The REAL problem with prog-metal: is not prog-rock |
Post Reply | Page <1 7891011> |
Author | ||
Firdous e Bareen
Forum Groupie Joined: January 20 2008 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 48 |
Posted: September 11 2008 at 03:37 | |
Here's my take on this.
I do not see progressive rock as being a musical genre as such, but rather a particular musical characteristic which can be present in any style of music. In theory you could take any random musical genre and add add certain progressive elements to it, thus creating progressive hip hop, progressive reggae, progressive electronic - anything you want! As such, progressive rock runs parallel to all other forms of rock music. The issue of whether or not progressive metal is a form of progressive rock comes down to whether or not you consider metal to be a form of rock music. I do, and therefore I consider progressive metal to be a form of progressive rock. Edited by Firdous e Bareen - September 11 2008 at 03:38 |
||
|
||
debrewguy
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 30 2007 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 3596 |
Posted: September 11 2008 at 12:15 | |
I'm just recalling the "tag" that was put on many a heavy rock band back in the 70s. Zep, Sabbath, And Deep Purple MKII were considered the top tier. Yet, Led Zeppelin's music included a lot of acoustic guitar, and Deep Purple had its' share of blues based tunes. Sabbath was really the only one that would be used over the years by acts like Kiss and Ted Nugent to differentiate (and deny) their sound as rock n roll as opposed to Heavy Metal. So most of the 70s hard rockers were in some magazines, and in some music journalists' view, heavy metal. That included boogie rockers like Foghat, and in a few cases, Kansas and , yes, Styx. Uriah Heep of course, had more than its' share of sl*gging, and were often used as an example of the worst of heavy metal excesses (fantasy lyrics, repetitive riffs, awful covers, overly serious singing, not my opinion, just my mermory of some reviews). But I come back to the dichotomy - metal went beyond overly amplified blooze and boogie riffs, and Chuck Berry rip-offs. Some of those riffs had influences from Zep and Sabbath's heavier stuff. Immigrant Song is not rock n roll. It is one of the first truly distinct metal riffs. But that was just one part of The group's musical pallette. Again, the last Rush rocker was I Think I'm Going Bald, and after that, nothing they did could be said to be blues based. It came to be called Rock, and eventually classic rock, but it wasn't rock n roll. Heck, even Grand Funk were called heavy metal, and I just see them as heavy. |
||
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
|
||
debrewguy
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 30 2007 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 3596 |
Posted: September 11 2008 at 12:16 | |
Edited by debrewguy - September 11 2008 at 12:17 |
||
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
|
||
ferush
Forum Senior Member Joined: August 26 2006 Location: Mexico Status: Offline Points: 363 |
Posted: September 16 2008 at 20:32 | |
SINCE CENTURIES AGO THE PROGRESSIVE TERM IS ADDED FOR ALL REAL MUSICAL PIECE; AND EVEN ZEPPELIN, SABBATH AND PURPLE HAVE THE BEATLES, MOODY BLUES, KING CRIMSON, STONES AND THE WHO ROOTS; IT'S ONLY A MATTER OF TERMS AND THE ADVANCE OF WORLD MUSIC.
|
||
The T
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: October 16 2006 Location: FL, USA Status: Offline Points: 17493 |
Posted: September 16 2008 at 21:52 | |
^Did we really need all caps for the last post?
|
||
|
||
Logan
Forum & Site Admin Group Site Admin Joined: April 05 2006 Location: Vancouver, BC Status: Offline Points: 33086 |
Posted: September 16 2008 at 22:12 | |
It's ferush's first post, so I think we should be a little more lenient, so instead of focusing on the aesthetics, focus on the content. Welcome Fernando!
Certainly "Progressive" as a musical attribute goes back much farther than Progressive Rock. I'm also big on Progressive Jazz, incidentally. I had known that it was used as a term to describe music going back so far, though I could well imagine that qualifier being added. As Firdous has stated: I look at metal as being a kind of rock, so progressive metal is just another kind of progressive rock to me. I don't look at it as being nearly so different from classic Prog as some, as I know that classic Prog has been an important influence on Progressive Metal (a fusion, in many cases, of classic Prog and heavy metal). |
||
Just a music fan passing through trying to fill some void. Various music I am into now: a youtube playlist
|
||
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 08 2004 Location: England Status: Offline Points: 7559 |
Posted: September 17 2008 at 03:46 | |
Ah - the age old thing of "progressive rock" versus Progressive Rock enters. Progressive is a loose term that can be applied to just about any band under the sun. Progressive Rock has reasonably clear characteristics. The Moody Blues were part of the 1960s Progressive Music scene - and some of that Music was Rock.
King Crimson are Progressive Rock - there's quite a difference between "Days of Future Passed" and "In The Court of The Crimson King". "Days..." features ordinary pop songs linked with orchestral music under a wash of mellotron. "Court" features extended, developed - we might say "progressed" songs, jazz styles, hints at Classical, avante-garde - and it's all fused into a unique and new form of Rock music. Prog Rock.
I'd accept Deep Purple as progressive rock - hear the difference between what Purple did and what Crimson did? Purple "mashed it up" occasionally, and used prog sounds and styles - but on the whole, the music is rock songs with extended instrumentals.
That's the difference between Prog and progressive.
With metal, it's the same (but different...).
Black Sabbath were never "simple" metal - there's a jazz element and a kind of built-in progressiveness, but on the whole, these are reasonably simple songs with occasional extended instrumentals. Metal from the get-go was never as simple as its detractors would have liked it to be - it's always had progressive elements, since the style emerged from the same progressive/psychedelic scene as Prog Rock.
Metallica took Black Sabbath's foundations (and the innovations of many others) and brought them all together into a completely new form of heavy metal, with hints of jazz and classical. This music is essentially the same as the music Dream Theater started playing, but without the keyboards and precision.
Classic prog is often cited as an influence on Progressive Metal, but in my experience, the influence is not that great. Rock and Metal set off on different paths in 1967, and, despite Crimson's efforts to bring the two together, Sabbath had other ideas - and so did Purple. So Rock went one way, Metal went another, and Prog a third. But both Rock AND Metal retained progressive tendencies, and some bands exhibit this more strongly than others.
|
||
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
||
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 22 2005 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 20667 |
Posted: September 17 2008 at 05:27 | |
^ so you're using "Progressive" for what I call "Progressive Approach" and "progressive" for what I call "prog (by) style". Seems we're all talking about the same things ...
|
||
Lionheart
Forum Senior Member Joined: December 27 2005 Status: Offline Points: 106 |
Posted: September 17 2008 at 06:16 | |
Dear T - thank you for your insightful thoughts. Your post is truly one of the best posts I have read on ProgArchives. I think you raise a very good point about the definition (or re-definition) of prog metal. |
||
debrewguy
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 30 2007 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 3596 |
Posted: September 18 2008 at 13:16 | |
true, his post is very well written. But it uses 'prog" as an amorphous and undefined qualifier. If you go through the major genres PA has listed, Prog Metal compares well in terms of many "requirements" that are often stated by fans of some of the Prog types. Put Prog Metal up against Krautrock, RIo/Avant-Garde (not all acts , but some), Symphonic Prog, Neo, Crossover, Eclectic, Jazz/Fusion, Heavy Prog, among the more "popular" ones. Then, try to apply a cover-all bases description or adjective that is specific. You can't. Even in very vague generailzed terms, one genre or another ( or some of the acts withing these "questionable" genres) will come up lacking in prog credentials for some here. So we come back to the arguement of whether it is prog. Yet, the questioning that Prog Metal is put through, the doubt that is harboured towards it, well ... Neo is not accepted as true prog or even seen as progressive by many at PA. Heavy Prog has more than a few entries that are said to be iffy by some. Eclectic & Crossover prog are probably the two genres where you would have to call in the army if PA ever set up a discussion forum and let PA members debate and decide as to who in these two sections should be dismissed or deleted from this site. And Proto-Prog, in the opinion of others, is too often comprised of bands that put out one album or a few songs on their early releases that are "prog", and are here because the older crowd remember them as being part of the progressive scene of the late 60s and early 70s (Uriah Heep anyone? In the mid 70s, I just remember reviews and articles refering to them as Heavy Metal, not as prog. I do like them, and am not questioning their place here though, I'm just using them as an example). So the problem is not whether Prog Metal is prog, but rather why Prog Metal is held to a different, and in a way, higher "prog" standard than other PA genres ? After all, it seems to be accepted that it "shares" aspects with the general description of prog. But then , name a prog genre that can be said to meet all the prog requirements as too often proudly and too loudly proclaimed by the anti-PMers ... Think about it ... Edited by debrewguy - September 18 2008 at 13:23 |
||
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
|
||
prog4evr
Forum Senior Member Joined: September 22 2005 Location: Wuhan, China Status: Offline Points: 1455 |
Posted: September 22 2008 at 08:26 | |
The T: You have always been a prolific, deep thinker. Thanks for that detailed appeal to re-define prog-metal. As a symphonic prog enthusiast, I begin to appreciate the "depth" of prog-metal. Peace, bro! |
||
crimson87
Prog Reviewer Joined: January 03 2008 Location: Argentina Status: Offline Points: 1818 |
Posted: December 03 2008 at 19:05 | |
You know what the problem with progressive metal is: Honestly I don't want kids when you ask them Name progressive rock bands. and they say : DT , Tool , or Opeth , in spite of Yes Genesis KC or ELP.
First the 70's , then prog metal
|
||
The Quiet One
Prog Reviewer Joined: January 16 2008 Location: Argentina Status: Offline Points: 15745 |
Posted: December 03 2008 at 19:16 | |
^I'll have to second that my friend.
|
||
keiser willhelm
Forum Senior Member Joined: September 14 2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1697 |
Posted: December 03 2008 at 20:17 | |
Why should prog be limited to the 70's?
90% of what i listen to is post 80's music and about 90% of it id consider progressive. progressive rock is two things at once. an idea, and a movement. some people cant seem to separtate the two. |
||
Petrovsk Mizinski
Prog Reviewer Joined: December 24 2007 Location: Ukraine Status: Offline Points: 25210 |
Posted: December 03 2008 at 20:25 | |
What Keiser said.
Most of my listening is post 80s, and this week alone, about 80 per cent of what I've listened to is 2000 onward stuff. And seriously, I can't believe this thread was bumped after nearly 2 months and a half for this: "You know what the problem with progressive metal is: Honestly I don't want kids when you ask them Name progressive rock bands. and they say : DT , Tool , or Opeth , in spite of Yes Genesis KC or ELP. First the 70's , then prog metal" If that is prog metal bashing, which I assume it is, I feel a bit offended to be honest. I pretty much don't listen to Yes, KC and Genesis anymore or whatever constitutes "classic prog rock" anymore. Hell I didn't even like ELP in the first place. Should I have to apologize for that? I don't think so. |
||
|
||
crimson87
Prog Reviewer Joined: January 03 2008 Location: Argentina Status: Offline Points: 1818 |
Posted: December 03 2008 at 21:37 | |
No , you should not. But at least you know where the roots of prog come from. Most of the kids in my country think that progressive rock started with Images & Words
|
||
MrEdifus
Forum Senior Member Joined: July 23 2008 Location: VA USA Status: Offline Points: 1263 |
Posted: December 03 2008 at 21:46 | |
That's ignorant, but certainly not a problem inherent to prog-metal. |
||
The T
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: October 16 2006 Location: FL, USA Status: Offline Points: 17493 |
Posted: December 03 2008 at 23:17 | |
To be honest, the biggest ignorance would be to think that Images & Words is a consequence of 70's progressive rock more than the evolution or change over time of all forms of METAL.
|
||
|
||
keiser willhelm
Forum Senior Member Joined: September 14 2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1697 |
Posted: December 04 2008 at 00:07 | |
The two scenes are related but OOOOoooh so different and vastly varied. and its not just new vs. old. its kraut, psych, folk, indie, electronic, jazz, metal, post. . . everything, classical, noise - prog is just one scene amongst many.The new scene wouldve existed with or without the 70's. neo prog, of course, excluded .
i hardly listen to classic 70's prog rock anymore, i dont think kids NEEd to listen to 70's stuff, though much of it is very good. the scenes stand on their own, though they compliment each other. |
||
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer Joined: September 03 2006 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 9869 |
Posted: December 04 2008 at 03:17 | |
No, I do think it is important IF they are to appreciate what prog ROCK really is all about. Cert1fied talked about a misconception that prog is all about odd time signatures. I have to say I have observed this among fans of the new prog, so to speak. Maybe people on this board don't subscribe to such a notion, but that doesn't change that on a lot of internet forums, odd time signatures is held up as the most important - even only - characteristic of prog and it is argued that some of the old prog bands are not really prog because they don't use odd time signatures as much as new bands and their music is easier to play and so on and so forth. So, regardless of whether or not you hold up the 70s stuff as the best of prog - which is purely a subjective preference - you must listen to it to understand the genre. Being also a metalhead, I will say that what you propose is akin to listening to metal and not listening to the 70s output of Black Sabbath and Judas Priest. Again, something that a lot of people do these days, but without listening to their fundamentally important contribution, how can your appreciation of metal be complete? Same goes for prog. I must say that likewise, lot of people who call themselves metalheads today are unable to distinguish between loudness, noise and distortion AND pure and simple heaviness because they have not listened to bands like Black Sabbath. |
||
Post Reply | Page <1 7891011> |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |