender", anyone?
Originality was the key here. Diamond Head were obviously (to my ears at least) the strongest and most original, but spectacular invention could also be heard in Ozzy Osbourne (at least, Randy Rhoades) and some European and American bands such as the Scorpions and Riot (respectively).
Metal is more than chugging riffs with a distorted guitar sound and widdley guitar solos. And, when done properly, it Rocks - so the Rock part is still very valid - if barely defined.
I'll revisit "Surrounded" - but must admit that the very first thing I noticed when I first heard Dream Theater - especially "Images and Words" were the Metallica riffs. No "drilling down" was needed - they jumped out at me as something blatantly obvious, and still do.
When you listen to the "Classics", nothing so obvious jumps out - ever (except in the case of Yes). Each band had a unique sound that they built upon and developed. In Yes's case, the Crosby, Stills and Nash style vocals still bug me to this day, and the Beatles' "influence" on their early albums is unmissable. Admittedly, the bass sound is to die for - but this is a different discussion.
Prog (large P, never mind the Rock part) is not a style and almost always feels spontaneous - as if the band are making the music up as they go along. The form is rarely standard song form, or if it is, it's hidden very well - or it's just a (usually bad) song...
Metal is more of a style, but it's still progressive by nature and feels largely spontaneous - although more stongly song-form based.
Progressive Metal (not sure of case) is, as you seem to agree, largely a style, and does not seem to be progressive or evolutionary by nature, but rather obsessed with the periphery in the music rather than in the main body of it - ie unusual time signatures, fast and complicated solos and riffs, passages of decoration between verses, choruses and bridges, etc. It almost never feels spontaneous as "Classic" prog does, but rather feels strongly calculated. Formally, it's rock song through and through, but with added bridge and coda passages.
I am not saying that any of this is a bad thing - but it does suggest, as you also seem to be saying, that Progressive Metal and Prog/Progressive Rock are not the same things at all - or even close relations; at least, not as closely related as Prog Rock (particularly Neo-Prog) and NWOBHM are.
Note that I am endeavouring to make these suggestions based on impartial observations, rather than biased judgements based on opinion
|
Superb post. Nice to see the NWOBHM mentioned in such detail and Riot; I recently bought 'Narita' remastered (alongside a very drab and dull album by a band called Coney Hatch on the same reissue label...) and the title track does have an element of prog to it I must admit...Also, Angelwitch's debut album and a song from 'Metal For Muthas' called 'Baphomet', plus a classic by Vardis called 'If I Were King' is quite a proggy track (although I had an album of theirs once which was dull, dull, dull...). Indeed, it's probably only Def Leppard who didn't really attempt at prog in some form, and I've always considered them to be the weakest NWOBHM band anyway. It's also true that most of the better metal bands (ie- no 'hair metal' bands...) have elements of prog somewhere imo; I used to think it was only me that saw the prog in bands like Iron Maiden and Judas Priest...this site has proved otherwise though.
As for Randy Rhoads and Ozzy? Well as far as I'm concerned Ozzy's career has never recovered since Randy died in terms of creativity- the first 2 'Blizzard Of Ozz' albums easily equalled Sabbath's best but nothing he's done since even approaches 'Born Again' for me in terms of enjoyment.
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: January 07 2006 at 18:00
Certif1ed wrote:
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
I didn't say that Prog Metal is Prog Rock combined with Metal. Essentially it is
(Prog Rock - Rock) + Metal
I hope you get what I'm trying to say here. Prog Metal really is - like you're beginning to think - an entirely different style. But you said on numerous occations that Prog Metal doesn't seem to be like Metal either, so I guess we're not yet done here.
Prog Rock and Prog Metal are definitely related, but not as closely as some people think. Dream Theater are of course influenced by Yes - just listen to Surrounded from Images & Words. But that doesn't mean that they are like Yes. And Dream Theater are (heavily) influenced by Metallica, but they don't sound like them - only when you drill down to the "riff level".
|
Yes - I get what you're saying.
And I also deliberately left the word "Rock" from the term "Prog" above.
I'm not working on a definition of Metal at the moment, but suffice to say, I think the NWOBHM bands as a conglomerate sum it up very well indeed. I don't include post NWOBHM bands like the "Hair Metal" bands, although I very much include Judas Priest as a band that defines what Metal is (and are a major influence on Metallica, along with Budgie, Diamond Head, Killing Joke, Misfits et al).
I'm with you here.
The NWOBHM was largely progressive by default. Although a lot of these bands had hit singles, it has to be said that record companies weren't impressed by bands that didn't, so it is largely the non-single and early material that I'm concentrating on.
Bands like Angelwitch, Praying Mantis, Iron Maiden, Raven, Gillan and even bands like Motorhead, Saxon and Def Leppard actively progressed the music and created genre-defining sounds and riffs that weren't based on Judas Priest (with the exception of Def Leppard), and explored possibilities within the music that Rainbow had long ago given up on. "I Surrender", anyone?
Originality was the key here. Diamond Head were obviously (to my ears at least) the strongest and most original, but spectacular invention could also be heard in Ozzy Osbourne (at least, Randy Rhoades) and some European and American bands such as the Scorpions and Riot (respectively).
I think that while what you are saying is true, it hasn't got much to do with Prog. Prog is not about originality or innovation. In fact, the most Prog bands of the 70s "draw their power" from classical music. Remember the article that I quoted in the other thread?
Metal is more than chugging riffs with a distorted guitar sound and widdley guitar solos. And, when done properly, it Rocks - so the Rock part is still very valid - if barely defined.
I have ALWAYS said that metal is more than distortion and solos. That is why I refuse to call bands like Deep Purple, Hendrix or Led Zeppelin metal, although they were often referred to as "Heavy Metal".
I'll revisit "Surrounded" - but must admit that the very first thing I noticed when I first heard Dream Theater - especially "Images and Words" were the Metallica riffs. No "drilling down" was needed - they jumped out at me as something blatantly obvious, and still do.
A whole bunch of bands (referred to as "bay area thrash") used those kind of riffs - I agree that many DT riffs are similar to certain Metallica riffs, but it's not like Metallica have the patent on those kind of riffs. Just like Ritchie Blackmore doesn't have the copyright on the harmonic minor scale, and Malmsteen doesn't have the patent on sweep picking. Either these things have been done before, or they aren't specific enough.
When you listen to the "Classics", nothing so obvious jumps out - ever (except in the case of Yes). Each band had a unique sound that they built upon and developed. In Yes's case, the Crosby, Stills and Nash style vocals still bug me to this day, and the Beatles' "influence" on their early albums is unmissable. Admittedly, the bass sound is to die for - but this is a different discussion.
I had listened to all the Metallica albums extensively and could play several songs note by note by the time I got into DT (S & D, Jump In The Fire, For Whom The Bell Tolls, Fade To Black, Ride the Lightning, Creeping Death, Call of Kthulu, Master of Puppets, Leper Messiah, Welcome Home (Sanitarium), The Thing That Should Not Be, Orion, Eye of the Beholder, One, Enter Sandman, Sad But True, The Unforgiven, Nothing Else Matters).
Yet when I got into Dream Theater (bought I & W when it was released and every other album ever since), these riffs never jumped at me like you describe. I can see what you mean, but I never listened to DT and thought "that's Metallica!". Not even in Pull Me Under, Take The Time or Learning to Live, which I also learned on the guitar.
Prog (large P, never mind the Rock part) is not a style and almost always feels spontaneous - as if the band are making the music up as they go along. The form is rarely standard song form, or if it is, it's hidden very well - or it's just a (usually bad) song...
I agree ... Prog is a quality of music which is independent of the style of the music. I think that it often, but not necessarily goes with innovation or originality. Prog for me is a combination of virtuosity and artistic ambition.
Metal is more of a style, but it's still progressive by nature and feels largely spontaneous - although more stongly song-form based
I think that there are two meanings for that word: 70s Metal (Heavy Metal) and 80s Metal (Modern Metal) with the NWOBHM in between. In the beginning it was not very innovative - just more distortion and virtuose solos. Then the songwriting got more and more different, culminating in bands like Metallica. After that bands went over the top with technicality and aggression, resulting in styles like Death Metal or Mathcore.
Progressive Metal (not sure of case) is, as you seem to agree, largely a style, and does not seem to be progressive or evolutionary by nature, but rather obsessed with the periphery in the music rather than in the main body of it - ie unusual time signatures, fast and complicated solos and riffs, passages of decoration between verses, choruses and bridges, etc. It almost never feels spontaneous as "Classic" prog does, but rather feels strongly calculated. Formally, it's rock song through and through, but with added bridge and coda passages.
Now this is the interesting part. Have a look at my chart at http://www.mikeenregalia.com/ProgMetal.html - http://www.mikeenregalia.com/ProgMetal.html ... there are as many facets of prog metal as with prog rock. Some of these styles (I'd rather not call them genres) are less prog, some more. Some emphasize simpler song structures and focus on virtuose solos and technicality, others don't care for virtuosity and focus on innovation and totally different structures.
I am not saying that any of this is a bad thing - but it does suggest, as you also seem to be saying, that Progressive Metal and Prog/Progressive Rock are not the same things at all - or even close relations; at least, not as closely related as Prog Rock (particularly Neo-Prog) and NWOBHM are.
I say that Prog Metal is related to Metal, and has Prog Rock influences - as a genre. Some bands are strongly related to Prog Rock bands, some not at all. There are even some bands which I would neither call Prog nor progressive, but which have been called "prog metal" for at least a decade, so we're stuck with them.
Note that I am endeavouring to make these suggestions based on impartial observations, rather than biased judgements based on opinion
Me too ... and it's really difficult.
|
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa/aoty-2024/vote" rel="nofollow - 2024 Release Poll
Listened to:
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: January 07 2006 at 19:32
Yet again this is splitting into all kinds of (off-topic) strands - I'd like to address all of those points individually, but the end result would be a huge multi-coloured affair that no-one else would even want to read.
I'll pull out one or two salient points and leave it at that - each could constitute a new discussion (non "Dragon Rock" related... ).
1) The whole spontaneous feel of some NWOBHM music had plenty to do with Prog Rock. In the best cases, song structure could easily be lost, and textural, rhythmic and melodic development was common. "Classical" quotations and pretensions were often heard, and Ronnie James Dio (among others) was famous for his operatic voice. The two genres have more in common than most progholes would like to admit - although no NWOBHM band ever made a bona fide Prog Rock album TTBOMK.
2) Using material that sounds like another band might have written it is uncommon among Prog Rock bands - almost unheard of in the Classics - it is is distinguising feature. There's no need to rush to DT's defence so hurriedly .
I have played almost every Metallica song with Tranceplant (my old band) - and we used to cover the other "Bay Area" bands, including Megadeth, Slayer, Anthrax and Sacred Reich to help people get into the wierd stuff we were playing. DT used Metallica riffs in almost the same way Queensryche used Judas Priest and Iron Maiden riffs - except that I could tell exactly which riff was being used by DT (see my reviews). It doesn't matter who has a patent on what - if someone tried to pass off "Smoke on the Water" as their own riff, there would be an outcry from Deep Purple fans, just as Queen fans hated Vanilla Ice in the 1990s. Using a technique such as sweep-picking (which Malmsteen did not invent) or thrasing (which Metallica did not invent) is one thing, using actual riffs written by another band is just lazy and not progressive.
When I first heard Dream Theater (I forget which song), all I could think of was "Sanitarium" by Metallica (a song Metallica borrowed heavily for - but from an unheard of band called Bleak House; the song was called Rainbow Warrior - and Metallica did it better). So we've obviously had different experiences - but I can't be the only person to hear the similarities in the riffs, because they are most definitely there.
3) NWOBHM crosses the 1970s and 1980s - it was more "active" in the 1980s, but the really progressive stuff (apart from Diamond Head's) is the earlier material, not the 1980s stuff. I think that Black Sabbath's "Heaven and Hell" is the boundary LP - the real progressor, followed by Diamond Head's entire output - but Judas Priest were there first in everything except production quality and exection precision. "Exciter", on "Stained Class" is the first thrash track I can identify, followed by "I Don't Know" by Ozzy Osbourne on "Blizzard of Oz". NWOBM didn't culminate in Metallica/thrash, it was being killed off by over-commercialism and the underground didn't like it. Thrash divided the "men from the boys" in terms of metal. Many NWOBHMers gave up on metal there and then. Those into thrash got caught up in the whole "mine is bigger than yours" aspect of it all - everything had to be faster, more technical and whatever - although it didn't really get more technical; that's just an illusion. As I said; Metal as a genre is progressive by default. This is largely due to its competitive nature.
4) Prog Rock does not have Prog Rock influences. It just is Prog Rock. Most metal (excluding "Pop" or "Nu" metal) and much hard/heavy rock has Prog Rock influences.
Maybe we need 2 sites here...?
Just a thought.
|
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: January 08 2006 at 06:47
If Triumph is in, Rainbow would/should have a shot at it too. The Dio days were great and might be prog-related!
However if they are in , as someone said, the door is then open for Dio, Sabbath etc.... until Judas Priest
------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword
|
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: January 08 2006 at 11:44
"Prog Archives, where you'll find progressive rock, plus all the other diverse musical forms that progressive rock fans listen to, as well as Dream Theater, and all the other stuff that Dream Theater fans enjoy."
Whatever. Bring 'em all in -- its inevitable.
Progrophenia: beauty and grandeur meet "death growls" and machine-gun riffing....
------------- "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy.
|
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: January 08 2006 at 12:05
Certif1ed wrote:
Maybe we need 2 sites here...?
Just a thought.
|
Wow,now that is maybe something to think about for the future.....As the Prog-Metal database grows maybe we could have two archives:ProgArchives and Prog-Metal Archives. This sounds drastic and devisive but ultimately it could be a good idea and would broaden our appeal even further. It could well be that Prog-Metal has more general appeal than stuffy old Prog Rock.Maybe we could corner the market/readership on this?
Imagine clicking on progArchives and being presented with two options Prog Archives or Prog Metal Archives-both with their own front pages and presented reviews but sharing a common forum...
Anyone any thoughts?
Just thinking out loud really,not wishing to alienate our highly-regarded PM stalwarts.
|
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: January 08 2006 at 12:33
Tony R wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
Maybe we need 2 sites here...?
Just a thought.
|
Wow,now that is maybe something to think about for the future.....As the Prog-Metal database grows maybe we could have two archives:ProgArchives and Prog-Metal Archives. This sounds drastic and devisive but ultimately it could be a good idea and would broaden our appeal even further. It could well be that Prog-Metal has more general appeal than stuffy old Prog Rock.Maybe we could corner the market/readership on this?
Imagine clicking on progArchives and being presented with two options Prog Archives or Prog Metal Archives-both with their own front pages and presented reviews but sharing a common forum...
Anyone any thoughts?
Just thinking out loud really,not wishing to alienate our highly-regarded PM stalwarts.
|
Well, not wishing to appear too "elitist," or to ruffle any metallic feathers, as it were, but I believe that yes, you may as well formalize the division along two main lines (old school prog, vs modern metal with keyboards) that is already here, in the music, and two main fan demographics.
On the "old" side, we can discuss mellotrons, grammar, philosophy and Viagra, and on the "young" side death growls, mean teachers, haircuts and pimple cream....
Let the bitter rancour, righteous indignation and name-calling commence -- gentlefolk, start your egos!
------------- "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy.
|
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: January 08 2006 at 13:45
Hmm... silence.
You need a new thread with a clearer title here, Mr Moderator!
------------- "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy.
|
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: January 08 2006 at 14:08
Not yet...............
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: January 08 2006 at 15:52
Peter wrote:
Well, not wishing to appear too "elitist," or to ruffle any metallic feathers, as it were, but I believe that yes, you may as well formalize the division along two main lines (old school prog, vs modern metal with keyboards) that is already here, in the music, and two main fan demographics.
On the "old" side, we can discuss mellotrons, grammar, philosophy and Viagra, and on the "young" side death growls, mean teachers, haircuts and pimple cream....
Let the bitter rancour, righteous indignation and name-calling commence -- gentlefolk, start your egos!
|
I don't think that it's elitist at all, Peter - it seems to make common sense to me.
Prog Rock and Prog Metal are related, and should not be completely separated because fans of one are often fans of the other, and there are musical links.
However, it's becoming clearer and clearer to me as I listen to more and more Prog Metal, that the two forms of music are very different, both in terms of musical attributes and the politics of the two fan bases - as you point out.
Therefore, rather than put people off from one side or another, why not make this site even more welcoming to both - hopefully encouraging interest on both sides, not so much splitting the site, as the way the site is accessed.
I think that this could be a way to achieve that - Tony's suggestion, particularly, has a lot going for it.
|
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: January 08 2006 at 17:08
Certif1ed wrote:
Peter wrote:
Well, not wishing to appear too "elitist," or to ruffle any metallic feathers, as it were, but I believe that yes, you may as well formalize the division along two main lines (old school prog, vs modern metal with keyboards) that is already here, in the music, and two main fan demographics.
On the "old" side, we can discuss mellotrons, grammar, philosophy and Viagra, and on the "young" side death growls, mean teachers, haircuts and pimple cream....
Let the bitter rancour, righteous indignation and name-calling commence -- gentlefolk, start your egos!
|
I don't think that it's elitist at all, Peter - it seems to make common sense to me.
Prog Rock and Prog Metal are related, and should not be completely separated because fans of one are often fans of the other, and there are musical links.
However, it's becoming clearer and clearer to me as I listen to more and more Prog Metal, that the two forms of music are very different, both in terms of musical attributes and the politics of the two fan bases - as you point out.
Therefore, rather than put people off from one side or another, why not make this site even more welcoming to both - hopefully encouraging interest on both sides, not so much splitting the site, as the way the site is accessed.
I think that this could be a way to achieve that - Tony's suggestion, particularly, has a lot going for it.
|
Yes, in all seriousness, I genuinely believe such a "re-arrangment" could be good for all.
BTW, Certo, thanks for your kind words of support during my recent "troubles."
They were much appreciated, I assure you!
P.
------------- "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy.
|
|