100 Greatest Progressive Rock Artists

[mot-]

David Hasselhoff is missing on the list, too.

 

[The Grimace]

id certainly agree that theyre proficient musicians, nobody is arguing that. but forward thinking and technical ability doesnt make a band "progressive"....

Funny, for my entire life I've thought that was the exact definition of 'progressive' music. I mean, literally, it is the definition.

Proficiency + change = progression.

What do you think it means?

 

[Evil Ernie]

how about instead, you can explain why you feel theyre progressive metal...and then ill explain why theyre not.

Go ask this in the Symphony X forum, they'll have thousands of good arguments for you. In my opinion Memnon and Grimace proposed good criterias to determine if a band is prog or not, and Symphony X fit in this bag perfectly. I guess you would say Adagio isn't prog neither then?

Pretty much any prog rock band makes anything "prog" metal seem like Slayer in terms of musical diversity....my opinion anyway.

So you think bands like Dream Theater, Tool, Opeth, Ayreon, Fates Warning, Queensryche, Pain of Salvation and such aren't musicaly diverse when compared to bands like Pink Floyd, Rush and Genesis? On that point I totally disagree.

 

[Don Corleone]

Frank Zappa should be at least top five, and should be ahead of fuckin DT any day, hes a fuckin genius, his band would crush dt any day, plus Bozzio is the fuckin man. They put all those faggot serious nerds to shame, all those arrogant prog "professional musicians" who try way to hard to show there talent off. Basically i fuckin hate the gay prog scene and i love it when a band comes along or came along in Zappa's case and completely crushes all the prog fags in talent and doesnt give a shit about it and just plays to play. I mean common the guy made 70 cds in 30 years and most of them are fuckin great.

so true. exactly my thoughts

 

[Don Corleone]

and about borknagar...a prog band? come on

if there's gonna be one black metal band on there it's EMPEROR with their last album, prometheus. thats hell of a prog for you all...owns anything borknagar has ever done

 

[The Grimace]

if there's gonna be one black metal band on there it's EMPEROR with their last album, prometheus. thats hell of a prog for you all...owns anything borknagar has ever done

Of course, I would say 'Prometheus' is the archetype of a Progressive BM album, because as a studio-only project Ihsahn had every opportunity to make it as expansive as possible. But Emperor was anything but a 'band' at that time, Ihsahn performed almost even second of music on the album except for the drums, which he still wrote. Remeber Samoth being listed as 'additional guitars'? That's a slap.

That's the aspect of albums like 'Empiricism' or Arcturus' 'The Sham Mirrors' that Emperor could never touch, not since 'Anthems' at least but that was hardly 'prog'. They have that element of interplay between several extremely talented individual musicians, which is important in any project, I'd say. Plus Ihsahn is kind of a crap bass player, not that you can actually hear the bass on the album (or any Emperor album, FTM), and one of my credentials for a great prog band is that they MUST have a good bass player. It's just crucial.

 

[NFU]

Funny, for my entire life I've thought that was the exact definition of 'progressive' music. I mean, literally, it is the definition.

Proficiency + change = progression.

What do you think it means?

the problem with this, is that this argument can (and has) go around and around and around. the genre started without a textbook defenition, and as time goes on...its typically getting harder and harder to explain one single defenition of what makes a band progressive, or not progressive.

ill agree highly that emperor, and arcturus are progressive metal for instance...but i dont think borknagar belongs in there...for nothing they did make me think "oh, thats new!" or "wow, what an interesting arrangement". they execute the music well...and its interesting stuff from time to time...but just not "progressive" to me.

as for symphony X ernie....just because a bunch of technical power metal fruits claim that their favorite band is progressive...doesnt mean they are. im not going to sit here and say that i know everything about underground necro fascist blackmetal....but progressive music is something i take very seriously, and have for some time now...and basically i could apply the same argument i made above about borknagar....to symphony X. The band hasnt progressed...they didnt do anything terribly original from the start...and theyre not doing anything original now. Its just highly technical and proficient power metal with some classical influence and whatnot.

 

[Evil Ernie]

I think we just don't have the same definition for progressive music. I think that technicality, originality, experimentation (be it with instruments, keys, tunings, time signature, you name it) are, among others, elements of progressive music that can be found in a lot of bands, to a certain degree. I think that Symphony X do have enough of those elements to be labeled progressive power metal, if only to distinguish them from the straight forward power metal bands. I don't think that the fact that their music is not 100% pure and new, that sometimes it sounds a little like Dream Theater or another prog band discalify them from the progressive music realm.

And regarding the way you seem to determinate wheter a band is prog or not, you said about SX that "The band hasnt progressed...they didnt do anything terribly original from the start...and theyre not doing anything original now."
Does that make a band like Iron Maiden a prog band, then? They surely have progressed a lot, they were very original at that time and they kept doing original music throughout most of their career (well, not anymore). A lot of early bands could be classified prog with such criterias, and most of them would not be.

 

[Memnon.]

Why wouldn't Symphony X be considered prog? On albums like Divine Wings of Tragedy or The Odyssey they have the the standard written songs then the one "24 minute epic" song. From what I know, I've listened to "The Odyssey" and the arrangement of the damn song screams "prog." You got insanely progressive arrangements (it's 20 minutes of no hook or melody, not until the last 5 minutes or so of the song pretty much), and undeterminable time signature throughout the piece. What exactly isn't progressive about them?

 

[Dreadful]

So you think bands like Dream Theater, Tool, Opeth, Ayreon, Fates Warning, Queensryche, Pain of Salvation and such aren't musicaly diverse when compared to bands like Pink Floyd, Rush and Genesis? On that point I totally disagree.

Pain of salvation is just an ocean of boring experimentation so I won't go any further with them. But yes as for Fates warning, Queensryche, Dream theater, Tool etc...Yes, Jethro Tull, Emerson Lake and Palmer, King crimson, Gentle giant etc makes such GUITAR DRIVEN metal seem very one dimensional. I'm not saying it is...but when you listen to 70s prog like that, you'd really wish the metal bands would expand their ideas.

 

[Dreadful]

For the record, I do like Dream theater alot...not as much as I used to but I have 7 CDs and I've seen them live a couple times, I'm still a fan. I do enjoy some of fates warning and tool here and there. the rest(besides Opeth of course) I'm just not into much...

 

[NFU]

I think we just don't have the same definition for progressive music. I think that technicality, originality, experimentation (be it with instruments, keys, tunings, time signature, you name it) are, among others, elements of progressive music that can be found in a lot of bands, to a certain degree. I think that Symphony X do have enough of those elements to be labeled progressive power metal, if only to distinguish them from the straight forward power metal bands. I don't think that the fact that their music is not 100% pure and new, that sometimes it sounds a little like Dream Theater or another prog band discalify them from the progressive music realm.

And regarding the way you seem to determinate wheter a band is prog or not, you said about SX that "The band hasnt progressed...they didnt do anything terribly original from the start...and theyre not doing anything original now."
Does that make a band like Iron Maiden a prog band, then? They surely have progressed a lot, they were very original at that time and they kept doing original music throughout most of their career (well, not anymore). A lot of early bands could be classified prog with such criterias, and most of them would not be.

iron maiden isnt progressive...and they werent in the past either. they took the sound that bands like boston, wishbone ash, early scorpions and UFO had and applied it more to metal and the NWOBHM sound that was being crafted at the time. granted they were innovative and great...but not necessarily progressive.

If every band which got better over time or changed their sound at some point was considered progressive...then there would only be one genre of music.

the problem here is that i dont consider a band progressive due to a sound...its due to their execution, arrangements, progression in playing and songwriting, and their unique additions to the genre....

and it seems many people here are just wanting to classify a band as progressive simply because they have keyboard solos, or longish songs, or technical and complicated time signatures, etc. Granted those can be elements in progressive rock music...but it isnt defined as such by them...and certainly not restricted to that 30 years later when none of that is groundbreaking, original or unique anymore.

 

[NFU]

Why wouldn't Symphony X be considered prog? On albums like Divine Wings of Tragedy or The Odyssey they have the the standard written songs then the one "24 minute epic" song. From what I know, I've listened to "The Odyssey" and the arrangement of the damn song screams "prog." You got insanely progressive arrangements (it's 20 minutes of no hook or melody, not until the last 5 minutes or so of the song pretty much), and undeterminable time signature throughout the piece. What exactly isn't progressive about them?

its almost 2005....none of what you just listed was progress of any kind...just their aproach to epic power metal. complicated time signatures, long uncatchy songs and odd arrangements doesnt make you a progressive band necessarily. please refer to my above post.

 

[Elohim Meth]

Half the bands I tryed to find arnt there.

 

[NFU]

WOW. this is pretty much EXACTLY what i said before... the very words that you so valiantly shot down in the name of your great religion that is progressive rock.

how are you such an authority on the subject? did you invent it? are you even any good at playing it? you're calling my arguments "presumptuous", and yet you are submitting a post after every 3 or so, correcting the ones before it.

and just because i don't personally own TWO of the approx. TWENTY king crimson studio albums means that nothing i say has any basis? actually i have king crimson's almost entire discography as a basis, thank you very much.

and yet another reason why you are an idiot: you say you don't consider a band progressive due to a certain sound... but then you say it's due to their "execution and arrangements" among other things. well... i for one would consider a band's "execution and arrangements" to be a HUGE part of their "sound", jackass. you may as well have said "i don't consider a band progressive due to their sound. it's due to the melodies, harmonies, instrumentation, rhythm, song structure, and overall attitude toward the music."

and another thing:

no it ain't!

look kid...im very proud of you for owning the entire king crimson catalog...thats obviously how you achieved such credentials for a debate on this subject.

your accusations were presumptuous, because even though i had never spoken to you before, let alone on this topic...you figured my only reason for clasifying opeth as progressive was because there was mellotron on damnation...now whos the idiot?

execution and arrangements obviously comprise part of a bands sound...but it doesnt define it by any means. Yes have a symphonic sound...but so do king crimson....yet both bands' execution and arrangements are VERY different. everything to you is so black and white. as for your need to get so personal...its quite unecessary...you can chill out now.

 

[NFU]

OMIGOD OMIGOD OMIGOD! this just in! ninefeetunderground contradicts his entire argument! read below for a first-hand account of the FULL story, folks.



how can porcupine tree's next album be the first prog album with growls ever... IF OPETH IS A PROG BAND!!??!?!?!?

OOOOWNED! OOOOOOOWWWNNEEDDDD!

witnesses were shocked when they saw the grave brain damage that had occurred when ninefeetunderground walked into a wall recently. apparently his amnesia was so severe that he forgot the basis of his entire argument about progressive rock (which is his religion and the complete devotion of his life).

his family said, "we are so sad to have lost the old ninefeetunderground... we were so used to having an encyclopedic reference for all our progressive rock needs, that i guess we took it for granted... but now it's all gone. GOOONNE!"

reportedly, the victim was due to receive a Nobel prize in 2005 for his extensive knowledge of progressive rock -- in fact, a new category was to be created for him. now, his dreams of achieving this honor are shattered.

apparently sarcasm isnt applicable by other people, only by yourself. :Smug:

opeth is a progressive death metal band...as ive always said. porcupine tree is a progressive rock band....thus: no contradiction. sorry pal...however your devotion to trying to tear me down is quite flattering...these kids on here who make it their job to try with everything theyve got to hurt my feelings is more attention than one could hope for...thanks for making my dream a reality. now go listen to your vast array of king crimson albums, plotting your next witty reply and grammar/spelling corrections for all to drool over.

 

[NFU]

ummm...... you suck?

yea, ok...you got nothing.

i think you and "all within my monster" should start an "i HaTeZoRz teH 9FeetZ UnDerGround" club. you guys can play with yourselves and throw darts at pictures of my avatar while listening to your extensive king crimson collection. have fun guys.

 

[deliverance]

the idiot formally known as all within my monster:
*atlas shrugged


either way, he's a penis.

 

[dorian gray]

^nnnoooo! what happened with all within my monster? did i miss it? and howd you know he is atlas shrugged? (that *would* explain some things)

 

[The Grimace]

the idiot formally known as all within my monster:
*atlas shrugged

Hah! I was not aware of that. That's funny as crap.