Some comments were made about progressive metal in a thread, and being a pretty big prog/prog metal fan myself, I felt I would try and defend a genre that is often bogged down in the stereotype of being arrogant and overly pretentious. This has probably been said before, but I'm new here, so I hope this doesn't get locked.
I really don't think that putting the label of "prog" on a band is an automatic suggestion that they are better than the rest. It is just a label that gives you an idea of what the music may have in it. You have thrash metal, black metal, doom meral, death metal, etc etc. Each of those labels different attributes in your mind, right? For me when a band is labeled prog, it means there is going to most likely some of the following: long songs, concepts, recurring themes, odd time signatures, long drawn out solos, good musicianship, and often bad lyrics.
Now, at the risk of sounding pretentious, I do think prog rock is more complex than most genres, but that is sort of the point. It can be more thought provoking. But just because something is prog doesn't mean it is good. I dislike a lot of prog.
Someone also mentioned that all prog bands do today is borrow ideas from the prog bands of the 60s and 70s, implying that nothing new is thought of. While I agree to this in an extent, the bands of the 60s and 70s didn't get all thier ideas out of the blue. The borrowed from classical themes and jazz. . . they got their ideas from other places too. But the idea that nothing anything prog is not original is a ludicrous idea. Listen to The Mars Volta and tell me that isn't original. I have also never heard any other band that sounds like Opeth, though I'm sure there are copy-cats out there by now.
I think I like heavy metal because it automatically encompasses a lot of prog elements. Good (often astoundingly good) musicianship, lots of solos, many bands do longer songs, and odd time signatures. Prog is a tricky thing, and probably the hardest genre to classify when it comes to metal. But just because something is labeled as prog doesn't mean it is pretentious, and just because a person is a fan of prog doesn't mean that person is an arrogant ass.
I really don't think that putting the label of "prog" on a band is an automatic suggestion that they are better than the rest. It is just a label that gives you an idea of what the music may have in it. You have thrash metal, black metal, doom meral, death metal, etc etc. Each of those labels different attributes in your mind, right? For me when a band is labeled prog, it means there is going to most likely some of the following: long songs, concepts, recurring themes, odd time signatures, long drawn out solos, good musicianship, and often bad lyrics.
Now, at the risk of sounding pretentious, I do think prog rock is more complex than most genres, but that is sort of the point. It can be more thought provoking. But just because something is prog doesn't mean it is good. I dislike a lot of prog.
Someone also mentioned that all prog bands do today is borrow ideas from the prog bands of the 60s and 70s, implying that nothing new is thought of. While I agree to this in an extent, the bands of the 60s and 70s didn't get all thier ideas out of the blue. The borrowed from classical themes and jazz. . . they got their ideas from other places too. But the idea that nothing anything prog is not original is a ludicrous idea. Listen to The Mars Volta and tell me that isn't original. I have also never heard any other band that sounds like Opeth, though I'm sure there are copy-cats out there by now.
I think I like heavy metal because it automatically encompasses a lot of prog elements. Good (often astoundingly good) musicianship, lots of solos, many bands do longer songs, and odd time signatures. Prog is a tricky thing, and probably the hardest genre to classify when it comes to metal. But just because something is labeled as prog doesn't mean it is pretentious, and just because a person is a fan of prog doesn't mean that person is an arrogant ass.
