What is "prog" about Tool and similar bands?

There is something I just don't get.

This is the reason why certain bands, of whom Tool is the best-known, are classified as "progressive rock" or "progressive metal".  I mean, this music has fairly little in common with progressive rock: long pieces, odd time signatures, and there the similarity ends.  I had a theory that they were called "progressive" because their music was to some degree similar, in its repetitive structure becoming denser to the end of the piece, to what is called "progressive" in electronic dance music circles, but that doesn't really seem to cut it.  So what is going on here - is it just track length and time signature why this music is called "prog"?

WeepingElf wrote: There is something I just don't get. This is the reason why certain bands, of whom Tool is the best-known, are classified as "progressive rock" or "progressive metal".  I mean, this music has fairly little in common with progressive rock: long pieces, odd time signatures, and there the similarity ends.  I had a theory that they were called "progressive" because their music was to some degree similar, in its repetitive structure becoming denser to the end of the piece, to what is called "progressive" in electronic dance music circles, but that doesn't really seem to cut it.  So what is going on here - is it just track length and time signature why this music is called "prog"?

First of all, you need to define "other bands". Putting all bands sounding similar to Tool (is that what you mean?) is rather unfair. There are bands similar to Tool which are prog, others that are not; most are not and Tool are rather an exception in the alternative rock/metal arena - perhaps they were just that at their beginnings but with Aenima onwards they evolved their sound remarkably.

Which albums of Tool have you listened to? The main album that credited them with the tag "progressive" was Lateralus, which, indeed as you describe, includes long pieces, odd time signatures etc etc. This is a good start, but of course not definitive for prog rock as you mention. In this album, in my opinion, "prog" is integrated into the music, both in the structure of the song, the constant changes in rhythm and feeling, the concept. For me Lateralus sounds at times like the modern alternative version of Rush (although it might just be me, but listen to the middle section of Schism).

Influence-wise they have quoted The Melvins and King Crimson (not very obvious in their music).

What is Tool missing that doesn't qualify them to be considered prog?

Oh I'm never silly about prog.  Prog is Serious Business.

WeepingElf wrote: There is something I just don't get. This is the reason why certain bands, of whom Tool is the best-known, are classified as "progressive rock" or "progressive metal".  I mean, this music has fairly little in common with progressive rock: long pieces, odd time signatures, and there the similarity ends.  I had a theory that they were called "progressive" because their music was to some degree similar, in its repetitive structure becoming denser to the end of the piece, to what is called "progressive" in electronic dance music circles, but that doesn't really seem to cut it.  So what is going on here - is it just track length and time signature why this music is called "prog"?

Guldbamsen wrote: Here we go again

Sorry David, I forgot I was not supposed to answer

It was simply very tempting

Then again I sorta understand the OP from a certain viewpoint (because most of the modern stuff has next to nothing in common with the classic bands), and it's the same goddamn problem we run into almost on a weekly basis, although this week it's happened in 3 (now 4) different threads. 'How difficult for the youngins/oldies to get into new/old prog?' as well as the 'Is it odd that prog rock is almost as old as rock headscratcher? (let's face it: the thread was doomed to begin with). 

Edited by Guldbamsen - January 07 2015 at 16:19

I posted a question last year asking what PA members thought of Tool, I.E. if they liked or disliked them.

Edited by SteveG - January 07 2015 at 17:20

^ god you are so hot...

Guldbamsen wrote: micky wrote: Guldbamsen wrote: <span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.4;"></span> <span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.4;">Everything boils down to the ongoing discussion of the distinction between Prog and progressive music.....and until Max decides which way the wind blows, we're destined to deal with these sort of threads.</span> nah. [email protected] has nothing to do with it.. what does he do .. change a banner. People have the tendency to see less in the bands they don't like. [email protected] whipping out his magic wand and making this progressive archives isn't going to make those who don't like Tool.. or metal in general.. suddenly see the light in questions exactly like this. the nail was hit squarely on the head... it has everything to do with a dislike manifested into a notion that only 'good' bands can be included here, and if a person doesn't like them..  they are not worthy of being here. I'm not a fan at ALL of the group, but years ago I was encouraged by some friends to explore them,  I didn't like it.. but I'd be out of my f**king mind to deny they should be here.   Anyone who fails themselves to see it...is not exercizing his god given right to use his f**king brain instead of just running their mouths.  hah. That is part of it Micky, but would you call most of the bands found in post rock, avant, Kraut, PE or folk Prog bands? I'd call them progressive sure but prog? Nope, but then again that's just me. If Max changed the banner to Progressive Music Archives we wouldn't have a need for these discussions - or not as many Alright I'm done now. I am going on hiatus in regards to this subject. It all ends in different posters posting various ways of explaining what prog is to them or similarly what prog isn't. We're never going to find a common ground for all.

you are pretty hot yourself btw.  purple did look good on you.

yes.. but so many do not distinguish between prog and progressive..they are used interchangeably.  I think it is wrong to do so,  but who is to say I am right?  It is all up to the individual listener. Which brings us back to the subject at hand. The site is not a prog rock site IMO, and it appears that many do not think so, however honestly David. How many really care about that. My point, making this site progressive music archives will not  stop those who dislike groups or styles of music from doubting they belong on the site no matter what we call it. Some take an almost mystical .. better yet ..f**king EVANGELICAL...view of prog.. as if it is by its very nature BETTER than other forms of music and to have bands that are borderline.. or worse.. bands that one doesn't feel belong.. is some kind of goddamned crime again music and all that is right and good in the world.

As I see it.. it is a generally inclusive site, it could be a lot more.. but damnit man it could be a LOT worse.  I don't think we will ever find common ground.. as I've posted before.. the music, its fans, and the whole remnants of the scene itself have fragmented to the point where (outside of 70's prog rock for the vast majority of the members) there is little common ground to ever be found.  Opinion will forever vary on the modern bands.