I think that the biggest problem here is that we keep trying to define prog-metal in prog-rock terms. I have finally came to the conclusion that progressive-metal and progressive-rock are two separate entities with different intrinsic elements, even if they share some external ones (i'll define this later) and what really binds them together is, in my view, something extra-musical: the approach each genre has towards regularly-simpler music, rock in one case, metal in the other.

 

As Certf1ed has said 938729387 times before, and I agree, prog-rock was not really about odd times and unusual instruments but about freedom of form and constant experimentation/progression, and also about the combining of rock with more thematically-complex classical music.

 

Metal, "regular" metal to call it that way, is, in essence, simple riff-based music where riffs take center stage and distorsion and (sometimes) speed add to the mix (of course with different techniques). What we call progressive-metal is exactly that: still progressive-metal. It has to be seen under a different light: the light of metal.

 

And in that way the genre will appear in its own glory. Compared with 70's prog-rock, is thematically and harmonically much weaker (one can't do the same with a free harmonic open world as with a strict, rigid riff which is the building block of most metal music). But such a comparison is ABSURD.  Have you ever read people reacting like crazy when they see any genre (name it: punk, pop, etc) compared to prog in disfavorable terms? What's the usual answer? "They are two different things made with different purposes aimed towards different people. Well, that same reply we can also use for prog-metal. It's a different world, governed by different rules, for other people. IT JUST HAPPENS TO SHARE THE SAME NAME BECAUSE OF MINOR EXTERNAL ELEMENTS AND, MOSTLY, BECAUSE THE APPROACH TOWARDS MUSIC IS MORE ARTISTIC AND LESS COMMERCIAL.  

 

Really. Where was the last time you heard a prog-metal band doing a true symphonic song? I mean symphonic as in thematically-developed (let's agree on this poor and simple definition please), not, as many people do, symphonic as in with a symphonic orchestra in the background. (PLEASE: EXCEPTIONS TO THIS ARE PRECISELY THAT, EXCEPTIONS). Well..... I'm still waiting for that answer. When was the last time a prog-metal band's sound really sounded like it was influenced by YES, GENESIS or KING CRIMSON? "Oh, Tool sounds like Crimson!" some will say... really? I'd say CRIMSON actually metallized their music and that's why Tool somewhat reminds people of that band. Another argument: " Opeth and Riverside, among many others, sound like PINK FLOYD". Again, that doesn't help. What they emulate is the psychedelic/spacey sound of said legendary band, which wasn't even pure-prog-rock in 70's terms. "Oh, Portnoy said they are influenced by YES AND GENESIS". Oh yes? Well, DT for sure heard YES and GENESIS, they probably emulate their approach to music, and sometimes they actually emulate their style (like "A Change of Seasons"), but first and foremost the main influence in the music is METAL. The music is still METAL at its core. It hasn't been derived from classical music or jazz or anything. It's just A PROGRESSIVE FORM OF METAL.

 

So what is this progressive-metal that I love and think i finally understand? Well, riff based music with distortion and (sometimes) speed, with different techniques, but... enhanced. Made more "artistic". Unlike the direct, violent, immediate approach of regular "commercial" metal bands, prog-metal bands dare to make music that is more "complex" with much longer songs (not a prog-metal's exclusivity) , displays of technical prowess (not a prog-metal's exclusivity), odd-time signatures and sudden tempo changes (not a prog-metal's exclusivity), and unusual instruments (not a prog-metal's exclusivity). All of these you can also find in more regular metal bands. But the main factor that divides one of the other is, in my view,  that while in regular metal those elements are few, far between, and just little ornaments in songs, in prog-metal they are essential, happen regularly, and used mostly for artistic purposes. Unlike prog-rock where form was free for artists to explore, in prog-metal, the freedom the artists have is that of escaping the prison that a riff-based verse-chorus-verse structure constitutes by doing, in simple terms, whatever they want. I know it sounds poor and it would ultimately mean that a band playing chaotic music is also prog-metal. Well, that's quite true. Think of prog-metal as a metal of EXCESS. Blissful, glorious excess for me. But in general, that's what it is. What other artists like Testament say in two minutes with one 15-second solo and two riff changes and a single tempo, Dream Theater says in 10 minutes, with two 2-minute instrumental sections, with 12 riffs, 4 tempo changes, three different meters, and adding lush keyboards and very technical bass-playing with complex harmonies to the mix. While Testament's bassist plays root notes till exhaustion, Myung plays impossible scales and jazzy figures that dazzle the listener. BUT BOTH ARE SAYING, IN ESSENCE, THE SAME DAMN THING.

 

And thus is how I came to realize that prog-metal is not just a secondary, second-grade version, poor-man's edition of prog-rock. Prog metal can be seen in all its glory precisely as that: as PROGRESSIVE-METAL.  And thus, also, the comparisons end and are balanced: you can't compare the thematic depth of prog-rock with that of prog-metal, but why would you? Would you compare jazz with punk? New-age with blues? I could also say "prog-rock has none of the power that prog-metal has". Why would it? In my view, both are equally capable of deep emotions. YOU JUST HAVE TO FEEL IT IN YOU. If you love metal and see what metal is, you''ll find treasures most non-metal fans will miss. Please, apply the same logic that you apply to other genres when you compare prog-metal with prog-rock. PROG-ROCK IS A PROGRESSIVE FORM OF ROCK. PROG METAL IS A PROGRESSIVE FORM OF METAL. And, especially since METALLICA, rock and metal have been separated so much that they don't even seem to have come from the same father. Actually, they don't. Probably both were born off blues and then rock n' roll. But prog-rock and prog-metal have different fathers. For one, people mention The Beatles, Moody Blues, and, mostly, KING CRIMSON, YES, GENESIS and all the rest. For the other, you can pretty much go back to PURPLE, ZEPPELIN and, of course, the riff-factory called BLACK SABBATH. Then IRON MAIDEN added some elements to the mix, but unlike many people think, more in the external (longer songs, soloing, virtuosism, flashy bass harmonies) than in the internal (thematic development). In all of these cases, metal was still metal. Faster, more virtiosic, more melodic, more "orchestral", but still metal, with some remaining blues in its genes. The real father, in my view, was the band that actually killed the rock/blues part and truly created pure progressive METAL, pure METAL "progressed": the one that, quite adequately, is named after the genre, in the most honest and precise manifestation of principles ever conceived in a band's name. Posterior changes in the band's music and quality, -though that is subjective- don't alter the fact that, for 4 albums, METALLICA really "progressed" METAL , not rock, but METAL. Certf1ed open my eyes to the fact that, really, even "Kill 'Em All" contains a radical new approach where riffs were used, not a chain at a time, but one single one, explored, analyzed, developed. Check the album with open ears and you'll detect it. No question, of course, exists about the other three albums, where all the foundations of what would become DREAM THEATER, FATES WARNING and the rest were created.

 

Basically, prog-metal giants (the equivalent to YES and GENESIS) like DREAM THEATER and FATES WARNING drunk from three fountains, in my opinion: just a little sip from the prog-rock fountain, mostly in its artistic approach towards simple music, and also in their love for musical "excess" (Oh Ye Glorious Excess!!). A larger sip from the school of Iron Maiden and Judas Priest (mostly for technical elements), and the largest one, the definitive one, from the 4 albums that METALLICA released in the 80's. Of other bands usually mentioned like QUEENSRYCHE they mostly copied the decision, the brave idea of creating conceptual music in metal terms.

 

That's why, in my view, a prog-rock website does NOT need Metallica, for example (and this thread/blog/rant/whatever is NOT about that subject, I bring this up because it's just necessary to explain my opinion), and it would be ultimately incoherent to have such an artist in a pure prog-rock site. On the other hand, a progressive-METAL website excluding said band would be like a prog-rock website excluding King Crimson. I don't care what band members say about their music. We HEAR music and WE are here to judge and give opinions, aren't we? And this is what I hear.

 

So, my point is, if this is a website mostly about progressive music, then prog-rock and prog-metal can co-exist. BUT EACH GENRE IS DEFINED IN ITS OWN TERMS. (in my view, prog-metal CAN be defined for its elements). In a prog-rock website, the only way we can understand metal's inclusion is as a side-effect, illegitimate-son of rock, a b*****d child that lived in a different world in a different culture and learned different things. And that's deep inside, what many prog-rock purists feel in their hearts. I understand you. It's logical. We're two different things.

 

 

Should we, then, define prog-metal again? I think that it's necessary. A separate entity that shares the artistic approach of prog and some external elements but that is intrinsically different than prog. A genre that has its own artistic values, and that, when understood, can be as glorious and expressive as progressive-rock.

 

It's just a different thing.  

 

 

Quite a good point you raise. The thing is, the genre WILL be defined (because the site needs a defintion). There's is a definition already, one that is very valuable in my opinion. I would say is, this definition I talk about is mostly for US, as many people (also someplace else in this forum) are discussin the nature of this website because some people see it as a "metal-oriented" prog-website. I say, we have to understand the genre before judging it and jumping into conclusions. Also, there's a proposal about a new definition for the genre and I write this mostly for that thread. But I realized I wanted to say this to everybody, so I created this one.

 

 

With the notion that Progressive artists will progress (even if that is not what the term has come to mean in the Popular Music sense) then the definitions will change over time, or we have to create even more subcategories and tags (which is not a good thing in my estimation).

 

[/ostracism]

 

Progressive rock=overblown pomp

Progressive Metal= Overblowner Pompiness

 

Of course, I would have it no other way as I love them both.

 

Actually, just having a bit of fun. Good Write T.

 

 

 

akin wrote: For example, I never said that bands clone older music, otherwise all the bands would be sued for plagiarism and music would end. However there is no new approach to music, since the late sixties. They fused rock with everything that was possible. It is not a matter of considering, for example, Nu Metal a new genre and saying that nobody did Prog Nu Metal in the late sixties. It is considering that rock eliminated all the "genre purity" and everything blended with rock is considered rock, so nothing new, just new melodies and harmonies.

 

akin wrote: As for Metallica, they use the same approach as other heavy metal bands. Just because the tone of  the guitar distortion and singing changed, it isn't true that they do something different to power chord riffs, solos and changes in tempo of the riff. Have you ever heard, let's say, Rush? If every kind of song structure was used in rock before, event free-form structures, common just to avant-garde music, why Metallica song structures were something new? They just created their own melodies and harmonies, which is what we expect from every musician, but unfortunately it doesn't happen so often as it should.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And, by the way, history is written when it is happening. When anyone thinks he is knowledegable enough to call not-progressive bands that were called progressive at their time and call progressive bands that were not called progressive at their time, it is clear that you are trying to redefine the meaning of progressive, but for people who learned the term by other sources will disagree with the new meaning.

 

 

 

Anyway, the obsession with a "magic term" to define everything the site has is similar to the obsession of the alchemists to find a formula to turn other metals in gold. As I said before, it is easier to admit that the site covers much more than prog rock and state this. Then, the prog rock fans wouldn't be pissed off because the site states clearly that are other things in the site, like jazz-rock/fusion, progressive metal, modern experimental, etc. The genres are somewhat related, but their are not the same thing and it is useless to try to call everything 'apple' if, for many people, some of the 'apples' are 'oranges'.

Of course, but some attempt at definition is better than no definition, which opens the door to the whole fruit basket - and probably a ton of vegetables too.

[/QUOTE]

An interesting and very dense group of questions...

 

debrewguy wrote: If Jazz Fusion is a mix of Jazz & Rock, should JF be considered prog ?   That depends on how close to Prog it gets. If it's clearly just a jazz/rock fusion, then probably not. If the goal is to create something different through that fusion, then we're closer. If the music itself progresses such that we forget we're listening to a fusion of jazz and rock, and develops in interesting ways, then that's probably Prog (or related). Mahavishnu's "Inner Mounting Flame" is a good example, of a fusion album that's close to Prog, if you can ignore the widdly guitar. If Krautrock was influenced by Psychedelia and politics and drugs, where is the prog element.   Depends on the Krautrock album in question... Not all Krautrock stems from psychedelia (e.g. Can, Faust), some strays into heavy metal territory (The Scorpions, Necronomicon, Eloy), and many show a deep Pink Floyd influence. Floyd, despite being deeply psychedelic, rarely if ever played music that bears any resemblance to "straightforward" psychedelia. If psychedelic influences are sufficient for "progginess", should all psychedelic bands (mostly from the 60s) be considered prog and have their own sub genre here at PA ?   Not all of them, but Psych Rock is undoubtedly the breeding ground from which Prog Rock arose, so there is a very clear link, and many Psych bands were part of the "Progressive Music" scene - so there is a clear case for adding progressive Psych bands. We already have Hapshash and the Coloured Coat (who weren't even a proper band!), and there are many other deserving cases. If progressive electronic includes many groups that would now be called "new age" or "ambient" in today's media subdivision of music, should modern "new age" and "ambient" groups have the door opened to them ?   There are many who think they should, and I find it hard to disagree. The Orb, for example, have clear Prog links, in the Pink Floyd samples they used, and Steve Hillage behind the production knobs, IIRC. It's not just New Age or Ambient that should be considered, if you pursue this avenue, but so-called "Intelligent" and "Progressive" dance music too, as the differences are very blurry. At what point does avant-garde become routine or formulaic ? and therefore no longer avant-garde ?   Heh - it's not going to be a point, but there is something about a band that chooses to err towards noise that seems to perpetually keep them at the "Avant-garde" edge - bands such as Autechre, for example. Is it possible that a metal group be progressive or proggy ? If yes, what do the declaimers insist should be part of the musical presentation ? Moogs, Mellotrons, Hammond B3s ? Lower volume ? Obeissance to the Apocalypse in 9/8 ? Exploration of other types of Oceans ? Side long suites ?   It's totally possible, because Progressive Rock descended from Heavy Metal as well as Rock - the "split" from Rock to Metal was a gradual one. The heaviness of "The Heavy Metal Kids" I mentioned above is only really apparent if you've listened to a lot of psych, and if you follow their career path, it's plain to see how they influenced all the early greats from Zeppelin, Purple and Sabbath to Judas Priest. Yet when they started out, the Progressive Music scene was in its infancy. ITCOTCK owes at least as much to Heavy Metal in this embryonic form as it does to the Blues, Jazz or Avant-Garde, as witnessed by the very first track.   The "elements" are by and large irrelevant, unless combined in such a way as to make the music progressive. Any can be present or missing - it's all in the music, just as it is with Prog. Please set out the criteria for which you would or could or should consider a musical genre progressive / Then make a comparison from your favourite groups to the Prog metal groups or ask the more informed members here for examples that match those set by your template setting prog heroes.   I've already done that - and asked the question about Prog Metal. I'm currently prodding the Prog Metal Team for answers, and the results are looking very promising, as they love talking about their favourite music. Methinks that the contradictions will surpass those of many a religious holy book. (Complex passages ? Yes. And No. Time signatures outside of 4/4. Yes. And No. Long long multi part songs. Yes. And No. Virtuosic playing. Yes. And No. Can you see that accepting one choice only  would disqualify seemingly clearly progressive groups or genres. Gentle Giant never went for 20 minute suites. Prog, are they ? The Krautrockers are not know for their technical expertise at their instruments. Prog, are they ? Rush never went for mellotrons and Hammond B3s. Prog , are they ? King Crimson never really wrote "symphonies". Prog , are they ? Using one criteria to elimate or negate a genre's claim to being prog music can be too easily applied to most genres here, and even to many bands within the other genres.   Defining music by elements alone is impossible, because elements of music are like elements of anything else - mere building blocks.   You couldn't categorise pieces of music that contained the note "E", for example, because, if there's a guitar in the band, chances are that an "E" will be played.   You probably wouldn't want to categorise your music collection into pieces that are written in the key of E, pieces that contain Mellotrons, pieces that are over 20 minutes lons or pieces that are in 7/4, because those would be the ONLY links between the pieces of music. All the pieces would most likely be in completely different styles.   Even a checklist of a combination of these elements is next to useless unless there is further qualification and even then, most "genres" of music are extremely fuzzy around the edges - this isn' t an exact science. If you don't like it. Say so. If, in comparison to everything else at PA that has passed the Prog test, a genre, be it Prog Metal, does not compare or match up to the rest, then present the case with specifics, and make sure that your conclusions cannot be used against other bands or genres from PA's database. Self defeat saves others time. Better to take time and save face.   As per my note above, this is being done - there simply aren't any workable definitions available YET   Prog Metal requires its own test, as it has followed a different path to Prog Rock, just as Jazz Fusion has...

I think my "What is Prog" blog goes some way to providing a reasonable definition - so I'd disagree strongly that it's "impossible". It's only impossible if you're looking for an exact definition, because there isn't even an exact definition of what music is.

 

If we don't define Prog Metal at all, then there's the danger that anything could be considered part of the "genre", making such classifications useless, and the term redundant.

 

Why not just use the term "Heavy Metal"? Why bother subdividing it into endless categories, if these categories can't be described?

 

The point is not to get perfect precision, but a degree of accuracy so that the differences become apparent to a casual reader.

 

 

Music isn't the art itself - what a stupid definition!

 
The T,

First of all, thank you for a very insightful and useful post. You have, by odd chance since progressive metal is not my primary area of competance, put words on what I feel about both progressive metal, and also a whole lot of other genres within this site.

I feel that the philosophy of progarchives.com has come under several attacks, or so some people seem to think, by the continous inclusion of artists that are beyond what various people find to be progressive. I haven't been a regular on this forum during all my time as a progarchives.com user, but I have seen heated discussion on various postrock, on a lot of crossover and prog related, on loads and loads of prog metal including your own Metallica campaign, and lately on jazz and progressive jazz like Miles Davis, Steely Dan and perhaps the latest possible add: Bela Fleck.

In my opinion, your post examplifies why it is due time to formally change some conceptions of this site. You say it best yourself:

The T wrote: So, my point is, if this is a website mostly about progressive music, then prog-rock and prog-metal can co-exist. BUT EACH GENRE IS DEFINED IN ITS OWN TERMS.

This goes for progressive metal, definitely. But it also goes for other genres. Progarchives.com has long ago, by way of its many users and regulars, evolved from a site for progressive rock purists into a site that includes progressive music of many aspects. Progressive listeners don't stop getting challenged.

The T wrote: (in my view, prog-metal CAN be defined for its elements). In a prog-rock website, the only way we can understand metal's inclusion is as a side-effect, illegitimate-son of rock, a b*****d child that lived in a different world in a different culture and learned different things. And that's deep inside, what many prog-rock purists feel in their hearts. I understand you. It's logical. We're two different things.   It so happens, that many of us actually LOVE BOTH WORLDS. But that doesn't make them the SAME THING.   Should we, then, define prog-metal again? I think that it's necessary. A separate entity that shares the artistic approach of prog and some external elements but that is intrinsically different than prog. A genre that has its own artistic values, and that, when understood, can be as glorious and expressive as progressive-rock.

I think we should seriously consider restructuring this site. I know this must be the owner's decision, and mine is simply a proposal. In another thread, Iván suggested that
* progressive rock,
* progressive metal and
* progressive jazz be treated as separate entities.

I don't think that is sufficient, and would at least add
* progressive electronica and
* progressive folk/country, and perhaps even a separate strata for
* experimental and avant-garde music of different kinds.
* and maybe even more as time goes, expanding the scope of this site even more.

Each of these stratas should then be able to include subcategories with relevant proto artists and related artists, making the concepts of various progressive music and progressive music history visible and transparent. Need this change the name of the site? No. Need we challenge some mental blocks? Certainly. That's what progressive is about.

 

Even "sounds organized in time" would be a better definition that this useless one brought here I don't know for what reason. After all, with a dictionary, we can define pretty much everything. We could even define "progressive rock" reading what the dictionary says for both words, which would give the results....

"favoring or advocating progress of a large mass of stone forming a hill"

 

Please... those who hate the very notion that such a thing as progressive-metal exists... at least prove it with more than one-liners....

 

Mike, everything in life can be made better. The definition we have is OK, but it could be better! This site is great, it could be better! DREAM THEATER is the best, but it even could be better! So please...this is not, I think, about somebody in particular but about some improvement for the site....

 

That would be quite a radical change which in my view would upset some people but there's one thing that can be said: in the end, that's how many people perceive this site. To those who think that prog-rock is only what happened in the 70's, the other areas of the site are just "addendums". For the avant-garde crew, their music is also in another plane as the rest of the genres. Only a low percentage of users really embrace the WHOLE content of this website as "progressive rock". So, especially with more polemical additions being made, the site will gradually evolve into a "progressive rock and music".  This site stopped being for just purists a long time ago. And thanks god or satan for that, as it's much better to be able to learn about thousands of bands than just about the few hundred symphonic rock groups around.

 

Even "sounds organized in time" would be a better definition

 

Is it possible for a sound to be not organized in time ?  

 

Actually, what I said was;

 

Certif1ed wrote: ...there isn't even an exact definition of what music is.

 

- and your definition is not of the phenomenon of music, but of the art of composition!

 

So a-shrilling I shall go...

 

 

mr70s wrote:   Is it possible for a sound to be not organized in time ?

 

That depends on how you take the word "organised":

 

Sounds occur in time - they are comprised of waves caused by vibrations: Something vibrates, the sound begins, and at a later point in time, it presumably ends - although with waves, it's hard to be sure when that ending point is, especially when you consider that waves interact with each other and cause further waves, harmonics, etc.

 

Just because you can't hear anything, that does not mean there is silence - there is merely the absence of noise that you are able to perceive.

 

If one were to be utterly pedantic (who, me? ), one could argue that sounds cannot be organised in time, due to the somewhat chaotic nature of sound waves.

 

Avantgardehead wrote: The art of arranging sounds in time so as to produce a continuous, unified, and evocative composition, as through melody, harmony, rhythm, and timbre.

 

The problem with this is that it states that music is the art of arranging sounds..., but that art is actually called composition, not music.

 

Music is the end result of composition, or organisation of sounds in time.

 

The perception of music as an art is widely held, but inaccurate - it is more accurately a means of communication, and, while there may be an element of art in it, communication is not widely perceived this way.

 

Indeed, the most common form of communication, speech, is also "Sounds organised in time", so the equation is not a good one, since it doesn't balance.

 

While there might be an element of art involved, it is a far more abstract art than, say portrait painting, life scultpure or poetry, yet it is bound more tightly by inherent and unwritable rules that are steeped in cultural traditions.

 

There cannot be an exact definition, because of many factors, beginning with the fact that music is relative, and what is music to one observer may be noise to another, and what consititues "organisation" may be done by the listener as well as the composer or performer. Indeed, the composer may not be a human being - or even an animal of any species.

 

Mainly, music is music only by consensus - but that doesn't stop people trying to define it

 

 

 

 

 

"The art of arranging sounds in time so as to produce a continuous, unified, and evocative composition, as through melody, harmony, rhythm, and timbre."

 

If I was to be really brutal, I would question whether music needs to be continuous, unified or evocative, and whether it needs melody, harmony, rhythm or timbre.

 

It definitely needs form, which is the missing element from the list, however...

 

 

 

 

My question was rhetorical, but thanks for the science lesson.  

 

 

 

Exactly.

 

 

 

HughesJB4 wrote: Wow, this veered incredibly off topic

 

Not really - if you think about it, we're still on the topic of how hard it is to define something or get a concept across.

 

My last statement obviously communicated something that meant something - different things to different people - just like the form of music under discussion, and could be taken as a deep philosophical interpretation of the challenges we face...

 

Or, of course, you could be completely and utterly right - but it's cool that a thread like this with a potentially hackle-raising topic, has dissolved into laughter instead of fisticuffs.

 

Quite... back on topic everyone...

I hate it!!! (imo)

 

A very good point - and this is exactly why there should at least be a definition - even if it's not 100% correct, or even 50% correct (most current definitions of Prog Metal on the internet appear to be factually incorrect) - or has to be changed over time as the music gets redefined.

 

Look at heavy metal itself - the band that called themselves The Heavy Metal Kids in 1967 were very different to Blue Cheer, who many regard as the original metal band, or the band that called themselves The Heavy Metal Kids in 1974. Blue Cheer were, in turn, very different to Black Sabbath, who were very different to Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, Motorhead, Metallica, Fear Factory, Killswitch Engage, Slipknot, Dragonforce...

 

Definitions may change, but the music has a history, and certain characteristics in the music and attitudes remain constant. The history of metal co-incides all the way with the history of Progressive Rock, and shares many of the same attitudes. The main question is which metal is Progressive, and which isn't - and how do we tell the difference (even if it's a fuzzy difference) - and I think T's post goes some way to describing it.

 

Nearly all music can be defined as progressive, but this site allows certain values, but not others. I.E Iron Maiden, great heavy metal band, Dream Theater, crap heavy metal band with keyboards, but which one is prog?

 

It's a shame this isn't a UK site, that would soon sort the good from the dross.

 

I've heard it and it stinks.

 

The only useful definitions are those that are applied retrospectively, when we look back on a period of music upon which the dust has settled.

 

 

 

I'd say that those are simply more useful - not the only useful definitions.

 

A definition would certainly be useful to address criticisms like this one posted earlier;

 

ihatethesnp wrote: My problem with so called prog metal, is that it doesn't exist, except in someones mind.

 

You'd have to listen to a very wide cross-section of Prog Metal to be able to come to that decision in an informed way - listening to one Dream Theater album isn't going to tell you what it's all about - and, as the title of this article declares, it's not Prog Rock.

 

Try this and reconsider your opinion;  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DAeYaehLD0&feature=related - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DAeYaehLD0&feature=related

 

Why can't we? Who's to say any band past, present, or future can't be compared to them?

 

On the contrary, this illustrates my point that definitions applied to present day music simply don't work - for reasons I have mentioned previously.

 

 

 

However , DT stinks NOW.It has very good records There are lots of prog metal bands that have loads of cheese like POS Ayron or Kamelot.Stratovarius owns all those bands.

This thread appears to be wandering away from the original topic.

 

 

debrewguy wrote: I think you caught the gist of the message. It seems like Prog Metal is dismissed as prog by some for some specific reasons, without considering that other prog sub-genres might not pass the same tests either (complexity not enough, complexity required and so on). Yet, none of the Prog Metal naysayers would want their fave prog genre's (symphonic, electronic, folk) "progness" judged as measured against another genre. Imagine determining whether VDGG are prog by comparing their music to PA's description of Krautrock or Jazz Fusion. Just think of the fun that would emanate from a debate as to how progressive "Neo" is if you use RIO/Avant-Garde as the measure of all things prog. Would Electronic Prog be considered a valid prog sub genre if we use Prog Folk as the measuring stick ?

 

 

debrewguy wrote: Maybe we count the different time signatures divided by the number of chords times the length in minutes of a song minus the lines lof lyrics that are actually decipherable and then add the quantity of multi-mutli-syllabic words used in song titles.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just curious, do you think this is a good piece of music ?

It's based on minimal changes rather than dynamic overall development, and I can go back and hear stuff I missed on previous listens. It also makes it very clear that it's riff-based metal, but manages to produce an overall sound that is very different to, say, Killswitch Engage (or perhaps Fear Factory would be a better, more contemporary comparison).

 

That said, it doesn't really sound like something that's a "Classic", there's not an awful lot of band interplay - rather it's guitarist support (nothing wrong in that approach, it's a feature of a fair amount of Zappa's work) - and I do like lyrics with my Prog, so it's not in my top 100 or anything like that.

 

I think it proves beyond question that there IS such a thing as Prog Metal, and yes, I think it's a pretty good piece of music.