When you browse for definitions of Progressive Metal on the Internet, there is a veritable bombardment of differing opinions – not one actually answers the question – but some things remain constant. These are the most critical aspects of the genre, most sites would have you believe - and these are also the very things that lead to confusion when exploring the genre.

Firstly, it is very common to come across references to blending Progressive Rock with Heavy Metal, giving the newcomer the impression that what they are going to hear is a Metallised version of Prog Rock.

Prog Metal exhibits many of the trademarks of Prog Rock ... let's use the time signature change / odd time signature as an obvious example. Now, you might want to scream "foul play!", since for you this might be a superficial element of music, hardly worth to even mention. But to many people it's something which immediately signals "Prog" when heard in a Rock/Metal/Pop context.

BTW: I don't think that Prog Metal is a "Metallised version of Prog Rock". I think it's a completely different kind of music. It's an offspring and obviously related to Prog Rock, but it's not like it's just Prog Rock with heavier guitars. "Heavy Prog" would be a more appropriate label for those bands, and indeed such a genre was created a while ago during the Art Rock split.

This is almost never the case, however, and certainly not the case with the bands most often named as defining the genre. A statement like "Blending Progressive Rock with Heavy Metal" in itself shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what makes Progressive Rock tick, when you compare defining bands of the two genres, such as Genesis and Dream Theater. Such a statement positively invites such a comparison, as ridiculous as the comparison itself may seem - which points out the fundamental flaw in the statement itself. What is happening is not a blending, rather it is a simple acquisition of some of the basic elements.

Which Progressive Rock band do Queensryche or Dream Theater remind you of?

None. Which is a good thing, since - as I mentioned above - the genres are not that closely related. There are however moments when you can hear the influences quite well. An obvious example would be Dream Theater's epic "Octavarium", which is clearly influenced by Pink Floyd. I know that this doesn't count for you and you'd probably say that they only "aquired the basic elements" - but who's to say which elements matter and which don't?

Now think of another Prog Metal band – which Progressive Rock act are they similar to?

I could mention numerous examples here - but they'd probably all be too basic for you to accept. I'm beginning to see a general pattern here ... whe might be on to something.

A fair point, on the surface, but one would really expect a few similarities to leap out, rather than have them pointed out to you (and often, still be none the wiser).

Here is where our friend will reel off a list of elements that bear a superficial resemblance, such as time signatures, complex structures and virtuosic musicianship - which vaguaries are trotted out without any substatiation on an all-too frequent basis.

Isn't this your own subjective opinion ... who are you to say that all these elements are superficial, and only your criteria are valid? Let's keep in mind that by these standards many Prog Rock bands would also lose their prog status. Wouldn't it make more sense to simply say that Dream Theater is much less progressive than Genesis? That would be a statement which I might agree to.

A few things immediately stand out as being fatally flawed with these lists.

1. Going back to elements Part I. This is wrong, because, when you listen to Progressive Rock, you are not listening to the elements, but to freshness in the music – something undefinable that marks the band out as being somehow above and beyond “popular” or “standard” bands. Undoubtedly, there are elements you can pick out – but with Progressive music generally, you would expect there to be a rush (sic) of them, with these elements being atomic to the music rather than incidental building blocks.
   Different people have different expectations. Note also that you use the word "undefinable" ... I thought that it was all so well defined and obvious to you?
   
2. Going back to elements part II. The other problem with picking out elements is that you can do that with any band that has used these elements – “Golden Brown” by The Stranglers, for example, is in 13/4 in some parts, and “Bat out of Hell” is not only long, in its original album form, but has a complex structure almost worthy of a Classical composer, and features virtuosic musicians such as Todd Rundgren in its line-up, using “experimental” guitar techniques (to produce the motorbike engine effect, for example) – yet is not considered Prog. Also consider that most of these “Prog Elements” can be found in the Heavy Metal, Hard Rock, Psychedelic Rock - indeed, any Rock band of your choice (with the possible exception of Motley Crue) – and before that, back into the mists of Rock and Roll itself. Listen to the Prog Elements in Del Shannon's work if you don't believe me, the interpretation of Tchaikovsky in "Nutrocker" by B. Bumble and the Stingers, or the use of Classical music as the background arrangement to some of Elvis Presley's songs (e.g. "Wooden Heart"). Elements are, well, elemental, and should never be used as a yardstick by themselves. It’s how these elements are fused together to make the new sounds of a music that sounds distinctly new that’s important. As a good example, try finding a metal album that sounds anything like Metallica’s “Ride the Lightning” prior to 1984. Almost nowhere in metal music will you hear the same attention to detail in the structuring, precision in the riffing and attention to detail in the arrangement, solos and production, and almost nowhere will you hear the same amount of development of ideas, motivic re-use and overall coherency in composition, not to mention variety of ideas on a single album (even if they aren’t all Metallica’s – but that’s a different discussion!). And that's before taking into account their new and innovative usage of the Thrash technique. OK, maybe Megadeth – but you have to admit, their music of the time does sound somewhat archaic in comparison to Metallica's, and the compositions themselves are more rudimentary, despite the relative complexity and quantity of the riffs.
   Now this is something I agree to whole heartedly. But I fail to see the relevance in regard to Prog Metal. If the point is that something isn't prog just because it features one basic element - then there's no problem because most prog metal bands/albums feature half a dozen of these elements. Of course this isn't a mathematical decision ... but listening to a track like Dream Theater's Pull Me Under (which isn't their most progressive track by any means) I don't have any doubt that what I hear is "Prog".
   
3. Complex is relative. Intro/verse/chorus, etc. is the backbone of the pop music industry, and widely derided as not complex – and indeed, it is not. Yet most Progressive Metal bands use exactly this structure - although they may elongate it by adding different sections to the bridge (instrumental), in exactly the same way that Deep Purple and Metallica did (as two off-the-cuff examples), rather than get truly experimental or complex in structure as, for example, “On Reflection” by Gentle Giant or “The Musical Box” by Genesis, both of which are complex song compositions where the role of verse and chorus are almost completely mixed up or even blurred. Both pale into insignificance besides Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring", of course.
   Please keep in mind that most Prog Rock tracks are also adhering to this basic principle. Like I pointed out above: You can't use the pinnacle, the holy grail of Prog Rock composition as a benchmark for Prog Metal. Well, of course you *can*, but it doesn't make much sense IMHO.
   
4. Virtuosity is ill-defined and a bad yardstick. To me, Mozart, Paganini and Steve Vai were/are virtuosos, while Tony Iommi simply has some great licks. Call me harsh, but that’s the way I see it. Virtuosity, to me, combines extreme technical skills (and extreme is the key word here, as a differentiator from the huge number of Malmsteen-inspired shredders in the world today – and "extreme" doesn’t simply apply to playing techniques, which are just the showy fireworks, but more to the compostional skills – ie, it ain’t what you’ve got, it’s what you do with it), with a superlative musical approach. Now here’s where I get into trouble – how to substantiate “superlative musical approach” – it’s just something you feel, right? Not exactly – you could, under duress, break it down and see which musical rules are being used and which smashed to ribbons, if you had a week or two spare – but ultimately, if someone’s doing scale practice over 2 chords, it ain’t hard to spot, and it’s not compositionally impressive either. You don’t hear Steve Hackett putting in finger-bleeding solos, and they wouldn’t be right for his music – yet both his solo material and his work with Genesis is at the pinnacle of 1970s Prog Rock, and his style and techniques were innovative – legend has it that he’s the first guitarist to use the 2-hand finger tapping technique so beloved by Eddie Van Halen. So virtuosity in performance and playing technique is not particularly important to Prog in general – it’s about virtuosity in the composition of the music, and producing something genuinely new, which is altogether harder.
   Virtuosity is - to me - one of the main "ingredients" of Prog Metal which makes up for the lack of spontaneity and "freshness" (as you put it above). Of course I'm well aware that this doesn't work for all people ... but it doesn't have to. You don't have to like Prog Metal, just like you don't have to like styles which are extreme in other ways.
   

So what makes Progressive Metal progressive?

What makes Progressive Rock progressive? You still haven't answered that question to begin with ... at least not in a way which could be accepted by everyone. Most people cannot analyze music the way you do, so what makes you believe that they would adopt your definitions? People like philippe would probably not even accept Genesis as a progressive band ... it's all relative and subjective.

Again, if you browse among the many definitions available (BTW, the ones here at ProgArchives are among (if not) the most flimsy in terms of actual content and vague in terms of actual definition - shying away from it completely), you’ll note that it “brings something new to the table”, “It takes all the predictability and throws it out the window”, as one site puts it.

A couple of paragraphs earlier you dared us prog metal fans to name some prog metal bands which remind of prog rock bands, and now you're "almost invariably" reminded of them when you listen to prog metal? What's it going to be?
 

Another site puts this differently; “Progressive music implies constant change” – and yet this rarely happens in most Prog Metal. You get a succession of riffs, like you do in any other form of metal, predictable song structures – maybe mathematically modified, but with little or no sense of development in melody, harmony, form, rhythm or timbre – which are the 5 basic building blocks of music. There aren't any others, trust me - unless you go down to an atomic level, in which case they are infinite.

Not all Prog (Rock or Metal) is "progressive music" ... I thought we had sorted that out a few dozen threads ago.

 

Instead, there is a preponderance on making one or other of these basic blocks as technically littered as possible – an idea that certainly took shape during the NWoBHM and later Thrash movements (just listen to the debut by Praying Mantis, “Time Tells no Lies” and Metallica’s “Ride the Lightning” for example, although both escape the “building block litter” problem), and is fundamentally inherent in the music of, say Queensryche and Dream Theater – while the fundamental mission statement of Prog Metal is actually overlooked in favour of these elements.

I agree that this "technical littering" does happen in prog metal. Sometimes bands seem to try to introduce technical complexity which does not add anything to the substance of the music. But whether that's the case or not is again a subjective matter.

 

As an occasional writer of music, I have to admit to using this style, as it’s a far easier and straightforward compositional method, and provides flashy results with very little artistic effort.

 

And why not indeed ... most listeners won't be able to tell the difference. You may place form above all other criteria ... I don't. For me the ultimate criterium is whether the music appeals to me on a personal, emotional level ... and few bands achieve that, regardless of genre. The second movement of Dvorak's 9th Symphony appeals to me very much, as do Kevin Gilbert's - The Shaming of the True, Dream Theater - Learning to Live, Genesis - Cinema Show and Karrin Allyson's renditions of John Coltrane ballads.

Music is judged on an emotional level ... it's as simple as that.

Even if we compare newer Prog Metal bands with the defining ones (Dream Theater are commonly cited in this respect), we do not actually find progressiveness or progression. For example, while some bands and guitarists have trumped Petrucci with soloing speed, Petrucci himself has yet to write music of a complexity comparable to the likes of Gentle Giant, Magma or King Crimson, instead, preferring the old elongated standard song technique. Very few, if any Prog Metal bands have come close to those giddying heights of compositional complexity and virtuosity.

Since you keep repeating yourself, I will too: Most Prog Rock bands also fail to achieve these giddying heights. But there are some Prog Metal artists which - IMO - come very close ... in the next weeks I'll introduce more sub ratings at Ratingfreak.com which I'll use to mark these albums in my collection ... then I can post them here for you to tear them to pieces.

 

To date, the only Metal band I’ve heard approach these luminaries on their own terms is Spastic Ink, who seem to get the whole improv+composition thing that made Classic Prog Rock the great body of music it is. Interestingly, they sound like a Metal band, not a Classic Prog Rock band, and yet the music is undoubtedly progressive (one could even get into the whole "elements" thing and be delighted at the sudden rush of bits and pieces that jump out then go down the "virtuosic" or "complex" routes and again find themselves in a goldmine) – even the most die-hard ProgHead would be hard pushed to disagree, as the music itself speaks the language of Metal with an almost overwhelming dialect of Prog. But they seem to stand alone.

 

Or do they?


Not at all. You could listen to Blotted Science (also a Ron Jarzombek project) or the Art Metal album by Jonas Hellborg, Mattias IA Eklundh et al.. Like I said above: I'll compile a more lengthy list and post it here when it's finished. One sub rating I'm planning to introduce is "Substance". I was inspired by a record label named "Recordings of Substance" and I think that this is one of the criteria it all boils down to: How much substance is in the music ... and how much of it has been "artificially inflated" by clever composition techniques.

 

The question remains; What makes Progressive Metal progressive?

 

Or, put another way, Define Progressive Metal, if you can...

I'll try to improve the definitions on the website, but I think that there can't be a definitive answer to this question, and neither can Prog Rock be defined properly and beyond all doubts and disagreements. All we can do is to post comments like those in this thread, so that they might be of help for the interested reader to answer these questions - and make the definitions - for themselves.

A few things immediately stand out as being fatally flawed with these lists.

1. Going back to elements Part I. This is wrong, because, when you listen to Progressive Rock, you are not listening to the elements, but to freshness in the music – something undefinable that marks the band out as being somehow above and beyond “popular” or “standard” bands. Undoubtedly, there are elements you can pick out – but with Progressive music generally, you would expect there to be a rush (sic) of them, with these elements being atomic to the music rather than incidental building blocks.
2. Going back to elements part II. The other problem with picking out elements is that you can do that with any band that has used these elements – “Golden Brown” by The Stranglers, for example, is in 13/4 in some parts, and “Bat out of Hell” is not only long, in its original album form, but has a complex structure almost worthy of a Classical composer, and features virtuosic musicians such as Todd Rundgren in its line-up, using “experimental” guitar techniques (to produce the motorbike engine effect, for example) – yet is not considered Prog.
   The Stranglers are not considered to be prog by most (most people file them under "Punk"), but certainly by Jean and me. Not only do they use such odd riffs as you mentioned, they use real polyphony too. Now if that is not a true mark of progressive rock (it is a technique most progressive bands don't even master) then what is? "Black and White", for example, is a full-fledged prog album. If you don't believe it, listen to it again with open ears and without any prejudices. The "Punk" sticker was just put on them for commercial reasons.
   
3. Complex is relative. Intro/verse/chorus, etc. is the backbone of the pop music industry, and widely derided as not complex – and indeed, it is not.
   Yet 90% of prog rock consist of the same formula.
   

A Prog Icon gave us the perfect definition of Prog:

What is progressive rock ? "It is music that does progress. It takes an idea and developes it, rather than just repeat it. Pop songs are about repetition and riffs and simplicity. Progressive music takes a riff, turns it inside out, plays it upside down and the other way around, and explores its potential." Keith Emerson

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: A Prog Icon gave us the perfect definition of Prog:   What is progressive rock ? "It is music that does progress. It takes an idea and developes it, rather than just repeat it. Pop songs are about repetition and riffs and simplicity. Progressive music takes a riff, turns it inside out, plays it upside down and the other way around, and explores its potential." Keith Emerson   Apply this to Prog Metal, and you will get an easy answer.   Iván

1. Development of the work
2. Not linear (As you know better than I do, Pop has mainly an AbAb structure, maybe with a short intro even when normaly POP stats with the chorus directly, sometimes an instrumental break that foolws the verse or the Chorus and other times a coda (Normally not the last one), and that's all, the idea of Prog is exploring and expanding this structires.

But as you know even in Orchestal Instrumental Music (Hate the generic term Classical, it's not accirate) nothing is perfect, take a look at the Romantic era and then check the Russian Nationalist Miobvement, it's chronologically Romantic, as a fact the Nationalisyt Mvement is considered Romantic, but lately it's been called Pos Romantic and some even call it early Modern, because they broke with the solid structures of French Romanticism.