Opeth and "progressive"

[Vortex]

This was merely inspired by some discussion I've seen lately, directed at no-one but for anyone to ponder.

I'm still curious about how people use that word..
Someone like Rush could be called progressive, going from twenty minute "songs" to five minute Songs to almost completely changing their instruments to relatively simple guitar rock.

It's funny, did Opeth get that tag on Orchid or what? I was not really around in "the scene" back then, so I have no idea. If, how can you call a band with only one album out progressive? You'll never know until you've heard the second!
It seems the definition makes people think things of the band they are not. I think Opeth are even less progressive than someone like Slayer. Opeth brought in (almost) all the goods as early on their debut, showing back then already they could basically do everything within that style and maybe by that even expressing "we're not going to change".

Now some people seem to judge them by that lack of change within the big picture, but to me Opeth was all about that detailed vision which never gets boring in a right state of mind.

I hope the term "art-rock" would be brought back, as seventies as it does sound but anyway..
Sometimes I think in the metal scene some people more and more associate progressive with good, which is funny. It surely leads to misunderstandings when bands record more music. If you get bored with a style after more than 80 minutes of it, did you really like it in the first place?

 

[yourdeadgroom]

Originally posted by Vortex
how can you call a band with only one album out progressive?

I can't speak for anyone else, but my idea of the term 'progressive' refers to a musical approach, in somuch as 'cramming lots of ideas into a song and having twists and turns and weird shit', as opposed to variation over a group of songs or albums. So it's entirely possible to be progressive with one album- it refers to compositional approach, rather than career development.

I can't be bothered typing out the quote bits, so here's another part:
"Now some people seem to judge them by that lack of change within the big picture"

I'd disagree with the 'lack-of-change' part, they are quite different now than they were with Orchid. More repeated riffs, more chord based and less melodic (compared to the early stuff) etc, sure, same band so there is an obvious connection, but they have, um, progressed

 

[Ermz]

Opeth have definately changed. Whether they have evolved or devolved is debatable, but the point is, as well as their songs 'progressing' their career has aswell.

I'm not sure if 'progressive' in the traditional sense seems to apply to their early material... as the songs don't really seem to progress, they just seem to change, climax, solo then keep on going with new things... there was no real structure, so no progression, just chaos.

It all really just depends on your definition of 'Progressive'. I feel that bands that are labelled 'Progressive' pull off more shit in their first song than most bands will in a life time, as opposed to sort of progressing in their albums over time.

 

[YaYo]

Yeh, definitely lots of meanings of the word "progressive"..

Genre's suck. We create them to help us define what music sounds like easily, then end up arguing and questioning what the genre means... wasting more time that we would have anyway! They're supposed to be a way of defining a band in a word or two, yet they are far from that.

 

[Sfarog]

.. then music is worth a million.

There is no single band that can be described accurately using 2-3 words. "Melodic death metal" gives you just a vague idea of the type of music it is, and it might even not be that "melodic", "death-y" or "metal" from your own frame of reference.

I've wondered about the correct usage of the word "progressive" a few times, and there is no clear definition in the minds of the music listeners or, many times, musicians, for that matter.

here is an excerpt of a definition of the word:

"pro·gres·sive , adj.
1. Moving forward; advancing.
2. Proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments: progressive change. "

In my opinion, i looked towards the progress not between cd's really because each cd is its own entity. I really look down into the song structure. That is where Opeth's earlier releases were truly progressive, as the song started with riff A and moved on to B, and then C, D, E with slight variations, but you finally arrived at lest say K as opposed to A or B. Not much repetition or going back to previous riffs.

These days Opeth's song are still quite progressive, but ever since MAYH some repetition now exists. Thus in my opinion, Orchid and Morningrise were truly progressive.

Ok thats enough of txt, noone cares anyhow.

Sfarog

 

[Don Corleone]

some of you guys misuse the word progressive. in music, it is not used the way we use everyday. a band with one album could be progressive as that tag isnt given to bands who "prgoress with each album". the tag is given because they "progress beyond the lines of their genre". i hope thats clear. for instance...weird time signatures: thats typical of jazz. so progressive metal bands blend thats style with rock/metal and there you go. i hope i made myself clear.

 

[StorTroll]

For me, songs such as Moonlapse Vertigo, The Moor, BWP are progressive. They´re progressive because of their essence, the way the´re built...experimental quality is in a way progressive.
And that´s what they are all the way.

 

[loudsilence]

In that recent magazine that came out with Mikael on the cover they were basically saying that "progressive" music has influenced everyone, including Black Sabbath. I can't see calling them a prog influenced band. Or maybe I'm just not getting it.

 

[O'blivion]

there was prog before sabbath? forget Sabbath, Uriah Heep's Very 'Eavy, Very 'Umble is the first progressive metal album (and one of the first metal albums at that.) Their influence on modern metal is for the most part ignored in metal circles. i guess i don't understand the sabbath worship when you have a far more evolved and interesting band coming out around the same time. meh.

 

[loudsilence]

I don't know if you could say that there was prog before Sabbath, I'm just saying that the article was saying that Sabbath had some prog influences. I don't know...I guess this "prog" thing just appeared out of thin air or just evolved like all types of music.

 

[Bloody B]

If you'd say, like some of the people above do, that progressive is traveling over the borders of a genre, Black Sabbath would definitely be progressive. When they first started they started out as a blues band, but after a while they put in more and more heavy shit, which you can hear quite well, comparing early songs of the first album (like evil woman) with newer ones (black sabbath).

 

[RETIREDTrapped]

I wouldn't call them progressive at all. They are nothing like prog metal, so they aren't prog. simple. fuck genres.

 

[Vortex]

I agree Opeth are (were) progressive within the songs themselves, most notably in the Orchid times. I think they have by large strayed away from those journeys though. Nowadays their music is like some intriguing artifact...
Still Life did have some of that storytelling aspect, and the BWP title track is really something else as well.

But you can't deny that by progressive, people very often think career-wise. That change from Morningrise to MAYH might seem big from a guitarist's point of view, but not much else. Which is a good thing! I wouldn't want a band this unique to really change.

 

[MacMoney]

Yes, there was progressive rock before Black Sabbath. King Crimson's In The Court of the Crimson King was released in 1969 which is one year before Sabbath's debut. But in the end I guess the prog rock influences started to show in the later albums, not in the first ones.