100 Greatest Progressive Rock Artists

[NFU]

by the way cathedral is prog? since when?

youre thinking about the metal band called "cathedral"...not the band im referring to.


as for you bangadrian...i dont think maturity has anything to do with this...but keep in mind you threw the first punch, assuming i thought opeth was progressive based PURELY on the fact that damnation has mellotron on it. thats not a good way to kick off an "intelligent" conversation in the first place.

as for this debate...i think weve beaten a dead horse here for sometime now, lets just drop it. my intentions were not to put words in your mouth, but simply using your logic to pount out a serious flaw in your theory. that being opeth isnt a progressive metal band because they lack a certain level virtuosity...when easily a good half of the progressive genre arent near being virtuosos.

i hope you understand what im saying.

 

[NFU]

i think i understand what you're saying. i agree that being a virtuoso is not a requirement for being a progressive rock band. however, i think that where we differ is our fundamental definition of prog-rock... i say that opeth, whose songs are entirely riff-based, are not a progressive band... as opposed to someone like Yes or any other band we've mentioned, who frequently delve into more complicated musical structures. structurally, opeth is riff 1 four times, then riff 2 four times, then riff 3 four times, etc etc etc. if you listen to "roundabout" by yes, it's not like this at all. that's what i consider progressive. i think that is the basic disagreement we have.

(by the way, this is the most fun i've had on this forum since the lyle lovett incident
)

i understand what youre saying...and agree to some level...but progressive rock in the form of yes is about as progressive as it can possibly get...theyre the flag bearers for what most people do recognize as progressive rock. i just like to think that even though Opeth is primarily riff based...that it doesnt change the fact that theyre still a progressive band. since they started...they took aproaches to metal that had only been touched on lightly by other bands...and made their own sound out of it to an extent....had 10 minute ballads, 20 minute epic songs, concept albums, an entirely soft album consisting of new boundaries they had never done before (and most other bands in the metal genre hadnt gone before in many respects)...all the while creating heavy, memorable death metal styled music, while conciously incorporating many classic AND modern progressive rock ideas/flavors, production values and techniques. much of which is more prominent and obvious, the further you dig into the progressive rock underground.

all that being said...i feel Opeth is a progressive metal band...even though they arent as complicated, proficient, or symphonic as the primary progressive rock bands such as yes and king crimson.

 

[[KOTNO]Narrot]

what a touching happy end

 

[Risquit]

I think both of you guys are right to an extent. And defining prog isn't easy, but the debate is fun (particularly when the name calling is dropped). BTW, I still think Borknagar is progressive metal.

 

[Dreadful]

Lord hypnos just expands bangadrian's definition, because prog is more than just being technical with the instruments, timing, song structures etc. bandadrian is pretty ignorant on this issue, so Joey's just enlightening him. I also think Opeth are technically proficient musicians(enough) and do have some technical parts, and the older albums definitely have some odd song structures, not just entirely riff based. Listen to "under the weeping moon"...pretty prog song imo

 

[Dreadful]

see the thing is... you're wrong. opeth's song structures are -- and have always been -- riff-based. including under the weeping moon.

0:00 to 0:57 - acoustic and electric parts based on one riff - second guitar has a small lead function, but mostly just harmonizes the riff.

0:57 to 1:26 - 2nd riff.

1:26 to 1:38 - 3rd riff.

1:38 to 1:57 - short transition, then 4th riff.

1:57 to 2:22 - 5th riff

2:22 to 2:46 - short transition, then 6th riff.

2:46 to 3:08 - 7th riff, then 6th riff played once as a transition

then that whole 3 minute acoustic part is one single riff, with various noises and guitar leads in the background.

i'm not going to do the whole song, because i'm getting bored... but you get the idea. opeth uses riff-based songwriting.

regardless...it's an unpredictable song...that 3 minute acoustic part with random noises, you wouldn't have predicted that. Same with part at 7 minutes and the real melodic climatic part after it...look at your previous analyzation of the first 5 and a half minutes of the song, what an odd structured song! holy shit man go home.

 

[Arnold Layne]

This thread really put me labelling bands.

Its also funny the number of people who have been owned by ninefeetunderground (I hope your next name change isnt going to be to golf girl).

 

[Dreadful]

Six feet under have odd song structures? Cancer? Massacre too? wow...

I didn't even say that "any band that has odd song structures is prog." Progressive ROCK bands for majority of the time had odd (long)song structures while incorporating other influences and rare elements. I was proving my point of "under the weeping moon" being sort've a prog song. Go wax your poon now.

 

[Eoghan]

 

[Dreadful]

very original, did you make that? man I feel like shit now...good job superior.

 

[deliverance]

^^ def. stole luz's avatar (i could have sworn i posted this about 30 min. ago but i can't find the post anywhere, so it must've not gone through)

 

[mot-]

Riff-based songwriting !?!?

First of all a riff is nothing more than a repeated chord-progression. The term "riff-based songwriting" is used when most of one song is based on ONE or TWO chord progressions. Opeth instead have continuously have used a variety of chord progressions in their songs, and i always thought that this was one of their strong points. additionally they included a lot of twists and turns that are not common for "riff-based" arrangements.

Stuff like "Smoke on the water" is usually described as entirely riff-based arrangements.

Besides, the listing you did could as well be done for many "Progressive Rock" artists.

 

[Minion520]

So the moral of the debate is that Zappa owns all.

 

[NFU]

So the moral of the debate is that Zappa owns all.

hardly.

but hes very talented, and underappreciated outside of the musician realm.

 

[PeeWee1473]

I'll never understand why metal fans react to top 100 lists the way they do. "WOW, HOLY CRAP, IT'S NOT EXACTLY THE WAY YOU WOULD HAVE DONE IT?!?!?!? NO WAY MAN!?!?!? HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE?!?!? I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT SOMEONE ELSE WOULD HAVE PICKED DIFFERENT BANDS THAN ME!!! ME FOR GOD'S SAKE! THE END ALL, BE ALL OF TOP 100 LISTS!!!"

you're an idiot. this list isnt even for metalheads in most respects. if you knew anything about this type of music, you wouldnt be questioning at least a bit of the choices and/or order of that list.

Ok I haven't looked at this thread since I replied until now. What you just said doesn't make ANY SENSE AT ALL, yet you called me an idiot. Ok, let's see.

1. I didn't say ANYWHERE that this list was for metalheads. I said I don't understand why they REACT the way they do to top 100 lists.

2. I DIDN'T QUESTION THE LIST IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM! My whole point was that people should accept the list for what it is, because it doesn't matter. Christ, look at what I said for God's sake. Did you read it or not? Because it sure as hell looks like you didn't.

No, I'm completely serious. Your response is so very off-course from what I said I almost think that you didn't mean to respond to me.

 

[Evil Ernie]

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.

I feel like I could say the same thing about you, except for the fanboy part.

 

[NFU]

I feel like I could say the same thing about you, except for the fanboy part.

hey dumb dumb, i wasnt talking to you. i was reffering to bangadrian when i said that.

 

[NFU]

Ok I haven't looked at this thread since I replied until now. What you just said doesn't make ANY SENSE AT ALL, yet you called me an idiot. Ok, let's see.

1. I didn't say ANYWHERE that this list was for metalheads. I said I don't understand why they REACT the way they do to top 100 lists.

2. I DIDN'T QUESTION THE LIST IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM! My whole point was that people should accept the list for what it is, because it doesn't matter. Christ, look at what I said for God's sake. Did you read it or not? Because it sure as hell looks like you didn't.

No, I'm completely serious. Your response is so very off-course from what I said I almost think that you didn't mean to respond to me.

your statement was in regards to metalheads. metalheads listen to primarily metal...thus the name. the progressive rock genre has very little to do with metal. you assumed metalheads were getting upset over this above list.

so using your logic...if my statement was off course from your comment...then your comment served no relevant purpose in this thread whatsoever. Only a mere coincidence that this thread had a top 100 list in it. otherwise, my retort made plenty of sense.

 

[Mikael Åkerfeldt]

Interesting!

I think the greatest progressive piece of music in history is "A day in the life" by the Beatles. What's that, 5 chord verse, orchestra run, bompa Macca stuff, aahh, 5 chord verse again, orchestra run, piano hit (which we ripped off!) the end! Nothing technical there. The word" progressive" I think should be used in the true meaning of the word, not to describe a whole genre. Altho' I believe I'm the only one who thinks so.

Come to think of it..."Tomorrow never knows"..the whole song is in D, same (great) beat throughout...for 1966 I'd say that song was pretty fucking progressive! Hell, it still is today!

Cheers people
Mike

 

[Shadows Skulk]

hahaha, I listened to A Day In The Life not 10 minutes ago