100 Greatest Progressive Rock Artists

[NFU]

but but but... King Crimson above Yes? meh

yea...ive seen this debate over and over...and the one conclusion ive come to, is its a matter of personal taste i think. Some people were more influenced by Yes' symphonic and epic style, where as some were more influenced by the emotional and experimental antics of king crimson and their dark aproach to the genre. Both were undeniably influential and legendary.

 

[deliverance]

please DO NOT attempt at anything within this realm with me, i will destroy you and all the ignorance that makes up your opinions on this subject.

 

[Evil Ernie]

Anyone else thinks that Death and/or Control Denied should be up there too? I think they (well, he) belong to the progressive metal genre.

And, yes, Opeth are progressive death metal.

 

[NFU]

 

[Dreadful]

I'd put Yes over King crimson...only because I'm really only into the first few King crimson albums. Yes's entire 70s era is awesome...

and I would just like to say that 90% of what's considered "progressive metal" isn't really progressive metal as it's just experimental metal with wanking nonsense. It's absolutely rediculous how power metal bands with shredding solos are considered "prog"...that is just beyond me. Rhapsody? Stratovarius? Symphony X?BLIND GAURDIAN?!(not that they're powermetal) good grief. Can someone tell how Yngwie malmsteen is prog? I don't think they'd label "Chroma key" prog if Kevin Moore wasn't involved. If it were a side band of ice cube, it would for sure be labeled as some genre of hip hop. This is silly...Next thing you know, subwoofer hits in brutal/gore bands are gonna justify them as prog because "oh it's so different." allright I'll stop...I'll just state another opinion now and that is: Pain of Salvation sucks. The end.

 

[NFU]

oh sorry -- you are clearly the more educated and intelligent between us.



allogations? where? what allogations? oh.... you meant ALLEGATIONS. you had me scared, i thought there were some allogations lurking about. and also, you'd best look up "charade" in the dictionary before you take your vocabulary quiz next friday.



funny you should say that, because i was well aware of the hammond organ on epilogue. and again, this is an element of their music that is taken from progressive rock. just because you borrow from various styles doesn't transform you into that particular genre. i wouldn't call opeth a progressive-folk-melodic-death-black-metal band any more than i would call phish a jazz band or coltrane a new age saxophonist. opeth is a DEATH METAL band that has various influences that are not traditional to the genre of death metal. so? they like to break the norm a little bit... that doesn't make them "progressive". any musician that's any good at all breaks boundaries and experiments -- that's what being a good musician is. this doesn't mean all good musicians are progressive... that term just refers to a specific few genres of rock music.



i was always under the impression that metal was a type of rock music. does being a "progressive death metal band" somehow negate their status as a rock band? what else should they be billed as?



well well well, i apologize greatly. i know you're awesome, and i'm not disagreeing with that. you are obviously the most informed person on the planet about progressive rock and its 87,161 subcategories. please don't destroy me! what can i do to save myself? for chrissake I HAVE A FAMILY!!! please, buddy! i thought we were buddies? how could you do this to your good buddy?

your ability to correct my spelling, and simply rephrase what ive already said does nothing for your still pending arguments...but its painfully clear that we can just throw those out the window now.

and i might as well mention youve contradicted yourself...you say Opeth should be classified as a rock band on some level...and admitted to them progressing or changing in some light (as all good musicians do?)...so you yourself have declared them as a progressive rock band...if im following you correctly.

what YOU fail to realize is that the defenition of "progressive rock" isnt a sound...so to pigeonhole anyone as a progressive or NOT as a progressive band, simply because they dont fit into your little presumptuous bubble of what you think progressive rock should sound like...doesnt mean they arent. thats all im going to say about this.

 

[NFU]

king crimson OWNS yes. yes had like... 4 or 5 good albums and they weren't terribly different from each other... king crimson hasn't cut a bad record yet, and they're still going (well actually i've never heard lizard or islands, so don't hold me to that).

im having an argument about progressive rock with someone who hasnt heard islands or lizard.......i think its all coming together now.

 

[Evil Ernie]

I'd put Yes over King crimson...only because I'm really only into the first few King crimson albums. Yes's entire 70s era is awesome...

and I would just like to say that 90% of what's considered "progressive metal" isn't really progressive metal as it's just experimental metal with wanking nonsense. It's absolutely rediculous how power metal bands with shredding solos are considered "prog"...that is just beyond me. Rhapsody? Stratovarius? Symphony X?BLIND GAURDIAN?!(not that they're powermetal) good grief. Can someone tell how Yngwie malmsteen is prog? I don't think they'd label "Chroma key" prog if Kevin Moore wasn't involved. If it were a side band of ice cube, it would for sure be labeled as some genre of hip hop. This is silly...Next thing you know, subwoofer hits in brutal/gore bands are gonna justify them as prog because "oh it's so different." allright I'll stop...I'll just state another opinion now and that is: Pain of Salvation sucks. The end.

I would suggest you go listen to Symphony X again before you say they are not prog. For sure Rhapsody, Stratovarius and Blind Guardian aren't progressive metal bands, but if Symphony X are not, then nobody is.

 

[NFU]

Symphony X is NOT progressive. sorry ernie.

 

[godmachine12]

Where the hell is Ark on that list?

 

[Risquit]

Certainly Borknagar could have been squeezed in between 101-200.

 

[NFU]

Certainly Borknagar could have been squeezed in between 101-200.

whats progressive about borknagar?

 

[Evil Ernie]

Symphony X is NOT progressive. sorry ernie.

Why? And then what would be your definition of progressive metal?

Just checked out :
metal-archives.com say Progressive power metal
allmusic.com say Progressive metal

 

[NFU]

Why? And then what would be your definition of progressive metal?

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

 

[The Grimace]

whats progressive about borknagar?

Their particular sub-genre is actually called 'progressive' or 'post' black metal. Because, as the name implies, they and several others 'progressed' the black metal sound beyond it's initial simplicity and minimalism. So that's what.

 

[NFU]

Their particular sub-genre is actually called 'progressive' or 'post' black metal. Because, as the name implies, they and several others 'progressed' the black metal sound beyond it's initial simplicity and minimalism. So that's what.

when i asked the question, i felt it was retorical...not because i truly wanted to know..

however, borknagar came around late in the 2nd wave of black metal...much of the sound they forged had already been done by bands like enslaved, ulver and emperor...so to say theyre a progressive metal band simply because they made a typically primitive and monotonous genre more interesting...seems to be overshooting a bit in my eyes.

 

[Dreadful]

For sure Rhapsody, Stratovarius and Blind Guardian aren't progressive metal bands, but if Symphony X are not, then nobody is.

You're serious right? Symphony X are just a technical power metal band...I own 5 of their albums, I know what music they play and for years I've been familiar with them. The bass playing at the beginning of "Awakenings" is probably the only prog moment on "The odyssey." The prog moments on the other albums are just dream theater worship (Through the looking glass, I mean come on)...overall, they have some experimental moments here and there but they're basically just a power metal band. I would go as far as saying that they're the best power metal band today, and I don't even like power metal that much.

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

 

[The Grimace]

however, borknagar came around late in the 2nd wave of black metal...much of the sound they forged had already been done by bands like enslaved, ulver and emperor...so to say theyre a progressive metal band simply because they made a typically primitive and monotonous genre more interesting...seems to be overshooting a bit in my eyes.

Have you actually heard post-'Quintessence' era Borknagar? It sounds absolutely nothing like the Enslaved/Emperor 'melodic' second wave stuff they did early on, a different concept entirely. I don't know how else to describe it without using the word 'progressive' which you object to, but listen to Asgeir Mickelson's drumming and Tyr's bass lines on 'Empiricism'. If that's not 'forward thinking', I'm not sure what is, as I'd say they're at least as technically proficient as any pure 'prog' band today, and well more unique than most of them.

 

[NFU]

Have you actually heard post-'Quintessence' era Borknagar? It sounds absolutely nothing like the Enslaved/Emperor 'melodic' second wave stuff they did early on, a different concept entirely. I don't know how else to describe it without using the word 'progressive' which you object to, but listen to Asgeir Mickelson's drumming and Tyr's bass lines on 'Empiricism'. If that's not 'forward thinking', I'm not sure what is, as I'd say they're at least as technically proficient as any pure 'prog' band today, and well more unique than most of them.

i think a fair comparison would have been the first 2 borknagar with early emperor or enslaved....same as their newer released have progressed the same way emperor did, and enslaved has...

comparing a current bands material to another bands older material wasnt exactly what i was getting at...besides, i wouldnt be talking about albums i hadnt ever heard before...like bangadrian up there.

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

but that seems to be the problem with 90% of the peoples mindsets and personal defenitions when it comes to this controversial genre.

 

[Memnon.]

To determine what makes rock or metal progressive, I've set these personal criteria's.

1)When a band makes somewhat experimental arrangements, and continually progress through melodies and make a song completely unpredictable, to me, that is what makes something progressive.

2)Songs in the 7 minute length and up, with no 5 minute soundclip, noises (ala Pink floyd) doesn't make it progressive. It's just effortless waste of time. Just unpredictable melody, time, key, style etc... changes

Personally I don't consider something like Yes's or Jethro Tull's "technical diddling" sound progressive, I consider their arrangemets to be. Bizzare playing with no coherent structure or just downright weird riffs is not progressive. A style shouldn't define being progressive. Arrangement should, because to me, it just makes more sence.

And I never really like King Crimson because it's practically unlistenable now. They started off by ripping off the Moody Blues's sound. The melodies on that album were quite good, though there was nothing really new about the sound. Although I fucking love the lyrics. Good stuff. Just the music is just kinda... ugh to me.