| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Henry Plainview 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 26 2008
Location: Declined
Status: Offline
Points: 16715
|
 Posted: February 13 2011 at 02:07 |
 40footwolf wrote:
I am so lost. |
Some people feel that prog refers solely to progressive rock, while progressive refers to any forward movement in music. So I guess that Earendil means that prog metal is progressive metal that moves towards the ideals of prog rock, while progressive metal is simply metal that progresses forward in some way. However, this is kind of insane and makes discussions less clear, not more.
boo boo wrote:
I find it incredibly ironic, hypocritical even, that Dream Theater have the nerve to go on about rock cliches when what they do is itself very cliched. |
Here is a good pet peeve: any time somebody complains about rock cliches in song form. It's always insufferable and the actual song to go with it is usually terrible as well.
boo boo wrote:
Wtf was so goddamn tragic about 1990 that you never shut up about it? |
Walter is by far PA's most successful troll, that is what. He still gets people pissed off with his stupid gimmick but he also has somehow managed not to get banned yet.
|
|
if you own a sodastream i hate you
|
 |
40footwolf
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 08 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 651
|
Posted: February 13 2011 at 01:51 |
|
I am so lost.
|
|
Heaven's made a cesspool of us all.
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: February 13 2011 at 01:34 |
40footwolf wrote:
Eärendil wrote:
Cristi wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
Cristi wrote:
Eärendil wrote:
Anything prog-related that just plain bothers you.
Mine is when people say "prog metal" instead of "progressive metal". There's a difference 
|
what's the difference? isn't the word "prog" just short for progressive? |
In the case of prog metal versus progressive metal, I know of none. |
but i see people make a distinction between "prog" and "progressive rock"; isn't it the same thing?
why do we bury ourselves in semantics? |
Prog is undeniably progressive rock, but something can be progressive without being prog.
|
???!?!?!?!?!?!?!? |
Agreed 100%. Progressive music is not the sole preserve of prog, if that's what he means and I don't mean just the Stravinskys and Miles-es. I would say Bobby McFerrin is progressive for his approach to vocals but not prog rock. I wouldn't call Michael Hedges prog rock either but Aerial Boundaries is progressive with regard to guitar music in general.
Edited by rogerthat - February 13 2011 at 01:36
|
|
40footwolf
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 08 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 651
|
Posted: February 12 2011 at 23:23 |
Eärendil wrote:
Cristi wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
Cristi wrote:
Eärendil wrote:
Anything prog-related that just plain bothers you.
Mine is when people say "prog metal" instead of "progressive metal". There's a difference
|
what's the difference? isn't the word "prog" just short for progressive? |
In the case of prog metal versus progressive metal, I know of none. |
but i see people make a distinction between "prog" and "progressive rock"; isn't it the same thing?
why do we bury ourselves in semantics? |
Prog is undeniably progressive rock, but something can be progressive without being prog.
|
???!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
|
|
Heaven's made a cesspool of us all.
|
|
40footwolf
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 08 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 651
|
Posted: February 12 2011 at 23:18 |
AllP0werToSlaves wrote:
javier0889 wrote:
Nothing really serious, but I don't like the word "technical" applied to death or extreme metal in general (although I like Death and Atheist). Any kind of music requires a certain technique, no matter the genre. Not only death metal with complex riffs and/or solos.
|
While there certainly death metal bands I would absolutely classify as "technical" (Suffocation comes to mind), I get what you're saying. I think the technicality aspect of bands like Death and Atheist was secondary to their sound i.e. they were just interested in writing really creative, well thought out riffs and parts as opposed to sitting around trying to be as tech as possible for the sake of it. Death "Human" is a perfect example of this (IMO). It's just like prog rock; it was a PROGRESSION of a musical style, not an intent to invade a super-specific sub-genre thus curbing creativity.
My main gripe would be post-rock in general. It never clicked with me and has always come across as an excuse to use lazy, un-creative guitar playing. It robs nearly all the good elements of rock, hard rock, and metal without any of the merit. I'm not saying these bands aren't creative just because I personally don't like the sound, but anything with "post" in the title sounds like the diet or "reduced calorie" version of that genre. Add to this that it helped kick start the trend of clothing and apparel being just as if not MORE important than the actual music, and you have the decline of musical integrity in my area of the states. It was as if someone one day said "Wait a minute...we just have to look and at first listen sound like rock and get all the benefits of being rock stars?!" *Begs parents to buy expensive PRS guitar out of American Musical Catalog*
And while I genuinely support creativity in music in any form, post rock is where I draw the line. It is the prime example of the abuse of artistic subjectivity, and represents a certain decline IMHO. When progressive rock broke away from the mainstream it added MORE creativity than what it was separating itself from, not less. Droney, whiney ass PRS guitars bought by your rich parents does not make you a good musician; neither does learning how to perform blast beats, gravity blasts etc yet being unable to play something so simple as swing time. I'm not knocking down indie musicians as I am one myself, but it drives me absolutely bat sh*t when no skill or technique is actually understood yet they all claim to be breaking new ground. Rock is and has been going backwards since the early 2000's IMHO.
And before everyone makes the assumption that I just keep using the rich parent argument, come north of Boston where there are no jobs and look at all the rich whiney kids who don't understand nor appreciate what they have. I have seen rigs that would make pros jealous, all in the hands of ungrateful brats who sit around all day playing Xbox instead of utilizing their potential (or lack thereof). ESPECIALLY in New England, where post-rock and hardcore are as prominent as ever. Did I miss the memo that said we all had to trade in our musical integrity for our sisters pants and hair dye kit? When did fashion (besides 80's hair metal) dictate musical direction? THESE are the kids who are "breaking new ground" musically...?
And it wouldn't even be that bad if every friggin' band didn't glamorize the art of being a social victim. "My girlfriend dumped me; time to take on the world with my futility and ignorant understanding of life based entirely on events that I've seen in Hollywood films such as Edward Scissorhands and Donnie Darko! I truly understand the depth and veracity of human emotion!" I enjoy music that liberates, not binds. If chiming along with bitchy dudes who look like girls is creative, meaningful, and poetic then I truly am from another dimension. Bear in mind that everything where I live is considered post rock; I don't know about you guys but in New England it seems that it's either post rock, metal or hardcore.
|
I think you're confusing the fanbase and the music. Certain bands I can see these complaints being leveled at, but to refer to a group like Sigur Ros, Godspeed You! Black Emperor or Isis as being "lazy and uncreative" is just appallingly inaccurate. You may not like how they sound, but have some respect for the craft, at least.
|
|
Heaven's made a cesspool of us all.
|
|
irrelevant
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 07 2010
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 13382
|
Posted: February 12 2011 at 07:24 |
You don't like King Crimson, we get it.
|
|
|
|
boo boo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 28 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 905
|
Posted: February 12 2011 at 04:04 |
Billy Pilgrim wrote:
boo boo wrote:
I find it incredibly ironic, hypocritical even, that Dream Theater have the nerve to go on about rock cliches when what they do is itself very cliched.
Some may find me self contradicting, because I love Porcupine Tree. And they are a pretty accessible band who wear their influences on their sleeves despite the prog label. But they have a very immersive sound, and they do atmosphere incredibly well, which I find to be a more important quality in prog than technical perfection. |
I think it depends. Some bands like Porcupine Tree, or Godspeed, are all about the mood and the atmosphere, and than you have Rush and ELP who are all about technical perfection and raw talent.
I guess I'd rather have deep melodies and texture than the other though.
|
I think you're oversimplifying a bit.
Rush and ELP used a lot of atmosphere in their music too.
And vice versa, Porcupine Tree and Godspeed are not technically incompetent musicians by any means.
|
|
jaybird77
Forum Newbie
Joined: February 12 2011
Location: Alaska
Status: Offline
Points: 28
|
Posted: February 12 2011 at 03:45 |
|
Dream Theater hacking renditions and covers of various artists.
|
|
Billy Pilgrim
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 28 2010
Location: Austin
Status: Offline
Points: 1505
|
Posted: February 12 2011 at 03:29 |
boo boo wrote:
I find it incredibly ironic, hypocritical even, that Dream Theater have the nerve to go on about rock cliches when what they do is itself very cliched.
Some may find me self contradicting, because I love Porcupine Tree. And they are a pretty accessible band who wear their influences on their sleeves despite the prog label. But they have a very immersive sound, and they do atmosphere incredibly well, which I find to be a more important quality in prog than technical perfection. |
I think it depends. Some bands like Porcupine Tree, or Godspeed, are all about the mood and the atmosphere, and than you have Rush and ELP who are all about technical perfection and raw talent. I guess I'd rather have deep melodies and texture than the other though.
|
|
Snow Dog
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
|
Posted: February 12 2011 at 03:29 |
boo boo wrote:
I find it incredibly ironic, hypocritical even, that Dream Theater have the nerve to go on about rock cliches |
|
|
|
|
Billy Pilgrim
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 28 2010
Location: Austin
Status: Offline
Points: 1505
|
Posted: February 12 2011 at 03:25 |
X is great  I liked some of what I've heard of V to. Ah, I wish I could like them more..
|
|
boo boo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 28 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 905
|
Posted: February 12 2011 at 03:25 |
I find it incredibly ironic, hypocritical even, that Dream Theater have the nerve to go on about rock cliches when what they do is itself very cliched.
Some may find me self contradicting, because I love Porcupine Tree. And they are a pretty accessible band who wear their influences on their sleeves despite the prog label. But they have a very immersive sound, and they do atmosphere incredibly well, which I find to be a more important quality in prog than technical perfection.
|
|
Snow Dog
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
|
Posted: February 12 2011 at 03:23 |
|
Weird. Just don't hear the problem myself. Listen to post Neal beard.
|
|
|
|
Billy Pilgrim
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 28 2010
Location: Austin
Status: Offline
Points: 1505
|
Posted: February 12 2011 at 03:18 |
|
Gotta admit that Morse's vocal style just doesn't interest me.
I've tried to get into that band time and time again and just can't because of his voice.
|
|
Snow Dog
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
|
Posted: February 12 2011 at 03:08 |
|
I like Neal Morse singing. Never heard any problem with it.
|
|
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: February 12 2011 at 03:02 |
boo boo wrote:
Morse does have a very clean and sober style, I think he's a good singer, but his style does sound Christian Rock-is sometimes. But he never comes off as hilariously hammy like Labrie, where that kinda singing is all he knows. |
Morse's fault is more in sucking the life out of a good melody and putting the listener to sleep. Yes, nobody to beat king LaBrie! 
boo boo wrote:
Of course hilariously over the top vocals can be awesome depending on the band, I'm a Uriah Heep fan after all. |
That's a good example because David Byron does evoke LaBrie, mostly on account of a similarly overwrought style and annoying vibrato. But he has a much better tone, kinda like Gillan, so he gets away with it to a large extent.
boo boo wrote:
Uriah Heep were a band who clearly enjoyed themselves though. My main problem with Dream Theater is that goddamn everything they've ever done sounds cold, routine and mechanical to me. It lacks that spark of life that all the best 70s prog bands had (and yes that includes ELP, STFU). Even when Wetton era King Crimson made music with an intentionally bleak and "industrial" sound, it had a rawness to it.
Dream Theater seem to only understand a portion of what prog rock was about. They know complex signatures and everything, but their music doesn't take me anywhere, they have no sense of humor, no ambition to actually use their skills to make something different. |
Yeah, they lack rock and roll energy and spirit maybe because they have decided beforehand that rock cliches are disgusting and juvenile (in a way, they are but they often bring much needed life to compositionally tired ideas). But they also don't have such an individualistic style like KC or Genesis. They don't crush as much as the most extreme metal out there, they are not as creepy as say Magma, they are not as much fun to listen to as ELP, they are kinda in the middle. But I won't trash them too much for it because some people like it that way, a bit of this and that without being particularly expressive in one direction, that;s why they do have a big following too. But they can be borderline embarrassing with their handling of softer material, for that I cut them no slack. How people can flog modern pop and then proclaim Another Day a masterpiece baffles me.
|
|
boo boo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 28 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 905
|
Posted: February 12 2011 at 02:25 |
Wtf was so goddamn tragic about 1990 that you never shut up about it?
|
|
WalterDigsTunes
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 11 2007
Location: SanDiegoTijuana
Status: Offline
Points: 4373
|
Posted: February 12 2011 at 02:24 |
natewait wrote:
The whole prog vs. progressive debate.
The belief that music past a certain year (1989 perhaps as an example) is all crap.
People who immediately dismiss/put down music because it contains religious themes/lyrics.
And to be more specific about an artist I love:
The insistence that Neal Morse has been repeating himself album after album.
|
Godboy's problem stems from being a post-89 nobody making derivative music using the same silly myth over and over and over...
|
|
boo boo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 28 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 905
|
Posted: February 12 2011 at 02:21 |
Morse does have a very clean and sober style, I think he's a good singer, but his style does sound Christian Rock-is sometimes. But he never comes off as hilariously hammy like Labrie, where that kinda singing is all he knows.
Of course hilariously over the top vocals can be awesome depending on the band, I'm a Uriah Heep fan after all.
Uriah Heep were a band who clearly enjoyed themselves though. My main problem with Dream Theater is that goddamn everything they've ever done sounds cold, routine and mechanical to me. It lacks that spark of life that all the best 70s prog bands had (and yes that includes ELP, STFU). Even when Wetton era King Crimson made music with an intentionally bleak and "industrial" sound, it had a rawness to it.
Dream Theater seem to only understand a portion of what prog rock was about. They know complex signatures and everything, but their music doesn't take me anywhere, they have no sense of humor, no ambition to actually use their skills to make something different.
As I've said before, it's far worse to not do anything interesting with your talents than to have no talent at all. At least The Shaggs were original.
Edited by boo boo - February 12 2011 at 02:23
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: February 12 2011 at 01:43 |
MillsLayne wrote:
I will say that the thing that bothers me the most about some progressive bands is some styles of singing. And know that I don't think that it's necessarily bad, but it's just not my favorite style to hear. Guys like James LaBrie and Neal Morse just don't do it for me. The music in their respective bands is pretty good, but the singing does make it to where I listen to them less.
|
Out of curiosity, any examples of who else sings in that style? Those are amongst my least favourite prog singers along with Hogarth. But though I can think of others who either do the 80s glam meets smooth jazz mush kind of niche that LaBrie operates in or the kind of precious, overwrought singing that Morse is 'known' for, I can't readily think of others that repulsive or who make it difficult to focus on the music. The Circus Maximus singer has some similarities to LaBrie, for example, but is much more bearable at least for my taste.
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Prog Pet Peeves
