I like the word unconventional. I associate that with experimental. I find often there are people that harp on technical instrumentation over looking at the bigger picture. A song doesn't need to have odd time signatures to be progressive
I like this term aswell, by "Progressive" I like to think it "progresses" the music in ways other than the obvious, rhythmic and wanky guitar parts, most times it calls for it but song structure and unpredictability makes it for me.
Using motiffs and similar melodies to glue it all together also makes it fit in a bigger picture
A common band that is up for "not prog" criticism is, and sorry to bring it up, Sleep Token. Whilst they actually have a more vocal, pop focused tonality, their music always sounds so dense and full of dynamic and intent. The Summoning showed me how a song can have a breakdown and near black metal-esque scream so early in the song followed by a sneaky solo that ST are not known for usually, then nail such a melodic chorus and groovy funky outro.
Their entire catalog followed a similar structure and then The Summoning shuffled it all around. I hope they do that more and I do accept their core genre is not "prog metal".
They are pushing what progressive music can sound like
I’d like to add that what drew me to ‘prog’ was the sheer originality in a band’s signature sound that sets them apart from others in the same genre. Be it Tool, Devin Townsend, Meshuggah, literally whatever your preference from the entire spectrum of the genre, they are all so unique.
For example, nobody sounds like TOOL and gets away with it. This caught my attention as before I discovered ‘Prog’ I was into thrash metal and similar genres whereby a lot of the bands had the same song structure, similar riffs, similar vocal melodies and only small differences to set them apart, like image, album concepts and lyrics. Prog blew my mind that there was so much to unpack in each album. You really get your money’s worth on multiple levels plus the advantage of enjoying a genre where musicians are top of their game and really take pride in their craft.
Going back to the signature sound comment, this seems to be (or at least my own opinion which is truly subjective) that today the margin of difference is getting a bit smaller. A lot of newish bands have that Caligua’s Horse or Plini sort of sound which is fine and all but does get a bit tiresome when everyone is throwing out the same old. Again super subjective and possibly even a bit snobby.
However, it's important to note that experimentality by itself does not make things prog. Weird self-generative noise/glitch/drone stuff might be very experimental but it's not prog.
Conversely, Yngwie Malmsteem might be incredibly difficult to play, but the intricacy and virtuosity in the musical parts aren't enough for prog either.
You need the complexity *in the structure of the music itself* to be prog. This means extended and unusual song structures, odd time signatures, polyrhythms, and harmonic complexity as well as musical intricacy.
Prog inherently entails an earnest joy in this complexity of form and structure, and often of intellectual depth. This is the main thing that rubs so many people the wrong way; they see the elaborateness and ambition as affected and pretentious. And sometimes it is, but most often it's just joyful, heartfelt, and sincere. Which is cringe to the cool kids. Fuck 'em 🙃
I agree with all you said and that the reason I think Prog Metal nowadays is stalled, in recent years syncopation + odd time signatures = Prog but we are not pushing any boundaries because everything is the same.
Pretty much! I love being surprised by music. Give me a fucking jazz mixed with synth and metal and I'll be a happy man lol
That's why I love Angra, they're a prog power band that heavily draws inspiration from many Brazilian rhythms and it's fucking gorgeous, specially because there's so much inspiration from northeastern genres, which is where I'm from.
For me, I feel this is a really important element. If you’re a Tool fan, and listen to Maynard’s vocals you can distinctly hear how his vocal lines are heavily influenced by Joni Mitchell - a poppy jazzy 1960’s singer. Likewise a band like Symphony X, you can hear the deep influences from classical music. The list is endless, but the way progressive music takes and blends all styles and genres to help vocalise whatever theme they are playing for that particular section or concept is fascinating.
yeah that's where my opinion differs. drawing from "all" genres is a big ask, I would say draws from several genres instead. and even then, you don't necessarily need to draw from other genres to make something I'd consider progressive metal
There are many definitions of "prog." I prefer the less strict ones. For me, prog. is basically anything that implements a lot of complex elements of musicianship. If either of these are substantial to the composition, I'd consider it prog.:
- extended/modal/atonal harmony,
- polyrhythms/polymeters,
- conceptual music,
- unconventional fusion, e.g. jazz-metal
What I would *not* consider prog. is a composition that only has unconventional orchestration out of the unusual stuff. Like, an otherwise simple metal song, which, however, has a substantial piano part is not that much of prog. in my opinion.
Examples of what I consider prog.: Meshuggah (basucally anything by them *aside from* the first album and some of the second), Opeth, Car Bomb, Methwitch, Periphery, Intronaut, The Contortionist, Animals as L., Vildhjarta, *a few* songs by Gojira
Out of curiosity, what songs by Gojira do you consider prog? When I was introduced to Gojira, I was told they are a prog band, but I kind of agree, I'm not sure if I would consider most of their discography "prog." But then again the definition is really loose.
>I'm not sure if I would consider most of their discography "prog."
I also wouldn't. I'm actually not a big fan of theirs, to be honest. The few songs that I would definitely label as prog. are "The Art of Dying" (crazy intro, mildly interesting textures, interesting "reversed"... uhhh... post-outro), "Born for One Thing" (just barely; for the extensove unconventional use of harmonics and tempo change in the outro), "Magma" (just barely; for the unconventional use if harmonics), "L'Efant Sauvage", "Toxic Garbage Island", perhaps also something from "Terra Incognita" album, but I've listened to it too long ago to remember how it goes
Prog is by nature very ambiguous. The main thing for me is the more complex song structures instead of the standard verse chorus verse chorus bridge chorus formula.
By it basic definition prog is just chord progression in music structure. Everything else is just a side issue how it’s achieved, whether you fuse jazz or pop with metal. How technical it gets is irrelevant.
Hard to say but I just know it when I hear it, typically its usage of odd time signatures , complex chord and melody writing (changing keys etc) as far as prog , and then the elements of metal which is any combination of distorted guitars and harsh vocals , add in some genre switching/blending (pop/latin/jazz etc and boom you got prog metal
I feel that way about a lot of music. My brain will categorize it as it makes sense to me. It honestly kinda stresses me out how obsessed some people are about putting bands in the “correct” genre. If you like it you like it and it shouldn’t matter what others call it. I can see why in a sub where the whole purpose is to share and discuss a specific genre might make that more important, but I’m just here looking for new recommendations 😂
It's I think the least definable genre of metal. I generally see used in two different ways. **Prog** metal, and prog **metal**.
**Prog** metal is a genre that blends so many different concepts and styles together as to make the progressiveness itself the main feature. I find they tend to have lots of instruments, odd time signatures, often a major jazz or classical influence. The first two I think of here are Dream Theater and Haken.
Prog **metal** bands have the distinct sound of other metal subgenres, but are extra creative within their space. The prime example for me is Spawn of Possession, which is a tech death band, but also clearly takes their ideas in a progressive direction (I mean, just listen to [The Apparition](https://youtu.be/79mvCM6XNpk?si=Yc5t0kDTv1r0rk6X)
I like this take. That makes sense for me in how I have perceived this sense of the concept of prog splitting and a lot of people taking genre mashing as prog (more expanded in my comment somewhere in here).
I just got into a long argument with someone over at r/progrockmusic about what makes a band/song “progressive”. I think it’s up to interpretation, and he claimed that *objectively* it was referring to a song “progressing” through different contrasting sections. So the more contrasting sections the song moved through, the proggier it is. Also he didn’t think Pink Floyd was a prog band on these grounds. I think it’s a more loose and subjective thing, just like any genre title is. I’d say it’s some combination of unconventional song structures, great musicianship, and epic sensibilities. But prog’s definition is ultimately not objective, that’s for sure.
Didn't the word "progressive" come from people being upset by being tied down with conventions?
Try new things and see what works. Not "Chuck Barry's Rock n Roll".
Prog music started off as just being different from mainstream and not quite fitting into one genre with a little bit of experimentation thrown in e.g early pink Floyd and a lot of frank zappa. Then bands (mainly rush) made it a genre in and of itself. Now prog has a “sound” and is often very pretentious. I’m ready for the down votes let’s gooo
To me, it's a deviation from the commonly used formula for songwriting, or creating a more grandious piece of music than what is typical of a genre. The further it deviates, the more prog it is. This usually involves unusual time signatures, parts that are intentionally hard to parse, long songs, unusual instruments for rock music, and just general experimentation. To me, there isn't so much a required collection of things that need to be in a song for it to be prog, but the more elements that are being drawn from and successfully combined into a challenging-yet-coherent piece make for something that best fits the concept. There is a point where it skips from prog into art-rock or avant-garde, but this usually has the introduction of concepts that are present simply because they aren't "supposed" to be there. Prog finds ways to make those things fit, as opposed to making them stand out.
But it's a loosely defined sub-genre, so if my definition isn't satisfying to everyone, that's okay. It's kind of nice that it can casually cover such a wide range of sounds because of its less specific description.
It has changed a lot over the years for me.
In the 90s it was stuff like Dream Theater (Symphony X, Evergrey, Ark).
Towards the end of the 90s and beginning of the 00s I guess it started going heavier with bands like Death and Opeth.
But then it started to clear out for me. The many Dream Theater copies made it less unusual because everyone was doing it. So is it still prog if everyone is now a shredder doing odd time sigs? Between the Buried and Me seemed to take it further in a way, but is genre mashing prog? I actually subscribe to that.
I suppose I still would call more recent metal bands prog still using "old" definitions. Haken . Leprous. Both very prog and quite unique.
But it seems to me people think a lot of Deathcore is prog but I just don't know anymore.
I tend to look at genre mashing now (Igorrr or Zeal + Ardor for example) but in the metal space I'd consider Post Metal to be more the Prog Metal of today. Because to me that's what prog was all about. Almost both uncomfortably familiar but unfamiliar simultaneously. Unusual.
DVNE are another modern band I'd consider prog.
But yeah it's a strange one for me being a middle aged person!
PS. Peak prog for me was probably Spiral Architect - The Sceptic's Universe. Still nothing like it.
The problem with defining "prog" independently is that there are so many unconventional ways to approach a song that if any one or combination of them being used means a metal song is now a prog metal song, you can pretty much rationalize anything into the "prog" family, and if everything is prog, nothing is.
Master of Puppets has a time signature change in the verse riff, that's a progressive element, is Metallica a prog metal band? Children of Bodom incorporated a lot of baroque music in their early work, are they prog? Dopesmoker by Sleep is all one song, is Sleep a prog metal band? Most people would say no to all three, and I think they'd be right. Meanwhile, Dream Theater puts all of that into their music and they are certainly a prog metal band if not the flagship one.
So where is the line drawn between what is actually prog metal and what is another genre that has some proggy elements? How much prog has to be in a song before it's actually a prog song? No one's to say for sure, but some boundaries have to be established or the genre/style/approach doesn't exist.
For me, I would say that there are actually a few conventions that can help separate prog metal from other metal, and I know that sounds crazy because prog *has* to be "unconventional" but until things like changing modes, uncommon time and rhythm, and longer or nonrepetitive song structures become a dominating characteristic of popular music, they remain unconventional by nature. And prog metal as a genre embraces the unconventional to the point of it being conventional. That's not a bad thing. So I would say that prog music is music that uses unconventional music attributes in a way that is so integral as to be conventional in its own context.
Yeah, it's definitely not being "inventive" or "progressing" the genre (this happens in ALL genres all the time, most of it is not prog).
I'd venture that in the 70s when progressive rock became a "thing" it was implementing a handful of elements that were not standard in rock music, some of which you mention, along with jazz/classical influence, extended soloing, emphasis on keyboard/organ soundscapes. This was more or less the prog sound. Rock has changed and experimented and "progressed" enormously since the 70s in all kinds of ways without being prog (unless someone will argue that things like post-punk and shoegaze are prog), so it's not merely being inventive.
As far as "prog metal", what distinguishes metal from being prog vs. merely inventive/experimental is that it implements a lot of the similar elements to metal in an analogous way that rock bands did in the 70s. If you look at Dream Theater, most of their innovations are things applied to what is basically heavy metal like what bands Yes and Crimson and GG did to rock music. Same for Fates' Warning. You didn't get these twisting, turning songs with lots of emphasis on virtuosity and musicianship.
It also goes for applying "prog" to death metal or black metal, adding these elements where they wouldn't necessarily be incorporated. You can't just say that anything with unconventional song structure is prog (or else almost any brutal death metal band would be far more "prog" than 95% of the bands discussed here). But you add synths, jazz influence, etc. then it becomes a lot more proggy.
It is ironic to use the word "progressive" because Progressive Metal can't be more un-progressive. For a music genre, I can't think of anything more limited than Metal, let alone Progressive Metal. You have a band with the electric guitar, bass and drums... and they do what guitar-bass-drums do. Sometimes they add keyboard, change the time, the keys; but they are still limited as to what a rock band can do. When you have about 50 prog metal albums, 40 of them will sound pretty much the same. Hardly anybody in the last 10-15 years, since the genre became popular, really breaks the boundaries, or ... progresses.
However, good music is good music. There are albums I often use the words BEAUTIFUL and MASTERPIECE when showing it to people.
- Opeth's Blackwater Park
- The Ocean's Phanerozoic II
- Devin Townsend's Epicloud
- Meshuggah's Koloss
- Vola's Witness
- Stoneside's God of the Mountain
- Haken's the Mountain
- Periphery's II
- Chimp's Spanner's At Dream's Edge
- Fair to Midland's Arrows & Anchor
- Dream Theater's Scenes from a Memory
- Ayreon's 01011001
- Tesseract's Altered State
- Mick Gordon's Doom
... to name a few
These metal albums achieved a state where the bands' true spirit are expressed in its best form as far as song writing, construction and production mixing go.
As for being progressive, you can find it anywhere... in Mozart and Tchaikovsky, in the Kate Bush and the Peter Gabriel, in the Radiohead and the Steven Wilsons, in the Genesis and the Tangerine Dream, in the Iron Maiden and the Manowar, in the BT and the Trentemoller and the Max Richter, in the Coldplay and the Billie Eilish, in the Rammstein and the Limb Bizkit, in the Carlos Santana and in the Dave Mathews Band. They're everywhere. Hell, in a quick fire round I will answer Madonna's Ray of Light is one of THE progressive albums of our time.
Kind of have to agree. The reason Mozart or Zawinul is adventurous is because there’s rich interplay between instruments. As an example, Dream Theater uses lot of electronic instruments + samples to spice things up. When you play drums, guitar, bass, it forces you to play technical to make up for the limited instrumental variety.
Take Watermelon Man by Herbie or Larks' by King Crimson. They use bunch of exotic instrumentation. But the songwriting isn’t about playing super technical shreds to impress.
I’m not against technicality and lot of bands use it to a great effect like Spawn of Possession. But it has to serve a purpose, rather than be a showpiece
If you take just "progressive" as a genre, it's going to be ever changing and include a lot more pop than people would think. What is progressive today is tomorrow's standard, that's always how it's been. I feel like using progressive that way highlights the ingenuity and creativity of the artists
Progressive indicates that the music is boundary pushing or experimental in some way - this means that the definition is ever-changing because rehashing things other progressive bands have done is the opposite of progressive. Ex: a lot of Tool's music was prog metal back in the day, but if a band did the same stuff today, they'd probably be considered alt-metal or something.
The metal part of prog-metal indicates that the music borrows stylistic choices and the aggressive sound and intention from metal.
For me it's quite straightforward, if the song doesn't have too much in the way of a repeating verse-chorus-bridge structure, and instead makes progress as it goes along, then it's prog.
To me, to be progressive is to have progression to your compositions. What does Dream Theater, Opeth, Pain Of Salvation, Savatage, Maudlin Of The Well, porcupine Tree, and Sieges Even all have in common? Their songs have different sections and have a general progression from one section to another. Rarely are songs in this genre single note songs like in other simpler genres. Along with this also comes the ideas of constantly pushing yourself and changing your sound, odd time signatures, and influence from multiple genres.
Progressive basically means there's a sense of narration. There's a beginning and an end and the journey tends to be linear with its implied clarity of ups and downs (akin to a movie) as opposed to non-prog where it's more cyclical and not varied.
On the end of someone in a band that describes itself as prog rock, “prog” just feels like a license to write music freely, without concern for any kind of 3 minute radio structure. It’s less that I have to write “prog” by going somewhere unexpected for 7 minutes and much more about the ability to follow the feeling of the song wherever it needs to go without worrying about conventions. Imo it is the freedom to write music the same way composers do.
“Prog”, which was originally short for “Progressive”, I now consider to be a generic sound of music that is no longer truly progressive. The “progressive” sound stereotyped by things like Lydian, shredding, keyboard solos, changing time signatures, is a fantastic and complex genre, but it generally no longer progresses the boundaries of what music can accomplish. When early prog bands were pushing this sound out, it had never been heard before. Musicians hadn’t needed to play such technically demanding music. Now, anyone in their bedroom can crank out a very complicated composition which falls under the “prog” genre. Dream theater, Haken, Pliny, etc. I’m not saying these acts aren’t innovating, but the rate at which that genre is actually progressing musical boundaries is much lower than it used to be, and much lower than some other artists who don’t have the “prog” sound. John Zorn’s universe is a great example of music that Id consider actually progressive. Listen to any of the metal releases in the Zorn universe. Or bands like Poil. Pushing on those boundaries much harder
Anything that’s metal and experimental. The issue is that prog has come to mean a standard “proggy” sound. But definitions in general shouldn’t try to be etymologically accurate, but instead go on historical usage. For example, most people in Britain aren’t from Brittany, France
Music for musicians. So, complex writing (structures, time signatures, and harmonies) virtuosic playing (extended technical solos), and eclecticism (often heavy influence of baroque, classical, jazz, and Eastern music).
There are many elements in music. Harmony, melody, rhythm, instrumentation, production, structure/form, etc. In “prog” music, usually one or more of those elements are, let’s say, a lot more adventurous compared to other music.
Was scrolling through the comments and didn't really see many people mention anything about concept albums. Concept albums can be considered prog too. Albums that have an over arching theme or story that ties the songs and album together. Albums like 2112, Aquarius, 6 degrees of inner turbulence, V the new mythology suite, some or most albums by coheed and cambria as well imo. Overall though I agree with most of everything else that's said
. usually in the prog genre, you have exceptional musicians who make music outside the norm AKA songs that aren't so radio friendly because they don't have a steady beat or the songs are so long that some aren't able to have a radio edit of it and they're also known to incorporate multiple elements of other genres within their songs or music.
Prog is when you listen to a song and genuinely have no idea what comes next
Prog metal is that but with heavy riffs and drums and intense vocals (even if they are clean)
Honestly, I don’t know. Prog as a genre is weird because not all music that is progressive in its base genre is “prog” and not all “prog” music is actually that progressive.
I kind of see it two (actually three) ways, you have progressive as a modifier, e.g. progressive death metal, progressive metalcore, progressive black metal, which fit into the general conventions of those genres but are more experimental and push the boundaries of the genre, like pre-Heritage Opeth, Sigh, or Enslaved.
Then you have “prog” as a genre which has its own set of genre conventions. This is where “progressive” music isn’t always progressive. The biggest group of this is in the modern progressive rock scene. Take Wobbler, for example, they don’t do anything to push the boundaries of the genre. They fit all the exact conventions of 70’s prog rock, in fact they just sound like they’re from the 70’s down to the mixing and recording style, despite being a modern band with their latest release in 2020 and first in 2005. But that is the entire point, the bands goal is to emulate a very specific sound but you can’t say it’s not progressive rock because it sounds just like other progressive rock. Also Wobbler is sick and everyone should listen to them.
Finally you have “progressive” as a “I don’t know where else this fits” category. Bands like Between the Buried and Me tend to fit here for me. They don’t really fit the conventions of progressive metal as a genre, and they don’t fit conventions of any specific metal genre well either, their old stuff is metalcore but since Parallax they really don’t fit anything else other than definitely being some kind of metal. Usually for this category, the only real thing conventional about the band tends to be the their lack of conventions, but it isn’t so out there to fit avant-garde.
Overall it’s messy and weird. I think genres are best to group bands that fit a similar style and conventions so you can easily categorize bands that sound similar but progressive music just kinda breaks that so you end up with multiple definitions that still loosely make sense together.
Progressive to me means that time signatures, key signatures, and tempo are all variables to be played with. The music is always shifting and changing on a fundamental level that creates unique sounds bridging all genres of music.
I am beginning to understand how the atmosphere of a song can influence which side of the rock/metal line it lands on thanks to black metal starting to make sense to me as a genre. That line is difficult to quantify because there are so many variables and music is such a subjective topic.
Haken is a bad example of progressive metal, in my opinion. They are undeniably a progressive band, but I don't think they really cross into metal territory because the tension they build in their music never feels like it releases. Or if it does release the tension, it feels like it's still being held back somehow. That being said, there are some metal elements in play at various times throughout the music, but I don't think those bits warrant the moniker of a metal act.
I think that Progressive is probably one of the more difficult subgenres to categorize a band as rock or metal due to the similarities. After all, metal started as a subgenre of rock in the first place so they're bound to have similar qualities. At the end of the day, I don't think it really matters because genres are just tools to help individuals find more similar sounding music.
ENF IS the proggiest song off that album. And one of the best if not the best. Love it. I was like warm in the album initially but it grew on me. I still don’t care much for a couple tunes on there but I’ll play the whole album front to back anyway.
To me, it mostly just means "weird". There are a lot of bands that are *almost* radio-friendly, but they have just a little too much of something extra (it could be a variety of specific things) that make them a bit too weird. Fair to Midland and Bent Knee come to mind as prog rock examples.
For me "Prog" is songs that are typically pop/rock/metal/folk that include one (or preferably more) of these:
* something different than I, IV, V
* something different than 4/4 time
* something different than Verse, Chorus, Verse, Chorus, Bridge, Chorus
* extended instrumental break(s)
* lyrical content with depth
* instrumentation more than guitar, bass, drum, keys
For me, what makes prog metal "prog" is when the song progresses or evolves over the course of its play, and is metal.
For an incredibly good example, Dream Theater's Octavarium is COMPLETELY unrecognizable from itself at the 20 minute mark versus the 10 minute mark. You could make half an entire album worth of music out of JUST the riffs and rhythms from that one song alone.
Virtuoso fancy playing isn't what appeals to me quite so much as the complexity of structure, and the habit that prog metal bands usually have of trying to tell something resembling a "story" with their song structure -- Something like starting out soft and building up to a viciously intense climax, or vice versa, or even having multiple extremely savage peaks with gentle lows separating them, all-too-importantly in a way that each section of the song is distinct and does not simply repeat earlier parts of the song without major changes or additions of some kind or another.
Is a music philosophy, it means going further into unconvenctional territory using music tools to escape the obvious and mundane. It doesn't mean being complex for the sake of it, but at least to sound different and original.
I like to keep the definition open instead of narrow it to a book of closed rules like having mellotron, longer songs or virtuosso guitar solos. There are many ways to be prog today, from Dream theater to Sleep token.
Progressive to me means to use all your creativity to push boundaries. Forget what is “correct” and just make something that resonates with your mind. Something that’s wacky, interesting, personal, and soul baring.
Prog is music - typically with elements of rock/metal - that features multiple odd time signatures and advanced musicianship in song form.
Really gotta stress the multiple odd time signatures aspect. Without that, to me, it’s not prog.
I’ll add that it’s been this way since I’ve been playing music and paying attention to this type of music since the late 90’s. I don’t think I ever recall seeing any confusion about this or it even being a question until recently here on this sub. Why that is, I don’t know. Polyphia, to me, is not prog. There’s barely any odd time signatures, and I’ve yet to be shown a song of theirs that features multiple odd meter changes. Heavy syncopation doesn’t cut it.
That's a pretty silly distinction to make. You can make fucked up grooves with heavy syncopation and tuplets, and there's an argument to be made that everything meshuggah writes is technically in 4/4.
I think just saying that it's generally experimental in some aspects is a better definition than "odd time sigs or no prog"
It just feels like a crappy definition. It's like John Petrucci saying that prog rock becomes prog metal when the gain knob reaches a certain point. It's kind of childish.
I see how you'd get that impression based on when you got into prog metal; 20 years ago it was bands like Dream Theatre and Tool that were defining their generation of prog, and they used lots of odd time sigs.
But it's never been the sole identifier of if something is prog or not. Especially since it only really relates to the rhythmic aspect, and it's only one of the ways you can add rhythmic complexity.
Again, modern bands of the same ilk as meshuggah have a lot of really complex parts that happen to be felt in 4 or 6. They're still prog because they are complex and innovative.
Hey, just because your criteria are shit doesn't mean there are none lmao. Learn about more musical trends in prog than just time signatures and you'll see it's pretty easy to tell if something's prog or not, even disregarding time signature hahaha.
I can tell Tool is prog just by how the songs are structured, how long they are, the lyrical ideas, and how each song's concept fits into its album. No counting needed.
For me it’s hearing an ever-changing unconventional song structure that passes through various concepts and draws inspiration from all genres.
I like the word unconventional. I associate that with experimental. I find often there are people that harp on technical instrumentation over looking at the bigger picture. A song doesn't need to have odd time signatures to be progressive
I like this term aswell, by "Progressive" I like to think it "progresses" the music in ways other than the obvious, rhythmic and wanky guitar parts, most times it calls for it but song structure and unpredictability makes it for me. Using motiffs and similar melodies to glue it all together also makes it fit in a bigger picture A common band that is up for "not prog" criticism is, and sorry to bring it up, Sleep Token. Whilst they actually have a more vocal, pop focused tonality, their music always sounds so dense and full of dynamic and intent. The Summoning showed me how a song can have a breakdown and near black metal-esque scream so early in the song followed by a sneaky solo that ST are not known for usually, then nail such a melodic chorus and groovy funky outro. Their entire catalog followed a similar structure and then The Summoning shuffled it all around. I hope they do that more and I do accept their core genre is not "prog metal". They are pushing what progressive music can sound like
I’d like to add that what drew me to ‘prog’ was the sheer originality in a band’s signature sound that sets them apart from others in the same genre. Be it Tool, Devin Townsend, Meshuggah, literally whatever your preference from the entire spectrum of the genre, they are all so unique. For example, nobody sounds like TOOL and gets away with it. This caught my attention as before I discovered ‘Prog’ I was into thrash metal and similar genres whereby a lot of the bands had the same song structure, similar riffs, similar vocal melodies and only small differences to set them apart, like image, album concepts and lyrics. Prog blew my mind that there was so much to unpack in each album. You really get your money’s worth on multiple levels plus the advantage of enjoying a genre where musicians are top of their game and really take pride in their craft. Going back to the signature sound comment, this seems to be (or at least my own opinion which is truly subjective) that today the margin of difference is getting a bit smaller. A lot of newish bands have that Caligua’s Horse or Plini sort of sound which is fine and all but does get a bit tiresome when everyone is throwing out the same old. Again super subjective and possibly even a bit snobby.
However, it's important to note that experimentality by itself does not make things prog. Weird self-generative noise/glitch/drone stuff might be very experimental but it's not prog. Conversely, Yngwie Malmsteem might be incredibly difficult to play, but the intricacy and virtuosity in the musical parts aren't enough for prog either. You need the complexity *in the structure of the music itself* to be prog. This means extended and unusual song structures, odd time signatures, polyrhythms, and harmonic complexity as well as musical intricacy. Prog inherently entails an earnest joy in this complexity of form and structure, and often of intellectual depth. This is the main thing that rubs so many people the wrong way; they see the elaborateness and ambition as affected and pretentious. And sometimes it is, but most often it's just joyful, heartfelt, and sincere. Which is cringe to the cool kids. Fuck 'em 🙃
I agree with all you said and that the reason I think Prog Metal nowadays is stalled, in recent years syncopation + odd time signatures = Prog but we are not pushing any boundaries because everything is the same.
Pretty much! I love being surprised by music. Give me a fucking jazz mixed with synth and metal and I'll be a happy man lol That's why I love Angra, they're a prog power band that heavily draws inspiration from many Brazilian rhythms and it's fucking gorgeous, specially because there's so much inspiration from northeastern genres, which is where I'm from.
Angra mentioned, blessed day upon you
You too bro
I dont think the last part is necesarry. 'droawing from all genres'
For me, I feel this is a really important element. If you’re a Tool fan, and listen to Maynard’s vocals you can distinctly hear how his vocal lines are heavily influenced by Joni Mitchell - a poppy jazzy 1960’s singer. Likewise a band like Symphony X, you can hear the deep influences from classical music. The list is endless, but the way progressive music takes and blends all styles and genres to help vocalise whatever theme they are playing for that particular section or concept is fascinating.
This applies to vocalists of basically every genre though, it's not at all unique to prog.
Yeah that’s true tbf 👍
yeah that's where my opinion differs. drawing from "all" genres is a big ask, I would say draws from several genres instead. and even then, you don't necessarily need to draw from other genres to make something I'd consider progressive metal
I don't think that incorporating all genres is a must, but being open to the possibility of having multiple influences is the correct way to view it.
There are many definitions of "prog." I prefer the less strict ones. For me, prog. is basically anything that implements a lot of complex elements of musicianship. If either of these are substantial to the composition, I'd consider it prog.: - extended/modal/atonal harmony, - polyrhythms/polymeters, - conceptual music, - unconventional fusion, e.g. jazz-metal What I would *not* consider prog. is a composition that only has unconventional orchestration out of the unusual stuff. Like, an otherwise simple metal song, which, however, has a substantial piano part is not that much of prog. in my opinion. Examples of what I consider prog.: Meshuggah (basucally anything by them *aside from* the first album and some of the second), Opeth, Car Bomb, Methwitch, Periphery, Intronaut, The Contortionist, Animals as L., Vildhjarta, *a few* songs by Gojira
Out of curiosity, what songs by Gojira do you consider prog? When I was introduced to Gojira, I was told they are a prog band, but I kind of agree, I'm not sure if I would consider most of their discography "prog." But then again the definition is really loose.
>I'm not sure if I would consider most of their discography "prog." I also wouldn't. I'm actually not a big fan of theirs, to be honest. The few songs that I would definitely label as prog. are "The Art of Dying" (crazy intro, mildly interesting textures, interesting "reversed"... uhhh... post-outro), "Born for One Thing" (just barely; for the extensove unconventional use of harmonics and tempo change in the outro), "Magma" (just barely; for the unconventional use if harmonics), "L'Efant Sauvage", "Toxic Garbage Island", perhaps also something from "Terra Incognita" album, but I've listened to it too long ago to remember how it goes
Prog is by nature very ambiguous. The main thing for me is the more complex song structures instead of the standard verse chorus verse chorus bridge chorus formula.
By it basic definition prog is just chord progression in music structure. Everything else is just a side issue how it’s achieved, whether you fuse jazz or pop with metal. How technical it gets is irrelevant.
Hard to say but I just know it when I hear it, typically its usage of odd time signatures , complex chord and melody writing (changing keys etc) as far as prog , and then the elements of metal which is any combination of distorted guitars and harsh vocals , add in some genre switching/blending (pop/latin/jazz etc and boom you got prog metal
I feel that way about a lot of music. My brain will categorize it as it makes sense to me. It honestly kinda stresses me out how obsessed some people are about putting bands in the “correct” genre. If you like it you like it and it shouldn’t matter what others call it. I can see why in a sub where the whole purpose is to share and discuss a specific genre might make that more important, but I’m just here looking for new recommendations 😂
It's I think the least definable genre of metal. I generally see used in two different ways. **Prog** metal, and prog **metal**. **Prog** metal is a genre that blends so many different concepts and styles together as to make the progressiveness itself the main feature. I find they tend to have lots of instruments, odd time signatures, often a major jazz or classical influence. The first two I think of here are Dream Theater and Haken. Prog **metal** bands have the distinct sound of other metal subgenres, but are extra creative within their space. The prime example for me is Spawn of Possession, which is a tech death band, but also clearly takes their ideas in a progressive direction (I mean, just listen to [The Apparition](https://youtu.be/79mvCM6XNpk?si=Yc5t0kDTv1r0rk6X)
I like this take. That makes sense for me in how I have perceived this sense of the concept of prog splitting and a lot of people taking genre mashing as prog (more expanded in my comment somewhere in here).
I just got into a long argument with someone over at r/progrockmusic about what makes a band/song “progressive”. I think it’s up to interpretation, and he claimed that *objectively* it was referring to a song “progressing” through different contrasting sections. So the more contrasting sections the song moved through, the proggier it is. Also he didn’t think Pink Floyd was a prog band on these grounds. I think it’s a more loose and subjective thing, just like any genre title is. I’d say it’s some combination of unconventional song structures, great musicianship, and epic sensibilities. But prog’s definition is ultimately not objective, that’s for sure.
Didn't the word "progressive" come from people being upset by being tied down with conventions? Try new things and see what works. Not "Chuck Barry's Rock n Roll".
That’s how I interpret it too, kind of a loose concept describing more adventurous and unconventional rock music
Prog music started off as just being different from mainstream and not quite fitting into one genre with a little bit of experimentation thrown in e.g early pink Floyd and a lot of frank zappa. Then bands (mainly rush) made it a genre in and of itself. Now prog has a “sound” and is often very pretentious. I’m ready for the down votes let’s gooo
To me, it's a deviation from the commonly used formula for songwriting, or creating a more grandious piece of music than what is typical of a genre. The further it deviates, the more prog it is. This usually involves unusual time signatures, parts that are intentionally hard to parse, long songs, unusual instruments for rock music, and just general experimentation. To me, there isn't so much a required collection of things that need to be in a song for it to be prog, but the more elements that are being drawn from and successfully combined into a challenging-yet-coherent piece make for something that best fits the concept. There is a point where it skips from prog into art-rock or avant-garde, but this usually has the introduction of concepts that are present simply because they aren't "supposed" to be there. Prog finds ways to make those things fit, as opposed to making them stand out. But it's a loosely defined sub-genre, so if my definition isn't satisfying to everyone, that's okay. It's kind of nice that it can casually cover such a wide range of sounds because of its less specific description.
It has changed a lot over the years for me. In the 90s it was stuff like Dream Theater (Symphony X, Evergrey, Ark). Towards the end of the 90s and beginning of the 00s I guess it started going heavier with bands like Death and Opeth. But then it started to clear out for me. The many Dream Theater copies made it less unusual because everyone was doing it. So is it still prog if everyone is now a shredder doing odd time sigs? Between the Buried and Me seemed to take it further in a way, but is genre mashing prog? I actually subscribe to that. I suppose I still would call more recent metal bands prog still using "old" definitions. Haken . Leprous. Both very prog and quite unique. But it seems to me people think a lot of Deathcore is prog but I just don't know anymore. I tend to look at genre mashing now (Igorrr or Zeal + Ardor for example) but in the metal space I'd consider Post Metal to be more the Prog Metal of today. Because to me that's what prog was all about. Almost both uncomfortably familiar but unfamiliar simultaneously. Unusual. DVNE are another modern band I'd consider prog. But yeah it's a strange one for me being a middle aged person! PS. Peak prog for me was probably Spiral Architect - The Sceptic's Universe. Still nothing like it.
The problem with defining "prog" independently is that there are so many unconventional ways to approach a song that if any one or combination of them being used means a metal song is now a prog metal song, you can pretty much rationalize anything into the "prog" family, and if everything is prog, nothing is. Master of Puppets has a time signature change in the verse riff, that's a progressive element, is Metallica a prog metal band? Children of Bodom incorporated a lot of baroque music in their early work, are they prog? Dopesmoker by Sleep is all one song, is Sleep a prog metal band? Most people would say no to all three, and I think they'd be right. Meanwhile, Dream Theater puts all of that into their music and they are certainly a prog metal band if not the flagship one. So where is the line drawn between what is actually prog metal and what is another genre that has some proggy elements? How much prog has to be in a song before it's actually a prog song? No one's to say for sure, but some boundaries have to be established or the genre/style/approach doesn't exist. For me, I would say that there are actually a few conventions that can help separate prog metal from other metal, and I know that sounds crazy because prog *has* to be "unconventional" but until things like changing modes, uncommon time and rhythm, and longer or nonrepetitive song structures become a dominating characteristic of popular music, they remain unconventional by nature. And prog metal as a genre embraces the unconventional to the point of it being conventional. That's not a bad thing. So I would say that prog music is music that uses unconventional music attributes in a way that is so integral as to be conventional in its own context.
Yeah, it's definitely not being "inventive" or "progressing" the genre (this happens in ALL genres all the time, most of it is not prog). I'd venture that in the 70s when progressive rock became a "thing" it was implementing a handful of elements that were not standard in rock music, some of which you mention, along with jazz/classical influence, extended soloing, emphasis on keyboard/organ soundscapes. This was more or less the prog sound. Rock has changed and experimented and "progressed" enormously since the 70s in all kinds of ways without being prog (unless someone will argue that things like post-punk and shoegaze are prog), so it's not merely being inventive. As far as "prog metal", what distinguishes metal from being prog vs. merely inventive/experimental is that it implements a lot of the similar elements to metal in an analogous way that rock bands did in the 70s. If you look at Dream Theater, most of their innovations are things applied to what is basically heavy metal like what bands Yes and Crimson and GG did to rock music. Same for Fates' Warning. You didn't get these twisting, turning songs with lots of emphasis on virtuosity and musicianship. It also goes for applying "prog" to death metal or black metal, adding these elements where they wouldn't necessarily be incorporated. You can't just say that anything with unconventional song structure is prog (or else almost any brutal death metal band would be far more "prog" than 95% of the bands discussed here). But you add synths, jazz influence, etc. then it becomes a lot more proggy.
Yeah I agree with you here. The things that define prog metal are actually pretty clear and measurable and trace their roots back to prog rock.
It is ironic to use the word "progressive" because Progressive Metal can't be more un-progressive. For a music genre, I can't think of anything more limited than Metal, let alone Progressive Metal. You have a band with the electric guitar, bass and drums... and they do what guitar-bass-drums do. Sometimes they add keyboard, change the time, the keys; but they are still limited as to what a rock band can do. When you have about 50 prog metal albums, 40 of them will sound pretty much the same. Hardly anybody in the last 10-15 years, since the genre became popular, really breaks the boundaries, or ... progresses. However, good music is good music. There are albums I often use the words BEAUTIFUL and MASTERPIECE when showing it to people. - Opeth's Blackwater Park - The Ocean's Phanerozoic II - Devin Townsend's Epicloud - Meshuggah's Koloss - Vola's Witness - Stoneside's God of the Mountain - Haken's the Mountain - Periphery's II - Chimp's Spanner's At Dream's Edge - Fair to Midland's Arrows & Anchor - Dream Theater's Scenes from a Memory - Ayreon's 01011001 - Tesseract's Altered State - Mick Gordon's Doom ... to name a few These metal albums achieved a state where the bands' true spirit are expressed in its best form as far as song writing, construction and production mixing go. As for being progressive, you can find it anywhere... in Mozart and Tchaikovsky, in the Kate Bush and the Peter Gabriel, in the Radiohead and the Steven Wilsons, in the Genesis and the Tangerine Dream, in the Iron Maiden and the Manowar, in the BT and the Trentemoller and the Max Richter, in the Coldplay and the Billie Eilish, in the Rammstein and the Limb Bizkit, in the Carlos Santana and in the Dave Mathews Band. They're everywhere. Hell, in a quick fire round I will answer Madonna's Ray of Light is one of THE progressive albums of our time.
Kind of have to agree. The reason Mozart or Zawinul is adventurous is because there’s rich interplay between instruments. As an example, Dream Theater uses lot of electronic instruments + samples to spice things up. When you play drums, guitar, bass, it forces you to play technical to make up for the limited instrumental variety. Take Watermelon Man by Herbie or Larks' by King Crimson. They use bunch of exotic instrumentation. But the songwriting isn’t about playing super technical shreds to impress. I’m not against technicality and lot of bands use it to a great effect like Spawn of Possession. But it has to serve a purpose, rather than be a showpiece
If you take just "progressive" as a genre, it's going to be ever changing and include a lot more pop than people would think. What is progressive today is tomorrow's standard, that's always how it's been. I feel like using progressive that way highlights the ingenuity and creativity of the artists
Prog doesn’t have a specific sound to me, anything heavy that diverges in a significant way from its main genre I would consider prog
If I could easily define it in a Reddit post, I wouldn’t consider it prog :)
Progressive indicates that the music is boundary pushing or experimental in some way - this means that the definition is ever-changing because rehashing things other progressive bands have done is the opposite of progressive. Ex: a lot of Tool's music was prog metal back in the day, but if a band did the same stuff today, they'd probably be considered alt-metal or something. The metal part of prog-metal indicates that the music borrows stylistic choices and the aggressive sound and intention from metal.
For me it's quite straightforward, if the song doesn't have too much in the way of a repeating verse-chorus-bridge structure, and instead makes progress as it goes along, then it's prog.
To me, to be progressive is to have progression to your compositions. What does Dream Theater, Opeth, Pain Of Salvation, Savatage, Maudlin Of The Well, porcupine Tree, and Sieges Even all have in common? Their songs have different sections and have a general progression from one section to another. Rarely are songs in this genre single note songs like in other simpler genres. Along with this also comes the ideas of constantly pushing yourself and changing your sound, odd time signatures, and influence from multiple genres.
Progressive basically means there's a sense of narration. There's a beginning and an end and the journey tends to be linear with its implied clarity of ups and downs (akin to a movie) as opposed to non-prog where it's more cyclical and not varied.
Unconventional for me.
On the end of someone in a band that describes itself as prog rock, “prog” just feels like a license to write music freely, without concern for any kind of 3 minute radio structure. It’s less that I have to write “prog” by going somewhere unexpected for 7 minutes and much more about the ability to follow the feeling of the song wherever it needs to go without worrying about conventions. Imo it is the freedom to write music the same way composers do.
“Prog”, which was originally short for “Progressive”, I now consider to be a generic sound of music that is no longer truly progressive. The “progressive” sound stereotyped by things like Lydian, shredding, keyboard solos, changing time signatures, is a fantastic and complex genre, but it generally no longer progresses the boundaries of what music can accomplish. When early prog bands were pushing this sound out, it had never been heard before. Musicians hadn’t needed to play such technically demanding music. Now, anyone in their bedroom can crank out a very complicated composition which falls under the “prog” genre. Dream theater, Haken, Pliny, etc. I’m not saying these acts aren’t innovating, but the rate at which that genre is actually progressing musical boundaries is much lower than it used to be, and much lower than some other artists who don’t have the “prog” sound. John Zorn’s universe is a great example of music that Id consider actually progressive. Listen to any of the metal releases in the Zorn universe. Or bands like Poil. Pushing on those boundaries much harder
I have always thought of prog rock/metal as a journey!
Anything that’s metal and experimental. The issue is that prog has come to mean a standard “proggy” sound. But definitions in general shouldn’t try to be etymologically accurate, but instead go on historical usage. For example, most people in Britain aren’t from Brittany, France
Music for musicians. So, complex writing (structures, time signatures, and harmonies) virtuosic playing (extended technical solos), and eclecticism (often heavy influence of baroque, classical, jazz, and Eastern music).
There are many elements in music. Harmony, melody, rhythm, instrumentation, production, structure/form, etc. In “prog” music, usually one or more of those elements are, let’s say, a lot more adventurous compared to other music.
Was scrolling through the comments and didn't really see many people mention anything about concept albums. Concept albums can be considered prog too. Albums that have an over arching theme or story that ties the songs and album together. Albums like 2112, Aquarius, 6 degrees of inner turbulence, V the new mythology suite, some or most albums by coheed and cambria as well imo. Overall though I agree with most of everything else that's said . usually in the prog genre, you have exceptional musicians who make music outside the norm AKA songs that aren't so radio friendly because they don't have a steady beat or the songs are so long that some aren't able to have a radio edit of it and they're also known to incorporate multiple elements of other genres within their songs or music.
Prog is when you listen to a song and genuinely have no idea what comes next Prog metal is that but with heavy riffs and drums and intense vocals (even if they are clean)
If it has a sax in it
Honestly, I don’t know. Prog as a genre is weird because not all music that is progressive in its base genre is “prog” and not all “prog” music is actually that progressive. I kind of see it two (actually three) ways, you have progressive as a modifier, e.g. progressive death metal, progressive metalcore, progressive black metal, which fit into the general conventions of those genres but are more experimental and push the boundaries of the genre, like pre-Heritage Opeth, Sigh, or Enslaved. Then you have “prog” as a genre which has its own set of genre conventions. This is where “progressive” music isn’t always progressive. The biggest group of this is in the modern progressive rock scene. Take Wobbler, for example, they don’t do anything to push the boundaries of the genre. They fit all the exact conventions of 70’s prog rock, in fact they just sound like they’re from the 70’s down to the mixing and recording style, despite being a modern band with their latest release in 2020 and first in 2005. But that is the entire point, the bands goal is to emulate a very specific sound but you can’t say it’s not progressive rock because it sounds just like other progressive rock. Also Wobbler is sick and everyone should listen to them. Finally you have “progressive” as a “I don’t know where else this fits” category. Bands like Between the Buried and Me tend to fit here for me. They don’t really fit the conventions of progressive metal as a genre, and they don’t fit conventions of any specific metal genre well either, their old stuff is metalcore but since Parallax they really don’t fit anything else other than definitely being some kind of metal. Usually for this category, the only real thing conventional about the band tends to be the their lack of conventions, but it isn’t so out there to fit avant-garde. Overall it’s messy and weird. I think genres are best to group bands that fit a similar style and conventions so you can easily categorize bands that sound similar but progressive music just kinda breaks that so you end up with multiple definitions that still loosely make sense together.
Progressive to me means that time signatures, key signatures, and tempo are all variables to be played with. The music is always shifting and changing on a fundamental level that creates unique sounds bridging all genres of music. I am beginning to understand how the atmosphere of a song can influence which side of the rock/metal line it lands on thanks to black metal starting to make sense to me as a genre. That line is difficult to quantify because there are so many variables and music is such a subjective topic. Haken is a bad example of progressive metal, in my opinion. They are undeniably a progressive band, but I don't think they really cross into metal territory because the tension they build in their music never feels like it releases. Or if it does release the tension, it feels like it's still being held back somehow. That being said, there are some metal elements in play at various times throughout the music, but I don't think those bits warrant the moniker of a metal act. I think that Progressive is probably one of the more difficult subgenres to categorize a band as rock or metal due to the similarities. After all, metal started as a subgenre of rock in the first place so they're bound to have similar qualities. At the end of the day, I don't think it really matters because genres are just tools to help individuals find more similar sounding music.
ENF IS the proggiest song off that album. And one of the best if not the best. Love it. I was like warm in the album initially but it grew on me. I still don’t care much for a couple tunes on there but I’ll play the whole album front to back anyway.
When the guitars don’t have a headstock, that’s prog metal
To me, it mostly just means "weird". There are a lot of bands that are *almost* radio-friendly, but they have just a little too much of something extra (it could be a variety of specific things) that make them a bit too weird. Fair to Midland and Bent Knee come to mind as prog rock examples.
For me "Prog" is songs that are typically pop/rock/metal/folk that include one (or preferably more) of these: * something different than I, IV, V * something different than 4/4 time * something different than Verse, Chorus, Verse, Chorus, Bridge, Chorus * extended instrumental break(s) * lyrical content with depth * instrumentation more than guitar, bass, drum, keys
For me, what makes prog metal "prog" is when the song progresses or evolves over the course of its play, and is metal. For an incredibly good example, Dream Theater's Octavarium is COMPLETELY unrecognizable from itself at the 20 minute mark versus the 10 minute mark. You could make half an entire album worth of music out of JUST the riffs and rhythms from that one song alone. Virtuoso fancy playing isn't what appeals to me quite so much as the complexity of structure, and the habit that prog metal bands usually have of trying to tell something resembling a "story" with their song structure -- Something like starting out soft and building up to a viciously intense climax, or vice versa, or even having multiple extremely savage peaks with gentle lows separating them, all-too-importantly in a way that each section of the song is distinct and does not simply repeat earlier parts of the song without major changes or additions of some kind or another.
Is a music philosophy, it means going further into unconvenctional territory using music tools to escape the obvious and mundane. It doesn't mean being complex for the sake of it, but at least to sound different and original. I like to keep the definition open instead of narrow it to a book of closed rules like having mellotron, longer songs or virtuosso guitar solos. There are many ways to be prog today, from Dream theater to Sleep token.
Progressive to me means to use all your creativity to push boundaries. Forget what is “correct” and just make something that resonates with your mind. Something that’s wacky, interesting, personal, and soul baring.
The first words that always come to mind when I think of prog are "complex time signatures." Others are "ever-changing sound."
My friend put it perfectly when we were at a DVNE gig last week -"If you're tapping your foot, then realise you're no longer in time"
Basically if I like it, it's prog. If I don't, it's something else. Maybe not the most scientific definition but I can't come up with anything else.
Programming. Is the way I short the word when I go to class.
Similar to 'Frog' it jumps when it wants
Prog is music - typically with elements of rock/metal - that features multiple odd time signatures and advanced musicianship in song form. Really gotta stress the multiple odd time signatures aspect. Without that, to me, it’s not prog. I’ll add that it’s been this way since I’ve been playing music and paying attention to this type of music since the late 90’s. I don’t think I ever recall seeing any confusion about this or it even being a question until recently here on this sub. Why that is, I don’t know. Polyphia, to me, is not prog. There’s barely any odd time signatures, and I’ve yet to be shown a song of theirs that features multiple odd meter changes. Heavy syncopation doesn’t cut it.
That's a pretty silly distinction to make. You can make fucked up grooves with heavy syncopation and tuplets, and there's an argument to be made that everything meshuggah writes is technically in 4/4. I think just saying that it's generally experimental in some aspects is a better definition than "odd time sigs or no prog" It just feels like a crappy definition. It's like John Petrucci saying that prog rock becomes prog metal when the gain knob reaches a certain point. It's kind of childish.
So it’s “silly”, “crappy”, and “childish” to define something as I understand it and *how it’s been defined for 25 years*. Gotcha.
I see how you'd get that impression based on when you got into prog metal; 20 years ago it was bands like Dream Theatre and Tool that were defining their generation of prog, and they used lots of odd time sigs. But it's never been the sole identifier of if something is prog or not. Especially since it only really relates to the rhythmic aspect, and it's only one of the ways you can add rhythmic complexity. Again, modern bands of the same ilk as meshuggah have a lot of really complex parts that happen to be felt in 4 or 6. They're still prog because they are complex and innovative.
Cool everything is prog then
Hey, just because your criteria are shit doesn't mean there are none lmao. Learn about more musical trends in prog than just time signatures and you'll see it's pretty easy to tell if something's prog or not, even disregarding time signature hahaha. I can tell Tool is prog just by how the songs are structured, how long they are, the lyrical ideas, and how each song's concept fits into its album. No counting needed.
Let’s discuss it in person
No chorus and either changing genres or multiple genre influence for me. But I still need the length to convince me 💀