yes, but if 'prog' is a type of music (i disagree, at least as far as it applies to metal) then a new band that imitates it (regardless of whether it does bring something new to the table no matter how significant) doesn't need a new genre definition such as 'classic progressive' now does it? it's a contradiction in terms. if a new band imitates an old progressive metal band, and the changes are minimal to a point where it does not step outside the genre, then it should also just be called a 'progressive metal band', and if the changes are significant enough, then it deserves a whole new definition of it's own now doesn't it? 'classic progressive' would not be an appropriate terminology here as it implies that they are playing the 'original' form of progressive metal and we just established that it's different to a point where it needs it's own genre definition. of course this is all based on the premise that 'progressive metal' is a style in itself. as always, when an emergent band is progressive enough that it does not have and significant imitators, it it pointless to assign it with a genre of it's own (hence opeth was just 'opeth' in my head for quite some time), particularily when the band and it's style do not take off, hence 'progressive'. when the stylings of the band establish themselves to a point where is does have a sufficient amount of imitators (similar or identical) it becomes more worthwhile to designate it it's own genre, hence 'melo death metal' with opeth. sure, it still has progressive elements in it, but the primary sound of the band is derived from the aforementioned two elements. of course, if a band is completely incapable of staying still and changes it's style from album to album significanly (and the new styles is not significantly similar to a preexisting genre) then you may as well continue to term them 'progressive metal'.
on a side note, i consider 'prog rock' and 'progressive rock' to be two different genre's (though it's hard to call 'progressive rock' a genre, just like progressive metal).
anyhow, getting back to 9fts previous comment about my social skillz. and my perchant to resort to personal attacks. ok. i've done that once, and i admitted to it. so once makes a trend now? and as far as those people skills i was referring to of yours, you just managed to justify my comment. again. you don't seem to have a single diplomatic bone in your body. moreover you seem completely incapable of even comprehending the fact that you may be wrong. whether you are or not (you have been both) is not the point. you state opionions as if they were facts, and you dismiss my entire argument (no matter how many points i make in a single post) after invalidating a single fact. as i've said before, there is so much room for interpretation as far as genre's are concerned that you have to be willing to accept the fact that depending on where people are coming from, they may choose to define a band in a different way. as long as you can relate to where they are coming from, then their definition of the band has served it's purpose. ie: there is no 'right' way to pigeon hole or define a band. there may be more accurate ways, but none that are absolute. you would find that if you made the attempt (or appearance) of seeing things from another's perspective, they would do likewise. you almost seem to do that with others on occasion, i'm yet to experience this phenomenon however. i'm also yet to experience this vaunted sense of humour of yours. pity.
If you think that, I'd love to buy you a beer...lol
