Talk:Progressive metal

Alright Then,

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)

Therion

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.

Cultural Origins & Tool

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:

1. Syncopated drum track with heavy open chord guitar crunch in between downbeats of most measures (see most of Aenema)
2. Lyrics usually centering around youthful frustration or focusing on shock value alone ("Stinkfist"...?)
3. I don't know who Tool cite as their influences. Can anybody help there?

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)

Well, the statement about "lyrics usually centering around youthful frustration" is downright false. And they cite King Crimson as their biggest influence. Other than that, yeah, they are alternative metal (or "nu metal", although I don't know what that means anymore), but they're also prog metal. Like how Symphony X is both prog metal and power metal.

Oh boy, you are not ready to undertand Tool. Keep trying and listen to a lot of music.Dexter prog 03:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh boy, you have no idea how much you just unintentionally parodied the stereotypical Tool fan. So what, you're, like, smarter than everyone now? Please. Ours18 17:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Tool in my opinion are closer to math rock than anything else and just happen to have a heavy influence

---

You should check Arguments About Tool's Genre & Categorization, i think it's best that Tool stays on the list, even if it isn't categorised just as prog metal. Refrigerator 21:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Tool, again, and Silent Lucidity

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)

You're kidding, right? Ask any progressive metal musician, and chances are they'll list at least one major jazz influence. You might prefer progressive metal as a style, but there's no arguing the fact that jazz has had a profound impact on the genre of progressive metal. --Plattopus 16:40, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

---

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.

I would definitely say that Tool are deserving of a mention, but I agree that those other bands do not belong in prog metal.

Tool might deserve a mention, but I'm not sure that that mention should be in a progressive metal list. Does the use of odd and unorthodox time signatures qualify a band as prog metal? If so, then I have dozens of bands to add to the list. It seems to me a lot of people want to see their favourite band as something new and different and add it to the list - progressive metal or not. —Quirk 14:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Tool also uses a lot of interesting lyrical themes, many of which other groups in this genre don't go near. It's progressive, but I don't know if progressive metal is the right term. --Spartacusprime 19:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

---

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)

Yes, the list is way too long. However, I think that there should be some examples on this page as well. --Jannex 09:41, 27 Feb 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)

Tool are far, far more influencial to progressive metal than 90% of the other bands in the world. They may not fit squarely into progressive metal as a genre themselves, but they have had a major influence on most prog bands in the world today. X Japan, while definitely a prog band themselves, are hardly "influencial" or "important", since they had almost zero commercial success. plattopus^talk 00:36, 23 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)

Dream Theater is one just off the top of my head. Portnoy is constantly talking of Tool are a major influence of the latter DT stuff. plattopus^talk 11:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The Mars Volta?

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)

I put them back in... because I see them as eligible for inclusion in both the prog rock and prog metal articles. Sure, they're not Opeth... but metal is a big part of their sound. plattopus^<smal>talk 15:33, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

The Mars Volta is progressive rock, but not progressive metal. From what I've seen, they do not dabble enough in metal to warrant this classification. Spartacusprime 18:54, 4 December 2006 (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)

Rhapsody

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 are in no way progressive metal, and definitely not an "influential or important" band. plattopus^talk 02:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

they are more symphonic metal than prog though it is somewhat similar... panasonicyouth9

Rhapsody is prog/power metal. Deimoss 23:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Opeth

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.

• Response to above comment*

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)

The Black Mages

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)

Listen to me

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)

Symphony X is prog metal with "balls" (a thing Dream Theater only show with the Train of Thought album :-). Pain of Salvation is prog metal, and very different from Dream Theater, much, much more progressive! But don´t get me wrong I really love Dream Theater and I have all their albums, including live ones. I just don´t want to see someone make such a silly comment on a genre that is very prolific, and by it´s own progressive nature, very very diversified. Loudenvier 13:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

DT has had plenty of songs with balls, TOT was just an album of nothing bu those, symphony x has plenty of soft songs too --E tac 07:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

Removed Nightwish reference and Symphonic Metal

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)

Good edit. marnues 00:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're definitely right about Nightwish not being prog. But if you think that they are not symphonic metal, than you probably have not heard many of their songs, "Ghost Love Score" for one. They are definitely a symphonic metal band.

'METAL'

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

Lamb of God isn't metalcore. They're extreme groove metal. Or something. But not metalcore. Not prog metal either, though.

• Explain how Tool isn't metal, please. Spartacusprime 19:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Near-total lack of metal instrumentation, different intent, no real metal historical backround (ie, they didn't evolve primarily out of metal) the consensus of the metal community and if that chart on Tool's talk page is any indication, there's something near a consensus among established music sources that they are more rock than metal. Ours18 14:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"Near-total lack of metal instrumentation"...um...you mean guitars and drums? Tool use guitars and drums. "Rock" and "metal" are not exclusive terms, in fact, if you are a "metal" band then you have to be a "rock" band as well, because metal is a form of rock. Even the most out-there metal bands like Cynic are still rock. And, the "consesnsus of the metal community" clearly doesn't include major music publications, such as Revolver (Tool was listed around #11 or #12 on their list of the "heaviest things ever" in the cover story of last month's issue) and Rolling Stone (who describe them as metal in their reviews). You have a right to your opinion, but please never assert that there is a "consensus" that your viewpoint is correct when you have no evidence of this besides a poll on a wikipedia talk page. And, to respond to the original topic starter, Tool do not deny the prog label, they embrace it.

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)

Lamb of God

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)

They were grindcore, now they are metalcore. see LoG article for sources.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 09:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Edge of Sanity

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) ?

Progulus

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)

Dropped D reference

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

Dropped D was created by the first person to tune his low E string to D. Duh! (Okay, no more joking.) Spartacusprime 18:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree Dropped tunnigs SUCK, but this is not a valid statement for removing it. As you may know, Dream Theater (creators of Prog metal. Yes they created the genre) have a song called Home which is in drop D an it is an excellent song. -- Dexter prog 19:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"Creators of prog metal?" Fates Warning and Queensrÿche anybody? And how is drop-d an embarrassment to prog metal? It's just a tuning. Ours18 19:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Queensrÿche is just a GLAM metal band and Fates Warning a heavy metal which later on started to use some progressive influences. -- Dexter prog 20:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Dexter prog, you are wrong. Anyway, I've been attending a course originally entitled "the guitar in popular music" and the fact is that drop D tuning not only pre-dates progressive metal, it pre-dates the electric guitar. So all the argument about whether "dropped D sucks" are completely irrelevant.GrantRS 11:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

Nightwish is not Prog metal and a new band

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.

Depite the lack of any arguments concerning Nightwish from your part, I tend to agree. However, To-Mera should NOT be added to this list since it is solely for influential or important progmetal artists. Please add them to List of progressive metal artists instead. Also, why don't you consider registering with wikipedia? Petergee1 11:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

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.

Coroner's influence on modern Progressive metal,

The article makes no mention of it, though it's undenieable that Death and many other's took a huge influence from them.

How did Coroner influence Death?? Hello, Death & Coroner had released a CD at the same time(1987). I mean, I can see how they utilized the blues with some lite growling but I don't think that makes them Progressive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.108.105 (talk) 15:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Concerto Moon

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).

DELETING A BAND

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, the point of this list is not to be comprehensive and to list each and every progmetal band. It's for important and influential bands. There is another page called List of progressive metal artists. Add those bands there. Thanks Petergee1 18:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

but there is people who is constantly deleting influential artists. -- Dexter prog 19:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Dexter, the fact that I removed some bands is NOT vandalism. I feel that Unmoored should not be in this list. Its Wikipedia article is incredibly short and frankly, the fact that I've never heard of them leads me to believe that they are neither influential or important enough to include them in this list. As I pointed out, feel free to add them to List of progressive metal artists. The list in THIS article should really only contain the most important artists in the genre, to illustrate the style of music (if I had my way, I would be removing some more bands, but I'm being prudent for the moment). Next, the article about Arcturus does not mention the band playing progmetal. If someone deleted a well-known band like Angra for not being prog (which IMO is only semi-justified), than an obscure band like Arcturus can certainly be removed from this list. I provided a rationale for deleting Iron Maiden in my edit summary. So, before calling people vandals, try to come up with some arguments why those bands should be included in this intentionally incomplete list. I'm reverting once again. Petergee1 15:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you have not listened to them proves you don't know what music they make. They are one of the pioneers of the progressive death metal in Sweden, so removing them is not justified. Here you have info on them: http://www.metal-archives.com/band.php?id=6369 -- Dexter prog 17:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we already have the most important prog death metalband in this list (Opeth). Why not put Amorphis in there as well (sarcasm intended). Anyway, while I still feel Unmoored does not belong in this list, I will not revert again right away to avoid an edit war. I may do so in the future. Anyone else care to add to this discussion? Petergee1 19:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

While you're at it, you should delete Megadeth & Forbidden as prime examples of Prog Metal! I mean, Come On..Stop it! This is getting ridiculous. Megadeth was NEVER prog anything..PERIOD!! This article makes us look stoopid... Your most influential list should look like this - Watchtower,Fates Warning,Dream Theater,Atheist,Cynic & Opeth. Those are the Prog Metal bands that really stood out & made an impact on the metal community of today. Guppusmaximus 10:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hardcore/jazz fusion

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)

The paragraph sounds wrong. Progressive metal has always had jazz/fussion elements and the hardcore/metalcore bands listed are not close to prog metal. --Dexter prog 01:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Influential and important artists

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)

There are a few bands listed as influential that didn't influenced anything (e.g.: Zero Hour) but lets just leave the list as it is. --Dexter prog 19:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Should the list be retitled then, or perhaps include a few seperate more specific lists, such as on the thrash metal page. --E tac 19:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Now I've re-read the title, it's ok. It says influential and IMPORTANT artists, so I guess Iron Maiden could be added being an important artist... --Dexter prog 19:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now decide what bands can stay there, and remove those who are not influential. --Λeternus 23:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Queen is not influencial nor progressive metal --Dexter prog 02:09, 14 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)

And where are '70s prog rock bands (except Rush)? They are the most influential bands in the prog metal genre... --Λeternus 12:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

whe are adding prog metal bands, PROG METAL. It would be wrong to add prog rock bands because we then would have to add jazz and blues bands that influenced prog rock and classical music artist and etc. --Dexter prog 15:30, 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)

Ok, but what do you suggest for this lists? --Dexter prog 17:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Well possibly a list for bands who had a major influence on the genre but may not be considered progressive metal themselves. --E tac 18:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. --Dexter prog 19:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Two lists: 1. The main progressive metal bands and 2. bands that are not prog metal but who had a major influence on the genre. So mates, what do you think? --Λeternus 20:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. --E tac 20:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree. --Dexter prog 21:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this list should just be removed, it will be a constant source of debate and any of the most important and influential artists will already be mentioned in the article.--E tac 11:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right. I totally agree with removing the list. --ΛэтєяиuS 10:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

OK mates, do you all agree that the list should be removed? If yes, go ahead - do it. --ΛэтєяиuS 20:03, 14 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

There is a link under "see also" Nevermind you just added it I think. I thought it was already there. --E tac 00:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

Progarchives

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)

Prog as a different term

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)

I think it is fairly clear that bands such as Dream Theater who are keeping within a certain sound are not necessarily known as progressive anymore, but they are certainly "prog". I don't think that Dream Theater's more recent albums could be considered to "progress" music at all, they are just repeating the sound from their previous albums. This is not a bad thing, it has just caused people to pigeonhole the "prog" sound more. And I don't appreciate being called retarded, especially from someone who can't even use correct grammar. Kidburla2002 23:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard people use this term as a different genre before. Have you just made this up? Maybe you should write an section on how progressive metal bands aren't as experimental anymore, but if you're (lol) going to put this in, at least cite references of people using it as a seperate term.150.101.149.105 03:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Man, (User:150.101.149.105), I agree with you and I strongly suspect some original research/personal essay to be involved here. Making a distinction between Prog and Progressive seems nonsensical to me. However I don't think you need to use some arrogant, dismissive or offensive tone to underline this. We’re here to provide reliable information not to bash each other. Mentioning your legitimate doubt is sufficient.

@Kidburla2002, if you can't provide any serious source, I'm afraid we’ll have to keep your chapter removed. Your description is all fine and dandy but unfortunately it sounds like a personal essay even though it attempts to sound as if it is just common sense. (i.e. it is fairly clear...) But sorry, no, it is not fairly clear...I’m musicologist and I never ever heard such a distinction, and even in my encyclopaedias I can’t seem to find any mention of it either. Of course I see your point concerning stagnation and progression, but I doubt we can make any stylistic distinction out of this with terms like "prog" and "progressive". Beside your description seems to involve normative appreciation of what bands SHOULD do to be “progressive”…( i.e: "Dream Theater's more recent albums couldn't be considered to "progress" music at all, they are just repeating the sound…"). But here we only care about concrete objective facts. That is to say what things ARE, not what they SHOULD BE.

(Btw… sorry for my crappy English, this is not my mother tongue…. I know I’m not concerned by your attack concerning correct grammar but I thought I needed to specify it anyway... )Frédérick Duhautpas 14:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh and Muse shouldnt be anywhere near this article as they aren't metal, and could be described as New Prog but nowhere near Neo-prog

I agree with you about Muse, sorry this was my mistake. However, genres are what you make of them. Search on any search engine for "prog vs progressive" and you will find dozens of people arguing this point. Kidburla2002 14:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

@Kidburla2002: I'm sorry, but I think you mistook how a Wikipedia article is supposed to be sourced. I couldn't care less what is debated by fans on forums. When I'm talking about SERIOUS sources, I mean: a journalist's, a music teacher's, a musicologist's publication or at worst a certain number of full webpages all over the web describing that difference, not just some trivial discussions in a forum. Man, Wikipedia article DOES requires reliable sources which involve an objective observation not just some discussion boards where fans can say everything and its contrary, among other personal opinions.Frédérick Duhautpas 19:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand perfectly the rules about sourcing. But sometimes these rules need to be broken. Jimmy Wales said, "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge". Since this is an opinion shared by many people, then surely it is part of knowledge, and deserves to be put on Wikipedia. Kidburla2002 21:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, no offence, but I'm afraid you'll have some difficulties to convince users and mods here about this. Because an opinion is shared by many people doesn't mean it is necessarilly reliable. Imagine a world in which every single mystic or misinformed human being can freely sell their fantasy as if it was some pure scientific knowledge? This is an encyclopeadia here, man, not a forum where you can share any fan's opinion as a source of knowledge. Opinion, even a collective one,is just an opinion, it is not a reliable source per se. We don't care about opinions, we want published objective facts. The "many-people-do-believe-so-so-it's-true" stance has no relevance here. No, We need reliable sources preferably from professional or experts not just from common fans that discuss on a board.Frédérick Duhautpas 09:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

progolous radio????????????? It is Progarchives!!

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)

Falsetto.

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.

For some reasons I fail to hear falsetto in bands such as Opeth, Cynic, Atheist or Pestilence...

Don't forget that progressive metal can't be reduced to the Heavy-metal/powermetal-based bands exclusively...even though they are the most popular. Otherwise you're correct, most of the heavy/power prog bands make use of falsetto but it doesn't mean it defines the entire prog genre.Frédérick Duhautpas 23:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

Metallica

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

Why not shit ourselves yet? ...Justice For All and particulary MOP are Progressive Metal. Just because they have thrashy sound and don't make pathetic acoustic or orchestral theatre doesn't mean that they are not prog metal. "Justice" is "progressiver" than some bands in the article, so shit yoursef yet :)Lykantrop ^(Talk) 19:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I would take issue with the necessity of qualifying Metallica with "pre 1991." That is not NPOV because of the backhanded insinuation that Metallica jumped the shark with their self-titled LP. Plus, the way it is written in the article, it looks like Megadeth might be included in the pre 1991 category. I am thinking about removing it. Any objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.128.32.165 (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

Without being sourced

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)

Tech metal =/= Prog metal

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)

Avant-garde difference section

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)

Sourced. But this is not the only part that should be sourced but the entire article...I added a tag as well. So now this is your turn guys. Frédérick Duhautpas 17:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Metal fusion

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)

I Removed your section on Extreme prog metal beacause it is directly lifted from the prog archives without suppling citation and poorly written, which is a no go. If you wish to put it back in the article, I would suggext that Rewrite the information so it is more enclyopedic and provide a link to the progarchives. 209.107.117.197 (talk) 02:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I continued the discussion to say that jazz fusion (or metal fusion) should be added in see also but if you are concerning that the genre isn't metal then in that case progressive rock should be removed. It is a related genre to progressive metal because even this very genre uses influences from it. I see no reason why it shouldn't be there. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 00:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Key Artists and THIS ARTICLE GENERALLY

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'm not in favor of such a list, on the basis that it is likely to be contentious, and not very small. The Diversity section does a good job of explaining why, and History+Diversity contain more than enough names to give a reasonably accurate impression. ShaneCarey (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. But the problem is that such a list don't need "more than enough names". The reader should see some small list of 10- max20 bands next to the overflow of names in the article. And actually this article gives to prog.metal leaders such as Opeth or Tool the same importance as to Pestilence, which almost even does not touch prog.metal all their career long. The aricle itself needs pretty lots of work, cause there are even pretty significant mistakes, but it has good base. If somebody reads this Progressive Metal article, than he has no idea which bands he should listen to. And about the mistakes - for example: Such a statement as "(...)and Pestilence also blended jazz/fusion with death metal" is really extremely subjective and non-professional. Pestilence, a typical death metal band, has on one single album (Spheres (album)) several short acoustic sections (which have nothing to do with JazzFusion), and Wikiedia's aricle about Progressive Metal labels them as Jazz Fusion...Lykantrop ^(Talk) 19:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your statement of the problem, but I maintain that a list will not solve it. It seems unlikely that it could be kept down to "some small list." Good on you for trying to agree on a list on the Talk page before adding it to the article, but once it gets on the article, it'll be an invitation to an edit war. Tool is a useful example, as they are entirely notable but not universally agreed to be "prog.metal leaders." Again, I believe the Diversity section does a good job of explaining why key artists will be harder to identify than one might like; I don't think that directing a reader to listen to "Aenima" and "Deliverance" would give them a much better idea of what puts Opeth and Tool under the same umbrella.

That said, this is just one guy's opinion. I'd love for others to weigh in on this, and I will participate in a list if we agree that it will be useful. ShaneCarey (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

A List could be very useful if these people actually understood what defines true Progressive Metal and there really is a short list of crucial bands that should be the foundation. Progressive Metal is based on Jazz/Fusion [Dexter points this out but no one listens]. Watchtower wasn't Tech Metal, they were Prog because they fused the two genres before any other metal band. Watchtower's music has sped up Jazz riffs, in turn, this is how Progressive Metal was established! The list should focus on each band's influence to their respective decade and not what progressive rock bands may have influenced them. That's why this article is loaded with mistakes! It is about Progressive Metal and NOT Progressive Rock! Guppusmaximus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.194.94 (talk) 13:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

This kind of lists in heavy metal subgenres on Wikipedia has been abandoned. This lists have their own separate articles now--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 16:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Iron Maiden As An Influence

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)

I get what you mean, but we can't just assume they were, someone (a music reviewer, musician author, etc) would have to say (write) that. Although, during the start of progressive metal, bands like Dream Theatre and Queensryche were heavily influenced by traditional heavy metal. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 01:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This page needs a complete overhaul

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.

Progressive metal (often referred to simply as prog metal) is a sub-genre of heavy metal music which blends the powerful, guitar-driven sound of metal with the complex compositional structures, odd time signatures, and intricate instrumental playing of progressive rock. Some progressive metal bands are also influenced by jazz fusion and classical music. 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.

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.

"complexity" can refer to more than just compositional form. In early Queensryche (Rage for Order, Operation Mindcrime), guitarists DeGarmo & Wilton create a complex layered sound by complementing each other (e.g. the intro to "Screaming in Digital" from Rage for Order). This happens most notably in their rythm guitar work, where they will play independent part instead of dubbing the same chords. Pink Floyd (a band that receives the label "progressive" almost unambiguously) on the other hand have MANY songs that do not meet your complexity criteria.Alterationx10 (talk) 13:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

"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)

Yes I agree that this article is pretty very poor. The main problem of this article is that it is total original research. If you want to kind of improve it, then you should start with collecting as many reliable sources as possible. There is no point now of discussing what in the article is wrong and what is true if you have no sources. Maybe you know it already, but ProgArchives are not a reliable source under WP:SPS. You can use for example this reliable source. In the featured article heavy metal should be some good sources as well. Cheers!--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 19:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I feel it's the label itself that's become problematic - the implication has been stretched to the point of breaking that progressive metal still has anything to do with progressive rock . If you look at Dream Theater today, arguably one of the most poplar prog metal bands (no, I have no direct evidence to support this), you'll see that many of their songs follow the predictable verse/chorus structure while they tend to leave long sections of instrumental soloing and/or interlude in the bridge/"C" section (as you noted above). This formal technique has carried over to many other "progressive" metal bands. In my mind, song structure is one of the first characteristics to leap out when declaring something "progressive" or otherwise.

Changing the term would be a VERY bad idea IMHO, because of the following. There is a genre, pioneered and/or heavily influenced by bands such as Queensryche, Dream Theater and Fates Warning, that is referred to by the term "Progressice Metal". Whether or not this genre is progressive is irrelevant here. Changing the definition would be the best way to bring the term in line with what it refers to.Alterationx10 (talk) 13:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a huge progressive metal fan; I'm very familiar with Pagan's Mind and a good amount of Dream Theater's work, as well as some of the other big names (Cynic, Atheist, Symphony X), but the article could probably benefit from a ProgArchives metal collaborator, if one exists. Reliable sources are also a must. The label that you propose, "Technical Metal" is perhaps a more apt one, but unfortunately it may be too late to change the actual label; we might just have to fudge the definition instead. For more insight, see the horror story behind the term "neo-classical metal" (hint: it has absolutely nothing to do with Stravinsky).

I add to this a short definition from metalcrypt.com, a metal review site. Although it's one reviewer's opinion and some of it repeats what is already in the article, perhaps it'll shed more light on the roots of the label for the purposes of this discussion (original text here):

"Progressive Metal: Progressive Metal is properly a mix of the progressive art rock of the 70's such as Yes, Rush and King Crimson with the basic sound of melodic Traditional Metal to produce more musically challenging and intricate sounds. The founders and most influential bands in modern Prog Metal would have to be Queensryche and Fates Warning. Both these bands emerged in the early to mid 80s with a definite Traditional style, but distinguished themselves with advanced musicianship and a penchant for elaborate songwriting. Queensryche (or their marketing department) were the first to use the phrase "thinking man's metal" as a selling point, but in fact it was Fates Warning, with their obtuse and elaborate arrangements, that were the more progressive of the two. On their transitional album "Perfect Symmetry" they created a dry, very Rush-influenced sound that was still unmistakably a metal sound, and almost all modern Prog Metal is derived from it in some measure.

But no discussion of Prog can be complete without mention of Dream Theater – without doubt the most influential band in the genre. DT took the basic Fates Warning approach and added layers of keyboards as well as utterly opulent, over the top songwriting that placed a premium on complexity and showy musicianship. Modern Prog Metal was born. Now it is hard to find a Prog album that does not to some degree sound like Dream Theater's defining "Images and Words" album, and equally hard to find a reviewer who can avoid making comparisons. Now that Dream Theater have moved farther and farther away from a metal sound, other bands have moved in to fill the void. And we have bands like Spiral Architect and Power Of Omens who place an even greater emphasis on high-wire musicianship and incredibly technical songwriting. Like jazz and prog rock, Progressive Metal inspires its share of snobbery, and the mantle of "thinking man's metal" has sometimes been used dismissively on the rest of the metal scene. This is a genre that by its very pretensions invites animosity, and probably has as many fervent detractors as fans. Nevertheless it remains a vital and significant genre, not least of which by way of its influence on other genres, for where Prog and Power cross there are some very good bands to be found indeed.

Pioneers: Queensryche, Fates Warning, Dream Theater.

Notable Bands: Spiral Architect, Shadow Gallery, Power Of Omens, later Lost Horizon, Pagan's Mind, Dreamscape, Threshold, Ion Vein, Pain Of Salvation."

Some other points:

"influenced by jazz fusion"...

In my opinion, no, definitely not a "typical" characteristic. Off the top of my head, Cynic and Ron Jarzombek (Blotted Science, Spastic Ink) are the only two I can think of that display a very prominent and identifiable connection to jazz fusion (some of Cynic's interludes might as well be transplanted from any number of Allan Holdsworth songs). Additionally, Ron Jarzombek independently "discovered" a form of serialism and posted his findings to his website, see links here and here.

"Classical Music"

Atypical. Dream Theater has used guest musicians to add orchestral instrumentation (on the album Octavarium, an orchestra was used to back the songs "Sacrificed Sons" and "Octavarium," while the song "The Answer Lies Within" contains a string quartet). Rhapsody of Fire frequently uses orchestra and choir, sometimes sounding more like a concert production or a film score than a metal band, though it seems to me a stretch to call them "progressive." In both cases, the examples I gave draw only upon the instrumentation of classical music, not the formal considerations (some examples of sonata form in metal would be welcomed here, if they exist).

Symphony X has also used considerably "classical-sounding" instrumentation (keyboard patches) and orchestration techniques (see "Part I - Odysseus Theme/Overture" off their album The Odyssey), as well as borrowings from Holst's The Planets in the song "The Divine Wings of Tragedy" (from the album of the same name). The Wikipedia page for their album V: The New Mythology Suite mentions: "The album includes pieces from Verdi's Requiem, Mozart's Requiem, Bach's Concerto for Harpsichord in D minor, BWV 1052, and Bartók's Concerto for Orchestra. So, it's more than can be said for music that is not "progressive" (how much classical quotation makes its way into jazz/pop songs? just speculating here), but it isn't saying much regardless.

So what am I trying to say? To sum up, the label "progressive metal," with its connotations of identifiable links to the progressive rock genre, is at best unwieldy and at worst misleading. What do we do about it? I took into consideration the first sentence of the "Diversity" section: "Progressive metal can be broken down into countless [ahem, doubtful] sub-genres corresponding to certain other styles of music that have influenced progressive metal groups." Perhaps "progressive metal" should be made an unexceptional umbrella term for several closely-related subgenres, all contained on this page. Here's where it gets tough: an unexceptional definition for all the bands mentioned on the current page would probably include the typical instrumentation (guitars, bass, drums, vocals, often keyboards), the technical level of playing, and maybe the willingness to experiment with rhythm (lots of polyrhythm and unconventional meter in this music). That's about it. What else do all of these bands share? Passitivity (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I really dont want to be a pain in the ass here and I hate to say that, but those sources you posted above are not reliable. They are useless for Wikipedia. See WP:RS, WP:V (specially WP:SPS). I hope this helps. --  LYKANTROP  ✉ 19:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, I only meant for the links I posted to be an aid to discussion on this page. Further, all of the assertions I put forth in my post draw from my experience solely as a fan of progressive metal; I have not read any of the books listed on the heavy metal page that qualify as reliable sources (e.g., Metal: The Definitive Guide) and am relying upon others who have done so (although — somewhat pessimistically — I do not expect to find their definitions of progressive metal any more revealing than those I have seen before). Passitivity (talk) 20:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

My take on the situation is that all the previous work needs to be pruned down and used only as a basic guideline for a new article. The current article is unsourced, unencyclopaedic, and generally a disaster. The hard part, really, is describing a type of music which has largely evaded popular media or any semi-organized scene. Much of the definition of prog metal has been a hindsight re-assignment based on qualities (Cynic and Death certainly didn't have prog metal in mind when they played it). I am tempted to create a talk discussion section purely for the dump of reliable or semi-reliable sources (read: self-published sources) for the subject from which we can build a framework for a new article. All good things take time, and in enough spins of Light of Day, Day of Darkness, we'll get there. 71.203.185.108 (talk) 06:35, 22 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)

History

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)

Before doing anything, and to answer your question "where do I start?"... this is Wikipedia... you start with references. Uncited original research is not required here. Especially when its strewn with poetic adjectives which, like original research, is not required here. Dry cold boring statements with verifiable citations. The Real Libs-speak politely 10:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Mudvayne

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)

Having spotted them in the list of progressive metal artists, I chuckled to myself and deleted them, without first checking here, for which I now feel a little ungracious. That said, I really don't hear in their musical output any reasonable grounds to categorise them as prog metal; the MTV.com article cited is a vacuous puff piece from an outlet which really couldn't be said to reflect the consensus of metal fans, let alone fans of progressive music. Prima facie, they're a nu-metal/alt metal act who've opened for Slipknot and Linkin Park. They might be slightly more technical and musically-developed than their genre-fellows, but the rationale for shoehorning them into progressive metal is frankly rather tenuous.

Sanzen-Baker (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sanzen-Baker, you clearly don't study music if you think that Mudvayne is nu metal. They are EXTREMELY TECHNICAL. Their music uses complex time signatures, jazz influences & sonic experimentation. Nothing qualifies them as "nu metal" and opening for an act does not make an act a part of the genre of the act they've opened for. RUSH opened for KISS. Cynic opened for Cannibal Corpse. Pink Floyd opened for David Bowie. Mudvayne have nothing musically in common with Slipknot or Linkin Park. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.42.92.110 (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

And who says that nu-metal can't have complex signatures and jazz influences (the latter of which doesn't even necessarily make something prog). Sorry, but you're coming off as someone who seems ashamed that he likes a nu-metal band and is trying to rewrite history to feel better about himself. You keep using the same sources to support them being a progressive metal act, and you ignore equally valid sources stating that they play alt. and nu-metal. Also, of the 3 sources you keep using over and over, two of them don't even work and the other is just a throwaway caption for a photo. I'm not going to remove them from this list, but please stop trying to convince people that they don't play nu-metal. SonOfPlisskin (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

You clearly have no idea what prog is. Prog is defined by complex signatures and jazz influences. You keep vandalizing articles and removing sources, making it perfectly clear that you are in severe denial about the fact that your opinions conflict with reality. At this point, you're trolling, not engaging in actual discord. When something is such, it cannot be anything other than what it is, no matter how much you may want it to be. You want Mudvayne to be a nu-metal band, but that does not actually make them so. Progressive metal is a combination of highly technical music, jazz influences, and time signature experimentation, in contrast with traditional rock and metal songs generally being in basic time signatures - 4/4, 3/4, etc., with the aggressive or heavy elements of heavy metal. You need to step back from this debate and research what you're arguing about. Mudvayne is not a nu-metal band, has never been a nu-metal band and never will be a nu-metal band, and your aggressive, opinion-based edit warring is detrimental, not helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.42.92.110 (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's see what Mudvayne have in common with nu-metal and alternative metal shall we? Vocals similar to other "agressive" nu-metal bands like Slipknot and Mushroomhead. Downtuned guitar with chugging. Lack of solos. Angry lyrics. Their image. The fact that they mostly tour with nu-metal and alternative rock bands. You know bands can belong to more than one genre right? Do you think that Mudvayne fans are more likely to listen to Dream Theater than Korn? Even if I'm wrong, as long as there are plenty of sources pointing them out to be a nu-metal band, you can't just ignore them. That's not how this site works. If they were so obviously progressive metal and nothing else, why is it that for years very few had any problem with it until you came along? If I was using my own personal opinions here, not only would I remove progressive metal, I would remove anything pointing them out to be anything other than nu-metal. If I was doing that same amount of original research that you're doing, Mudvayne wouldn't even qualify as a metal band (nu-metal not really being metal so much as metal influenced), yet alone prog. metal. I know metal, and Mudvayne isn't it. But I know that that's not how this site works. Please don't tell me about opinion-based editing. My edits would have been a lot different if that were the case, believe me SonOfPlisskin (talk) 12:14, 15 May 2014 (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)

Queen

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)

Thirty Seconds to Mars?

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)

Prog Metal Definition

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)

Now it has been replaced by "diverse philosophical lyrics", but I don't think that's a lot better. In fact, I don't think that lyrics are a major defining characteristic for prog metal in the first place (especially given the focus on instrumentals), and I find "philosophical" too pretentious to say – I doubt that most prog metal lyrics could be called particularly philosophical (unless by "philosophical" you mean "something I don't get but that sounds kinda smart"). I'm simply deleting the adjective for now (I suppose it's true that prog metal has lyrics about diverse topics, especially compared to other metal styles), although others may prefer to completely delete the mention of lyrics, which wasn't originally in the article anyway and added by an IP user. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Porcupine Tree

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)

Orphaned references in Progressive metal

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":

• From Megadeth: Wiederhorn, Jon (June 1998). "Last Men Standing". Guitar World. Rockmetal.art.pl. Retrieved December 10, 2013.
• From Mudvayne: Wiederhorn, Jon (Oct 24, 2002). "Mudvayne's New Look Coincides With New Sound". MTV News. Retrieved 19 June 2011.

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)

Periphery

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)

I support this proposal. On a side note, we have very different concepts of mainstream.--MASHAUNIX 17:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Periphery is not prog metal. They are metalcore with prog metal elements. Heavybrightlight (talk) 05:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

You should bring in a source for that, I've never seen anyone call them that.--MASHAUNIX 12:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Angel Vivaldi

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)

Are they notable enough to merit their own article on Wikipedia? --Λeternus ^(talk) 09:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100607074256/http://www.revolvermag.com:80/content/history-american-thrash to http://www.revolvermag.com/content/history-american-thrash

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allmusic.com/explore/style/progressive-metal-d2952
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160517094739/http://www.guitarworld.com/meshuggah-share-secrets-their-sound to http://www.guitarworld.com/meshuggah-share-secrets-their-sound

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Djent in the opening paragraph

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)

Sample Overload?

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)

I agree about this page violating SAMPLE by showing too many audio excerpts. The violation was brought about by Or-Shalem uploading a bunch of audio clips two weeks ago, and adding them here.

I like to offer the reader some examples when possible, but the examples should reflect the literature on prog metal. The examples should portray major musical points that are already listed in books and articles on the topic.

Metallica's ...And Justice for All (song) is a good source because it is discussed in books about the topic, especially the 7-, 9- and 11-beat measures. At least one of the book sources discussing this aspect must be cited to explain the example. The listening example is a hair over 30 seconds, so it should be trimmed to 30 or under.

Most of the other audio samples should be deleted. We don't even have an article about Scardust (it was deleted as non-notable) so it boggles the mind why they should be selected to demonstrate a point.

And what point? Every listening sample should demonstrate a particular message that is already discussed in a reliable source, with that source cited. Binksternet (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)