Talk:Progressive metal

message: 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)
thread_title: Alright Then,

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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.  plattopustalk 00:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: 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.  plattopustalk 11:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tool, again, and Silent Lucidity 

message: 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</small> 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)
thread_title:  The Mars Volta? 

message: 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.  plattopustalk 02:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Rhapsody 

message: 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)
thread_title: Opeth

message: 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)
thread_title: The Black Mages

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Listen to me

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title:  'METAL' 

message: 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)
replies: text: They were grindcore, now they are metalcore. see LoG article for sources.--  LYKANTROP  ✉  09:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lamb of God 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Progulus 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: "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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Dropped D reference 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nightwish is not Prog metal and a new band 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Coroner's influence on modern Progressive metal, 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  but there is people who is constantly deleting influential artists. -- Dexter prog 19:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  DELETING A BAND 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Hardcore/jazz fusion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Ok, now decide what bands can stay there, and remove those who are not influential. --Λeternus 23:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Queen is not influencial nor progressive metal --Dexter prog 02:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: Ok, but what do you suggest for this lists? --Dexter prog 17:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Sounds fine to me. --Dexter prog 19:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Sounds like a plan. --E tac 20:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. --Dexter prog 21:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Influential and important artists

message: 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)
thread_title:  Progarchives 

message: 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)
thread_title:  progolous radio????????????? It is Progarchives!! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Falsetto. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Metallica 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Without being sourced 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tech metal =/= Prog metal 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Avant-garde difference section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Metal fusion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Iron Maiden As An Influence 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: History

message: 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)
thread_title:  Queen 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Thirty Seconds to Mars? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Prog Metal Definition 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Porcupine Tree 

message: 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: 
From Mudvayne: 
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)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Progressive metal]] 

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

text: Periphery is not prog metal. They are metalcore with prog metal elements. Heavybrightlight (talk) 05:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You should bring in a source for that, I've never seen anyone call them that.--MASHAUNIX 12:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Periphery 

message: 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)
replies: text: Are they notable enough to merit their own article on Wikipedia? --Λeternus (talk) 09:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Angel Vivaldi 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Progressive metal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Djent in the opening paragraph