That's a pretty awful definition of "progressive". Prog rock didn't start simply cause bands wanted to have progressive song structures. It started cause the bands wanted to experiment with rock and progress the genre as a whole. "Progressive" in this sense should be a synonym for "experimental", and not in insular terms of song structure, but in terms of experimenting with the genre the progressive band is a part of. King Crimson weren't simply attempting to progress their song structures, they were attempting to progress rock as a whole. If you're simply "progressing" your song structures then you're "progressive" in a very banal kind of way.
Necrophagist is not progressive, it's technical.@Allfader you probably dont listen to Obscura much, they've been labeled/are a progressive/technical death metal band for years now. And most of Cannibal Corpse's discog doesnt even fall under technical death metal either, just a few of their later albums. Most of their early work is just generic straight forward death metal. And did you just imply that Necrophagist and Obscura dont have complex compositions? Dude
Did i once say that Necrophagist were progressive? I clearly referred to you saying that they dont have complex compositions, which is just an absurd thing to say. What im getting is that you're implying that technical death metal doesnt contain have complex compositions, which is 100% incorrect.
songs, albums, and even the bands as a whole dude. Call it "awful" or whatever you want, but its literally the definition of progressive music. Maybe you misread/didnt understand my post? thats what im kind of getting form your response, im not sure
Possibly, but progressive isn't necessarily about progressing the band but about progressing music in general. Pretty big distinction.
Not really. You make it sound like a pretty insular thing that doesn't apply to music as a whole. As if progressive bands are just trying to perfect their craft rather than contribute to music in a greater sense.
