Prog metal.

I know for some of you listening to prog metal wankery is almost akin to apostasy. But I see some threads for Rush and Yes here so it can't be totally bad. Rush especially are called the forefathers of Prog Metal. I admit, I partake of the PM on a regular basis. In fact I like me a lot of prog whether it be prog death, thrash or whatever. Take a band like Communic. Some very progressive tendencies. Maybe the better word would be technical death or whatever. Zero Hour and Shadow Gallery would, IMHO, be very progressive. Even a Megadeth gets labeled as prog thrash at times. And everyone likes Fates Warning right?
So my question is: what makes something prog? Aside from a straight up prog guy like a Neal Morse. Is it just a title thrown around to sound cool and like your a smarty pants? What do you like/not like about progginess.
(we could have a wing called proglodyte dawn. Huh, huh? You like? )

etombdissonance wrote:

I know for some of you listening to prog metal wankery is almost akin to apostasy. But I see some threads for Rush and Yes here so it can't be totally bad.

OK, I don't mean the following statements to apply to anyone else's personal musical preferences, but here's how *I* feel about it:

It's true that I personally disdain most of what is currently labeled "prog metal" or, as I like to call it, "pseudo-power-prog-noodlewanker metal" For me, it's mainly bands like Dream Theater and the majority of the European so-called "power-prog" bands (you know, all of the ones with names that sound like farts?) that irritate me. I think my main complaint is what I perceive as an overarching pretentiousness because many of the musicians involved appear to me as virtuoso primadonnas. That and, for my ears anyway, the music I've heard in this genre tends to lack the gut level qualities that I personally like to be present in my metal in general and in the music I listen to that can be seen a "difficult" to play. It's not heavy or groovy enough to please the metalhead in me, and the complexity of the compositions tends, IMO, to sound like it's difficult just for the sake of being difficult in order to prove how wonderful the musicians are - which I hate. I guess, in a nutshell, I just don't like the sound or execution of it (the combination of "progessive" and "metal") and most of it just sounds undynamic to my ears and uninspiring to me as the type of musician I am personally.

etombdissonance wrote:

Rush especially are called the forefathers of Prog Metal. I admit, I partake of the PM on a regular basis. In fact I like me a lot of prog whether it be prog death, thrash or whatever.

It's true that 70's prog rock bands like Rush, King Crimson, Jethro Tull, Yes, Emerson, Lake & Palmer, Kansas, Styx, early Genesis and Pink Floyd, etc. probably had a major influence on today's prog metal bands. I suppose the difference for me comes with the basic sound of "rock" as opposed to "metal". The prog rock of the 70's tended to be very complex in arrangement and execution, true, but the sounds used were from the rock genre and the limitations of technology of the period, not the metal sound either of back then or of today. I personally think that the sounds associated with "rock" leave more room for the music to breathe and be heard and understood, whereas metal is usually about extremes, so when that extremity is combined with a high measure of complexity, the result is apparently not pleasing to my ears, or else I would probably love modern prog metal. What I've heard of it though, I'm just not interested, and don't really want to take the time to give it more of a chance than I already have, being that there are other genres that I absolutely love and plenty of them that I have still yet to discover. The old "so much music, so little time and money" adage put forth by our friend ultmetal time and time again seems to apply here for me.

etombdissonance wrote:

Take a band like Communic. Some very progressive tendencies. Maybe the better word would be technical death or whatever. Zero Hour and Shadow Gallery would, IMHO, be very progressive.

Not familiar with any of these bands' music.

etombdissonance wrote:

Even a Megadeth gets labeled as prog thrash at times.

Maybe sometimes their complexity and arrangements are kind of prog-ish in places. I suppose I can hear a bit of that, but not enough to fully place them in that category. Plus, I actually like Megadeth, so they can't really be prog-metal!

etombdissonance wrote:

And everyone likes Fates Warning right?

Nope. I've never been a fan of this band. Most bands that cite Iron Maiden as a primary influence are usually not my cup of tea. Although I do like Maiden, I don't usually like the music that later bands usually come up with based on their influence.

etombdissonance wrote:

So my question is: what makes something prog? Aside from a straight up prog guy like a Neal Morse. Is it just a title thrown around to sound cool and like your a smarty pants? What do you like/not like about progginess.

I've always understood the term "progressive", when applied to the prog-rock and "art" bands of the 70's anyway, as rock music that used arrangements that were based on a classical style of composition, or a hybrid of classical and rock when that was a new concept back in the late 60's. I suppose the same could hold true for modern prog-metal, but I personally just don't like that particular combination or the sounds that it produces, as I stated above.

I do see the modern title of "progressive", at least as it is used by metal bands, to be a bit pretentious and yes, an attempt to sound "elite" and be lumped in with the prog bands of the 70's that may have been their influences. Problem is, I don't hear nearly the creativity and dynamic of sound in their music as I do with the classic prog rock bands. I'm sure their are exceptions, but I've yet to hear them personally.

etombdissonance wrote:

(we could have a wing called proglodyte dawn. Huh, huh? You like? )

I do have a slight "prog" influence in my arrangements in places, but my music is currently not incredibly complex to play. Part of the reason for this is that I myself am not a "guitar virtuoso" so much as a "guitar artist". I use my guitar as a tool to create aural compositions or "paintings", not to achieve stellar and awe-inspiring technical monstrosities that will inspire the guitar gods of generations to come.

True, VENI DOMINE is sort of a cross between prog-metal and doom at times also, so there are inroads for small portions of it in my life. It's just nowhere near the top of my list.

All of this stuff is so subjective anyway though, it's really hard to nail it down. I tend to know what I like when I hear it though, and that's usually my rule of thumb.

etombdissonance wrote:

I know for some of you listening to prog metal wankery is almost akin
to apostasy. But I see some threads for Rush and Yes here so it can't
be totally bad. Rush especially are called the forefathers of Prog
Metal. I admit, I partake of the PM on a regular basis. In fact I like
me a lot of prog whether it be prog death, thrash or whatever. Take a
band like Communic. Some very progressive tendencies. Maybe the better
word would be technical death or whatever. Zero Hour and Shadow Gallery
would, IMHO, be very progressive. Even a Megadeth gets labeled as prog
thrash at times. And everyone likes Fates Warning right?
So my
question is: what makes something prog? Aside from a straight up prog
guy like a Neal Morse. Is it just a title thrown around to sound cool
and like your a smarty pants? What do you like/not like about
progginess.
(we could have a wing called proglodyte dawn. Huh, huh? You like? )

As we all know, in discussing preference and taste, we are regularily
reminded that it is a "game" of opinions (to quote G-wiz). In my mind,
what tends to determine whether someone likes or dislikes a particular
artist is whether the artist delivers what that person is looks for in
music (whether it be the style of music or just music in general). To
me, music is more than just cool riffs and musicianship. It is the
coming together of sounds and ideas in order to creatively or
effectively convey what the artist is trying to say. The combining of
instruments played in time creates a spirit, aura, or atmosphere that allows the lyrics, or otherwise the message of the music to be not just heard but felt by
the listener. In my opinion, music must be deep, or else it has no
purpose. (and by deep, I don't mean intelligent or philosophical, I
just mean purposeful and effective) There is something to be said for
musicianship, and I greatly respect those who have become vitruosos
through continued study of and passion for their instrument and their
craft. However, being a good musician only gets you halfway to writing
good music. The other half is having a reason to play the music (and I mean a reason other than to "toot one's own horn", so to speak).

Trog put it well when he said that modern prog seems difficult for the
sake of being difficult. The issue of pretensciosness also comes to my
mind when discussing this genre. I do not like show-offs in any area of
my life, why should it be any different when it comes to the music I
listen to?

It seems, however, that to certain listeners, the (relatively) small
but (unjustifiably) bloated world of "power-prog" metal is the end-all
of musical reality. The genre, however, is (at best) samey and dull; it
has made itself into a cliche. And calling a cliche progressive is ...
well ... hardly progressive. If anything, it's anti-progressive. It is musically constipated, stuck in the narrow boundaries of the power-prog sound.

What makes an artist "progressive", then? Well, for starters, knowledge
of music theory and an ability to play well are (probably) criteria. In
the progressive rock movement of the 70s, I see a big emphasis on
chordal structure and compositional know how (the combining of
classical and rock influences, as Trog said). However, as I was getting
at earlier, this quality is a means to an end for these
artists. What I tend to like about progressive rock artists is that
they use their compositional skills to allow the lyrics of the music to
be felt in the music of the song. Such that the music creates
the attitude and carries the lyrics. Combine this quality with a deep
or intelligent message (specifically speaking), and you have something
truly progressive. Each artists' music is the expression of their
unique vision.

Steve Vai is an exellent example of this, IMO. Steve's music is not
just art for art's sake, it is art as a reaction to the world around
him, and as an expression of his personal life views. He uses his music
to convey those reactions/visions. He has done an excellent job of
using the sound and aura of his music to convey those
messages. And whether or not they are recieved specifically by the
listener is not what's important. It's that his music creates a mood or
evokes an emotion in the listener. As I said before, virtuosity is a
means to an end.

Any questions??? It will be cool to see where this discussion goes.

Well put, D&G.

And I'm certainly not slagging anyone's taste, it's just that this stuff doesn't speak to me personally. I like some stuff that some of you would probably despise so intensely that projectile vomiting might be preferrable.

But that's why Baskin-Robbins has 31 flavors, right?

The only thing I consistently dislike in these sorts of threads is the polarization people make between 'fast' and 'slow', 'speed' vs 'soul'.. as if there were one way to do things... if there happened to be something played on the guitar that was awe-inspiring in technique, that can simply be a trait, it doesn't necessarily mean that's the reason it was composed.. and if something is slower, it certain doesn't make it aesthetically more soulful all of a sudden..



I am sort of drained beyond further elaboration, because it seems like no thread I've started here or at the Realm lately has gotten much response at all (like 2 replies), so I'm trying to figure out what to do next.



For the record though most things I like that would be classified as 'progressive' is pretty off the wall in many ways and isn't just Vai with more keyboards....so if anyone's feeling adventurous..just ask.....

Orion Crystal Ice wrote:

The only thing I consistently dislike in
these sorts of threads is the polarization people make between 'fast'
and 'slow', 'speed' vs 'soul'.. as if there were one way to do
things... if there happened to be something played on the guitar that
was awe-inspiring in technique, that can simply be a trait, it doesn't
necessarily mean that's the reason it was composed.. and if something
is slower, it certain doesn't make it aesthetically more soulful all of
a sudden..

I understand what you mean. If my post came across this way, then I certainly didn't mean for it to.

I like to listen by the basic philosophy that there is no style of
music about which nothing good can be said (well, maybe a few ...
). I tend to look at prog the same way I look at death metal. It's
excellent when done well, but the genre is almost completely ruined by
wankers who are missing the point.

Quote :

For the record though
most things I like that would be classified as 'progressive' is pretty
off the wall in many ways and isn't just Vai with more keyboards....so
if anyone's feeling adventurous..just ask.....

I wouldn't mind hearing a few projects.

sabbsteve wrote:

ACTUALLY, DOOM AND PROG HAVE THEIR MEETING POINTS AT TIMES.

Oh yes, progressive music and doom rock/metal certainly have crossover potential.

I love the veiled reference to Silent Force by Trog. Most of the european stuff I wouldn't call prog though. Maybe melodic power metal. It is totally subjective though. GW often states he likes it all but I'm right there with him. I like most styles of rock/metal at some point. I'm a thrash fanatic and I love doom but will give almost anyone a listen.
I agree with the definitions of prog given though there seems to be a stereotype that modern prog-metal has too much, shall we say, bombast, and I don't always think that's true. A group like Zero Hour is so much more and is always couched in terms of conveying meaning that is not necessarily on the surface.
OCI-speak on bro'. I listen even if I don't always have a reply.

I WANT TO SECOND WHAT ETOMB IS SAYING ABOUT LISTENING BUT NOT REPLYING.ON A MESSAGE BOARD LIKE THIS WHERE YOU AREN'T ACTUALLY TALKING DIRECTLY IT CAN TAKE TIME TO GET REPLIES DEPENDING ON AVAIL.TIME AND SCHED.ALSO I PERSONALLY DON'T REPLY IF I DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT:lol: I HAVE WRITTEN FOR YEARS FOR HB MAG AND STILL HAVE GOTTEN MINIMAL FEEDBACK SO HANG IN THERE OCI. BY THE WAY, COOL AVATAR MAN!

I like Motorhead!

ultmetal wrote:

I like Motorhead!

Me too! And cashews!

TrogDawn wrote:

ultmetal wrote:

I like Motorhead!

Me too! And cashews!

Cashews are good.

Lemmy is better!

ultmetal wrote:

Lemmy is better!

I dunno man, I'm not gonna see if Lemmy tastes better than cashews because I'm not getting anywhere near him with my mouth open!

Whoa. Perish the thought. Like, what if you hit a mole or something?

Oh, by the way, since you have hijacked my thread, I'm going to have to use the W word on you.

etombdissonance wrote:

I'm going to have to use the W word on you.

You WOULDN'T DARE!

Oh, I just might. At least a stern finger wagging but it may come to the actual use of the big W.

I remember White Wolf but have'nt even thought of them in years. Now I may have to go do some digging. I just reread the post and was thinking that SA doing anything by Fates W. would be awesome.