A RULE ON THIS SITE HAS BEEN VIOLATED!!!

Why can't a band play death or black metal and still be progressive?  When was a barrier created to prevent any band who people label as death or black metal from playing progressive rock?  I'm a little shocked to see you taking such a narrow minded view here Ivan.  Let's look at an Opeth song for a moment.  Let's say... The Drapery Falls.  It's an extremely complex, remarkably diverse track that spans over 10 minutes.  It alternates into different sections regularily, has an unpredictable structure, some reasonably extended soloing, and prominent keyboards.  This isn't just a one time thing either, there are numerous Opeth songs like this.  My question is... why is it that a darker feel and some growled vocals should prevent them from being classified as prog?

Now we seen to accept some songs from a group and immediately include them in Prog' Archives, but there are many questions to be asked Bryan:

1. Are they mainly Prog or Mainly Metal?
2. Do they consider themselves Prog' or Metal?
3. Do most Prog' Fans consider them Prog?
4. Do they have at least a couple of 100% Prog' albums?
5. Do the critics (a few are good) and Prog Web Pages consider them Prog or metal?
6. Do their own fans consider them Prog' or Metal?
7. Are their acts or concert surrounded by Metal paraphernalia?
8. Do they want to be considered Prog?
9. Does their own website consider them Prog' or Metal?

The same line of questions may be asked to any other genre.

Here we say it's yellow, walks as a duck and makes a cuack sound, in that case don't expect it to be a lion.

They dress, act, consider themselves as metal, their fans consider them metal, most Prog' fans consider them metal, in that case don't expect to listen a Prog band.

Iván

But because you hate (death) metal , you are not being objective,

Why do you insist in that false argument, never said I hate black death or any kind of metal, you are acting childishly and assuming that if we don't agree with you we hate you.

I like metal and I like Prog, but I believe that a band to be considered Prog' needs to have at least lets say 30% of their Production being 100% Prog, Dream Theater has it, Opeth not, Meshugga less.

The same goes for metal fans, I'm sure people in the metal forums don't want their bands to be considered Prog' or Pop Metal or Rap Metal or Hip Hop Metal.

Iván

Why do you avoid answering the questions Logos?

Or better, why don't you ask people here what do they believe?

Or is every person that doesn't agree with you an anti metalist? (You try o make it sound  like racist, Anti Jewish, anti Arab, Anti Christian and now anti Metalist ).

Rusellk wrote:

I am determined never, never, never to ever ask myself while listening to a new band 'but are they prog?'

Nobody asks you that Russellk, I listen a lot of non Prog music, but this is a Prog' Web Page, designed and created for Prog' fans, so I believe we should list only Prog bands.

Why does everybody change the subject?

Iván

maani wrote: Frenchie: In fact, however, the "official rule" - i.e., Max and Rony's criterior - is that a band need only have one album that is wholly and solidly prog in order to be included on the site.  It was this rule that I was disagreeing with, and to which I was responding with my "majority" idea.

You mentioned this in the Queen thread and I find it a little strange. I mean if you think about it to extreme ELP could be eliminated under this rule because they have ballads or non progressive things like Benny the Bouncer or Jeremy Bender on every album.  I can't think of one of theirs that is wholly prog.  I am sure that rule could be applied to a lot of groups and eliminate most of them.   

For sake of argument wouldn't it be just as progressive for groups who venture across many lines in a recording  in contrast of sticking to just one style? 

1. Are they mainly Prog or Mainly Metal?
   
   they are mainly PROG METAL
   
2. Do they consider themselves Prog' or Metal?
   
   they consider themselves PROG METAL
   
   whoever "they" may be

why not a "too simple to be prog, but too good to be ignored" section?

or a "quasi-prog" section

Frenchie wrote:

Do they consider themselves Prog' or Metal? they consider themselves PROG METAL whoever "they" may be

I don't agree Frenchie, here you have some quotes:

Mikael Akerfeldt: Well, we are a metal band. So it's easier if we go out with metal bands. Mikael Akerfeldt: You've got hear Opeth to know what it is. We basically say that we are a metal band. I'd feel stupid saying that we were "progressive forest metal" or something like that. At the end of the day, we're just a metal band but we have many different influences. It's hard to put your finger on exactly what style we are playing. You've got to hear it for yourself and make up your own mind. http://www.musicstreetjournal.com/opethi.htm

Mikael Akerfeld talking about his influences: Well you know, all the bands that I grew up listening to still influence me I guess. Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, Scorpions, Judas Priest, all those… And also, Morbid Angel, http://www.tartareandesire.com/interviews/opeth2004.html

I've read all the Opeth Official site and they don't mention Progressive Rock in any part, but of course it's full of Death Metal references and páraphernalia.

Again, it's not a Prog vs Metal thing, I would react equally if it was a Pop or an Indie band (I did so with Radiohead).

Iván

Garion:

Re ELP, although I suppose a case could be made that Lucky Man is not progressive, their debut album was wholly progressive.  However, I would say that Lucky Man is one of those songs that truly "straddle the line," like, for example, Genesis' "I Know What I Like" or Yes' "The Clap" (which is little more than a guitar solo with a mish-mash of influences).

However, even if someone wants to say "gotcha" to me on this, I would posit that, almost without argument, ELP's interpretation of Pictures at an Exhibition is prog through and through, with no "Jeremy Bender" "Benny the Bouncer" or "The Sheriff" to muck up the works.

Peace.