Im genuinely curious between the differences. Ive seen both terms used interchangeably so I wanna settle it here.
don't tell dak.Power Trip are progressive thrash because they're BernieBros.
not true. A shit load of progressive death metal bands have zero ties to progressive rock outside of you know, their music progressing.Simplest differentiation is that prog metal takes after prog rock bands stylistically
not true. A shit load of progressive death metal bands have zero ties to progressive rock outside of you know, their music progressing.
edit: well if you're strictly talking about the subgenre of prog metal than i guess so. Just to be clear, most prog metal is trash.
wtf, are you serious? Its when a track builds and goes different places and most of the time blurs boundaries of different styles. Also, stop asking me this kind of nonsense dude.Define "music progressing"
wtf, are you serious? Its when a track builds and goes different places and most of the time blurs boundaries of different styles. Also, stop asking me this kind of nonsense dude.
yes and a lot of metal is also technical, does that make them technical thrash, technical death metal etc? Is Deathspell Omega technical black metal? Man talking to you about stuff like this is like talking to a 16 year old sped.
BUT LOOK ITS TECHNICAL SO THAT MEANS ITS TECH DEATH OR TECH THRASH. LOOK A SONG THAT BUILDS UP MEANS ITS PROGRESSIVE. what a moron.
is Rust in Peace progressive thrash metal to you? Some Metallica albums definitely have progressive elements, but not enough to warrant a "progressive thrash metal" tag. Closest one is AJFA. They also have some pretty technical stuff too ... would it be enough to warrant a technical thrash tag?
edit: @hbb
so you say that those songs progressively build up and keep going different places or are you just having a hard time putting together what you read from my posts again dude?I don't know. I'm asking you for the definition. Going by your definition, I would say the first four Megadeth albums are all progressive in that they all feature many songs with atypical structure, and change style a fair amount. Arguably they're all technical as well. By that definition, I'd say Metallica is at least somewhat prog, at least in that they lack to use bridge sections that are stylistically divergent from the main bodies of their songs. Some of their stuff seems pretty technical too.
so you say that those songs progressively build up and keep going different places or are you just having a hard time putting together what you read from my posts again dude?
And yes dude, i know some of their stuff is technical ... i think i even indicated that numerous times already. wow dude.
again, are you saying that the music on KIMB for example progressively builds up, goes different places and blurs the line between numerous different genres of music? dont use my definition incorrectly you mentally handicapped waste of spermI would argue that they were a progressive thrash metal band on their first four albums.