Separate names with a comma.
Join Symphony X and discover tons of other great Metal forums, sign up today!
Discussion in 'Symphony X (Unofficial)' started by karelrulez, Mar 24, 2003.
one of the first
ever heard of Mordred?
Nah I haven't, they might not be one of the first ever bands to do it, but probably one of the first 'popular' bands to do it. Or did hed P.E have a dj (lol) the point was that using the word progressive to describe bands which have absolutely nothing in common defies the point of applying the same label to both of them.
so if i write a story about lawn gnomes from outer space and my concept album is about that, then since i'm the first to do it, surely my extensive use of odd time sigs to punctuate my 'story' and the complex usage of intricate instrumental passages along with "deep" and "intellectual" lyrics makes me progressive eh?
i stand by my statement. it's a progsnob's definition.
Listen to Haggard before you make yourself sound like a retard.
I see nu-metal bands every morning on a special Tv channel when I cook my breakfast and i can say that i have a feeling that i listen to one big song with a screaming on chorus - so i can say that most of this new stuff - SUCKS!!! uke:
im seeing them live in march im more than familiar with haggard.
Firstly, would be wonderful if you'd check your PMs.
Where I come from, "progressive music" is music which progresses.
What is so hard to understand in that statement.
What planet do you come from? We've already clearly seperated the equivocation being made in this thread.
prog = noun (what you are describing)
progressive = adjective. (what i am describing, and others as well)
they are not equal.
i can see the point anacrucix is trying to make though, whether you all agree with it or not.. not that im trying to put in my 2 cents or anything coz i honestly dont care, but it seems like people are rallying against him/her for the sake of it rather than having an open-minded conversation.
i'm rallying against a false definition, and commonly held misconception that "progressive" (ie music of a progressive nature) must necessarily contain elements that are thematic to the established genre "prog".
clearly something transient cannot be equal to something fixed.
in fact, to clarify even further the difference between these two things that seemingly use the same word, "prog" was originally used to describe music that at the time was indeed "progressive", however as "prog" established itself as a thematic genre (such as one can recognize prog as one can recognize rap or rock or blues by certain restrictive elements) it ceased being "progressive" precisely because it became a definition restricted by those elements. the word "prog" for the genre "prog" came into existence because the already existing adjective "progressive" could describe it. it no longer does.
Edit 2: thanks for the cop-out ad hominim below, tali. your contribution is duly noted. people resort to the "post a picture, make a one liner and laugh" routine when they've no more to say on the topic, avoid the argument for one of many reasons, or were never relevant to it to begin with.
you all can call my replies 'bitching' or what have you, but you cannot deny that my 'bitching' has a coherent framework to it with supportive reasoning, and is not on the same level as petty insult slinging which i too find completely pointless.
This thread is headed for suckage at this rate
so stop fighting girls.
you make me hot when you talk all nerdy
- but unless im wrong, i dont know that anyone is actually disputing what youre saying.. jump in if you are disputing that anacrucix, just so we can all be clear..
i just thought the argument seems to be running in circles is all..
and at rich.. are those really women? the blonde looks pretty manly.. look at the size of those thunder-thighs..
The blonde one is Kenneth....
Charis... it's going in circles because anacrucix keeps sidestepping my every reply. it's like he won't even consider the possibility enough to provide a sound objection, for whatever reason. instead he just keeps restating his point. and yes, that kind of thing goes nowhere. i'm done with it.
ps they look like men
Independent clause; however, independent clause.
<--- grammar geek
Firstly, there is no genre "prog", prog cannot exist by itself, you can have progressive indie, progressive hardcore, progressive rock, progressive hiphop, progressive whateveryouwant but "prog" is not independent.
This has all spiralled out of when I said that I felt coheed were progressive, although not in the 58/27 meaning of the word. Zach then picked up on the fact I had said that their music could be considered progressive because of the way the songs all piece together to make a story. He said that Bal Sagoth and Rhapsody do this, and neither band is "prog". I would say rhapsody do play progressive music, because their music progresses.
At this point, you decided to tell me I had been "pwnd", im not sure why, intelligent discussion isnt a competition where I come from but nevermind. You proceeded to say that time signatures =/= to prog. At which point I stated that odd time signatures are common in progressive music, I.E music which progresses, from yes to dream theater, two completely different sounding bands, who both write music which progresses.
It was at this point you decided to get severely retarded, and throw dream theater and yes in the same genre, assuming I had done so without bothering to take in the implications of my previous post.
At this point, I decided as you were so incapable of seeing anyone elses perspective on this matter, it just wasn't worth replying to your post.
However, doomsdayzach made an intelligent post, pointing out in what context he uses the term "progressive music", refering to the band making progress in expanding the boundaries of music.
I in no way deny that this is a common and acceptable definition
However, in response to this I pointed out that John Cage 'expanded the boundaries of music' by sitting infront of a piano for 4:33, and that this was in fact "progressive" by the definition that Zach uses, and question the point in using the word in this context, because if someone says that a band is progressive, it doesnt really tell you anything about how they sound.
The whole point in using words to describe the way a band sounds, is to give you an idea of how the band sounds. Using Zach's definition of "progressive music" the word links together bands and artists who have absolutely nothing in common, for example, a man who sits in front of a piano and doesnt play a single note for 4:33, and a folk metal band.
However, if we are talking about progressive music in terms of the music progressing, the term becomes useful in describing the music, I could describe Cog to my friend as a progressive Nu-Metal / Hard rock band, and by using the word progressive, he knows that he can expect more intricate song structures than are normal in nu-metal and hard rock.
For every intelligent point Zach makes, it seems you post 2 irrelevant posts kissing his ass, or making some vague attempt at a point which just isnt even worth reading. For example,
This argument isn't retarded, lets look at the definition of music-
"an art of sound in time that expresses ideas and emotions in significant forms through the elements of rhythm, melody, harmony, and color."
When there is no time signature, when there is a chord in drop F played occasionally at irregular intervals so that there is no discernable rhythm, interspersed with noise, also with no discernable rhythm, then this is by definition not music. There is a difference in not wanting to listen to "not music" and not wanting to listen to music unless it is in a weird time signature.
Well basically, congratulations if anyone made it this far, if Kenneth did, I'm pretty sure I've covered everything here, so I'd like you to point out to me, how I'm a "progsnob".
p.s kenneth, thanks for the negative rep, "retarded", it's very open minded of you to think that anyone who doesnt have the same opinions as you must be retarded, and deserves negative rep for that.
Not that I want to become involved in this quite entertaining discussion, and without agreeing or disagreeing with this lengthy post, I'd just like to pick up on one point, and point out that in music there is always a time signature, and no matter how odd it may be, it still constitutes as a rhythm, it's just not a common or orthodox rhythm... However it still makes a rhythm, no matter how small each repeating section is, or even if it doesn't repeat at all, it is still some kind of rhythm, and is most definately still music...
hey crucix dude, i don't know what made you assume i negative repped you. it wasn't me. thanks for holding a grudge.
this discussion, as i said to Charis, is clearly over for the reasons i gave then.
2 Things. First of all, i still strongly disagree with the guy sitting in front of a piano and not playing anything being progressive. It's more digressive. one can argue that it's art (like the shit in the jar example someone brought up a while ago in another thread), though even that is debatable. I'd say it's more live art than progressive. Actually, i'd say it's retarded but mroe inclined to argue it's "art" than progressive music.
2nd, i want to see haggard Can't wait for their new disc.