This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What ever happened to the Tech Metal and Math Metal pages? There is a huge difference between bands like Psycroptic and Opeth then Dillinger Escape Plan and Behold .... The Arctopus. Now whenever I search for "Technical Metal" or anything of the sort, I'm lead here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.5.177 ( talk) 03:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to ask, WHY are Therion listed under important artists for prog metal ? I hardly see how they fit into this genre in anyway. If no one disagrees with me I will be removing them.
Because they playing in prog vein. Listen to all albums from the Symphony Masses, Ho Drakon, Ho Megas, there's a pseudo-classicaly complexly technical riffs, hammond organ keyboards and even syncopated/polyrythmic drum-work. There's also many SOURCEs, that were cited Therion as progressive metal: meaning they probably should be added. And i probably believe, that many, many metalheads here disagree with you.
I submit that we include "Great Britain" in the cultural origins box to the right of the article, since King's X and other American pioneer prog metal bands cite Yes, King Crimson, the Beatles, and other Brit bands as major influences. Besides, Yes and King Crimson were heavy at times (and for the times) in their own right (Hello? KC's RED album? Yes's DRAMA?).
Secondly, I really think that Tool needs to be excluded from the "list" of artists. I know I'll catch flak for this, but there seems to be some disagreement on where Tool fits. I propose nu-metal. Tool has all the criteria:
Finally, I wonder if Mastodon should or shouldn't be included in the list. I actually feel they are more accurate and deserving than Tool. Let's kick around this idea and see what we come up with...-- Mikepope 03:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Tool in my opinion are closer to math rock than anything else and just happen to have a heavy influence
Firstly I'd like to say I do not think that I'm "like, smarter than everyone now". I think tool should be on the list, saying that their lyrics are "usually centering around youthful frustration or focusing on shock value alone" is biased. When you say "youthful frustration" I assume you mean Angst? Tool are not angsty, their lyrics may be frustrated but they are a lot more introspective then your average nu-metal band & I do not believe they ever write lyrics for the sole purpose of shocking people. Also I have never heard "Syncopated drum track with heavy open chord guitar crunch in between downbeats of most measures" cited as a characteristic og Nu-metal but I have heard many prog-metal songs that could fit this description. Finally, they have cited King Crimson as their greatest influence but prog metal bands borrow just as much from other styles as Nu-metal does, just in different ways. I certainly can accept they have elements of Nu-metal but they have a large element of prog metal in their sound too.-- Fukhed666 10:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I dont know if its just me, but I consider than as Experimental Metal, and not prog
Ok, Tool deserve a mention. And in the article it is stated that it is only a fringe prog metal act. But I wonder why they are introduced in the third paragraph in a verbose way, saying why they are not really prog metal, but could be seen as such. They are no typical prog metal band and should be mentioned further below.
Theisorder of jazz is claimed to have anything to do with the extreme and perfect (if infinitely complex) order of progressive metal. Likewise quotes are heard all around. Many musicians do cite some jazz-labeled artists as having some influence, but the reverse is much more likely. Blades 19:00, Dec 31, 1969 (EST)
I don't think that Skid Row belongs under in the category of prog metal. I would put them under either glam or thrash. TimothyPilgrim 03:29, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
I don't think Tool, Skyclad, Vintersorg, Children of Bodom, King Diamond, and a bunch of other bands are progressive metal, I don't even understand how some of these bands would have made the list.
Do we really need the list of progressive metal artists in this page? Perhaps create a List of progressive metal artists page to house them? -- Plattopus 16:19, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
I don't think Tool should be listed in the list of important/influential bands. I think the band should rather be mentioned somewhere in the text above, stating that it's not a prog metal band but draws some influences from the genre. Possibly instead of that the band X Japan could be added. The band had some major progressive influences which can be heard, for example, in their song "Art of Life" which lasts 28 minutes and invented an own style of band which is highly popular in Japan today. 213.157.1.88 19:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmm I still fail to see any "major" Progressive Metal Band to be "influenced" by Tool. They possibly influenced bands of other genres but no Prog Metal band. X-Japan on the other hand even created their own "style" of music which is really successful in Japan and slowly starts to be accepted over here, too. 213.157.7.178 18:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Are these guys really prog metal? I wouldn't think so, but they've been edited out and back in, now. — BenFrantzDale 15:24, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
no, they are not metal
--- THEY ARE NOT EVEN PROG, PLEASE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.38.208.197 ( talk) 18:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey these guys need to be mentioned. I know some of their stuff turns almost 100% classical, but in 5 albums they have possibly the best 8 or 9 songs in the genre. Listen to dawn of victory, flames of revenge, and holy thuderforce if you dont believe me.
Rhapsody is prog/power metal. Deimoss 23:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry guys, but Opeth ain't "black metal." If you want to hear black metal, listen to Burzum, Mayhem, Emperor, Immortal, Darkthrone, etc. They do not sound like Opeth at all. Opeth borrows much more heavily from the death metal genre, particularly the band Morbid Angel. Listen to the vocals for a start, which are not high pitched and screechy like in black metal, and instead are deeper like those found in death metal. Also listen to the song "Masters Apprentice" to hear some clear Morbid Angel rip offs.
Woah, woah.... True Opeth are death metal: to get technical Progressive Death Metal/Progressive Folk, and of course theyre are nothing like te previously mentioned Black Metal bands, but their very earliest work, for example their debut album, "Orchid" does touch on the style of Black Metal. Search enough and you will be able to find the first Opeth logo, which has a much more grim appearance and an inverted cross on the stem of the "p". Ever wonder why that was? Mikael Åkerfeldt grew up listening to Bathory and other classic Black Metal bands, and it was only about the time of Orchid being released that they started to take a more death-like approach.
Chöm
I agree 100% with the above... People who think they were rooted in death metal (On their first 2 albums) should look up the songs, "Where dead angels lie" By disection (The full 5:50 version), "I Sang for the Swans" By Ved Buens Ende, and "I Troldskog Faren Vild" By Ulver...Then look up the bands Cannibal corpse, Obituary, and Nile. Then tell me which bands Opeth sounded more like. Opeth were not in the vein of Classic black metal, But they fit in with the second wave in the mid 90s, (Sometimes called Post-Black metal...)Though there was still obvious prog influence, Just listen to the weird passage near the end of "Under a weeping moon". But also their sound was rooted in classic metal bands like Iron maiden and Metallica to a degree. I personally don't think they are progressive death metal, Especially now when the singing and roaring is about 50 50, Prog death is more along the lines of a band like Death or Akercocke.
Spydrfish (
talk)
20:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
From My arms, Your hearse on death leanings were definitely present considering bands like Morbid angel ...But now they seem more like a prog metal band that roars though, It is still right to call them prog death, but maybe it is worth mentioning the black metal leanings in the first two. Spydrfish ( talk) 07:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Who added this japanese prog band? i havent heard of them before and their influence usign video games hasnt been a big influence. im gonna get rid of it un less someone tells me other why this band is so influential on prog metal? panasonicyouth9
I saw that they remade the FF7 Boss Theme, but thats about all i saw. I would say just get rid of em. Deimoss 23:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The Black Mages perform Final Fantasy songs live, and are led by Final Fantasy's music composer. They aren't prog or metal. -- Terminus-Est 00:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually listen to them. They are 100% metal, because they are not just "performing" Final Fantasy songs but rearranging them so that the songs are "metal" in the end. I also feel that they are "progressive" because every of their song includes usually just "a bit" original FF music and the rest is usually jamming showing of the virtuosity of the bands members. Should definately be added. 213.157.7.178 18:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
If you want to realise what's true Progressive Metal, listen to Dream Theater. That's what I call "ProgMETALL". All other bands imitate Dream Theater. If you like to contact me, I'm waiting... Aeternus (new member of Wikipedia)
What about DTs album "Awake?" Dream Theater is both Prog Metal and Prog Rock.
LOL Balls? Listen to Queensryche's and Fates Warning's singers, then to DT's singer.. They clearly have no desire to imitate Dream Theatre. Prog Metal is a diverse genre, put forth by a few pioneers with each their own distinct sound. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.119.37 ( talk) 00:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I´ve removed the Nightwish reference because it is not a prog metal band. It´s a very straight foward power metal band with some symphonic elements (the voice of Tarja alone do not make it a Symphonic Metal band, as it was wrongly stated on the before-mentioned and removed from the article phrase :-). I think this kind of argument around Nightwish and Scandnavian bands being or not progressive to be misleading. Regards Loudenvier 13:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
First off, Tool aren't metal. They (and King Crimson, their gods) deny the prog label as well. Lamb of God aren't progressive, they are metalcore. Mars Volta are not metal. At all. Period. Metalheads would kick the shit out of you if you wore a Mars Volta shirt to a show. Why don't I just put Beethoven and Radiohead on here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gatesofawesome! ( talk • contribs) 21:18, 21 June 2006
I take the guy's comment about metal instrumentation, as saying lead guitars, marshall stack tones, complex melodies, light and shade structures, powerful multi tone vocals etc. Tool feature none of these in the majority of their music. They are a mix of Alternative, Prog/Ambient and Grunge elements. Distortion without the riffs and dynamics of heavy metal. To knock the point home, look at Dream Theater, Queensryche and Fates Warning; the article's noted pioneers of the full fledged genre. They embrace all the elements I have mentionned above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.119.37 ( talk) 00:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Why is Lamb of God listed as an influential artist in Prog metal? They make decent enough metal music, but their sound isn't really prog at all; it's mostly just a mix of thrash and hardcore.
They are Prog-Death metal? maybe? Deimoss 05:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, shouldn't there be some mention in here of EoS's Crimson albums (the original Crimson in particular, probably the first single-song concept album in the death metal arena) ?
I added a link to Progulus.com for the external links portion. It was removed, but I feel it should be there. What better way to learn about Progressive Metal than to listen to it. I'm not an owner or DJ of progulus either, btw, just a fan.
I added it again, we'll see if we can get this on. It's neither spam nor advertisement. This is not a comercial website, it's a listener driven site for the exploration of the progressive genre. UniversalMigrator 22:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I'm fairly sure the reference to King's X "creating" Dropped D tuning is wrong. Isn't it used in some classical music with violins or similar instruements? Even if it isn't, isn't it used on Led Zep's "Moby Dick"? Even if it is right, is it really necessary to include that part of the article? GrantRS 15:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
dropped d sucks anyway, I think it should be taken off cause its an embarassment to prog
Queensryche is not glam first of all. I will not explain why for it's a completely ignorant comment on your part. Second, even if one could consider their first EP and Warning as Speed Metal or Traditional Metal, Queensryche still predates Dream Theater in Prog Metal leanings. Concept album Operation:Mindcrime was released in 1988, DT's first album in 1989.
Which makes me think, shouldn't Iron Maiden's Seventh Son Of A Seventh Son get at least a tiny mention in the article for doing another 1988 concept album? Not only that, a few of the songs on there had a more progressive structure, especially Infinite Dreams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.119.37 ( talk) 00:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
And they never will be.
Ok there is also a new band out there called To-Mera. They are Progressvie metal and are being added to the list.
Nightwish are a strictly Operatic/Symphony Power Metal band, there music is almost all played in 4/4 and it's all pretty straight-forward.
The article makes no mention of it, though it's undenieable that Death and many other's took a huge influence from them.
Removed 'em. First of all they are not "really" prog but sound more like Japanese Rhapsody of Fire with somewhat virtuosic solos and second they are hardly influential at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.157.1.115 ( talk • contribs) 13:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC).
Guys, if you don't know a band, do not delete it saying it is not progressive metal. If you can't find the band anywhere try http://www.metal-archives.com/, although they are sometimes wrong (they are humans) -- Dexter prog 22:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Dexter, why do you keep reverting this paragraph (to which I did not contribute btw) without giving any explanation whatsoever? This isn't vandalism which you can go and revert without a comment, this a paragraph that someone put some effort into. At first glance, it doesn't even look that bad or irrelevant. Before removing paragraphs like those, please explain yourself. Oh and 86.3.205.7, why don't you register with Wikipedia? Much easier that way. Petergee1 13:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
This is the place that only the main progressive metal bands can stay. Bands like King Diamond or Iron Maiden have just some elements of progressive metal. They can stay at the List of progressive metal artists, but it's ridiculous for them to stay at "Influential and important artists" section. So please, do not add them there anymore. -- Λeternus 16:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it makes even more sense for a band like maiden to be on a list titled "influential and important" artists, since they are both extremely influential and importnt to the progressive metal genre. -- E tac 18:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Queen is not influential? I'm willing to bet most progressive metal bands would list them as an influence. -- E tac 02:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I added Rush along with Queen as you can see, this is why I suggested the possibility of creating seperate lists.-- E tac 17:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
You're probably right. I totally agree with removing the list. -- ΛэтєяиuS 10:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
If the List of progressive metal artists is going to be kept there should be a link so people can find it. Truemetalfan March 18, 2007
OK.About influences or importance of some bands to and in progressive metal can be a part of the article, but I think there should be some very small list of TYPICAL progressive metal bands. Imagine: somebody, who doesn´t know much about progressive metal wants to learn something and watch some names too. Lets make a smaal list in which are bands about which you can say: This is progressive metal! Have a look on groove metal or avant-garde metal how it works. There are about 20 bands and only 2 or 3 are bullshit although nobody argues and cares about it. There must be some list. And if you don´t know if some band should be there or not, just ask yourself fairly, if it is a TYPICAL prog metal and if this is A PROG METAL BAND.. than just take from these the ´´famous ones´´...There really gotta be some examples in the small list...--
Lycantrophe
11:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
From a quick read, the text seems to be exactly the same as on this page. Did they rip off Wikipedia or is it the other way around?
Linky: http://www.progarchives.com/subgenre.asp?style=19 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.213.216.212 ( talk) 06:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
No, they did not rp off. As well as the doom metal's officialpage is the Doom Metal. com, all progressive music's official page is Progarchives. Reason, why is the page named as progarchives is because, it is however very stupid, if the page is under the name of "progressive metal" or "progressive rock" (stupidly unravelling). Progarchives is a long time running site dedicated exclusively to all progressive music.
I just looked at the referenced progarchives page, and don't see the similarity. Has this been resolved? Also, to the anonymous editor replying "No, the did not rp off": you seem to be saying that since this page deals with the same subject as progarchives, their content will be the same. This is false; writing on the same topic does not mean that you'll get text exactly the same. Also, you can't say that "all progressive music's official page is Progarchives", because there is no single entity who can speak for "all progressive music" to agree on anything official. CWuestefeld ( talk) 21:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Wtf!?! who came up with this? no-one uses prog metal as a different term from progressive metal... stop making stuff up and putting it on wikipedia. If your going to something as retarded as this, at least cite references. 150.101.149.105 06:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
This should be probably removed and changed to Progarchives, because, there is no list of prog rock and prog metal bands and that site is only site for the listening or some other very fan stylish, but actually NOT the DEFINING, site to tell what progressive rock and metal is. In all serious thoughts, Progarchives is world's only relevant and trustworthy source and longrunning COMMUNITY of prog music fans all around the world, wich is dedicated exclusively to all progressive music, such as progressive rock, progressive metal, krautrock, progressive jazz for exp, then logically there should be given a priority to their bandlist. That site and their bandlist is not a "solitary opinion", such mine and yours could be, but is a built on a COMMUNITY OPINION (wich often included a lot of compromises about some "doubtablebands").
ProgArchives are not the first nor are they the only: http://www.proggnosis.com/GENRE_PMSGGuide.asp == DBSilver ==
Ofcourse they're only. Or at least only prog rock-site which take its working seriously. Unless if would REALLY trust the site wich wrongly refer to bands like Within Temptation or After Forever as a prog bands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talvimiekka ( talk • contribs) 16:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I think, that falsetto/high and loud singing deserve a mention. Because prog metal bands often using that sing technique. And even Tool have an high and loud singing.
ProgArchives are not the first nor are they the only: http://www.proggnosis.com/GENRE_PMSGGuide.asp == DBSilver ==
Ofcourse they're only. Unless if you REALLY trust the site that wrongly refer to bands like Within Temptation or After Forever as a prog bands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talvimiekka ( talk • contribs) 16:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I am not about to suggest that Metallica is a prog metal band so don't shit yourself yet. I think they are worth noting as an influence though, I mean listen to And Justice For All and Master of Puppets, those albums are rife with complex songs structures, weird time signatures, and mixing of clean parts with heavy thrash metal. I don't understand how they could not be considered an influence, since just about everyone who plays metal music acknowledges Metallica as an inspiration to their sound. - Razorhead August 9, 2007
As far as I can tell, Metallica are Prog Metal, by the definition given here - and ProgArchives has recently seen the light and decided to include them on the site. It is true, though, that their first 4 albums fit the descriptions, while the second four do not. Death Magnetic appears to be a return to ...And Justice form - and is almost certainly Prog Metal for much of the album, as far as I can tell. 62.200.22.2 ( talk) 13:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
How can this page been, without, any references? We need relevant source about prog metal! Etos —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.156.250 ( talk) 11:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
There really are no good sources about Prog Metal, including Prog Archives (which is the most authoritative one). I have pushed them to get a decent definition done, but so far, to no avail. I'll have a bash over the next few months, using the Progressive Rock page as a kind of template - the big problem is the absence of any decent authoritative published resources. MarkCertif1ed ( talk) 09:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't see why tech metal is redirected to prog metal when you search for it. Bands such as Gorguts, Origin, Necrophagist, Theory in Practice; they all have little prog influence but to say that they aren't technical would just be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.238.185 ( talk) 11:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree, I think that there should be a page for technical metal, maybe as a deriative of progressive metal, talking about technical bands such as Meshuggah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.6.12.163 ( talk) 22:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I have added the unreferenced tag to the "Differences with avant-garde metal" section. Obviously, I want to see this sourced, since I see quite a bit of overlap. Unexpect, for example, has been listed as both -- their MySpace page actually has both tagged, and they are listed at ProgArchives. This section needs some referencing to convince me that it's even a viable argument, let alone fact. --Anon 121.209.160.15 16:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if metal fusion must be cited as a progressive metal subgenre. It's only a fusion between jazz-fusion and metal (metal, not prog metal). It's very similiar with prog metal, and references (Prog Archives) name this genre as "progressive metal fusion". Any suggestions? -- ΛэтєяиuS ( talk) 22:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
What about to make a small list of key artists like in Groove Metal? It helps the reader to make a picture about the genre...I would start and discuss it here a first...Which bands (and why) would you write down as key artists for progressive metal?: Lykantrop ( Talk) 22:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I really think that Iron Maiden has heavily influenced the whole genre of prog. metal. If you listen to their albums Powerslave, Somewhere in Time, and Seventh Son of a Seventh Son, you will hear what I'm talking about, especially with the latter of the three. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.54.13.62 ( talk) 19:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
It's currently described by Wikipedia as "Start Class" - the lowest quality award given after "Stub".
A while ago I did some work on the Progressive Rock page, and I am a Collaborator at ProgArchives.com, just so you know my credentials.
The main problem I see is the definition itself, which is inaccurate and misleading, IMHO.
OK, let's examine this;
"complex compositional structures" (of Progressive Rock).
Just about every "Prog Metal" piece I've heard from "representative" bands lacks these in abundance, and where the structures are "complex", they tend to be mere extensions of the type of structures that Metallica brought to Heavy Metal, that is to say, a standard song format with elongated sections, particularly the instrumental.
Complex Prog Rock pieces like, say, "The Musical Box" (Genesis) or "On Reflection" (Gentle Giant) do not take this relatively simple approach, but are flexible with form, using it to express the drama that is inherent in the song. There is no chorus in either piece, and there is development of sections to the point that individual sections blur into each other and become difficult to identify as such.
Until Prog Metal typically matches the complexity in form of Prog Rock (there are hundreds of other Prog examples where form cannot be reduced to A-B-A-B-C-A-B, which is generic simple song structure), this statement is actually false and misleading.
"odd time signatures and intricate instrumental playing of progressive rock"
I don't find riffing particularly intricate - anyone can play power chords. The intricacies of Prog Rock stem from the musicians playing independent parts that make up a greater whole. The "intricacies" of heavy metal lie more in challenging techniques, usually made challenging by one or more of the components, rather than an attempt to express something.
Again, the two examples of Prog Rock I chose are good examples of where techniques are adapted primarily for the expression of the song.
While it's true that Prog Rock uses these two techniques, this statement is more of a "for example" than a good comparison - Prog Rock has more typical characteristics than these (see the Prog Rock page - I rewrote the Typical Characteristics section, and it is more or less unchanged), but these are simply elements - some pop music also has "odd time signatures" and "intricate playing" (Golden Brown, by the Stranglers, for example).
Progressive Metal seems to be determined by its techniques - so wouldn't it be fairer to call it Technical Metal instead? If not (and I understand that there is a more or less separate genre of technical metal), what really makes Progressive Metal progressive? What are the real progressive characteristics?
"influenced by jazz fusion"...
Not many of them - this does not seem to be a typical characteristic, despite many claims to the contrary. Where such influence is apparent, it's usually indirect - e.g. where a guitarist has had lessons from Joe Satriani and practised his modes. The end result does not normally come across as anything to do with jazz - with obvious (rare) exceptions. Or have I missed something?
"Classical Music"
Again, rarely - and what I've heard tends to be cycle of fifths stuff, or a keyboard playing a string sound. This is not a typical characteristic of Progressive Metal, as it is in Progressive Rock - I've yet to hear the metal equivalent of, say, The Enid.
"Like progressive rock songs, progressive metal songs are usually much longer than standard metal songs, and they are often thematically linked in concept albums. As a result, progressive metal is rarely heard on mainstream radio and video programs"
Wouldn't you agree that this is tentative stuff? Why doesn't this describe "Master of Puppets", or most Rush albums?
Indeed, all of the above describes "Master of Puppets", except the jazz fusion bit.
I expect there will be time-wasters who will take offence at what I've written here - so I'll ignore those as best I can, and try to discuss this with the adults who understand what debate means.
I have no solution - I need to hear from people who understand the music and can describe it in musical terms that we can discuss, and get this article up to at least a Class B. MarkCertif1ed ( talk) 08:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Four words for you to see the complexity of this genre. Dream Theater,Endless Sacrifice. Jonasbrotherareterrible ( talk) 12:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
A useful place to start would probably be to define what it is: Obviously it's a form of heavy metal, but what is it that makes it "Progressive" - and how much is it related to Progressive rock other than lip-service?
Fortunately ProgArchives.com has recently added Metallica, which I think clears a few of the mysteries up - the definitions of Prog Metal that exist all cite "Long songs", "Complex Structures", "Technically challenging", etc., and Metallica tick all these boxes in their first 4 albums - they even develop the material, making the songs feel through-composed rather than section-composed as Dream Theater & co. tend to.
Through-composition is a defining characteristic of Progressive Rock (it's what makes the music literally "progress") - and since Metallica predate and are a heavy (sic) influence on Dream Theater, this may make things easier.
However, I realise that this suggestion may be controversial among the Prog Metal community - so I'd rather comment on what others have to suggest than try to lay down the law here.
It would also be useful to explore the history in more depth - nothing is born in a vacuum, and Dream Theater didn't suddenly appear out of nowhere playing music people had never heard before. The term was used to describe the music of Rush in the late 1970s, although I can't find any written evidence of this, and before Rush, there was Budgie and Wishbone Ash, and before them came Spooky Tooth (who created an album in 1967 under the name of the Heavy Metal Kids, which actually sounds like a subgenre of Progressive Rock, early Krautrock - and there IS written and recorded evidence of that!).
There have to be ways to properly differentiate the music from "regular" heavy metal and progressive rock, whilst confirming the links (and acknowledging the grey lines).
What we DON'T need is subgenres of something that has yet to have a definition, or long lists of bands that sound totally dissimilar and generate arguments. There must be a short list of bands that are uncontroversially recognised as Prog Metal. 8 would do - and if they sound very different from each other, then that's good, because it establishes the genre to have diversity in common with Progressive Rock.
These are simply my observations, nothing more - and I know how OR is frowned upon - but this article needs to start somewhere! 62.200.22.2 ( talk) 13:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
This section begins by discussing Queensryche and Dream Theater as if both started at the same time. I believe that QR had a 10 year or so head start over DT. I've now hacked around the first section, which will no doubt upset some people as it disagrees with their opinions - but tried to stick to the observable facts and avoid OR - if a table is made out of wood, it's not OR to say so, and if Prog Metal is clearly not rooted in Prog Rock, in terms of something immediately verifiable such as song structure, then surely that's OK to point out.
The bands mentioned are a good start - I'll be using these (in the absence of any actual published references) to do some historical research - which bands came first historically, and what observable and verifiable achievements can be noted in their music.
I remain a little puzzled - where do I start? With Dream Theater or Queensryche, 10 years earlier?
This page has been a bit quiet recently - I guess I'll just dig into the history books and find out. MarkCertif1ed ( talk) 09:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
i'm not one to say "hey guys you forgot my favorite band of all time in the history of the world"(let me clarify, they are one of my many favorites, not the bestest ever), but i think that mudvayne would be a good addition. while they may be considered more 'mainstream' than many prog metal bands, they are prog regardless. an MTV.com article also refers to them as prog metal
so what does everyone else think, worth mentioning or not? i believe that they are a sort of representative of the genre to the more mainstream(much like nine inch nails is to industrial). Ry Trapp0 ( talk) 08:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
SonOfPlisskin, Mudvayne fans ARE more likely to listen to Dream Theater than nu-metal, one. Two, Mudvayne's vocals are NOT similar to aggressive nu-metal bands. Three, Mudvayne's music is composed of very technical playing and a sense of melody, NOT "chugging". Four, Mudvayne is not a nu-metal band by the majority of sources. Mudvayne is a progressive metal band. Like it or not, don't push your clear agenda here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.45.209.169 ( talk) 08:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Don't worry, I'm not saying Queen is a prog metal band (though they were at times), I'm saying that thye should be listed as an influence. Look at just about every band's influences (Maiden, Queensryche, Blind Guardian, Dream Theater, etc.) and Queen will be right there at the top. And many of these prog metal bands have covered songs from Queen in tribute to them and their influence on their own work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by World wrestling federation ztj ( talk • contribs) 20:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of tool in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.9.105 ( talk) 18:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
becauze Tool is nu metal and would be embarrasing the common fans of prog metal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.140.88 ( talk) 10:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I would agree with that point. Alongside with Uriah Heep, Rush and King Crimson, Queen were one of the most notable bands of 70's which mixed prog rock complexity with heavy metal sound, and so their music influenced a lot on prog metal.--
95.37.236.195 (
talk)
00:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
If any band doesn't belong on here, it's them. First off, as has been established, bands that are influential belong here. Thirty Seconds to Mars hasn't been influential to anyone in any of the progressive or metal genres. Second, there's a dispute that they are even progressive metal, as most fans of the genre do not consider them to be either. Third and last, they are not even on the list of progressive metal bands. How in the world can a band be listed here and not in the list of progressive metal bands? Seiferganon ( talk) 23:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
No, they sound like a very typical alt rock/post-grunge act, a claim to Pink Floyd influences does not progressive metal make. Take 'em out. Sanzen-Baker ( talk) 22:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
If were up to me, i'll take'em out, however, there are sources claiming that they are. Nicrorus ( talk) 02:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
TOOL is not nu-metal... have you even ever listened to tool before? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.244.106.250 ( talk) 17:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me that the complaints relating to complexity, etc. that were brought up above by Alterationx10 deserve to be addressed in some fashion. I don't necessarily agree with him/her, but I think that the question of what is meant by "complexity" needs to be addressed.
Also, I very much disagree with the current definition's inclusion of "diverse fantasy lyrics". I think that's an attribute of Power Metal, and not of prog. I'd like to delete that phrase, unless someone can give a citation. CWuestefeld ( talk) 22:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
They're not metal at all. Porcupine Tree are a very good prog act, but their touches with metal are very brief, so it's absurdly to call them 'prog metal'.-- 93.120.198.224 ( talk) 04:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Progressive metal's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Wiederhorn":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Not trying to sound like a fan boy or anything, but I think Periphery should be mentioned in the article considering they are bringing progressive metal to the mainstream, and are probably the biggest modern-day progressive metal band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.196.158.35 ( talk) 16:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
This band is the epitome of prog metal. They don't even have a wiki page! Blasphemy! Haha IDK Y. Listen to Mercurian Summer, then that whole album (Universal Language), then Speed of Dark Album, and their newest album Away with Words and send me kisses afterwards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.11.39.57 ( talk) 08:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Progressive metal. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Progressive metal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Why does djent get a whole half a paragraph in the opening of this article? Yes, it is a style, and is covered later in the article, but it just seems someone wanted to make sure this page djented...It feels very out of place though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabalon ( talk • contribs) 13:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
While I can understand maybe two or three music samples to illustrate a topic as diverse as progressive metal, I feel like eleven 30-second samples on one page is a bit excessive. This is especially when compared to similar pages like Alternative rock, a Good Article without a single sample on the page, or Progressive rock with its two samples adding up to 45 seconds total. Even in extreme cases like Folk metal with its eight samples, the sheer length of the prose justifies their inclusion, and they are spread out across the article quite well (with no more than three samples in each section, versus the six in "Stylistic diversity" alone). There is also a bit of precedent regarding this: WP:SAMPLE contends against "An excessive number of short audio clips in a single article," and even with descriptions accompanying each sample, the amount seems to be indisputably excessive. Leafy46 ( talk) 20:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What ever happened to the Tech Metal and Math Metal pages? There is a huge difference between bands like Psycroptic and Opeth then Dillinger Escape Plan and Behold .... The Arctopus. Now whenever I search for "Technical Metal" or anything of the sort, I'm lead here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.5.177 ( talk) 03:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to ask, WHY are Therion listed under important artists for prog metal ? I hardly see how they fit into this genre in anyway. If no one disagrees with me I will be removing them.
Because they playing in prog vein. Listen to all albums from the Symphony Masses, Ho Drakon, Ho Megas, there's a pseudo-classicaly complexly technical riffs, hammond organ keyboards and even syncopated/polyrythmic drum-work. There's also many SOURCEs, that were cited Therion as progressive metal: meaning they probably should be added. And i probably believe, that many, many metalheads here disagree with you.
I submit that we include "Great Britain" in the cultural origins box to the right of the article, since King's X and other American pioneer prog metal bands cite Yes, King Crimson, the Beatles, and other Brit bands as major influences. Besides, Yes and King Crimson were heavy at times (and for the times) in their own right (Hello? KC's RED album? Yes's DRAMA?).
Secondly, I really think that Tool needs to be excluded from the "list" of artists. I know I'll catch flak for this, but there seems to be some disagreement on where Tool fits. I propose nu-metal. Tool has all the criteria:
Finally, I wonder if Mastodon should or shouldn't be included in the list. I actually feel they are more accurate and deserving than Tool. Let's kick around this idea and see what we come up with...-- Mikepope 03:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Tool in my opinion are closer to math rock than anything else and just happen to have a heavy influence
Firstly I'd like to say I do not think that I'm "like, smarter than everyone now". I think tool should be on the list, saying that their lyrics are "usually centering around youthful frustration or focusing on shock value alone" is biased. When you say "youthful frustration" I assume you mean Angst? Tool are not angsty, their lyrics may be frustrated but they are a lot more introspective then your average nu-metal band & I do not believe they ever write lyrics for the sole purpose of shocking people. Also I have never heard "Syncopated drum track with heavy open chord guitar crunch in between downbeats of most measures" cited as a characteristic og Nu-metal but I have heard many prog-metal songs that could fit this description. Finally, they have cited King Crimson as their greatest influence but prog metal bands borrow just as much from other styles as Nu-metal does, just in different ways. I certainly can accept they have elements of Nu-metal but they have a large element of prog metal in their sound too.-- Fukhed666 10:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I dont know if its just me, but I consider than as Experimental Metal, and not prog
Ok, Tool deserve a mention. And in the article it is stated that it is only a fringe prog metal act. But I wonder why they are introduced in the third paragraph in a verbose way, saying why they are not really prog metal, but could be seen as such. They are no typical prog metal band and should be mentioned further below.
Theisorder of jazz is claimed to have anything to do with the extreme and perfect (if infinitely complex) order of progressive metal. Likewise quotes are heard all around. Many musicians do cite some jazz-labeled artists as having some influence, but the reverse is much more likely. Blades 19:00, Dec 31, 1969 (EST)
I don't think that Skid Row belongs under in the category of prog metal. I would put them under either glam or thrash. TimothyPilgrim 03:29, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
I don't think Tool, Skyclad, Vintersorg, Children of Bodom, King Diamond, and a bunch of other bands are progressive metal, I don't even understand how some of these bands would have made the list.
Do we really need the list of progressive metal artists in this page? Perhaps create a List of progressive metal artists page to house them? -- Plattopus 16:19, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
I don't think Tool should be listed in the list of important/influential bands. I think the band should rather be mentioned somewhere in the text above, stating that it's not a prog metal band but draws some influences from the genre. Possibly instead of that the band X Japan could be added. The band had some major progressive influences which can be heard, for example, in their song "Art of Life" which lasts 28 minutes and invented an own style of band which is highly popular in Japan today. 213.157.1.88 19:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmm I still fail to see any "major" Progressive Metal Band to be "influenced" by Tool. They possibly influenced bands of other genres but no Prog Metal band. X-Japan on the other hand even created their own "style" of music which is really successful in Japan and slowly starts to be accepted over here, too. 213.157.7.178 18:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Are these guys really prog metal? I wouldn't think so, but they've been edited out and back in, now. — BenFrantzDale 15:24, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
no, they are not metal
--- THEY ARE NOT EVEN PROG, PLEASE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.38.208.197 ( talk) 18:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey these guys need to be mentioned. I know some of their stuff turns almost 100% classical, but in 5 albums they have possibly the best 8 or 9 songs in the genre. Listen to dawn of victory, flames of revenge, and holy thuderforce if you dont believe me.
Rhapsody is prog/power metal. Deimoss 23:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry guys, but Opeth ain't "black metal." If you want to hear black metal, listen to Burzum, Mayhem, Emperor, Immortal, Darkthrone, etc. They do not sound like Opeth at all. Opeth borrows much more heavily from the death metal genre, particularly the band Morbid Angel. Listen to the vocals for a start, which are not high pitched and screechy like in black metal, and instead are deeper like those found in death metal. Also listen to the song "Masters Apprentice" to hear some clear Morbid Angel rip offs.
Woah, woah.... True Opeth are death metal: to get technical Progressive Death Metal/Progressive Folk, and of course theyre are nothing like te previously mentioned Black Metal bands, but their very earliest work, for example their debut album, "Orchid" does touch on the style of Black Metal. Search enough and you will be able to find the first Opeth logo, which has a much more grim appearance and an inverted cross on the stem of the "p". Ever wonder why that was? Mikael Åkerfeldt grew up listening to Bathory and other classic Black Metal bands, and it was only about the time of Orchid being released that they started to take a more death-like approach.
Chöm
I agree 100% with the above... People who think they were rooted in death metal (On their first 2 albums) should look up the songs, "Where dead angels lie" By disection (The full 5:50 version), "I Sang for the Swans" By Ved Buens Ende, and "I Troldskog Faren Vild" By Ulver...Then look up the bands Cannibal corpse, Obituary, and Nile. Then tell me which bands Opeth sounded more like. Opeth were not in the vein of Classic black metal, But they fit in with the second wave in the mid 90s, (Sometimes called Post-Black metal...)Though there was still obvious prog influence, Just listen to the weird passage near the end of "Under a weeping moon". But also their sound was rooted in classic metal bands like Iron maiden and Metallica to a degree. I personally don't think they are progressive death metal, Especially now when the singing and roaring is about 50 50, Prog death is more along the lines of a band like Death or Akercocke.
Spydrfish (
talk)
20:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
From My arms, Your hearse on death leanings were definitely present considering bands like Morbid angel ...But now they seem more like a prog metal band that roars though, It is still right to call them prog death, but maybe it is worth mentioning the black metal leanings in the first two. Spydrfish ( talk) 07:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Who added this japanese prog band? i havent heard of them before and their influence usign video games hasnt been a big influence. im gonna get rid of it un less someone tells me other why this band is so influential on prog metal? panasonicyouth9
I saw that they remade the FF7 Boss Theme, but thats about all i saw. I would say just get rid of em. Deimoss 23:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The Black Mages perform Final Fantasy songs live, and are led by Final Fantasy's music composer. They aren't prog or metal. -- Terminus-Est 00:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually listen to them. They are 100% metal, because they are not just "performing" Final Fantasy songs but rearranging them so that the songs are "metal" in the end. I also feel that they are "progressive" because every of their song includes usually just "a bit" original FF music and the rest is usually jamming showing of the virtuosity of the bands members. Should definately be added. 213.157.7.178 18:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
If you want to realise what's true Progressive Metal, listen to Dream Theater. That's what I call "ProgMETALL". All other bands imitate Dream Theater. If you like to contact me, I'm waiting... Aeternus (new member of Wikipedia)
What about DTs album "Awake?" Dream Theater is both Prog Metal and Prog Rock.
LOL Balls? Listen to Queensryche's and Fates Warning's singers, then to DT's singer.. They clearly have no desire to imitate Dream Theatre. Prog Metal is a diverse genre, put forth by a few pioneers with each their own distinct sound. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.119.37 ( talk) 00:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I´ve removed the Nightwish reference because it is not a prog metal band. It´s a very straight foward power metal band with some symphonic elements (the voice of Tarja alone do not make it a Symphonic Metal band, as it was wrongly stated on the before-mentioned and removed from the article phrase :-). I think this kind of argument around Nightwish and Scandnavian bands being or not progressive to be misleading. Regards Loudenvier 13:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
First off, Tool aren't metal. They (and King Crimson, their gods) deny the prog label as well. Lamb of God aren't progressive, they are metalcore. Mars Volta are not metal. At all. Period. Metalheads would kick the shit out of you if you wore a Mars Volta shirt to a show. Why don't I just put Beethoven and Radiohead on here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gatesofawesome! ( talk • contribs) 21:18, 21 June 2006
I take the guy's comment about metal instrumentation, as saying lead guitars, marshall stack tones, complex melodies, light and shade structures, powerful multi tone vocals etc. Tool feature none of these in the majority of their music. They are a mix of Alternative, Prog/Ambient and Grunge elements. Distortion without the riffs and dynamics of heavy metal. To knock the point home, look at Dream Theater, Queensryche and Fates Warning; the article's noted pioneers of the full fledged genre. They embrace all the elements I have mentionned above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.119.37 ( talk) 00:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Why is Lamb of God listed as an influential artist in Prog metal? They make decent enough metal music, but their sound isn't really prog at all; it's mostly just a mix of thrash and hardcore.
They are Prog-Death metal? maybe? Deimoss 05:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, shouldn't there be some mention in here of EoS's Crimson albums (the original Crimson in particular, probably the first single-song concept album in the death metal arena) ?
I added a link to Progulus.com for the external links portion. It was removed, but I feel it should be there. What better way to learn about Progressive Metal than to listen to it. I'm not an owner or DJ of progulus either, btw, just a fan.
I added it again, we'll see if we can get this on. It's neither spam nor advertisement. This is not a comercial website, it's a listener driven site for the exploration of the progressive genre. UniversalMigrator 22:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I'm fairly sure the reference to King's X "creating" Dropped D tuning is wrong. Isn't it used in some classical music with violins or similar instruements? Even if it isn't, isn't it used on Led Zep's "Moby Dick"? Even if it is right, is it really necessary to include that part of the article? GrantRS 15:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
dropped d sucks anyway, I think it should be taken off cause its an embarassment to prog
Queensryche is not glam first of all. I will not explain why for it's a completely ignorant comment on your part. Second, even if one could consider their first EP and Warning as Speed Metal or Traditional Metal, Queensryche still predates Dream Theater in Prog Metal leanings. Concept album Operation:Mindcrime was released in 1988, DT's first album in 1989.
Which makes me think, shouldn't Iron Maiden's Seventh Son Of A Seventh Son get at least a tiny mention in the article for doing another 1988 concept album? Not only that, a few of the songs on there had a more progressive structure, especially Infinite Dreams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.119.37 ( talk) 00:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
And they never will be.
Ok there is also a new band out there called To-Mera. They are Progressvie metal and are being added to the list.
Nightwish are a strictly Operatic/Symphony Power Metal band, there music is almost all played in 4/4 and it's all pretty straight-forward.
The article makes no mention of it, though it's undenieable that Death and many other's took a huge influence from them.
Removed 'em. First of all they are not "really" prog but sound more like Japanese Rhapsody of Fire with somewhat virtuosic solos and second they are hardly influential at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.157.1.115 ( talk • contribs) 13:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC).
Guys, if you don't know a band, do not delete it saying it is not progressive metal. If you can't find the band anywhere try http://www.metal-archives.com/, although they are sometimes wrong (they are humans) -- Dexter prog 22:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Dexter, why do you keep reverting this paragraph (to which I did not contribute btw) without giving any explanation whatsoever? This isn't vandalism which you can go and revert without a comment, this a paragraph that someone put some effort into. At first glance, it doesn't even look that bad or irrelevant. Before removing paragraphs like those, please explain yourself. Oh and 86.3.205.7, why don't you register with Wikipedia? Much easier that way. Petergee1 13:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
This is the place that only the main progressive metal bands can stay. Bands like King Diamond or Iron Maiden have just some elements of progressive metal. They can stay at the List of progressive metal artists, but it's ridiculous for them to stay at "Influential and important artists" section. So please, do not add them there anymore. -- Λeternus 16:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it makes even more sense for a band like maiden to be on a list titled "influential and important" artists, since they are both extremely influential and importnt to the progressive metal genre. -- E tac 18:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Queen is not influential? I'm willing to bet most progressive metal bands would list them as an influence. -- E tac 02:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I added Rush along with Queen as you can see, this is why I suggested the possibility of creating seperate lists.-- E tac 17:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
You're probably right. I totally agree with removing the list. -- ΛэтєяиuS 10:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
If the List of progressive metal artists is going to be kept there should be a link so people can find it. Truemetalfan March 18, 2007
OK.About influences or importance of some bands to and in progressive metal can be a part of the article, but I think there should be some very small list of TYPICAL progressive metal bands. Imagine: somebody, who doesn´t know much about progressive metal wants to learn something and watch some names too. Lets make a smaal list in which are bands about which you can say: This is progressive metal! Have a look on groove metal or avant-garde metal how it works. There are about 20 bands and only 2 or 3 are bullshit although nobody argues and cares about it. There must be some list. And if you don´t know if some band should be there or not, just ask yourself fairly, if it is a TYPICAL prog metal and if this is A PROG METAL BAND.. than just take from these the ´´famous ones´´...There really gotta be some examples in the small list...--
Lycantrophe
11:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
From a quick read, the text seems to be exactly the same as on this page. Did they rip off Wikipedia or is it the other way around?
Linky: http://www.progarchives.com/subgenre.asp?style=19 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.213.216.212 ( talk) 06:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
No, they did not rp off. As well as the doom metal's officialpage is the Doom Metal. com, all progressive music's official page is Progarchives. Reason, why is the page named as progarchives is because, it is however very stupid, if the page is under the name of "progressive metal" or "progressive rock" (stupidly unravelling). Progarchives is a long time running site dedicated exclusively to all progressive music.
I just looked at the referenced progarchives page, and don't see the similarity. Has this been resolved? Also, to the anonymous editor replying "No, the did not rp off": you seem to be saying that since this page deals with the same subject as progarchives, their content will be the same. This is false; writing on the same topic does not mean that you'll get text exactly the same. Also, you can't say that "all progressive music's official page is Progarchives", because there is no single entity who can speak for "all progressive music" to agree on anything official. CWuestefeld ( talk) 21:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Wtf!?! who came up with this? no-one uses prog metal as a different term from progressive metal... stop making stuff up and putting it on wikipedia. If your going to something as retarded as this, at least cite references. 150.101.149.105 06:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
This should be probably removed and changed to Progarchives, because, there is no list of prog rock and prog metal bands and that site is only site for the listening or some other very fan stylish, but actually NOT the DEFINING, site to tell what progressive rock and metal is. In all serious thoughts, Progarchives is world's only relevant and trustworthy source and longrunning COMMUNITY of prog music fans all around the world, wich is dedicated exclusively to all progressive music, such as progressive rock, progressive metal, krautrock, progressive jazz for exp, then logically there should be given a priority to their bandlist. That site and their bandlist is not a "solitary opinion", such mine and yours could be, but is a built on a COMMUNITY OPINION (wich often included a lot of compromises about some "doubtablebands").
ProgArchives are not the first nor are they the only: http://www.proggnosis.com/GENRE_PMSGGuide.asp == DBSilver ==
Ofcourse they're only. Or at least only prog rock-site which take its working seriously. Unless if would REALLY trust the site wich wrongly refer to bands like Within Temptation or After Forever as a prog bands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talvimiekka ( talk • contribs) 16:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I think, that falsetto/high and loud singing deserve a mention. Because prog metal bands often using that sing technique. And even Tool have an high and loud singing.
ProgArchives are not the first nor are they the only: http://www.proggnosis.com/GENRE_PMSGGuide.asp == DBSilver ==
Ofcourse they're only. Unless if you REALLY trust the site that wrongly refer to bands like Within Temptation or After Forever as a prog bands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talvimiekka ( talk • contribs) 16:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I am not about to suggest that Metallica is a prog metal band so don't shit yourself yet. I think they are worth noting as an influence though, I mean listen to And Justice For All and Master of Puppets, those albums are rife with complex songs structures, weird time signatures, and mixing of clean parts with heavy thrash metal. I don't understand how they could not be considered an influence, since just about everyone who plays metal music acknowledges Metallica as an inspiration to their sound. - Razorhead August 9, 2007
As far as I can tell, Metallica are Prog Metal, by the definition given here - and ProgArchives has recently seen the light and decided to include them on the site. It is true, though, that their first 4 albums fit the descriptions, while the second four do not. Death Magnetic appears to be a return to ...And Justice form - and is almost certainly Prog Metal for much of the album, as far as I can tell. 62.200.22.2 ( talk) 13:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
How can this page been, without, any references? We need relevant source about prog metal! Etos —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.156.250 ( talk) 11:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
There really are no good sources about Prog Metal, including Prog Archives (which is the most authoritative one). I have pushed them to get a decent definition done, but so far, to no avail. I'll have a bash over the next few months, using the Progressive Rock page as a kind of template - the big problem is the absence of any decent authoritative published resources. MarkCertif1ed ( talk) 09:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't see why tech metal is redirected to prog metal when you search for it. Bands such as Gorguts, Origin, Necrophagist, Theory in Practice; they all have little prog influence but to say that they aren't technical would just be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.238.185 ( talk) 11:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree, I think that there should be a page for technical metal, maybe as a deriative of progressive metal, talking about technical bands such as Meshuggah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.6.12.163 ( talk) 22:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I have added the unreferenced tag to the "Differences with avant-garde metal" section. Obviously, I want to see this sourced, since I see quite a bit of overlap. Unexpect, for example, has been listed as both -- their MySpace page actually has both tagged, and they are listed at ProgArchives. This section needs some referencing to convince me that it's even a viable argument, let alone fact. --Anon 121.209.160.15 16:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if metal fusion must be cited as a progressive metal subgenre. It's only a fusion between jazz-fusion and metal (metal, not prog metal). It's very similiar with prog metal, and references (Prog Archives) name this genre as "progressive metal fusion". Any suggestions? -- ΛэтєяиuS ( talk) 22:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
What about to make a small list of key artists like in Groove Metal? It helps the reader to make a picture about the genre...I would start and discuss it here a first...Which bands (and why) would you write down as key artists for progressive metal?: Lykantrop ( Talk) 22:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I really think that Iron Maiden has heavily influenced the whole genre of prog. metal. If you listen to their albums Powerslave, Somewhere in Time, and Seventh Son of a Seventh Son, you will hear what I'm talking about, especially with the latter of the three. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.54.13.62 ( talk) 19:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
It's currently described by Wikipedia as "Start Class" - the lowest quality award given after "Stub".
A while ago I did some work on the Progressive Rock page, and I am a Collaborator at ProgArchives.com, just so you know my credentials.
The main problem I see is the definition itself, which is inaccurate and misleading, IMHO.
OK, let's examine this;
"complex compositional structures" (of Progressive Rock).
Just about every "Prog Metal" piece I've heard from "representative" bands lacks these in abundance, and where the structures are "complex", they tend to be mere extensions of the type of structures that Metallica brought to Heavy Metal, that is to say, a standard song format with elongated sections, particularly the instrumental.
Complex Prog Rock pieces like, say, "The Musical Box" (Genesis) or "On Reflection" (Gentle Giant) do not take this relatively simple approach, but are flexible with form, using it to express the drama that is inherent in the song. There is no chorus in either piece, and there is development of sections to the point that individual sections blur into each other and become difficult to identify as such.
Until Prog Metal typically matches the complexity in form of Prog Rock (there are hundreds of other Prog examples where form cannot be reduced to A-B-A-B-C-A-B, which is generic simple song structure), this statement is actually false and misleading.
"odd time signatures and intricate instrumental playing of progressive rock"
I don't find riffing particularly intricate - anyone can play power chords. The intricacies of Prog Rock stem from the musicians playing independent parts that make up a greater whole. The "intricacies" of heavy metal lie more in challenging techniques, usually made challenging by one or more of the components, rather than an attempt to express something.
Again, the two examples of Prog Rock I chose are good examples of where techniques are adapted primarily for the expression of the song.
While it's true that Prog Rock uses these two techniques, this statement is more of a "for example" than a good comparison - Prog Rock has more typical characteristics than these (see the Prog Rock page - I rewrote the Typical Characteristics section, and it is more or less unchanged), but these are simply elements - some pop music also has "odd time signatures" and "intricate playing" (Golden Brown, by the Stranglers, for example).
Progressive Metal seems to be determined by its techniques - so wouldn't it be fairer to call it Technical Metal instead? If not (and I understand that there is a more or less separate genre of technical metal), what really makes Progressive Metal progressive? What are the real progressive characteristics?
"influenced by jazz fusion"...
Not many of them - this does not seem to be a typical characteristic, despite many claims to the contrary. Where such influence is apparent, it's usually indirect - e.g. where a guitarist has had lessons from Joe Satriani and practised his modes. The end result does not normally come across as anything to do with jazz - with obvious (rare) exceptions. Or have I missed something?
"Classical Music"
Again, rarely - and what I've heard tends to be cycle of fifths stuff, or a keyboard playing a string sound. This is not a typical characteristic of Progressive Metal, as it is in Progressive Rock - I've yet to hear the metal equivalent of, say, The Enid.
"Like progressive rock songs, progressive metal songs are usually much longer than standard metal songs, and they are often thematically linked in concept albums. As a result, progressive metal is rarely heard on mainstream radio and video programs"
Wouldn't you agree that this is tentative stuff? Why doesn't this describe "Master of Puppets", or most Rush albums?
Indeed, all of the above describes "Master of Puppets", except the jazz fusion bit.
I expect there will be time-wasters who will take offence at what I've written here - so I'll ignore those as best I can, and try to discuss this with the adults who understand what debate means.
I have no solution - I need to hear from people who understand the music and can describe it in musical terms that we can discuss, and get this article up to at least a Class B. MarkCertif1ed ( talk) 08:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Four words for you to see the complexity of this genre. Dream Theater,Endless Sacrifice. Jonasbrotherareterrible ( talk) 12:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
A useful place to start would probably be to define what it is: Obviously it's a form of heavy metal, but what is it that makes it "Progressive" - and how much is it related to Progressive rock other than lip-service?
Fortunately ProgArchives.com has recently added Metallica, which I think clears a few of the mysteries up - the definitions of Prog Metal that exist all cite "Long songs", "Complex Structures", "Technically challenging", etc., and Metallica tick all these boxes in their first 4 albums - they even develop the material, making the songs feel through-composed rather than section-composed as Dream Theater & co. tend to.
Through-composition is a defining characteristic of Progressive Rock (it's what makes the music literally "progress") - and since Metallica predate and are a heavy (sic) influence on Dream Theater, this may make things easier.
However, I realise that this suggestion may be controversial among the Prog Metal community - so I'd rather comment on what others have to suggest than try to lay down the law here.
It would also be useful to explore the history in more depth - nothing is born in a vacuum, and Dream Theater didn't suddenly appear out of nowhere playing music people had never heard before. The term was used to describe the music of Rush in the late 1970s, although I can't find any written evidence of this, and before Rush, there was Budgie and Wishbone Ash, and before them came Spooky Tooth (who created an album in 1967 under the name of the Heavy Metal Kids, which actually sounds like a subgenre of Progressive Rock, early Krautrock - and there IS written and recorded evidence of that!).
There have to be ways to properly differentiate the music from "regular" heavy metal and progressive rock, whilst confirming the links (and acknowledging the grey lines).
What we DON'T need is subgenres of something that has yet to have a definition, or long lists of bands that sound totally dissimilar and generate arguments. There must be a short list of bands that are uncontroversially recognised as Prog Metal. 8 would do - and if they sound very different from each other, then that's good, because it establishes the genre to have diversity in common with Progressive Rock.
These are simply my observations, nothing more - and I know how OR is frowned upon - but this article needs to start somewhere! 62.200.22.2 ( talk) 13:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
This section begins by discussing Queensryche and Dream Theater as if both started at the same time. I believe that QR had a 10 year or so head start over DT. I've now hacked around the first section, which will no doubt upset some people as it disagrees with their opinions - but tried to stick to the observable facts and avoid OR - if a table is made out of wood, it's not OR to say so, and if Prog Metal is clearly not rooted in Prog Rock, in terms of something immediately verifiable such as song structure, then surely that's OK to point out.
The bands mentioned are a good start - I'll be using these (in the absence of any actual published references) to do some historical research - which bands came first historically, and what observable and verifiable achievements can be noted in their music.
I remain a little puzzled - where do I start? With Dream Theater or Queensryche, 10 years earlier?
This page has been a bit quiet recently - I guess I'll just dig into the history books and find out. MarkCertif1ed ( talk) 09:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
i'm not one to say "hey guys you forgot my favorite band of all time in the history of the world"(let me clarify, they are one of my many favorites, not the bestest ever), but i think that mudvayne would be a good addition. while they may be considered more 'mainstream' than many prog metal bands, they are prog regardless. an MTV.com article also refers to them as prog metal
so what does everyone else think, worth mentioning or not? i believe that they are a sort of representative of the genre to the more mainstream(much like nine inch nails is to industrial). Ry Trapp0 ( talk) 08:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
SonOfPlisskin, Mudvayne fans ARE more likely to listen to Dream Theater than nu-metal, one. Two, Mudvayne's vocals are NOT similar to aggressive nu-metal bands. Three, Mudvayne's music is composed of very technical playing and a sense of melody, NOT "chugging". Four, Mudvayne is not a nu-metal band by the majority of sources. Mudvayne is a progressive metal band. Like it or not, don't push your clear agenda here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.45.209.169 ( talk) 08:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Don't worry, I'm not saying Queen is a prog metal band (though they were at times), I'm saying that thye should be listed as an influence. Look at just about every band's influences (Maiden, Queensryche, Blind Guardian, Dream Theater, etc.) and Queen will be right there at the top. And many of these prog metal bands have covered songs from Queen in tribute to them and their influence on their own work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by World wrestling federation ztj ( talk • contribs) 20:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of tool in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.9.105 ( talk) 18:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
becauze Tool is nu metal and would be embarrasing the common fans of prog metal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.140.88 ( talk) 10:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I would agree with that point. Alongside with Uriah Heep, Rush and King Crimson, Queen were one of the most notable bands of 70's which mixed prog rock complexity with heavy metal sound, and so their music influenced a lot on prog metal.--
95.37.236.195 (
talk)
00:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
If any band doesn't belong on here, it's them. First off, as has been established, bands that are influential belong here. Thirty Seconds to Mars hasn't been influential to anyone in any of the progressive or metal genres. Second, there's a dispute that they are even progressive metal, as most fans of the genre do not consider them to be either. Third and last, they are not even on the list of progressive metal bands. How in the world can a band be listed here and not in the list of progressive metal bands? Seiferganon ( talk) 23:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
No, they sound like a very typical alt rock/post-grunge act, a claim to Pink Floyd influences does not progressive metal make. Take 'em out. Sanzen-Baker ( talk) 22:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
If were up to me, i'll take'em out, however, there are sources claiming that they are. Nicrorus ( talk) 02:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
TOOL is not nu-metal... have you even ever listened to tool before? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.244.106.250 ( talk) 17:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me that the complaints relating to complexity, etc. that were brought up above by Alterationx10 deserve to be addressed in some fashion. I don't necessarily agree with him/her, but I think that the question of what is meant by "complexity" needs to be addressed.
Also, I very much disagree with the current definition's inclusion of "diverse fantasy lyrics". I think that's an attribute of Power Metal, and not of prog. I'd like to delete that phrase, unless someone can give a citation. CWuestefeld ( talk) 22:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
They're not metal at all. Porcupine Tree are a very good prog act, but their touches with metal are very brief, so it's absurdly to call them 'prog metal'.-- 93.120.198.224 ( talk) 04:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Progressive metal's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Wiederhorn":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Not trying to sound like a fan boy or anything, but I think Periphery should be mentioned in the article considering they are bringing progressive metal to the mainstream, and are probably the biggest modern-day progressive metal band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.196.158.35 ( talk) 16:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
This band is the epitome of prog metal. They don't even have a wiki page! Blasphemy! Haha IDK Y. Listen to Mercurian Summer, then that whole album (Universal Language), then Speed of Dark Album, and their newest album Away with Words and send me kisses afterwards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.11.39.57 ( talk) 08:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Progressive metal. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Progressive metal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Why does djent get a whole half a paragraph in the opening of this article? Yes, it is a style, and is covered later in the article, but it just seems someone wanted to make sure this page djented...It feels very out of place though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabalon ( talk • contribs) 13:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
While I can understand maybe two or three music samples to illustrate a topic as diverse as progressive metal, I feel like eleven 30-second samples on one page is a bit excessive. This is especially when compared to similar pages like Alternative rock, a Good Article without a single sample on the page, or Progressive rock with its two samples adding up to 45 seconds total. Even in extreme cases like Folk metal with its eight samples, the sheer length of the prose justifies their inclusion, and they are spread out across the article quite well (with no more than three samples in each section, versus the six in "Stylistic diversity" alone). There is also a bit of precedent regarding this: WP:SAMPLE contends against "An excessive number of short audio clips in a single article," and even with descriptions accompanying each sample, the amount seems to be indisputably excessive. Leafy46 ( talk) 20:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)