100 Greatest Progressive Rock Artists

[Dreadful]

that allwithinmymonster was a total jackass anyway...who cares.

 

[deliverance]

^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)

because, D2, i'm satan.

 

[Evil Ernie]

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.

I think your criterias to determine wheter a band is progressive or not are too restrictive. I consider that a band which would be a total Dream Theater, Rush, King Crimson or whatever rip-off would still be prog. If a band is prog, then an extremely similar band must be prog. A band doesn't have to invent a genre to be classified in it. Trash was a new genre in the early 80's, but a new trash band is still a trash band.

 

[Evil Ernie]

complicated time signatures, long uncatchy songs and odd arrangements doesnt make you a progressive band necessarily.

I guess that is where our opinions differ. I think these elements, among others, DO make you a progressive band.

 

[deliverance]

i could have sworn it was called thrash

 

[NFU]

I guess that is where our opinions differ. I think these elements, among others, DO make you a progressive band.

many many many progressive bands are catchy...and many many many progressive bands often stick to a 4-5 minute song structure.

 

[Don Corleone]

I am scared of this forum... you guys get pretty angry lol

yeah cant we all just get along?

 

[mot-]

i never said opeth wasn't progressive musically, but they are clearly not a progressive metal band.

Interesting. So, let's clear your argumentation out for me, please.

They make music.
They make metal.
They are progressive.
Thus they are not progressive metal ?

Cool stuff, i think i need to retake those logic courses.

 

[Evil Ernie]

i could have sworn it was called thrash

well...yess...at least you've got the idea.

 

[Minion520]

I think eveeryone here needs to smoke a joint, sit down and listen to Zappa.
The bottom line is Zappa is the man.

 

[NFU]

what is so hard to understand about this? just because a band experiments with their music, and does new things, doesn't make them a "progressive rock" band!

example:
elvis presley did things for the rock and roll genre that had never been done before... he took the genre to new places, thus he PROGRESSED the genre. would you call elvis a progressive rock musician?

led zeppelin and black sabbath are perhaps the 2 most musically progressive heavy metal bands in history, but i certainly wouldn't classify them as "progressive metal".

do you see my point? so just because opeth is creative and inventive doesn't make them a prog metal band in my mind. if every band that ever tried anything new was called "progressive", then the term would lose its meaning.

what i think this is...is a textbook case of you trying to be different, and state that Opeth isnt progressive...so that all the fanboys get upset and you seem like the know it all elitest genre nazi.

so prove me wrong, and tell me why exactly Opeth is NOT a progressive metal band...or better yet, also say what it would take for Opeth to be a progressive metal band. and you had better not use your assumption about me and other people thinking it has to do with the bloody mellotron again...maybe base your argument on fact this time.

 

[deliverance]

what is so hard to understand about this? just because a band experiments with their music, and does new things, doesn't make them a "progressive rock" band!

example:
elvis presley did things for the rock and roll genre that had never been done before... he took the genre to new places, thus he PROGRESSED the genre. would you call elvis a progressive rock musician?

led zeppelin and black sabbath are perhaps the 2 most musically progressive heavy metal bands in history, but i certainly wouldn't classify them as "progressive metal".

do you see my point? so just because opeth is creative and inventive doesn't make them a prog metal band in my mind. if every band that ever tried anything new was called "progressive", then the term would lose its meaning.

zeppelin isn't heavy metal you silly fuck.

 

[NFU]

bangadrian...

the points you made, would apply true....if ones knowledge of progressive rock was limited to: Yes, King Crimson, Emerson Lake & Palmer, Genesis and Jethro Tull....which obviously yours is.

No offense...but to pigeonhole the genre as only that, is not only completely untrue...but totally ignorant and nonsensical. Plenty of progressive bands had nowhere near the virtuosity that those above supergroups had...but they werent necessarily any less interesting or valid in the progressive rock realm. Bands like Gracious, Camel, Raganarok, T2, Focus, Indian Summer, Decameron, Magna Carta, Forest, Black Widow, Cathedral, akasha, ruphus, folque, kaipa, and thousands of others...were not Virtuosos...but certainly made their mark in progressive rock, influenced tons of other bands, including many of the big bands...and are continued to be heard as important and significant contributions to the genre. I myself spend more time listening to the lesser known bands than the "big 5" bands from the UK these days...and wouldnt ever say theyre not part of the same genre.

your ignorance is understandable though...your defenitions are true in one way or another...but its certainly not limited to that...you really should understand that. So for Opeth to not be a progressive band, simply because they aren't quite as proficient at their instruments...but NO LESS interesting as far as songwriting and output...as the "big 5" is an absolute tragedy...and in my opinion, very untrue.

 

[deliverance]

well they certainly aren't progressive rock.

ok?...you called them heavy metal, and i simply said they aren't, i never said they were progressive rock...

 

[Minion520]

Zappa rules!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Don Corleone]

mikael knows next to nothing about theory (as you'll see if you ever watch that guitar.com interview), and he writes a passage or a riff a certain way just because it sounds good to him.

frankly speaking i'll never buy that shit. im pretty sure he knows a lot of guitar theory.

 

[Don Corleone]

by the way cathedral is prog? since when?

 

[[KOTNO]Narrot]

how can you fill 4 pages with a discussion that fails due to different definitions...?

 

[deliverance]

it was a joke. sue me.

i think i just might

 

[mot-]

This is ridiculous. "Progressive Rock" artists who are not progressive and progressive Rock artists who aren't "Progressive Rock". Maybe you just got some strange textbook definition ?