Epic metal vs progressive metal

Susperia said:
Can't really stand Progressive...

Same here for the most part. I think opeth and amorphis are the only bands consider prog I like right now.

I think the reason why I don't care for prog is because bands like dream theater with the really whiny cheesy 80's vocals and music. I'm not into guitar solos and what not that resembles 80's hair bands. I like 70's(even before) prog and pyschedelic influences,etc... Opeth's solos,riffs, and acoustics for example don't resemble traditional metal. Same with amorphis.
 
Killbot said:
I'd have to say this is the worst match ever, not least because the two things don't exist.

Yeah, my main problem with this is that, considering prefixes like death, black, and doom all indicate some kind of musical parameters and traits within which the music operates, epic and progressive are comparatively ambiguous terms. To me, Bal Sagoth, Amon Amarth, Manilla Road, Emperor and Metallica all have epic qualities in their music, but they all go about it in different ways and you can't really throw them all under one single label.

Progressive is similar in that Gorguts, Lykathea Aflame, Hammers of Misfortune, Cynic, Deathrow, Green Carnation and Symphony X all sound progressive to me, but it's not exactly the same. More so than epic, I think progressive is a tool to create music. Like someone said, you can technically attach a distinct sound to the term, but to me that really just means Dream Theater or Fates Warning and the thousands of bands who worship them. In a more literal sense, it's like another word for "different", as in the music incorporates new genres, instruments, or techniques. Under that defintion, there are a significantly more bands who are progressive in some way or another. In any case, there's also no reason a band cannot be both epic and progressive.
 
MasterOLightning said:
Metal certainly can be epic, but epic is no more a genre tag than raw, or technical, or atmospheric. At its root it has to be something else. What one person finds epic, another may not. In fact, I think epic is less quantifiable than raw, technical, or atmoshperic.

a) raw, technical & atmospheric are all used as part of genre identifications
i.e. technical death metal, raw black metal etc.
b) the thead starter didn't even mention the word genre! as far as you're concerned he could have simply been asking people whether they prefer metal that THEY percieve to be epic/progressive
 
Jreg said:
Yeah, my main problem with this is that, considering prefixes like death, black, and doom all indicate some kind of musical parameters and traits within which the music operates, epic and progressive are comparatively ambiguous terms. To me, Bal Sagoth, Amon Amarth, Manilla Road, Emperor and Metallica all have epic qualities in their music, but they all go about it in different ways and you can't really throw them all under one single label.

That sums up precisely why I do not consider them genres in themselves.
 
DeathsSweetEmbrace said:
It is quite clear that the terms "progressive" and "epic" don't work well as individual genres; rather they are more effective simply as adjectives to describe an artist's particular style.

Amen!
 
Demilich said:
a) raw, technical & atmospheric are all used as part of genre identifications
i.e. technical death metal, raw black metal etc.
b) the thead starter didn't even mention the word genre! as far as you're concerned he could have simply been asking people whether they prefer metal that THEY percieve to be epic/progressive
Regarding point a, I had meant to say that epic and progressive should be used in exactly the same way as those other terms. On point b, yeah, I think I read too much into it.
 
Looking at metallica's music for the last 15 years someone else wrote their epic melodic guitar lines. James Hetfield could not have wrote some of the stuff. Dave Mustaine has no sense of melody so it was not him. who then
 
e1copy.jpg

e2.jpg