I really did not like this comment

[Polyeidus]

You didn't really understood what I said. Here's what I said:


I never said that in order to be a prog band the only element you had to take in consideration was progression from album to album, that's just one of the elements. Let's leave it at that because I don't think I need to post things that I already said earlier.

Cheers!

I never said you did either. By simply including that element, combined with what you said about Symphony X not changing, how else would you change if not from album to album, unless you knew the band personally?

 

[Ultimate_Symphony]

I never said you did either. By simply including that element, combined with what you said about Symphony X not changing, how else would you change if not from album to album, unless you knew the band personally?

I disagree however with your definition of progressive metal. Using Deaths progression of albums sequencially, you define prog metal with the wrong form of the word progress.

You were implying that I define prog metal only by progression of albums, or did I misread again? I don't really get the ''unless you knew the band personally'' comment, so sorry. Anyway, I think you must know how I define prog metal by know

 

[Polyeidus]

You were implying that I define prog metal only by progression of albums, or did I misread again? I don't really get the ''unless you knew the band personally'' comment, so sorry. Anyway, I think you must know how I define prog metal by know

Oh my goodness!

Ok. I am NOT implying that you define prog metal solely on album to album change, but by including that example of progress, you are using the wrong form of the word.

 

[Ultimate_Symphony]

Oh my goodness!

Ok. I am NOT implying that you define prog metal solely on album to album change, but by including that example of progress, you are using the wrong form of the word.

Ok, now I ask you, how am I using the wrong form of the word?

 

[Mr. Shred-ididle]

Hmmm.... what a interesting debate we have here.
The problem with the "definition" of prog-metal or the reason why it is so broad. People think if the band can play there instruments well it means it's prog. This isn't true. They here a technically challenging passage so they think it's prog (unless it's straight out of an other genre).
It is also a very diverse in the bands that are labled "progressive". Lets get some undoubtable prog bands and compare them. Lets get some modern prog bands DT, PoS, Spocks Beard and Zero Hour. Now.....do any of these bands sound ANYTHING alike?? no (appart from some minor DT influence on ZH) Now lets get some undoubtable power metal bands and do the same thing. This time we'll get Helloween, Rhapsody, Gamma Ray and Stratovarius. Do they sound alike... YES. Very alike.

So where am I getting at? there is no real sound for prog other than the DT sound that have hit so many "prog" bands in the 90's.

So SyX lies in the middle of the road here (prog and power metal). They have the straight-goingness and neo-classicalism of power metal, but have the technicality and complexity of prog. So wich one?

I'd say prog because;

1) Power metal normallly doesn't have many other influences than powermetal and Maiden-style heavy metal. SyX HAS other influences from 70's prog, new prog (DT) aswell as having more technical parts than 90% of power metal.
2) it sounds better

But I can understand people saying it's power metal aswell.

So where did get from this ludicrously long post? = No where. thats why they made the sub-sub genre "prog/power"

 

[Polyeidus]

Simply, the use of prog dates back, of course, to the seventies, when the followers of the new fusion of classical, jazz, blues, rock, and folk first got the nickname "prog" from the word progression, which means:
a)succession of musical tones or chords- and:
b)the movement of musical parts in harmony-

The form of the progress, if you will, that you were using is a generalized term most, now refer to prog rock and metal with. But, being progressive and including progression are two different things entirely.

It's easy to confuse the two, if one doesn't know what progression, in relation to this music is. Even if one does, it may be that one never considered the true meaning.

No, I'm not obsessing about this. I have been quite the layman etymologist most of my learned life. That's all.

 

[Kate Bush Rules!]

I could care less what they are, as long as the music kicks ass. And Kate's definition of prog seems to be that it has to be amazingly original, which I disagree with. Especially if its original just for the sake of being original.

I do think that a band must be very original to be labelled "prog". Have you forgotten what "progressive" means? It is moving forward and doing something that has not been done before.

To be progressive a band does not have to incorporate elements of classical music. For example, Cynic had a very strrong jazz influence and incorportated it into their metal. But they were not influenced by classical music. They did something that had not been done before. Would you deny that they are a progressive band?

 

[Kate Bush Rules!]

Historically, as I stated in my earlier post, prog began as a style of music that combined classical music's sense of space and monumental scope with rock's raw power and energy

Could you tell me what early progressive bands you listen to? In the early prog bands, jazz had a much stronger influence that classical music. King Crimson are the benchmark band for progressive music, if there is any. They invented prog-rock in 1969 and in 1975 they invented prog-metal. I really hate the idea that "the more it sounds like Dream Theater, the more progressive it is".

 

[Harp Heaven]

I really hate the idea that "the more it sounds like Dream Theater, the more progressive it is".

And thus, I quote, rule 96 of the 101 Rules of Progressive Metal:

96. In case you wondered, Dream Theater is and will always be the benchmark for prog metal. The more something sounds like Images and Words, the more progressive it is.

 

[Ultimate_Symphony]

Simply, the use of prog dates back, of course, to the seventies, when the followers of the new fusion of classical, jazz, blues, rock, and folk first got the nickname "prog" from the word progression, which means:
a)succession of musical tones or chords- and:
b)the movement of musical parts in harmony-

The form of the progress, if you will, that you were using is a generalized term most, now refer to prog rock and metal with. But, being progressive and including progression are two different things entirely.

It's easy to confuse the two, if one doesn't know what progression, in relation to this music is. Even if one does, it may be that one never considered the true meaning.

No, I'm not obsessing about this. I have been quite the layman etymologist most of my learned life. That's all.

It's not because i'm using the wrong form of the word, it's because you're not looking at the bigger picture here. Progressive music is a defined style, but like I already said, one of the elements that determine if a band is progressive is how much they change their music. You couldn't possibly classify a band that keeps playing the same album over and over (with different lyrics) progressive, that's just ludicrous if you ask me.

Cheers! \m/

 

[Yngvai X]

Now lets get some undoubtable power metal bands and do the same thing. This time we'll get Helloween, Rhapsody, Gamma Ray and Stratovarius. Do they sound alike... YES. Very alike.

You're not a powermetal fan are you? Cause Helloween sounds NOTHING like Rhapsody who sound NOTHING like Gamma Ray who sound NOTHING like Stratovarius. Is your defenition of powermetal fast songs with major key choruses and singers that sing in the dog whistle range, cause thats what it sounds like if you think those 4 bands sound alike. The problem here is that someone who dislikes a genre, or is not very familiar with it, is going to think "it all sounds the same" just because of their unfamiliarity with it. I know plenty who think all progmetal sound the same.

 

[Yngvai X]

1) Power metal normallly doesn't have many other influences than powermetal and Maiden-style heavy metal. SyX HAS other influences from 70's prog, new prog (DT) aswell as having more technical parts than 90% of power metal.

Again, a blanket statement made by someone who is obviously not well versed in powermetal. Blind Guardian has influences ranging from celtic and folk music to slayer, Dream Theater (Hansi is a fan), and the beach boys. Rhapsody often has traditional folk instruments and totally rips off many famous classical peices. Angra incorperates classical music as well as traditional brazilian percussion and rhythms. To me, thats a lot more "prog" than a lot of modern prog bands that just listened to Dream Theater growing up.

Also as far as SyX's influences are concerned, a large part of their influences come from the same trad metal bands that influenced power bands (Maiden, Priest, Sabbath, Rainbow, etc), as well as the old prog bands. As far newer prog bands...Romeos said countless times he really doesn't keep up with many of the newer bands and any similarity with them is because they share similar influences, so thats right out.

 

[The Yngster]

I do think that a band must be very original to be labelled "prog". Have you forgotten what "progressive" means? It is moving forward and doing something that has not been done before.

To be progressive a band does not have to incorporate elements of classical music. For example, Cynic had a very strrong jazz influence and incorportated it into their metal. But they were not influenced by classical music. They did something that had not been done before. Would you deny that they are a progressive band?

Nope, I agree, but just because something sounds similar does not mean its the same. With Pinella's classical influences, Romeo's metal influences, Rullo's jazz influences, and Russ's blues influences, I would call SX progressive since they incorporate all these different genres into their music.

 

[Kate Bush Rules!]

Nope, I agree, but just because something sounds similar does not mean its the same. With Pinella's classical influences, Romeo's metal influences, Rullo's jazz influences, and Russ's blues influences, I would call SX progressive since they incorporate all these different genres into their music.

I can't think of a single Symphony X song which significantly incorporates jazz, blues, and classical music into metal.

 

[Polyeidus]

I can't think of a single Symphony X song which significantly incorporates jazz, blues, and classical music into metal.

What planet are you from? And, is it your mission to post ludicrously wrong posts in order to produce arguments?

After reading what you have wrote, and considering all the other garbage you've written in the past, I hope that no one takes you seriously from here on out. I sure won't.

 

[Polyeidus]

It's not because i'm using the wrong form of the word, it's because you're not looking at the bigger picture here. Progressive music is a defined style, but like I already said, one of the elements that determine if a band is progressive is how much they change their music. You couldn't possibly classify a band that keeps playing the same album over and over (with different lyrics) progressive, that's just ludicrous if you ask me.

Cheers! \m/

I don't understand where you are in your thinking, but I want you know that I agree with what you are saying, and you are repeating what I have said to be my understanding. Thus, we are getting nowhere.

Only thing I have a problem with and cannot let go of is the change factor you keep mentioning. Prog created a new avenue of rock, and therefore changed it. One does not need constant style changes to be considered prog. The creators of prog ensured that.

 

[Harp Heaven]

I can't think of a single Symphony X song which significantly incorporates jazz, blues, and classical music into metal.

IMO, Awakenings fits that bill perfectly.

 

[Ultimate_Symphony]

I don't understand where you are in your thinking, but I want you know that I agree with what you are saying, and you are repeating what I have said to be my understanding. Thus, we are getting nowhere.

Only thing I have a problem with and cannot let go of is the change factor you keep mentioning. Prog created a new avenue of rock, and therefore changed it. One does not need constant style changes to be considered prog. The creators of prog ensured that.

We are indeed getting nowhere The problem is (and i'm not sure if you're realizing it) is that if you don't push the boundaries of your music and you keep making the same stuff over the years, how can you be considered prog? you know where i'm getting at here? You need to progress at least a little and like I said before this is just one of the factors I take into consideration. I think prog's point was to make something new, something different. Now, if prog bands don't ''progress'' they'll miss the essence of prog, you know what i'm saying? they'll go stale just like the regulars rock bands of the time.

 

[Polyeidus]

I agree with what you are saying, and as far as I know, I haven't disputed this opinion, I was concerned more with what IS prog and what is considered prog.
Agreed?

 

[Ultimate_Symphony]

Yep \m/ Ok, now we need more arguments!