New Symphony X album Underworld in July!!!!
- Thread starter dtfanatic
- Start date
MeTuLHeD
A Member To Remember
Sort of/kind of...but ok. I'll take it since it's obvious that's all I'm going to get. If 'Nevermore' is a power metal song, then I am not at all sure that we can even have a coherent discussion. It would be like a discussion of quantum physics in which one man defines it as 'a branch of physics that studies and tries to explain the nature and behavior of matter and energy on the atomic and subatomic level' and the other defines it as 'my aunt's recipe for apple pie'. An extreme example to be sure, but you get my point. The definition of terms is crucial in order for any meaningful discussion to take place. Allow me to illustrate my point.
This is a power metal song.
This is not a power metal song.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9I4P9TBRQ4Q&index=2&list=PLesIKaxpdXHcboRyuWP7_kUSusOiEWw8P[/ame]
Now back to my point above. If we cannot agree on that, then all discussion breaks down because we do not agree on the essential definition of terms. What I call prog, you call power metal. So there is little way forward. Let's use the new song 'Nevermore' as a point of reference.
In my opinion, few power metal guitarists could even PLAY, much less compose a complex riff like that. That complexity alone lifts 'Nevermore' out of the realm of run-of-the-mill power metal songs and puts it in a different category altogether.
Let me cut to the chase. The sub genre which we have lovingly labeled 'prog rock/metal' is very broad and very deep. It encompasses bands whose music I absolutely love, bands whose music I like, bands whose music I don't like and bands whose music frankly puts me to sleep. Yet all of them play music which falls within the aforementioned broad/deep category. Just because a band plays music which I don't like does NOT mean they are not 'prog'. It simply means I don't care for their sound...for the particular approach which that particular band takes to progressive music. And that's ok. I am free to dislike their music. It's a matter of personal taste. However, the mere fact that I dislike it is not in and of itself grounds for me to declare that they are "not prog" with a dismissive sniff.
Here's the bottom line. Symphony X IS a prog metal band...all nay saying to the contrary notwithstanding. Have they left behind their Yngwie/Dio/Kansas hybrid days? Yes. Have they moved in a more aggressive direction with their music? Undoubtedly. But just because they aren't making music which appeals to fans of 'DWoT' or 'TIO' doesn't denigrate their music or mean they are now playing power metal. They are still playing progressive metal. They just aren't playing a 'flavor' of progressive metal which you like anymore. If we could agree on that, then the argument could be resolved. But as long as we aren't even reading from the same playbook, then it becomes like a dog chasing it's tail.
Last edited by a moderator:
May I then bow to superiority that you have stated to have over me while setting up the parameters as to how we can discuss this subject...
We certainly do have a much different idea of what is to be considered progressive or not but I now see that I'm not allowed to have a differing opinion since I don't have a doctorial degree in the subject...
Here's the bottom line... I learned lesson about you and the mistake will not be repeated again...
We certainly do have a much different idea of what is to be considered progressive or not but I now see that I'm not allowed to have a differing opinion since I don't have a doctorial degree in the subject...
Here's the bottom line... I learned lesson about you and the mistake will not be repeated again...
Oblivion Ocean
Member
I told myself that I was not going to weigh back in on this thread as I did not think I had the proper footwear to avoid betting some manure on me
However, you realize that were are talking about art; which is subjective? I love discussing the minutia of metal and genres etc, but at the end of the day I know it is just for fun since there is no objective truth. I guess if you wanted to you could come up with a typology of genres with which you could give music a quantitive genre score to try to establish objectivity, but at that point you are manipulating a lifeless husk.
I like discussing this stuff and if someone wants to argue Symphony X has polka influences, more power to them. But to make truth statements about something so subjective seems pointless and also seems to take some of the fun out of musical discussions.
Remember what John Lennon said.."Listen, writing about music is like talking about fucking. Who wants to talk about it?"
MeTuLHeD
A Member To Remember
Au contraire. I merely stated the truth. Unless we are speaking the same language, we cannot communicate effectively.
We obviously DO have a much different idea of what is to be considered progressive. But that doesn't alter my premise in the least. If we cannot define terms, then we cannot discuss this rationally. It's actually Logic 101.
Anyway, I certainly don't own the conversation and I'm not married to my definition, at least not for the purposes of discussion. But surely you would agree that we must have at least SOME working definition of what our terms mean in order to discuss this? Therefore, let's use your definition. Would you please, as succinctly as possible, define what progressive means to you musically? That way we can proceed with our discussion on terms which you find acceptable.
Oh? And what pray tell might lesson [sic] be? That I have strongly held opinions and try to defend them rationally? Does that offend you?
MeTuLHeD
A Member To Remember
Oh the humanity...turning music into a lifeless husk!!!
But seriously, since when is music subjective? Music is music. It is what it is. Notes on a page. Our REACTION to music is what is subjective. As in: "I love Band A" or "I hate Band B". Or "that songs moves me" or "that song leaves me cold". What kind of music Band A or B makes is not subjective. It just is what it is. They may write songs that are musically and compositionally complex. Or they may write songs that are musically and compositionally quite simple. But there's no use in trying to argue that their songs are both complex and simple at the same time as that is pure postmodern nonsense and flies in the face of simple logic. Allow me to reference a previous (albeit different) discussion here. Rascal Flatts write songs. They write hit songs. They write songs which connect with lots of people on a visceral level. However, there is no way in hell that Rascal Flatts is a prog band. Sorry. That doesn't even make good nonsense. Or how about another example. Let's say Vivaldi versus Mumford & Sons. Now, you may like both. But are you seriously going to try and tell me there is no objective difference between the two? Because that's where I call "manure".
Seriously? If I said SX's music contained polka influences then someone else wouldn't be correct in putting me in my place and informing me that I am simply wrong...period? Wow. If that's the case, then we truly don't have any grounds for rationality. I'm sorry if objectivity makes things less "fun" for you. But that doesn't render objectivist arguments invalid. It merely points up the absurdity of postmodern thought.
MeTuLHeD
A Member To Remember
Why? Because I asked him to define the term progressive so we can discuss the whole thing on grounds that we can both understand? How is that obnoxious?
MeTuLHeD
A Member To Remember
Ok. Then I humbly admit that I don't get it. So please help me get it. Define progressive for me as you understand it and we will proceed on your terms.
The Invisible Guest
Member
MeTuLHeD
A Member To Remember
It's really hard to have a meeting of the minds when you can't get people to straightforwardly and clearly express their thoughts.
Sure except that you responded about it yesterday....
How did that happen???
MeTuLHeD
A Member To Remember
Nope. Sorry. You can't hide behind that.
I said: "Ok. Then I humbly admit that I don't get it. So please help me get it. Define progressive for me as you understand it and we will proceed on your terms."
So, I'm sorry for being an elitist asshole. There. Are we good?
Now, please define what progressive music is according to YOUR terms and we can start over with a meaningful and less condescending conversation.
P.S. "Prog Nerds" Angry Russell really was meant to be funny. Taking the piss as our UK friends would say. I suppose I am as much of a prog nerd as the next guy.
You have proven multiple times that you have no idea how to do this...
The sad part is that you haven't been able to understand this even when called out for it...
Mynock
French Toast
Yet he's still waiting for an explanation or "definition" of what progressive is to you so we can all move forward.
Harvester
The Promoter
Dude. Don is trying to play nice and have a civil debate now. You should try the same.
MeTuLHeD
A Member To Remember
Now look who's being condescending. "You have no idea how to do this...you haven't been able to understand this even when called out for it." Isn't that the height of condescension?
Look. I've apologized for being an elitist asshole. You won't accept that apparently.
Asking you to define what you mean by progressive music is wrong? I am asking as nicely as I know how for you to educate me as to what progressive music is. I am not sure how this is a bad thing. Help me out here.
