Are they even really still prog these days?

Do you agree that on the last 2 albums, Sym X have moved away from their prog roots?

  • YES

    Votes: 12 66.7%
  • NO

    Votes: 6 33.3%

  • Total voters
    18

Indestructible

New Metal Member
Nov 17, 2010
1,102
0
0
31
I dont know about you all, but the more I listen to albums like Iconoclast and PL, the more I start thinking of how Sym X's musical direction has changed so much, that the sound especially on these albums tend to be more on the heavy side than the prog side.

I mean, man, they sure sound to me atleast like they're moving away from their prog roots and trying to go for something more modern/heavy than the complexity of prog like they were used to.

Maybe this will not be the case with the new album, but who knows. I really hope they'll return to be closer to the prog roots because I think thats what they do best, and to hear them going towards a different sound, anything other than prog, is really weird to be honest. It doesnt suit them well, I think.

We'll be smarter when the new album comes out, but I do hope it will prove to be more influenced by a prog sound than a heavy one. Also, it would be nice to see a 20+ minute song featured on the new album, just like on TDWOT and Odyssey.
 
To sell more discs...

Hard to fault them too much when the last two albums have been their best selling overall. Guys are in their late 30's and early 40's with families so I can see how that could very easily drive some decisions. Here's to hoping for some more back to the good old days Symphony X though!
 
Guys are in their late 30's and early 40's with families
Where are you going with their late 30s lol.. Lepond is 49, Romeo 47, Pinella 45, Allen 43, Rullo 42. With two kids including at least one going to University, I doubt Romeo relies on Symphony X to make money. You just don't make money with album sales especially when you split, and they tour like 2-3 weeks per year except maybe Russel and Lepond.
 
If they make good money, its probably much more from touring than album sales. They sure split the revenue between members, label, and many other costs which we aren't aware of. So a very small percentage of the album sales/touring profit goes to their pockets, and it isnt enough that they can make a living out of it. But who am I to 100% be sure, because Ive no idea how much each member makes for every gig they performed, or every album sold. But its hard to say they live from this music, because they dont sell that much, or are such a popular band that ten thousand fans come see them at a gig. If I had to assume, I'd say they make enough that it helps them sustain their lives, but not to the point that it really allows them to live from it. For that they would have to be way more popular, and sell much more. :)
 
We've no way of knowing it's just about money. Probably a lot more complicated than that.
 
Where are you going with their late 30s lol.. Lepond is 49, Romeo 47, Pinella 45, Allen 43, Rullo 42. With two kids including at least one going to University, I doubt Romeo relies on Symphony X to make money. You just don't make money with album sales especially when you split, and they tour like 2-3 weeks per year except maybe Russel and Lepond.

Sorry, I didn't know their exact ages (Rullo still looks like he's in his 30's to me with that boyish grin) but I think you get my point. Life and family requires money which requires you to sometimes do things that you don't want to so you can provide. Funny, the exact reason I'm sitting where I am at this moment.

Also, most people that go to universities get scholarships of some type so going to a public university really isn't the massive burden everything envisions for all people. But who knows, maybe it is for their kids?

I'm sure they continue to rely on lessons and other investments to make money beyond Symphony X as well. Once you have some money it's generally not too hard to make it work for you as long as you don't get too risky.
 
Prog is pretty loose term nowadays, its enough if band just makes few songs where the song structure or rhythm is a bit different from mainstream rock and metal and they can be labeled as prog. But actually I think prog as genre has become more popular in the last few years again, atleast in certain places, for example japan, parts of europe and south america. So I think SX could still be more prog than they are now yet be succesful enough.
 
Well, they moved away, but for me they`re still prog. Like, I don`t know, they were vodka and they are beer. The percents are very different, but those are both alcohols. But if we`re talking `bout their heavy side, they were beer and now they are vodka :)
 
I won't mind if "Underworld" lacks killer odd-time signatures & stuff that made them more progressive. I'll only expect some high-quality, creative and passionate music.
 
The new track has a lot of odd-time signatures, so that's technically prog metal. But that's not what you REALLY call prog huh? I guess it just depends on which kind of prog you want them to do, and im sure most will say TDWOT and TiO king of prog is the real SX prog.
 
Yes, they use odd time signatures, but I also have a hard time calling them prog.
The songs are extremely conventional (verse, chorus, verse, chorus, solo, chorus), which I HATE... and there really is zero creativity going on.

Writing complicated riffs and nothing else isn't being creative anymore. When you listen to bands like Leprous, you hear what being innovative and being prog really is.

I actually love Haken's The Mountain, but it suffers from Dream Theater carnival wankery... I consider that album prog, and I recommend it. It's a little over-produced for my taste, just like the last 3 SX albums; I prefer a more organic feel to it.
I just don't really care about the stuff SX is producing these days. It's not interesting.