Album Rating: 4.5

It's a bit of both I think. Having "traditional" prog elements while also adding newer elements.

That's why there's such a wide variety of prog bands, it's the most diverse genre imo. I think

progression is important, even for a single band, you have to move forward with your sound. I think

new DT albums have proven that

Album Rating: 4.5

I was always told that "progressive" just meant loads and loads of time signature changes, and it's something that you can hear very well like in any Transatlantic albums or that recent Haken one too. I would say that it's common for prog bands to blend in other genres, like BTBAM, but that doesn't necessarily make them prog either. I do think progression in sound is important too, as well as never making the same album twice. DT are the epitome of a prog band holding onto their past too much, which is why i really enjoy ToT, because it's a nice breath of fresh air

Album Rating: 5.0

^ I wish stuff like that was just labeled tech metal tbh.

Album Rating: 4.5

Prog started off because of the various different styles that were blended together to create a new genre that wasn't heard of at the time. Of course different bands even then had their own flavour added to the music to make it their own like the technical wankery, abstract lyrics, lengthy compositions, various time signature changes, grandiose themes, wild experimental elements, progression within songs, etc. It's all a part of prog. But actually changing things up is also a part of the genre. That is lost on quite a few modern bands. The definition is still blurry though

Album Rating: 4.5

Tech metal would be something like Gorguts' Obscura? not too progressive but a right mess. Sub genres are tedious things

Album Rating: 4.5

@Omair so what would you say was the first band to ever start off prog by combining those various styles of music? I don't necessarily agree with it, but i definitely see where you're coming from, but i think i'm misunderstanding your point too. You don't need to change things up to be more prog, but i certainly don't think you're 'more prog' if you change your genre or add new influences

Album Rating: 4.5

People say that Sgt Pepper even was a precursor to the genre. Caravan's debut album had strong

elements as did Procol Harum's "Shine On Brightly", but the band that brought it mainstream awareness

was King Crimson with ITCOTCK.



"but i certainly don't think you're 'more prog' if you change your genre or add new influences"



I understand what you're saying, it's a bitch of a genre to define(defining genre's is bad enough

anyway), but that is kind of the spirit of prog music imo, along with all of the "trademark" elements

"Does progressive music necessarily mean a change in style though?"

For me that's one of the most important factors in "progressive" music. In order to be progressive in nature a band needs to move forward with their sound.

"I was always told that "progressive" just meant loads and loads of time signature changes"

I personally hate the idea that odd time signatures are what prog's all about, for me that's not what prog is about at all. I enjoy some Dream Theater as you know but I don't really think of their sound as being a good representation of prog, they're not progressive in the true sense of the word.

Progressive is such a loose term to describe something i think

Album Rating: 4.5

Spirit of prog, I can agree with, but it certainly doesn't make you a prog band.



@JT, so what's your idea of something that truly progressive?

Album Rating: 5.0

where the fuck are all the 5's?

Album Rating: 4.5

King. Motherfucking. Krimson. Genius, plain and simple

Album Rating: 4.5

Is a 4.5 not good enough or does that burn a hole in your opinion?



@em yeah, it's just one of those genres that's a bit different to everyone because it's so broad and difficult to describe, like trip hop or something

I think one of the most important factors of prog is the progression in the development of a band/artist's sound. A lot of bands these days (along with some of the less well known 70's prog bands too) seem to look at "prog rock" as a sound or style forgetting what it was really about which was innovation and forward thinking ideas, not just long songs and odd time signatures.

Album Rating: 4.5

In other words what JT is trying to say is King Crimson

So then "prog" revival bands really aren't progressive then?

This concept is making my head spin

Album Rating: 4.5

Emester drop some knowledge about Leprous on these biatches

Album Rating: 4.5

@JT, yeah I can agree with that for the most part. A lot of bands making progressive music way back then were very innovative for their time anyway. It's pretty difficult to get a new and fresh prog bands cos so many have turned into cover bands

Album Rating: 4.5

"So then "prog" revival bands really aren't progressive then?"



See I think it's a balance between those "Traditional" elements we're so familiar with, in addition to actually progressing your sound by infusing newer elements to the music. These revival bands fall into the using traditional elements category.

Leprous is great, dont get me wrong, but there is probably other bands that sound just like them just nowhere near as spectacular