If Dream Theater did naturally evolve from their metal ancestors, in a genre which you and I agree has always been progressive, I see this as a very strong point in their favour for their credentials as a prog band. But you still have doubts, so let's see...

Claiming that Dream Theater sound like Heavy Metal is fair, but I fail to understand the problem. Iron Maiden and Black Sabbath had metal running through their veins, and were perfectly innovative and outside thinking. Besides, I'm amazed how anyone could call the opening staccato patch of 'Learning To Live', the classical guitar interlude further on, the funk break in 'Take The Time' and the intimate piano of 'Surrounded' and 'Wait For Sleep' metal either - they all spark off in their own direction.

Although I disagree that the modes are not apparent, (Petrucci's flirt with the mixolydian at the end of 'Take The Time' sounds just like what it is to me, as well as creating and resolving tension in a way not dissimilar from jazz musicians.) since when has a feature in music had to be obvious to be valid? ABBA's subtlety with form and harmony, and your various insights into Metallica's musicality can easily go unnoticed, but that doesn't make them any less there.

'And Justice...' was written four years before I&W, by the way. I don't think that Metallica ever touched Theater's rhythmic ideas, and I see little similarity. Can you give an example of rhythmic properties that sound alike between the two albums? Dream Theater had a great sensitivity with odd tempos - note the shift of gear as they slide seamlessly from 15/8 to 14/8 in the opening bars of 'Learning To Live', very slightly changing JP's orientation in the bar, and propelling the music on. I've rarely heard such attention to detail in metal.

Their swift unison lines were more inspired from jazz fusion acts, and the wild play offs between keyboard and guitar strike a resemblance of Chick Corea's work with Al Di Meola - both Rudess and JP acknowledge the musicians respectively as influences. 

Now come on, Cert1fied, I fail to see how anyone could call them 'generic heavy metal', even the haters. Perhaps it's the case more now, but back then... 'Images And Words' produced timbres that I don't think were heard in metal before that point. This was mainly thanks to Kevin Moore, and his use of strings, piano and sensibility towards James' melodies in his accompaniment, allowing for a stark contrast against Petrucci's thick guitar assault - doubled by virtuoso John Myung. The change of colours amidst their music was only one distinguishing attribute - I have discussed their rhythmic and harmonic ideas at length, and these simply could not be heard in metal before them.

Others played fast solos, yes, but I hardly think that John Petrucci sounded like Malmsteen, and I'm sure you don't either. His playing is distinct owing to his meticulous alternate picking technique and long chromatic runs - there was plenty of creative shred work.

I'll happily name something ambitious they did - 'Metropolis Pt 1'. Apart from anything else, they risked a lot of record sales by creating music of that kind of nature, especially when progressive music could not be more socially abhored by the masses.

Fundamentally, as to whether they are progressive or not, there is no difference, because I think they both unmistakably are.

Perhaps it's because of my lack of knoledge of musical theory, but I just don't understand how DT could not be progressive, and how Metallica can be more progressive than DT. I just hear everything I love from prog on them (well, I tend to think of prog as just a short way of saying progressive music). And most of the music I like usually ends up being prog, or prog related (well, I do like very much some pop music, but I'm not so patient with it anymore; and some metal).

DavetheSlave wrote: I agree fully with fieldofsorrow's comments. I'm listening to Images and Words and earlier I listened to Awake. The guys who don't get DT's music I feel sorry for because there is just so much magic in it. The sax in Another Day blew me away. It's all a taste thing though. Some people aint interested in prog - they will listen to jazz or classics or heaven forbid - pop. I agree with Cert1fied on some things but it's obvious that our taste and theories differ vastly. I do perceive though that to say that DT aint a prog band is akin to saying that Carlos Santana doesn't know how to play a guitar - it makes no sense to me. I personally pick up more progressiveness in a DT album than I pick up from a Focus album and I adore Focus.

I agree fully with fieldofsorrow's comments. I'm listening to Images and Words and earlier I listened to Awake. The guys who don't get DT's music I feel sorry for because there is just so much magic in it. The sax in Another Day blew me away.

progressive wrote: DT...is... already a prog legend. DT is the best!

progressive wrote:  Why can't brutal imitating music be sophisticated? Maybe if people like something or think it as natural music, it's sophisticated; for example, for me post-rock seems to be mainly just poser music, quasi-sophisticated and not straight from the heart. But it's just me. It isn't only because I don't like post-rock so much... I see some sophistication in many music, but nothing's perfect and there must be something wrong with other people and their music because... it's not me.

^We can still extract some homo-sapiens DNA from his moustache... 

jampa17 wrote: So... is Dream theater already a Prog Legend? I don't know but that was this thread point right...?

So... is Dream theater already a Prog Legend? I don't know but that was this thread point right...?

@ progressive

All of the above arises only from people's need to classify music simply based on what it sounds like...in itself a flawed idea, at least imo.  Music should be classified based on the approach, otherwise we could never tell whether something played on piano is jazz or classical, right?  Because it would sound the same, broadly speaking, it's the underlying construct that would be different.  To answer your question about Black Sabbath and Burzum, aren't King Crimson and Genesis both indubitably prog?  I think that's quite enough.  Add Necrominocon, Hatfield and the North, Jethro Tull, Magma, Hawkwind...I could go on.  I don't think it's such a bad idea at all to call both Sabbath and Burzum heavy metal...ok, metal, if you like but we could stop right there.  The surfeit of genres in metal has only led to bands becoming more and more one dimensional...as in death metal is supposed to sound like this, so every band strives to achieve that sound and so on...why not just play metal and keep your options a little more open?  Metal is distorted riff-based music in a nutshell and black metal and traditional metal would both easily be covered under the umbrella term.  Yes, there are points of distinction and exception to be made, but this does not warrant classifying each and everything.  Might as well classify each band as a separate genre.  

Likewise,  prog is not meant to be identified by transparently obvious elements.  It is only an approach to developing music.  Please refer Keith Emerson's definition of prog...it has been mentioned in a few different places in the forum, so you should have no trouble locating it.  Prog is all about taking an idea and exploring it inside out...in the process of doing so, something new may emerge but this is not a necessary condition nor does all new music get called prog, which is what you seem to suggest.  This is a definition which can be seen to be applicable to a broad variety of bands in the classic scene, which was when prog emerged, so I for one don't see any reason why it should be bent to accommodate bands that get called prog these days. 

By the way, why exactly is music best when it is in one genre?  Care to elaborate?  I find that some of my most favourite artists or bands were the ones who were prepared to break new ground...which is often achieving by fusing genres or simply by incorporating influences from different genres to make something wholly different in turn and new.  That it can often turn out clumsy results doesn't mean it is in itself a bad idea.  Unless you think Beatles made bad music.