same applies for even metallica, megadeth and death

Trouserpress wrote: Cygnus X-2 wrote: Maani and I were talking about something that would allow for us to "include" them. The suggestion he made was for a Influenced/Proto-Prog section, so pretty much all those suggestions would apply. Of course, nothing has been finalized. I feel this is really the way forward. I'd also suggest Queen get moved to such a section.

That's the way I feel. I am a big Queen fan (always have been), but I don't feel they deserve a place here.

Snow Dog wrote: ^ So add them Frenchie, thats what happened with Queen I believe.

please dont frenchie

frenchie wrote: has anyone noticed how black sabbath, the who, the beatles and led zeppelin are much proggier than queen yet no1 is adding any of these bands.

That's very true!! Especially, regarding Sabbath and Zep -- they were far more prog-related than Queen, not only concerning the musical quality but also concerning the consistent application of new ideas into the realms of rock.

Regards.

frenchie wrote: the influenced/proto prog is a good idea. we should still acknowledge albums such as sgt peppers that have had a historical impact on prog, even if the band themselves are not technically prog rock. The Who are said to have made the first prog track, circa 1966, "A quick one while he is away". The Who, along with the beatles made some of the first concept albums with tommy and quadrophenia. Black Sabbath arguably made some of the first ever prog metal tracks. led zeppelin not only had a strong prog connection but jimmy page taking the bow to the guitar is something that inspired many post rock prog bands such as GYBE!. These bands have strong prog connections but are not officially prog bands themselves.

If we go ahead with this project, I already called the Who (my biography would be a little too long).

Trouserpress wrote: Cygnus X-2 wrote: Trouserpress wrote: Cygnus X-2 wrote: Maani and I were talking about something that would allow for us to "include" them. The suggestion he made was for a Influenced/Proto-Prog section, so pretty much all those suggestions would apply. Of course, nothing has been finalized. I feel this is really the way forward. I'd also suggest Queen get moved to such a section. That's the way I feel. I am a big Queen fan (always have been), but I don't feel they deserve a place here. I do. Well, they need acknowledging as so-called "proto-prog", hence my support for a section dealing with it.

A section named specifically "proto-prog" would not be the right place for QUEEN, as their first album was released in 1973 and the prefix proto- would give the connotation of QUEEN having been the first or the origin of something. There is no way that QUEEN were proto-Prog. For QUEEN specifically I favour Tony Banks' term for QUEEN ("imaginative pop"), or maani's term "progressive pop".

proto-

[From Greek prôtos ; ultimately related to pro (see pro²)]

perhaps the section should be proto prog/influenced/post prog. i feel that bands like radiohead and muse are more post prog or influenced by prog rather than prog themselves. this is pushing it tho.

Why not have two separate categories?

1. "imaginative pop"/"progressive pop" : bands such as QUEEN, 10CC, SUPERTRAMP. ELO etc.

2. "precursors to Prog"/"proto-Prog" : bands such as WISHBONE ASH, URIAH HEEP etc.

Seems a better solution than trying to put very different bands into the same basket.

frenchie, this would obviously have to be sanctioned by mailto:M@X - M@X and ProgLucky.

If they were to agree to the two categories, then the final decision as to which bands to admit would have to rest with them.

frenchie wrote: long ago prog archives made a rule where if a band has more "non prog" albums than "prog albums" then they should not be added. Genesis nearly got booted out because of this rule.

That  would also get ELP booted so it's not that sensible a rule, is it?

Exactly.

What a silly rule it is.

Next topic!!!

Cygnus X-2 wrote: Maani and I were talking about something that would allow for us to "include" them. The suggestion he made was for a Influenced/Proto-Prog section, so pretty much all those suggestions would apply. Of course, nothing has been finalized.

That's a VERY good idea

What I don't like is the conformist way of thinking of some people (No attack pretended), I heard a lot of times people say, if STYX is here, why not ELO

If Asia is here why not Boston or Journey, if both are much more Prog' oriented?

This is wrong guys, none of the mentioned bands is Prog', if a mistake is made try to repair it, if this is not possible, try to hide the corpse under the carpet, but please if a mistake already exists don't make another mistake arguing the first one.

That's the way for mediocrity, how many times I heard in my work, if he goes at 4 o clock why should I stay till 5? or he takes the working material to his house (pens, papers, staplers, etc), why shouldn't I do the same? this is absolutely wrong.

A second mistake won't make the first one correct, it will make the site less reliable,

Yesterday Retrovertigo wrote to justify a Death Metal band:

We already have Opeth, and they're surely prog, and they're surely death metal also. And the same with Meshuggah.

Please, we're adding a lot of Death/Black Metal bands just because Opeth is here, OK Opeth is wrong and we can't remove them due to the Prog Archives rules (Even when rules are being changed daily to admit more mainstream proggish bands), but please don't use Opeth as an excuse to include ten more similar bands, this won't make Opeth right, but more evident the mistake.

I believe that the bands requested by members should be sent to a temporal section for the collaborators to decide. not include so easily anything remotely prog.

Or even when is not the best solution create that Proto Prog/Prog oriented section apart from the rest of the bands

Iván

ivan_2068 wrote: Yesterday Retrovertigo wrote to justify a Death Metal band: We already have Opeth, and they're surely prog, and they're surely death metal also. And the same with Meshuggah. Please, we're adding a lot of Death/Black Metal bands just because Opeth is here, OK Opeth is wrong and we can't remove them due to the Prog Archives rules (Even when rules are being changed daily to admit more mainstream proggish bands), but please don't use Opeth as an excuse to include ten more similar bands, this won't make Opeth right, but more evident the mistake. I believe that the bands requested by members should be sent to a temporal section for the collaborators to decide. not include so easily anything remotely prog. Or even when is not the best solution create that Proto Prog/Prog oriented section apart from the rest of the bands Iván

It wasn't Retrovertigo who wrote that post, it was me.

And I wasn't using that as an excuse to add another band, it was just an example that PROGRESSIVE DEATH/BLACK METAL DOES EXIST. It is a fact.

You're an anti-metallist of the worst kind. Please look in the mirror and reconsider your opinions.

How would all these bands would be separated out - would there be a separate site called "AlmostProgArchives.com" or something?

I mean, yes, it'd be good to separate the prog from the non-prog and include "almost-progs" like ELO and Boston, but the reviews would surely all end up on the same front page, no?

And then where would we draw the line?

Radiohead's prog output is circa 50%, IMO - a higher ratio than, say, Genesis. Just an example, I don't want to labour the particular band...

I think the members of this forum can play a huge active part here - USE the polls to vote on a bands progginess. Yes, it's still arbitrary, but at least there'd be a kind of consensus, and we could say that if a band gets 30% of the vote or higher then they'd qualify.

That allows for Genesis...

...and then maybe there would be fewer arguments over a band's inclusion...

You never know - such a poll might exclude bands such as (random example here) Queen.

Just some thoughts.

Logos wrote:

You're an anti-metallist of the worst kind. Please look in the mirror and reconsider your opinions.

Sorry but this is an absurd reaction, I like some metal, love Iron Maiden, Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin and even the infamous Yngwee Malmsteen, but METAL IS METAL AND PROG IS PROG.

I can accept some Prog' Metal but Death Metal is a sub genre of Metal, it's too specific to be considered Prog, better add all metal and lets say that metal and Prog are the same, that's the point we're reaching now and it's absurd.

There are a lot of black, doom, death metal web pages and fan clubs to include your favorite bands, why do it on a progressive rock page.

This place is a refugee for those of us who have been supporting this genre for days. months, years or even decades even when everybody else hated our music, and it survives because it was well defined, no, any metal or Indie band with keyboards is considered Prog', and that's not correct.

I am against the inclusion of METAL, AOR, POP, DISCO RAP, GLAM bands in Prog Archives because they aren't Prog', not because I hate them (Well I hate Rap).

I like Jackson Browne, but I don't think his good and deep lyrics are Prog, love Meatlaof's music but won't argue that Jim Steinman's piano makes them prog and my favorites Bob Geldoff and the Boomtown Rats but won't add Bob just because he appeared and sung in The Wall or because the lyrics and piano in I Don't Like Mondays seem proggy.

The Who is a better candidate than most of the bands recently included because they made two very Prog' albums (Tommy and Quadrophenia) but they are mainly a classic rock band and icon of their own genre so why in hell we must include them here.

So like whatever you want as I do but everything has a place, Dead/Trash/Black/Suicide or even Christiam Metal are subgenres of Metal not barely related with Prog.

If we keep doing this Progressive Rock will become so vague and blurry that everything could be part of the genre and the logical consequence is that Prog' will dissapear, let's keep the genre as pure as possible if we want it to survive.

Iván

Frenchie:

You proceed from false assumption.  The "rule" you refer to was never a rule.  In fact, it was my own personal opinion about how what crtieria I believe should be necessary for inclusion; i.e., that the majority of a band's ouevre, or at very least a solid "core" of that ouevre, must be prog in order to be included.

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.

That said, since I still do not believe that either Queen II or NATO (much less any other Queen album) is, in fact, "wholly and solidly prog," I believe their inclusion here goes against even the far more "lenient" rule that Max and Rony have followed.

But let's not get everyone confused.  Max and Rony's rule is what "rules" here, not my alternative idea (which I nevertheless feel is better...)

Peace.

ivan_2068 wrote: I can accept some Prog' Metal but Death Metal is a sub genre of Metal, it's too specific to be considered Prog, better add all metal and lets say that metal and Prog are the same, that's the point we're reaching now and it's absurd. There are a lot of black, doom, death metal web pages and fan clubs to include your favorite bands, why do it on a progressive rock page.

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?

ivan_2068 wrote: METAL IS METAL AND PROG IS PROG

And Prog metal is prog and prog metal is metal.

ivan_2068 wrote: I can accept some Prog' Metal but Death Metal is a sub genre of Metal, it's too specific to be considered Prog, better add all metal and lets say that metal and Prog are the same, that's the point we're reaching now and it's absurd.

There are sub-genres within sub-genres as well, and prog metal is a good example of this. There is symphonic prog metal, progressive death metal and prog power metal for example. It is only a prejudice to think that this is not possible. Were Dream Theater to have death metal vocals instead of James LaBrie (although they wouldn't suit the band at all, that's for sure), would someone say they weren't prog? It would be absolutely ridiculous. There's a lot of really technical, really complex, undoubtedly proggy metal music out there, just waiting to be explored by those who have an open mind and who are not stuck in their prejudices regarding metal music.

ivan_2068 wrote: This place is a refugee for those of us who have been supporting this genre for days. months, years or even decades even when everybody else hated our music, and it survives because it was well defined, no, any metal or Indie band with keyboards is considered Prog', and that's not correct.

You're not being sensible or objective with this matter. There are extremely few "death prog" bands on this site, actually I only know Opeth and Meshuggah at the moment. And I know quite a few death metal bands myself, yet I am NOT suggesting bands like Cannibal Corpse, Carcass, Obituary, Arch Enemy or Deicide to be added here. That would be ridiculous. Only a few , those few that really are progressive, are added. But because you hate (death) metal , you are not being objective,  and go on saying that "all metal bands etc. are being added nowadays, where is this site going, oh my god, Prog Archives is losing it". That is ridiculous!! You really should re-consider this matter. How does it hurt you if progressive metal is discussed on this site??? Just ignore it if you don't like it!!!

ivan_2068 wrote: If we keep doing this Progressive Rock will become so vague and blurry that everything could be part of the genre and the logical consequence is that Prog' will dissapear, let's keep the genre as pure as possible if we want it to survive.

No, it will not. Prog metal IS a part of prog rock. There's absolutely nothing vague or blurry about it!!

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

ivan_2068 wrote: 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.

Opeth has at least 75% Pure prog in their discography, and anyone who understands anything about prog and is not an anti-metallist can confirm that this is in fact true.

Meshuggah I do not know well enough - I've only heard 2 albums and 1 EP , but those have all been Prog.

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

ivan_2068 wrote: 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 ).

All are the same to me

I know this will probably shock many of you (in fact, you may want to sit down if you are not doing so...), but when The Beatles released "She Loves You" in 1964, it was considered "progressive" by then-current pop standards.  The chord progression was considered "unique" for its time, with its use of deceptive cadences and sudden major/minor changes; the harmonies were considered "state-of-the-art" (and way beyond what anyone except The Beach Boys were doing); and the arrangement was touted as "brilliant."

Indeed, even those "adults" who were at least marginally interested in, fascinated by or otherwise charmed by The Beatles via "Love Me Do," "I Saw Her Standing There," "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" and other, more "standard" hits, found "She loves You" "jarring" (a word used often at the time to describe it).

Wouldn't this qualify the song as prog?

Peace.

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

maybe i am a hypocrite for participating in the logos/ivan debate... but i shall now say that has perhaps drifted off into a point where it should be in a thread called "prog vs metal". it is going a bit off topic in this thread.

Rather include, then exclude

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 - 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 - 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.

frenchie wrote: i didnt say "they" had to be opeth. i think on the latest dream theater dvd disc 2 they get asked what music they think they play and mike portnoy says "we are prog metal". dont quote me on this for i havent watched it for yonks.

OK Frenchie:

1. This was a specific question about Opeth and Meshugga (Read the sequence)
2. The discussion is about Death/Black Metal bands, even when the thread is about Nopn Prog bands included despite their genre.
3. I said repeteadly that Dream Theater is a Prog Metal band IMO.

Iván

PS: Again, why people keep changing the subject of a discussion?

Pink Floyd's "Meddle", "More", "Atom Heart Mother", "Obscured By Clouds" (just to name a few) are not fully prog albums as they all contain at least 1 song which is not prog

Please Frenchie, you're more intelligent than that, You know Pink Floyd main production is Prog or Psychedelic, Opeth is mainly Death Metal, even they accept that, why don't their fans try to say something different?

The same happens with Boston Toto or Journey fans so they don't accuse me of Anti Metalist

Iván

ivan_2068 wrote: 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: Are they mainly Prog or Mainly Metal? Do they consider themselves Prog' or Metal? Do most Prog' Fans consider them Prog? Do they have at least a couple of 100% Prog' albums? Do the critics (a few are good) and Prog Web Pages consider them Prog or metal? Do their own fans consider them Prog' or Metal? Are their acts or concert surrounded by Metal paraphernalia? Do they want to be considered Prog? 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

Let's see...

1. I guess they're "mainly metal" since their sound is oriented towards metal, but that doesn't mean they can't integrate prog into their sound.

2. Why is this a reason to leave them out?  Robert Fripp doesn't consider King Crimson prog, does that mean KC shouldn't be on the archives?  Same goes for Omar Rodriguez-Lopez of The Mars Volta.  Plus, while they may not actually classify themselves prog, they continually cite Camel as one of their main influences, which has to count for something.

3. From what I've seen, most people without a bias against metal do consider them prog.

4. Well Damnation is as pure a prog album as anyone will ever find, but if we're acknowledging prog-metal as a subgenre of prog than Morningrise, My Arms Your Hearse, Still Life and Blackwater Park all fit into it perfectly (especially Morningrise and BWP).

5. allmusic.com and metal-archives.com both list them as progressive metal.  I don't frequent any other prog sites so I can't speak for them, but based on how regularily I hear them talked about as a prog metal band I'd assume at least a few have chosen to acknowledge them.

6. Based on those I've talked to, they're widely regarded as a progressive metal band.  In addition, people in traditional metal circles tend to trash them for being "too boring", so they certainly aren't part of the core metal crowd.

7. I'm not sure what you mean by this, so I'll pass on it.

8. See #2.

9. It classifies them as metal, but it doesn't pinpoint them as playing any specific subgenre of metal from what I've seen.  In fact, Mikael simply seems to just be dismissing their classification under any specific genre of metal, so why would this leave prog-metal out of the question?

What I think you're missing, Ivan, is that it's possible for a band to play metal and still be a prog band.  That's what the "progressive metal" subgenre is all about.  Just because there are some who would also classify them as a death metal band (which as I mentioned in my previous post, is hugely inaccurate), doesn't mean having them listed on progarchives is ridiculous.  Mind you, Opeth is a very unique band in the world of modern metal, and it's true that not that many bands can successfully combine those two styles in the way that Opeth does.  They've done it though, and I'd say they deserve recognition for it.

Useful Idiot wrote: {quote] I guess they're "mainly metal" since their sound is oriented towards metal, but that doesn't mean they can't integrate prog into their sound.[/quote]

So keep them in a mainly metal Archive.

Why is this a reason to leave them out?  Robert Fripp doesn't consider King Crimson prog, does that mean KC shouldn't be on the archives?  Same goes for Omar Rodriguez-Lopez of The Mars Volta.  Plus, while they may not actually classify themselves prog, they continually cite Camel as one of their main influences, which has to count for something.

I can't talk about Rodriguez Lopez , but in the case of Robert Fripp, he considers himself something different unique, due to his huge ego (and insanity ) but he never classified him as part of  a determined genre, Akerfeld said clearly we're a death metal band.

From what I've seen, most people without a bias against metal do consider them prog.

For God's sake Bryan, for the hundreed time, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING AGAINST METAL, I don't like Non Prog bands being included in a Prog page despite their genre, we had the same discussion with Radioheade, so you know it's nothing against metal.

Honestly I'm sure most people here don't consider them Prog' when a good group doesn't even consider Dream Theater Prog

Well Damnation is as pure a prog album as anyone will ever find, but if we're acknowledging prog-metal as a subgenre of prog than Morningrise, My Arms Your Hearse, Still Life and Blackwater Park all fit into it perfectly (especially Morningrise and BWP).

From your perspective, from mine is a more complex Death Metal album

allmusic.com and metal-archives.com both list them as progressive metal.  I don't frequent any other prog sites so I can't speak for them, but based on how regularily I hear them talked about as a prog metal band I'd assume at least a few have chosen to acknowledge them.

Please, Allmusic is the most unreliable site for genres, check each band and you'll see they give even ten different genres for the same band, and metal-archives can say what they want, if I'm not wrong they consider Ingwye Malmsteen Prog Metal too, and that means nothing for us.

Allmusic clasifies Opeth as:

They only missed Foxtrot and Cha Cha Cha, is this reliable?

I'm not sure what you mean by this, so I'll pass on it.

Black leather clothing, inverse crosses, satanic lyrics, etc.

It classifies them as metal, but it doesn't pinpoint them as playing any specific subgenre of metal from what I've seen.  In fact, Mikael simply seems to just be dismissing their classification under any specific genre of metal, so why would this leave prog-metal out of the question?

Their own website, runed by them, consideres them metal and you don't care?

Michael didn't said simply we're a metal band, he said: We're a DEATH METAL BAND (read my quote on Page 2 of this thread) so he is very specific defining his music.

What I think you're missing, Ivan, is that it's possible for a band to play metal and still be a prog band.

Please Bryan read what you said to question number 1 (and I quote you): I guess they're "mainly metal" since their sound is oriented towards metal.

This is a website for  PROG BANDS, it's called THE PROG ARCHIVES not the mainly metal (Pop, Glam, Disco, Rap, Hip Hop, etc) but with a bit of Prog  Archives.

So let's keep the place with Prog bands or at least mainly Prog' bands.

Iván

I always thought the rule was silly ... because of bands like Jethro Tull (who made some prog-rock classics in Thick As A Brick and A Passion Play, but surely have a non-prog majority of albums) ...

I also keep going back to Blackfeather ... one indisputably prog album, then the whole band leaves, except the singer who releases many boogie-rock albums under the same name ... so under the rule the album doesn't qualify ... doesn't make sense to me ...

I always thought the rule was silly

One question for everybody, if you want no rules, then why make a Prog' Web Site, include everything, and call it The Eclective Archives instead.

BTW: Jethro Tull not mainly Prog????? Thick as a Brick, A Passion Play, Aqualung, Stormwatch mean something for you?

Iván

Jethro Tull non prog?????

ever heard of prog-folk????

1. Thick as a Brick
2. Passion Play
3. Minstrel in the Gallery
4. Songs from the Woods
5. Heavy Horses
6. Aqualung
7. Stormwatch

That's seven prog albums and I'm not even counting all of them!!!!!!!

bah this site has gone to insanity

ivan_2068 wrote: I always thought the rule was silly One question for everybody, if you want no rules, then why make a Prog' Web Site, include everything, and call it The Eclective Archives instead. BTW: Jethro Tull not mainly Prog????? Thick as a Brick, A Passion Play, Aqualung, Stormwatch mean something for you? Iván who made some prog-rock classics in Thick As A Brick and A Passion Play,

I do wish people would read before posting ... should that be a rule?

This Was, Stand Up, Benefit, War Child, Too Old To Rock'N'Roll, yes Stormwatch, Broadsword And The Beast, A, Under Wraps, Crest Of A Knave, Rock Island, Roots To Branches (not prog albums)

Aqualung, Songs From The Wood, Heavy Horses (borderline)

Thick As A Brick, A Passion Play, Ministrel In The Gallery (definitely)

But this is just my opinion ... it's not the gospel truth ... why don't you give me yours with  chapter and verse?

This question of course remains unanswered because it defies the rule ...

I also keep going back to Blackfeather ... one indisputably prog album, then the whole band leaves, except the singer who releases many boogie-rock albums under the same name ... so under the rule the album doesn't qualify ... doesn't make sense to me ...

"For God's sake Bryan, for the hundreed time, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING AGAINST METAL, I don't like Non Prog bands being included in a Prog page despite their genre, we had the same discussion with Radioheade, so you know it's nothing against metal."


I dont think he was picking on you personally. he clearly said MOST PEOPLE WITHOUT A BIAS. I guess the wording may have threw you.

NetsNJFan wrote: Jethro Tull non prog????? ever heard of prog-folk???? Thick as a Brick Passion Play Minstrel in the Gallery Songs from the Woods Heavy Horses Aqualung Stormwatch That's seven prog albums and I'm not even counting all of them!!!!!!! bah this site has gone to insanity

And again ... this time with cheese on top ...

This Was, Stand Up, Benefit, War Child, Too Old To Rock'N'Roll, yes Stormwatch, Broadsword And The Beast, A, Under Wraps, Crest Of A Knave, Rock Island, Roots To Branches (not prog albums)

Aqualung, Songs From The Wood, Heavy Horses (borderline)

Thick As A Brick, A Passion Play, Ministrel In The Gallery (definitely)

I repeat that this is just my opinion ...

Jethro Tull non prog????? ever heard of prog-folk???? Thick as a Brick Passion Play Minstrel in the Gallery Songs from the Woods Heavy Horses Aqualung Stormwatch That's seven prog albums and I'm not even counting all of them!!!!!!! bah this site has gone to insanity

Agree NetsNJF, but I would include Benefit and Warchild.

Trotsky wrote:

who made some prog-rock classics in Thick As A Brick and A Passion Play,

Even when we don't qualify the same albums as Prog, you said a clue phrase  made some prog-rock classics .

Prog Rock Classics.......Means something no????

Iván

ivan_2068 wrote: Jethro Tull non prog????? ever heard of prog-folk???? Thick as a Brick Passion Play Minstrel in the Gallery Songs from the Woods Heavy Horses Aqualung Stormwatch That's seven prog albums and I'm not even counting all of them!!!!!!! bah this site has gone to insanity Agree NetsNJF, but I would include Benefit and Warchild. Trotsky wrote: who made some prog-rock classics in Thick As A Brick and A Passion Play, Even when we don't qualify the same albums as Prog, you said a clue phrase  made some prog-rock classics . Prog Rock Classics.......Means something no???? Iván

That is my point ... IMO Jethro Tull made some prog-rock classics, but overall a narrow majority of their albums are not prog ... ie something like 6 or 7 are vs more than 10 which aren't ... so going by the rule they wouldn't qualify ... that's why I think the rule doesn't work in this case ... but that's only from my point of view ...

Perhaps as someone who also loves Uriah Heep, you are not going to tell me that a majority of their albums are prog-rock as well ...

Frenchie wrote:

I dont think he was picking on you personally. he clearly said MOST PEOPLE WITHOUT A BIAS. I guess the wording may have threw you.

Don't worry Frenchie, I'm very passionate in my discussions and Bryan knows it, we are friends and usually chat (Not too much lately because I have troubles with MSN on my PC.

Iván

NetsNJFan wrote: I'll accept that its Trotskys opinion and I respect that but can we all agree they are proggier than Queen?

No arguments from me on that one  ... although I won't say too much more to avoid incriminating myself in other ongoing debates 

Cheers!

Perhaps as someone who also loves Uriah Heep, you are not going to tell me that a majority of their albums are prog-rock as well ...

I give you that one Trotsky, I'm a Uriah Heep fan long before I even knew Prog Rock existed. and it's true that only 4 or at the best 5 albums are Prog', but they were here before I joined and as I said before I'm not trying to take away bands already included, only trying to prevent more mistakes.

BTW, the few years Uriah Heep was Prog, they were really Prog, but that's only my opinion.

Iván

king of Siam wrote: I think the rule shoould be abolished I now think that queen should be on the archives. I started listening to more of their songs and i feel that they should be allowed in. people including myself are biased and hypocrites. The archives will only grow if we add bands including stuff that is close to prog.

I had been pondering the validity of having these huge debates, when many of us are pretty entrenched in our positions (myself included, of course)  

I had been pondering the validity of having these huge debates, when many of us are pretty entrenched in our positions (myself included, of course)

I don't know you, but I enjoy the debates,  some are tougher than the ones I have in the court, mostly because here the vast majority of members know about Prog and in Peruvian Courts most judges don't know a sh!t about laws (Judges are paid about US$ 1,000.00 a month and a slightly over the average  lawyer earnsfive times that).

Iván

ivan_2068 wrote: Perhaps as someone who also loves Uriah Heep, you are not going to tell me that a majority of their albums are prog-rock as well ... I give you that one Trotsky, I'm a Uriah Heep fan long before I even knew Prog Rock existed. and it's true that only 4 or at the best 5 albums are Prog', but they were here before I joined and as I said before I'm not trying to take away bands already included, only trying to prevent more mistakes. BTW, the few years Uriah Heep was Prog, they were really Prog, but that's only my opinion. Iván

Again we are agreed that Uriah Heep made some important prog, but it was in the minority of their catalogue, I suppose the disagreement between you/NJNetsFan (and probably a good many others) and myself on Jethro Tull is the ratio ...

But the principle of the rule is what I challenge (although I acknowledge that in most cases it works fine) ... my basic belief is that if a band/artist made prog there should eventually be a space for them on progarchives even if the prog music is a minority of their catalogue ... again this brings us back to the prog fringe/of interest category ...

Edited for a little bit of clarity (one hopes)

The Problem with giving a grey space is that people will include anything, from Elton John to Europe.

Don't laugh, I already read some posts saying that some Elton John albums are Prog, you just need to search.

Frenchie asked the addition of an Indie band but then noticed he was wrong and asked to delete it, but most people won't do that.

Neutral Milk Hotel is still in the Archives and has absolutely no relation with Prog, they are good, who doubts it, but Progressive Rock is a genre not an award for good music.

Iván

ivan_2068 wrote: The Problem with giving a grey space is that people will include anything, from Elton John to Europe. Don't laugh, I already read some posts saying that some Elton John albums are Prog, you just need to search. Frenchie asked the addition of an Indie band but then noticed he was wrong and asked to delete it, but most people won't do that. Neutral Milk Hotel is still in the Archives and has absolutely no relation with Prog, they are good, who doubts it, but Progressive Rock is a genre not an award for good music. Iván

Yes you are right, I've seen them too ... I'm certainly not in agreement with giving everyone access to including bands ... I prefered the old system ... with maybe a larger committee to help ron & max ...

ivan_2068 wrote: Allmusic clasifies Opeth as: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:11957 - Symphonic Black Metal http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:655 - Heavy Metal http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:2952 - Progressive Metal http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:11954 - Scandinavian Metal http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:384 - Death Metal/ Black Metal

Shows you don't know that much about metal , do you? Opeth is all of those.

A few metal sites..

Metal Storm considers them Death Prog.

Metal Archives says Extreme Prog Metal.

BRN Metal says " The phrase "progressive death metal" has been used before, but it probably fits Opeth better than any other single band "

Metal Orberver says Prog Death Metal also.

A few prog sites..

Prog Archives, of course as we all know, considers them Prog Metal.

Gibraltar Encyclopedia of Prog says they are Prog Metal.

Ground and Sky Prog Site considers them Prog Metal.

Ducth Prog Site DPRP says about Opeth's Deliverance "  one of the best progressive-metal albums ever made "

A few music sites in general..

Allmusic.com , as noted before, says Prog Metal

RollingStone.com says Prog Metal

Finnish Music site melankolia.net says Prog Metal.

For me, this leaves the question, is there ANYONE who doesn't consider them prog, other than YOU and a few others who don't understand modern prog music.

Also, if they aren't prog, why do they have masses of followers in the prog community, and those masses of prog fans consider them to be prog metal??

Logos wrote: For me, this leaves the question, is there ANYONE who doesn't consider them prog, other than YOU and a few others who don't understand modern prog music.Also, if they aren't prog, why do they have masses of followers in the prog community, and those masses of prog fans consider them to be prog metal??

Even worse - I consider them Symphonic Prog Rock. The heavy instrumentation and growling make it an extreme form of music, but basically they're an offspring of Camel, which is a classic Symph Prog band.

Quasi prog/glam

Industrial/Emo/art prog

Old skool hip hop/prog/electro

Pagan metal/folk

Whatever....

I am not really talking about such strange genres as "pagan metal/folk", I am talking about band that have long since been established as an important contributor to another genre. In my opinion Roxy Music clearly belongs with the likes of Cockney Rebel and David Bowie, as one of the great album glam rock acts of the early seventies. When it comes to Kraftwerk, they have long since been know as the originators of "synthpop".

I do not really like the "innovative" criteria for determining what is progressive rock, because that would imply that almost every genre would be considered "prog" in an early stage. That is the problem I have with Kraftwerk and some other bands in the progarchives, they were the start of a whole new genre, and not prog as such. That would make prog a completely useless term as a genre.

http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive-rock.asp - http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive-rock.asp