.

.

I've always felt, when you get too good at something you lose a lot of the basics. A lot of your prog musicians can literally play anything, and when you get to be that good, you rely more on technicality than simple structures.

A lot of Prog bands that I listen to (Pagans Mind, Myrath, Richard Campbell, Andromeda) to name a few, use tons of melody and keep the noodling pretty melodic and more atmospheric.

It's why a lot of people prefer guitar players who aren't fast and tend to pour their hearts into a song. Robots don't have feelings

It is actually on this thread that, for the first time, I learned of prog bands that you speak of with less emphasis on technical prowess. Haken, for instance.

I've never considered Dream Theater to be a band that favours technical ability over songwriting. Granted, they do have a lot complicated instrumental passages (e.g. The Dance of Eternity with its insane number of time changes), but I've always felt they've done a decent job of writing songs with memorable melodies.

In fact, I find Dream Theater's choruses to be more memorable than Fates Warning's, although in fairness I've listened to a lot more Dream Theater than Fates Warning. Similarly with Symphony X - I'm not familiar with their more recent material, but their early stuff certainly has big catchy choruses.

There are definitely prog metal bands out there who over-emphasise the technical aspect - there are some albums I've listened to and I can't remember a single song the moment the albums over. But I think Dream Theater and Symphony X have got the balance at least somewhat right.

I would ask you that question. I don't know that I've seen anything that objectively states that progressive metal is or must be technical in order to be progressive. :p Burden of proof?

Everything else, this speed VS feel, complex VS simple argument is some of the worst, most inane stuff I've heard and it's all the same everywhere you look. I wonder if anyone realizes minimalism for the sake of minimalism is pretentious and disingenuous. We are dealing with art, not entertainment, not fast food, why are we sitting around in 2014 saying that meager = emotional as though the human emotional spectrum is the thickness of a shoelace.

Progressive anything has this tendency to miss the forest for the trees. Listen to old Genesis, for example, and you'll hear a lot of great players, but their playing is always in service to a song. King Crimson more or less managed to plow this field to great success to my ears - even if they sometimes disappeared up their own asses on the pretense scale. Yes, on the other hand, had a lot of really strong material, but had a tendency to disappear into wankery on just as many occasions.

I think, when the word "progressive" comes up, people tend to forget that what was "progressive" about the innovators in the field is that they were trying to stretch song structures and ideas to incorporate jazz and classical ideas that weren't really allowed in rock music. Instead, the instrumental prowess is the primary focus and progressive metal is REALLY prone to that. Dave Mustaine incorporating blues into metal by covering "I Ain't Superstitious" or his rendition of "These Boots" is more progressive than the speed picking a lot of prog metal bands engage in.

I mean, for comparison, take Brian May, who could shred with the best of them but only did so when it served the song with a guy like Steve Vai, who seems to be incapable of playing anything longer than a 16th note for any reason whatsoever. A whole note would probably make him stroke out.

Your second paragraph is spot on but the rest of it is very much trying to objectify something which is completely subjective and very, very, very easily proven as such..

I also never see posts extolling any bands who do anything considered out of the box or creative. The most creative a lot of metalheads get nowadays is Opeth who at this point is a whimsical imitation of 70's progressive rock culture, only ever so slightly less underground than your local Urban Outfitters. What I see is this band would be great if they didn't have X element, this band's merging of genres is displeasing, why this instrument, why this song, yadda yadda yadda. Across the board, metal fans put their money towards the shred movement which is still riding the crest of Rhoads/EVH/Yngwie 3 decades ago. But when that style is incorporated into music that does try to do some more creative stuff, suddenly it's bashed, it lacks feeling, it's robotic - what?

Everybody is coming from this viewpoint that there is a right and wrong way to craft a song and that's laughable when juxtaposed with "be more progressive". As music fans we're weaned from day 1 on this pop song structure, verse chorus verse bridge chorus. What you don't consider is that if we were brought up on fusion or Brahms, the Beach Boys or the Stones would be considered excessive and too this or too that or just too what we aren't used to.

Progressiveness is attempting experimentation to enhance or change the norm and sometimes that is going to include complexity beyond the norm which is the pop structure. You can't be for and against it at the same time. Even if you're against it, its incredibly offensive and audacious to claim an objective more notes/longer song = less feeling/less meaning stance. It has no backing. Zero. You cannot logically demand musically enriching, progressive music, but cling to a narrow and emotionally manipulative philosophy of what "feeling" is.

It still comes down to whether or not one digs something or not.

I may enjoy music from band (a) in style (z) but that doesn't mean band (b) or (m) from same style is gonna give me that warm fuzzy feeling.



Is this progressive ?

Never heard anything like it and it does have some experimental aspects.

I LOVE progressive music and hearing these guys play the heck out of their instrument is one of the main reasons I love it. I listen to PROG when I am in the mood to relax and sometimes work out.

Orion my man, as a listener, I can only say what a song does for me. If it feels robotic and it takes away from the song, then that's what I feel. There is no right or wrong way to play Prog. Same goes for the guitar or any instrument at that. You play it in whichever way you feel.

Emotion is something we can't interpret, when it's played by someone other than our self.

Prog metal is very popular around here.

Never been a big fan, despite owning lots of classic releases.

Usually I find long songs to be a bit boring.

One of the few bands I enjoy is radakka.

Orion Crystal Ice wrote:

Your second paragraph is spot on but the rest of it is very much trying to objectify something which is completely subjective and very, very, very easily proven as such..

Ok, I'll own that.  Let me see if I can tighten this up a bit.

Orion Crystal Ice wrote:

Progressiveness is attempting experimentation to enhance or change the norm and sometimes that is going to include complexity beyond the norm which is the pop structure. You can't be for and against it at the same time. Even if you're against it, its incredibly offensive and audacious to claim an objective more notes/longer song = less feeling/less meaning stance. It has no backing. Zero. You cannot logically demand musically enriching, progressive music, but cling to a narrow and emotionally manipulative philosophy of what "feeling" is.

No argument from me, but the difference is between someone actually finding NATURAL ways to advance their songwriting craft and trying to go, "OH OH OH!  I have chops!  I need somewhere to put them!"  I mean, I love the "Facing the Animal" album by Yngwie, but even as a teenager, it pissed me off to no end when he went all wank shred all over the romantic ballad on the album.  I mean, it totally crapped out the vibe of that song - so when I'm poo-pooing fast playing, it's fast playing that is inappropriate to the song because someone just HAD to show off rather than because the piece needed some complexity and aggression at that point.

Prog is chock full of players who have no sensitivities as composers and Dream Theater, for example on the metal side, has had a bumpy ride between being excellent composers who could also play their arses off and just being wanky players who were contractually obligated to present a new album - to THESE ears.  Lately, they've been on the up-swing, so it's said.  

For a good example of both being able to play AND appropriately applying it, I direct your attention to this song AND particularly to this solo.  I literally had to stop what I was doing because I had an absolute, "WTF are they doing?" moment over it.  Then, I started to laugh, because not only is it awesome, it's an incredibly funny musical joke and I LOVE them for it!  Did it revolutionize music or overhaul music theory for the ages?  No, but it's an excellent piece of music that throws an AWESOME curveball.  THAT is what makes something progressive IMHO.

FATES WARNING is definitely a technical band. CRIMSON GLORY aren't exactly slouches.

But to answer your question, it doesn't have to be. A great example is ANACRUSIS. Their stuff is prog but it is far easier to play than METALLICA or something like that.

Temple of Blood wrote:

FATES WARNING is definitely a technical band.  CRIMSON GLORY aren't exactly slouches.

But to answer your question, it doesn't have to be.  A great example is ANACRUSIS.  Their stuff is prog but it is far easier to play than METALLICA or something like that.

I've always felt Metallica had some of the easiest music out there   

ANACRUSIS don't have a song as difficult to nail as "Battery" or "Blackened". Yeah, some METALLICA songs are simple.

Frankly MEGADETH and TESTAMENT have some songs much more technical than a lot of the stuff called "prog" these days anyway.

Runicen wrote:

Orion Crystal Ice wrote:

Your second paragraph is spot on but the rest of it is very much trying to objectify something which is completely subjective and very, very, very easily proven as such..

Ok, I'll own that.  Let me see if I can tighten this up a bit.

Orion Crystal Ice wrote:

Progressiveness is attempting experimentation to enhance or change the norm and sometimes that is going to include complexity beyond the norm which is the pop structure. You can't be for and against it at the same time. Even if you're against it, its incredibly offensive and audacious to claim an objective more notes/longer song = less feeling/less meaning stance. It has no backing. Zero. You cannot logically demand musically enriching, progressive music, but cling to a narrow and emotionally manipulative philosophy of what "feeling" is.

No argument from me, but the difference is between someone actually finding NATURAL ways to advance their songwriting craft and trying to go, "OH OH OH!  I have chops!  I need somewhere to put them!"  I mean, I love the "Facing the Animal" album by Yngwie, but even as a teenager, it pissed me off to no end when he went all wank shred all over the romantic ballad on the album.  I mean, it totally crapped out the vibe of that song - so when I'm poo-pooing fast playing, it's fast playing that is inappropriate to the song because someone just HAD to show off rather than because the piece needed some complexity and aggression at that point.

Prog is chock full of players who have no sensitivities as composers and Dream Theater, for example on the metal side, has had a bumpy ride between being excellent composers who could also play their arses off and just being wanky players who were contractually obligated to present a new album - to THESE ears.  Lately, they've been on the up-swing, so it's said.  

For a good example of both being able to play AND appropriately applying it, I direct your attention to this song AND particularly to this solo.  I literally had to stop what I was doing because I had an absolute, "WTF are they doing?" moment over it.  Then, I started to laugh, because not only is it awesome, it's an incredibly funny musical joke and I LOVE them for it!  Did it revolutionize music or overhaul music theory for the ages?  No, but it's an excellent piece of music that throws an AWESOME curveball.  THAT is what makes something progressive IMHO.

I understand the core of that point totally, the only thing that tends to bug me in this type of discussion is it gets implied that the very presence of technicality voids out emotion or is only for the sake of itself. I mean I have the Spiral Architect album which is one of the math-iest things out there and it's one of the most powerful records I've heard. The lyrics are meaningful and steeped in Objectivist, Romantic thought and the music itself is self-evident as a massively bold and beautifully constructed piece of art. The freneticness and exotic scale combinations suggest all kinds of emotions and statements which the lyrics back up. I basically just hate how the idea of "feeling" in music is reduced so many times to slow air guitar solo. That is not why I listen to music.

A lot of people tend to equate prog with flashiness, complexity, time sig changes, etc. I guess I grew up with prog differently. I always thought it meant a calculated merging of styles, genres, and sub-genres to move away from mainstream trends. If that's wrong, oh well, I like it better and I'm sticking with it.

corplhicks wrote:

A lot of people tend to equate prog with flashiness, complexity, time sig changes, etc. I guess I grew up with prog differently. I always thought it meant a calculated merging of styles, genres, and sub-genres to move away from mainstream trends. If that's wrong, oh well, I like it better and I'm sticking with it.

Prog to me is a blend of styles as well.

All the "progressive" bands discussed around here don't do that very much though you guys. :p It's Symphony Xish stuff. If we start a thread for the stuff that actually progresses will people post in it?

Prog doesn't have to be technical. Just non-repetitive. You can keep it simple, too. I also don't like it when it sounds like band practise instead of a song.

I'll weigh in with this..... Roundabout by Yes is considered a progressive rock hit, correct? When asked about that song Steve Howe always said that it was a lot of simple things arranged in a complex, manner. Even Heart Of The Sunrise, which has some complicated parts also has simple ones as well: Those beautiful verses!

and then you have Gentle Giant who started off with a Jethro Tull type sound and then started putting classical and fugue style singing into their music until they reached the peak of that journey and went simple again with The Missing Piece.

I but then again I listen to a lot more 70s prog(Yea a lot of those guys, even some Italian stuff, PFM check 'em out), 80s neoprog(Marillion, Twelfth Night, IQ, Pallas and It Bites) and 90s Prog (Spock's Beard. Magellan[which has a bunch of twists and turns but never falls into wankery], Ad Infinitum, Cathedral{the U.S. one}, and Echolyn).


Crap I forgot where I was going with this......

Prog can be simple, though....

Ayreon is pretty song oriented Progressive Metal.

I should not have had that quad shot Dutch Bros. coffee.........

What most people describe as "prog" (in the metal side of things) just drives me nuts with the time changes. For the most part I like to fall into the rhythm of a song and let it carry me away. The time changes are jarring to me. I agree with Lari that it sounds like practice. I don't "get" Jazz, either, for many of the same reasons. It sounds random and unstructured and, yes, to me - pretentious.

I like complexity in my metal, it's just those weird time signatures.

Of course, some bands that are considered "Prog" I still do like, but they tend to be on the more mainstream side of things.

.

"Band practice" describes most "djent" for me - although, again, I'm absolutely sure there are bands out there doing that because that style of playing speaks to them and echoes what they want to express in some way, and not just to copy another band or show off.