Random Thoughts...

[Eld]

I've been thinking lately about the progressive genre of music and what it means to me when I hear a band is progressive.

Now I consider myself a big fan of progressive metal. But what exactly does that mean? Is it a genre of its own, or is it more descriptive in the sense that it's bands pushing the limits that have been set by the bands before them?

For those that think it's a genre, it's generally associated with bands like Dream Theater, Planet X, Symphony X, etc. So, my quandry is that these bands really aren't progressing anymore. They're playing this typical prog-metal. You knew what Dream Theater's "Six Degress of Inner Turbulance" was going to sound like. These prog-metal bands are really just stuck in the progressive tag, but they've lost all sense of the meaning of what it means to be progressive.

King Crimson, they're progressive. You really didn't know what to expect from them next, and they constantly brought new colours to the palette. Or Pink Floyd, stressing electronics as they went on, and also keyboard ambience, Roger Waters always improving in his composition abilities. It's really the original progressive bands that made prog. what it was, and I feel that the bands associated with prog. now don't do it justice.

But there are bands today that are what I consider to be truly progressive. One of the earlier bands to show what it's like to be truly be progressive was in my mind Death. Even know melody was generally stressed before heaviness and brutality in prog. music, Chuck brought the two together. He continued to progress with every album that he ever wrote, always finding the best musicians to back his ideas up, becoming more technical, more fluent in his playing and ideas.

Even today though, a band like Neurosis is what I would call progressive. They continue to push their own boundaries with each album, always doing their best to improve. Nobody has quite done what they have with their atmoshpere and emotion. Emotions and atmosphere can be a whole lot more technical than moving those fingers incredibly fast up and down the fretboard.

Also, Enslaved. They made it a point to continually progress with each album. Now they're at a point that they're incredibly unique, bringing in a that important unique atmoshpere and emotions, but also making their sound itself interesting with their dive into psychadelic sounds and just pure rock and roll, mixing it with traditional heavy metal and traditional black metal.

And another band I feel I should make mention of is Dodheimsgard. With "666 International" they combined industrial rhythms with harsh black metal and even made room for some beautiful piano pieces.

I'm no prog expert and I wouldn't be surprised if a few people get a laugh out of this, but whatever comments you have are great since I'm always ready to learn more about metal and music in general. So, what do you guys think, and are there any more bands that you think should be mentioned?

 

[O'blivion]

YES. Neurosis and Enslaved are more progressive than the aforementioned bands will ever be. Enslaved tap into chaos, making their music an infinite complex of contained entropy. Neurosis capture the bare essence of being, and the inseparable ties of our inner innate magicks to the earth and its seemingly endless eons of erudition, and somehow manage to channel it through a concentrated soundscape. dream theater/symphony x/etc. wank on their instruments, make recordings of it, and hope people are gullible enough to buy into it. <=====period

 

[Vortex]

I echo your thoughts quite often, even though I don't actively seek for "true" progressive music.

How about Voivod?

 

[Skull_Punk]

Once I got into an argument about this with some dude on a mailing list. He was upholding the status quo, the view that it's a genre and that it has to follow certain guidelines in order to make it prog while I was arguing that such thinking is a slap in the face of progressive. But in thinking about it more and more, I began to realize we were both right in a way. And I discovered something else: when you name or define a thing, certain rigid boundaries are put on it and sometimes with art, that can be a death knell.

IMHO, since April of this year, there hasn't been a single prog metal release that has really gotten people fired up. I don't want to say that prog metal is dead, but it is certainly comatose. I think there are a lot of bands doing "safe" prog metal and abandoning the spirit of progressive. That's really sad and primarily why I don't listen to it much anymore.

Having said that, I do anticipate the new Symphony X. They're good. Their songwriting may not be the best, but they are consummate musicians.

 

[The Angry Robot]

Eld...I love the fact that you brought up Neurosis. Alot of people seem to overlook these guys for some weird reason. One of my alltime favorite bands, period.

O'blivion...Holy shit! you should be a fucking writer.

I got into a band called Maudlin of the Well earlier this year and I would consider them very progressive (maybe even beyond). Definitely pushing the boundaries, and not in the let's see how many notes we can play but more in the creative sense. Combining a-typical instrumentation with lyrics that aren't always easy to decipher. This band is really something special and should not be ignored by anyone who appreciates beautiful/heavy/emotional/eclectic music. I simply love this band and hope they're around just as long as a band like King Crimson.
There's also a forum for them here on UM, so check it out. Most of the guys in the band hang out on it and they're all pretty damn funny.

 

[Eld]

Angry Robot, Neurosis are also one of my absolute favorite bands. I also like Maudlin of the Well quite a bit.

Good opinions everyone. I didn't mean to sound like an elite black metal warrior or anything, but with prog haha. I'm a tr00 progressive professor!

 

[MacMoney]

But there are bands today that are what I consider to be truly progressive. One of the earlier bands to show what it's like to be truly be progressive was in my mind Death. Even know melody was generally stressed before heaviness and brutality in prog. music, Chuck brought the two together. He continued to progress with every album that he ever wrote, always finding the best musicians to back his ideas up, becoming more technical, more fluent in his playing and ideas.

By that definition Voivod was there first.

 

[Eld]

I'm not that familiar with Voivod, but from what I've heard they didn't do anything to the extent Chuck did. Anyway, got any Voivod suggestions for me? I'd like to check them out more.

 

[Of My Darkest Hour]

HAWKWIND

 

[Vortex]

Originally posted by Eld
I'm not that familiar with Voivod, but from what I've heard they didn't do anything to the extent Chuck did. Anyway, got any Voivod suggestions for me? I'd like to check them out more.

What have you heard? They were definitely more progressive or at least strange than Death, (not taking anything away from Chuck!). It is silly to compare anyway, because they were of a completely different genre. Because they were not that extreme, they get overlooked these days.

I'd suggest getting the albums Nothingface and Dimension Hatröss. If I put it shortly, they are the band who brought dissonance and weird chords to metal music. Their guitarist Piggy played unlike anyone else in metal. There are also surprising spots of delicate melody. I think they might have pioneered some of those stop-start dynamics and rhythmic tricks of someone like Tool, I bet that came from their common prog influences though. You can hear Opeth has quite a bit of influence from them on the later albums.

 

[Claire's Horror]

I don't remember the name of this movie director who said, "in art there is no progress or evolution, just change". pushing the boundaries doesn't imply a progress at all, since everything concerning aesthetics is relative. just wanted to share this point.

 

[Don Corleone]

whole-heartedly agree with you there, claire's horror.

 

[Skull_Punk]

Interesting point, Claire's Horror.

 

[Vortex]

I think I just understood something - many bands progress because they learn more about their instruments and composing in general as their career goes on. I think this is the ideal situation to play in a successful band, when you're literally just learning. I guess this was the case with Chuck, he was pushing it because he was excited of learning something new.

On the other hand, bands like Dream Theater who have been music school graduates from day one, have to make their progress the other way and IMO fail most of the time.

I think Opeth have really learned about playing between every album, or at least changed their approach very successfully, as time has gone on. Then again as I have said before, their sound in general has stayed quite the same, but the progress is in the tiny details.

Maybe this relates to Claire's thoughtful post - personal evolution as opposed to "progress"?

 

[Eld]

For bands like Dream Theater, there are others ways to progress than just wanking away.

And yeah, Opeth progress in tiny details mostly.

 

[Claire's Horror]

Originally posted by Vortex
I think I just understood something - many bands progress because they learn more about their instruments and composing in general as their career goes on. I think this is the ideal situation to play in a successful band, when you're literally just learning. I guess this was the case with Chuck, he was pushing it because he was excited of learning something new.

On the other hand, bands like Dream Theater who have been music school graduates from day one, have to make their progress the other way and IMO fail most of the time.

I think Opeth have really learned about playing between every album, or at least changed their approach very successfully, as time has gone on. Then again as I have said before, their sound in general has stayed quite the same, but the progress is in the tiny details.

Maybe this relates to Claire's thoughtful post - personal evolution as opposed to "progress"?

something like that, yeah. it all has to do with the personal situation of the artist; his art changes just as his life does. some people change slightly, other people do it quite radically. but that's the way of learning, you cannot just stay forever on one territory.

 

[YaYo]

I think the whole situation with music these days limits progression. Bands are conditioned to write albums and songs always in the same styles, its like artists are expected to only need one form of expressing themselves musically. The whole idea of having a band can also be limiting, you play music that is a compromise of all the members of the band, there's simply not room for major direction changes as everyone has to agree. For this reason i dont plan on ever having any permanent members in my solo project (ie dont wanna turn it into a band)... freedom. Even an album can limit progression, when you buy a CD you expect to hear 60 or so minutes worth of similar sounding music, its got to all fit together and stuff. I think this is why many bands fail to progress, they try to make major changes without wanting to change any of their basics.

 

[enigma_nocurnus]

Originally posted by YaYoGakk
I think the whole situation with music these days limits progression.


I agree, but also feel this is what seperates someone from being a revoloutionary or merely just another muso.
If we are talking about in terms of metal. The only person I would really be prepared to say nailed redefining a genre is Ishan. In my mind still arguably the most gifted man in extreme metal. His talents as a composer, and his efficiency to express his ever changing plethora of creative ideas in new and fresh ways, while still managing to keep a sound that is collectively recognised the world over as "Emperor" is 2nd to none.
Anyone who argues this isn't the truth hasn't listened to their music closely enough, or is simply blind and unwilling to give commendation where it is due IMO because the music speaks for itself.
Here we have a man, responsible for birthing a band in one of the most stagnated and stylistically, restricted of all the genre's in metal. I mean when Emperor started, Black Metal was taking it's D.N.A and cloning it at such a steady rate it basically was doing what Nu metal is doing right now. You couldn't tell the fucking difference from one band to the next.
I always felt Emperor was offering something a little different to what was currently on offer by every other band in the scene at the time. It always felt a little more spiritual to me or something. It still had that raw Black metal sound of the early to mid 90's, but I feel it was a little more thought out. But never the less, they still undeniably fitted into that category when they started.
We're talking about a scene, that in this period of time was so restrictive that if you did something that broke a "black metal" law, you could have your life threatened by someone adhering to that scene for not being true(God I hate that word).
My point is, in the time that they were together(which was not nearly long enough), Ishan and Emperor took all those ideals, and constraints, limmitations and and bullshit laws that went along with being black metal, and shoved it up the scene's ass sideways, and tore it a new one in the process.
Listen to In the nightside eclipse, then Anthems to the Welkin at Dusk, then 1X Equilibrium, then Prometheus the discipline of fire and Demise and comment on how similar you feel those albums are to one another. The only thing that is similar is his ideas, the stories he has written us, the picture's he has painted via the music are of the same nature. He just somehow kept finding a way on every album to say what he wanted to say in a completely new and expressive way. But musically, I don't think they could be much more diverse than they are from one another. Each album has such an accurately definable flavour and production...... each album stands on it's own and achieves totally different things the last to the next. And think about it, if you really wanted to be considered a revoloutionary as a composer, as someone who created, not copied, who defined, not recited. Ishan achieved this in every conceivable fashion with Emperor.
At the end of the day, Black metal is still alive and kicking, it's evolved somewhat, and changed a little with the times. But everyone adhering to that genre can all still be tagged from a mile away as being such(and I'm not bagging it because black metal is my favourite genre of music). But what about Emperor, are you prepared to call them black metal just because it was where they chose to begin??? To me Emperor are Emperor. I'd be reluctent even to call them metal only for the fact that I feel that the word "metal" when associated with music is too restrictive for what Emperor did for it in the time they were together.
I mean, we are always going to have innovators. Bands like Opeth and such have all calved their own unique sounds, and been the first to do so. But say with the example of Opeth, look what we have now. A fucking million bands trying as hard as they can to be them because they feel it's going to earn them credit, praise for writing such diverse sounding music, and notoriety within a scene that brings with it sometimes the harshest of ridicule for un-originality. When in reality all they have succeeded in doing lyes in the fact that they have merely been perceptive enough to figure out how Opeth did it? What their formula is. All they've done is mimick the voice that Opeth created. It happens in everything, look at Impersonators doing impressions of famous people. When you see a good one you can't tell the difference between the voice of the imposter and the original. So it's only natural to assume that the same thing happens in music. And in the worst cases the comparrissons get so blatant that it borders on criminal.
But at the end of all this ranting, the main point I'm making is. I am yet to hear of a band who sound like Emperor. I dunno, maybe there is and I am yet to here them. But I think the reason why I haven't is because Emperor can not be cloned. No fucking way. I mean, yeah...... maybe you might sound like Emperor did 2 albums ago, or even 1 album ago. But you won't be like them, cause they'll be completely different on the next one. He was changing things and putting us all on this chaotic head fuck so often it would be, in my eyes, impossible to clone it.
He's the only person I am willing to call progressive within the confines of metal. A total Genius.

Originally posted by YaYoGakk
The whole idea of having a band can also be limiting, you play music that is a compromise of all the members of the band, there's simply not room for major direction changes as everyone has to agree.

This statement seems a little contradictory to me upon reading it a few times. Only for this reason.
The reason you get into a band, or start one is because you want to make music. And this music is obviousley of a nature that you know you can not perform live by yourself. So you enlist the talents and help of other people, and in doing so want and whole heartedly expect their input and creative direction. Even if at times you yourself challenge it. This I feel is by no means a compromise, but is in fact it's direction and purpose. If you are with the right people to create music with, meaning they are on the same page as yourself musically and creatively. It's their very presence mixed with your own that keeps you fresh I feel. Think about it, really?? I think there's far more the chance of stagnating when you're by yourself, as opposed to tossing your own ideas into a mix of other peoples and seeing what comes out in the end. I guess it just depends on whether you'd want other peoples outside opinions or not, if you knew ultimately you were gonna do what you wanted anyway. Cause I mean as a writer, I feel you need to have that trait just as much. I think that if you know you've actively opened yourself to the opinion of someone else, and after consideration still think your original thought or idea is the best thing for the song, then you owe it to yourself to carry that out. But that is entirely different ofcourse than just letting someone's opinion fall on def ears.
But basically it really just boils down to what you want and need the music to do, and what direction it has to take. I mean some music definately beckons just for the input of one person and one person alone, where as others need the input of multiple people to survive and keep moving.
My point is, I don't think being in a band limmits progression at all. If you're with the right people I think it nurtures it.

 

[MacMoney]

Originally posted by Vortex


What have you heard? They were definitely more progressive or at least strange than Death, (not taking anything away from Chuck!). It is silly to compare anyway, because they were of a completely different genre. Because they were not that extreme, they get overlooked these days.

I'd suggest getting the albums Nothingface and Dimension Hatröss. If I put it shortly, they are the band who brought dissonance and weird chords to metal music. Their guitarist Piggy played unlike anyone else in metal. There are also surprising spots of delicate melody. I think they might have pioneered some of those stop-start dynamics and rhythmic tricks of someone like Tool, I bet that came from their common prog influences though. You can hear Opeth has quite a bit of influence from them on the later albums.

Actually, Voivod were quite extreme during the time their first two albums were released. War and Pain was one of the most extreme albums of it's year as was RÖÖÖÖÄÄÄÄR (sp). After that they, got a bit away from extremity and started going progressive. Indeed Nothingface and Dimension Hatröss are good ones to start with though Phobos and Negatron are a bit weirder and more progressive. Definite King Crimson influences there.

It's just so sad that Voivod are never mentioned when talking about early progressive metal bands.

 

[YaYo]

Originally posted by enigma_nocurnus

This statement seems a little contradictory to me upon reading it a few times. Only for this reason.
The reason you get into a band, or start one is because you want to make music. And this music is obviousley of a nature that you know you can not perform live by yourself. So you enlist the talents and help of other people, and in doing so want and whole heartedly expect their input and creative direction. Even if at times you yourself challenge it. This I feel is by no means a compromise, but is in fact it's direction and purpose. If you are with the right people to create music with, meaning they are on the same page as yourself musically and creatively. It's their very presence mixed with your own that keeps you fresh I feel. Think about it, really?? I think there's far more the chance of stagnating when you're by yourself, as opposed to tossing your own ideas into a mix of other peoples and seeing what comes out in the end. I guess it just depends on whether you'd want other peoples outside opinions or not, if you knew ultimately you were gonna do what you wanted anyway. Cause I mean as a writer, I feel you need to have that trait just as much. I think that if you know you've actively opened yourself to the opinion of someone else, and after consideration still think your original thought or idea is the best thing for the song, then you owe it to yourself to carry that out. But that is entirely different ofcourse than just letting someone's opinion fall on def ears.
But basically it really just boils down to what you want and need the music to do, and what direction it has to take. I mean some music definately beckons just for the input of one person and one person alone, where as others need the input of multiple people to survive and keep moving.
My point is, I don't think being in a band limmits progression at all. If you're with the right people I think it nurtures it.

A band can of course create an interesting sound from the addition of all its members. But to progress and change that sound in a major way... well thats only really limited to bands that really have 1 main leading member anyway. In your Emperor example, although they are a band, wasnt the last album completely written by one of the members alone?

Individual bands can of course progress a genre, but im talking about a band making major changes to its own sound.

There are bands that do it, Maudlin of the Well seem to be a good example from the little ive heard and the lot ive read about them. But such bands are rare, most bands only make minor progressions to their sound and playing style and their changes can be described in one or two main areas at most.