Dave Grohl " I feel so bad for the Dream Theater guys"

[TheGreatPretender]

  I can't even continue this conversation.  Never mind.  Nevermind, of course, being an album that is in principle worse than anything Symphony X has ever done.

First of all, you're once again taking my words out of context. All I'm saying is that had Nevermind been a progressive grunge album, it would've been more interesting than what it was.

But since you want to go there, fine. While I haven't listened to Symphony X extensively, the few songs that I have heard from them, I'd take them over any Nirvana song. So yes, it applies.

[KevShmev]

Like, if Foo Fighters took their style and had more complex song structures, extended solos, longer songs, etc. They'd be more interesting than what they're playing now.
But you're right. It is about the music.

I'm not sure that is true.  Doing that kind of stuff is not what Foo Fighters do best.  Writing kick ass anthemic 4-5 minute rockers is what they do best, and there is no need for them to stray from that since they are going on close to 20 years on making a helluva career out of that.  Any band adding complex song structures, more solos, length, etc. is not automatically gonna make them better.

[TheGreatPretender]

I'm not sure that is true.  Doing that kind of stuff is not what Foo Fighters do best.  Writing kick ass anthemic 4-5 minute rockers is what they do best, and there is no need for them to stray from that since they are going on close to 20 years on making a helluva career out of that.  Any band adding complex song structures, more solos, length, etc. is not automatically gonna make them better.

Well, let's assume that they were actually good at that kind of stuff and could pull it off well. Again, this is hypothetical, I'm not saying, "If Foo Fighters became progressive I'd totally become a fan". I'm just saying, let's say Foo Fighters were more progressive right from the get-go, and they were actually good at it. I think their music would be more interesting to listen to than what it is now.

What do you mean by anthemic though? I mean, personally, I wouldn't call Foo Fighters that anthemic. Twisted Sister, that was anthemic. Nickelback (going back to that again) have a couple of songs I've heard that I'd call anthemic. Heck, even Nirvana's Smells Like Teen Spirit is anthemic. With Foo Fighters, from what I've heard (which I admit isn't too much), I wouldn't call them anthemic.

[KevShmev]

Then you should listen to them more, because they have a bunch of anthemic tunes.  Just watch that youtube clip I posted earlier; they somehow manage to make a bone-crushing hard rock song have a huge chorus that always gets the crowd singing along.  That is not easy to do.

As for the hypothetical, that is pointless, as it is basically another way for you to say, "Any band that is progressive and does this or that is gonna be better than bands that do not." 

Besides, and here we go diving into the meaning of progressive , being progressive does not always mean long songs, tons of solos, etc.  Radiohead and The Flaming Lips are easily two of the most experimental and PROGRESSIVE modern bands, but they almost never get called progressive, and why?  Because most people have been programmed to think that progressive music is how you are describing it, when it isn't. 

[TheGreatPretender]

Besides, and here we go diving into the meaning of progressive , being progressive does not always mean long songs, tons of solos, etc.  Radiohead and The Flaming Lips are easily two of the most experimental and PROGRESSIVE modern bands, but they almost never get called progressive, and why?  Because most people have been programmed to think that progressive music is how you are describing it, when it isn't.

Well, that's a different discussion entirely, because the definition of progressive music is different for different people, and I really don't believe that there's one solid unified definition that's the absolute right one.
So to say, "Because most people have been programmed to think that progressive music is how you are describing it, when it isn't. " is a little insulting to those people. Because if that's how some people define progressive music, it's not because they were programmed that way, it's just because that's how they define it, and they're not wrong. If you choose to define progressive as 'experimental' or as something new and unique, then you're not wrong either. But it's obvious that when I'm talking about progressive music, I mean my definition, and if you disagree, then give me a different word that I can use so I don't always have to specify, "Music that has time changes, riff and melody changes, extended instrumental sections that result in longer songs."

[Perpetual Change]

I still don't think what you guys are arguing about is even relevant. Why bother having four "rock" categories if you're just going to put the same bands in a bunch of them? As a prog fan, it'd be like me ranking 2011 as such:

Best Progressive Rock Performance
Dream Theater- A Dramatic Turn of Events
Neal Morse- Testimony II
Pain of Salvation- Road Salt II
Steven Wilson- Grace for Drowning
Yes- Fly From Here

Best Progressive Metal Performance
Arch/Mathoes- Sympathetic Resonance
Dream Theater- A Dramatic Turn of Events
Haken- Visions
Opeth- Heritage
Pain of Salvation- Road Salt II

Does that make sense? Or do they just like having an excuse to lay as many awards on the same artists as possible so that they can give certain albums they like a "second life"?

[Ruba]

Because Nickelback sucks.  And the Foo Fighters do not.

Subjective opinion. I disagree.

Neither of them sucks.

I don't really care about Foo Fighters. Sure they have some good songs, such as Monkey Wrench and The Pretender, but IMO Nickelback is better, even though When We Stand Together is horrible, but it's still slightly better than These Days ( ). I don't care about to become more familiar with FF, but I might listen to a Nickelback album sometime (not the latest!).

I haven't heard White Limo, but because Foo Fighters isn't metal the slightest, it's pretty stupid they won "The Best Metal Performance".

I prefer music that I think is better.  I determine that bands are better than other bands by listening to them and judging them, not by making sweeping judgments about them based on their genre.

Exactly.  Good music comes in all shapes and forms.

I'm more impressed by good song writing than long solo sections. In fact I generally prefer songs without long solo sections.

I cannot agree more.

[Nick]

Hell, I'd take You Not Me over Everlong.

Sponge-Bob Sweet'n'Sour Pants?

[Orbert]

I know he didn't mean to be condescending, but it comes out like that.  It's kind of like two people trying to get the same job.... the person who GETS the job goes out and says.... "I feel sooooo bad for you, you're really the better person for that job!" 

I guess I wasn't feeling that vibe at all.  He never said that DT deserved it more.  It didn't sound like a consolation to me, just a statement of fact.  He knows that, in all modesty, Foo Fighters are pretty damned hot right now, and he feels bad for other good music that has to go up against them.  That's all I got from it.  Dave really strikes me as a pretty down-to-earth guy.

[RuRoRul]

Whether Dream Theater or Foo Fighters are the better band is just someone's opinion, so it's not really about whether someone really doesn't like Foo Fighters and loves Dream Theater or picking apart the wording they used to say that. It's more just that it's pretty irrelevant to argue the problem with Foos getting the award and not DT is that DT is much better - unless the Grammys happen to choose your absolute favourite metal song of the year there's always going to be a superior song out there that's more deserving (in your opinion).

As well as the fact that the Foo Fighters won in the best Hard Rock / Metal performance when the other bands fit more in that genre, I think he said he felt bad for Dream Theater because he realises that a band like that doesn't really get nominated for a Grammy too often and winning would have been a bigger deal for them (not because the Grammys are such a big deal, just because recognition from them is pretty unlikely for Dream Theater) than it is for the Foos to add yet another Grammy to their collection.

[KevShmev]

Besides, and here we go diving into the meaning of progressive , being progressive does not always mean long songs, tons of solos, etc.  Radiohead and The Flaming Lips are easily two of the most experimental and PROGRESSIVE modern bands, but they almost never get called progressive, and why?  Because most people have been programmed to think that progressive music is how you are describing it, when it isn't.

Well, that's a different discussion entirely, because the definition of progressive music is different for different people, and I really don't believe that there's one solid unified definition that's the absolute right one.
So to say, "Because most people have been programmed to think that progressive music is how you are describing it, when it isn't. " is a little insulting to those people. Because if that's how some people define progressive music, it's not because they were programmed that way, it's just because that's how they define it, and they're not wrong. If you choose to define progressive as 'experimental' or as something new and unique, then you're not wrong either. But it's obvious that when I'm talking about progressive music, I mean my definition, and if you disagree, then give me a different word that I can use so I don't always have to specify, "Music that has time changes, riff and melody changes, extended instrumental sections that result in longer songs."

I usually refer to a lot of prog (short for progressive, but an easy to use word for bands frequently referred to as progressive rock or metal) as "symphonic rock."  For example, I accept calling Transatlantic prog, because that is what everyone calls them, and I don't want to get into a debate about the meaning all of the time, but they are more symphonic rock than actual progressive rock, unless taking the blueprint of what the original prog bands did back in the day and writing your own songs using that exact blueprint really is progressive in the most literal sense of the word.  Sure, they are prog in the sense of having complex time signatures, long solo sections and long songs, but that is more symphonic rock than anything, and since symphonic rock is always called prog, it is easy to just go along with it for the sake of simplicity.  But it sucks that actual progressive bands like Radiohead and The Flaming Lips almost never get any props from the prog community for being so, simply because they sound different than what they want or are used to out of the "normal" prog bands.  /end of rant

[rumborak]

To be honest I don't think they're too upset about it. Prog metal is a pretty moribund genre, I don't think they want to be associated with it.

And to cement the awesomeness of FF, I submit this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbpqZT_56Ns

That's seriously a perfect rock song.

rumborak

[RuRoRul]

To be honest I don't think they're too upset about it. Prog metal is a pretty moribund genre, I don't think they want to be associated with it.

And to cement the awesomeness of FF, I submit this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbpqZT_56Ns

That's seriously a perfect rock song.

rumborak

I don't really like Rope - one of my least favourites from the album. The only bit I really like is the bridge / solo. So yeah, that's not what I'd choose to make the case for the awesomeness of Foo Fighters 

[KevShmev]

I like Rope a lot, but my favorites from Wasting Light are probably Bridge Burning, These Days, Back & Forth and I Should Have Known.

[Dimitrius]

This thread brings the lulz!

[Ravenheart]

And yes, DT is Progressive Metal and not 'hard rock', but that pretty much makes it better by default.

Holy shit. 

Aaah, the little things in life.

[ClairvoyantCat]

"they actually had a metal performance. We didn't," while that may be true, I think the bigger issue isn't whether the song was hard rock or metal. It's that it was far superior to anything Foo Fighters ever did.

Dude, no offense to Dream Theater, but I enjoyed Wasting Light more than ADTOE, and ADTOE is one of my favorite DT albums.
Seriously, Foo Fighters fuck shit up.

No offense to Foo Fighters, but I'd rather listen to Adrenaline Mob. Which is not an insult, frankly, I enjoyed Omerta, but I don't think either of them can stack up to DT. And yes, DT is Progressive Metal and not 'hard rock', but that pretty much makes it better by default.

But heck, even as far as the Grammy nominees go, I'd take Megadeth over Foo Fighters, Thirteen was a sick album.

[Lolzeez]

And On the Backs of Angels is better than Everlong?  Just, no. 

Everlong wasn't even the song nominated. But yes, I'll take OTBOA over Everlong. Hell, I'd take You Not Me over Everlong. I think Foo Fighters are fairly bland.

AGREED.

[chrisbDTM]

Hell, I'd take You Not Me over Everlong

oh dear

[TheGreatPretender]

I usually refer to a lot of prog (short for progressive, but an easy to use word for bands frequently referred to as progressive rock or metal) as "symphonic rock."  For example, I accept calling Transatlantic prog, because that is what everyone calls them, and I don't want to get into a debate about the meaning all of the time, but they are more symphonic rock than actual progressive rock, unless taking the blueprint of what the original prog bands did back in the day and writing your own songs using that exact blueprint really is progressive in the most literal sense of the word.  Sure, they are prog in the sense of having complex time signatures, long solo sections and long songs, but that is more symphonic rock than anything, and since symphonic rock is always called prog, it is easy to just go along with it for the sake of simplicity.  But it sucks that actual progressive bands like Radiohead and The Flaming Lips almost never get any props from the prog community for being so, simply because they sound different than what they want or are used to out of the "normal" prog bands.  /end of rant

The thing is, I think that any given genre of music has its own sound. You can identify Thrash Metal by the way it's played. Same with Power Metal, etc. So, with Symphonic Metal it's the same thing. Take bands like Nightwish or Within Temptation or Epica for example. They all have some clearly identifiable elements that make them Symphonic Metal, one of those being actual classical instruments. And yes, recently, Dream Theater's been dabbling in symphonic elements, like on Octavarium, Systematic Chaos and ADTOE, but nevertheless, Symphonic Rock, or Symphonic Metal have their own sound. And even if you take between Symphonic bands, compare Within Temptation to Epica. With Epica I would say they're Symphonic Progressive Metal, because aside from their symphonic elements, they do have movement changes within their music, more true to a real symphony. But in that respect, one could say that classical music in itself is inherently progressive.
Whereas a Symphonic Rock/Metal band like Within Temptation write much simpler songs, and I would certainly not call them progressive. But they're still Symphonic.

That's just proof that music genres and subgenres are all in the grey area. My friend doesn't even consider Judas Priest and Iron Maiden to be Metal. (Though I think he's off his head.) So if a person perceives Progressive music as having time changes and movement changes, and long songs, etc. don't condemn them for it. Personally, for me, the term Progressive has nothing to do with how 'experimental' the band is. It just so happens that a lot of progressive bands are experimental, or were early in their career, like Dream Theater.

But here's a question, you're saying, it sucks that Radio head never gets any props from the prog community. Tell me, does Radiohead ever refer to themselves as progressive?

[KevShmev]

But here's a question, you're saying, it sucks that Radio head never gets any props from the prog community. Tell me, does Radiohead ever refer to themselves as progressive?

No, but it doesn't matter.  The early prog rock bands had no idea what progressive rock was; they were just doing creative, exciting and new things, just like Radiohead has been doing, and the labels for what they were doing, which are usually out of control of the artist anyway, didn't matter.  I remember when Neil Peart was once asked if Rush, at the time in the mid 70s, were aware that they were blending hard rock and even a bit of what was metal at the time with progressive rock, and he laughed and said, "No, we were never that self-aware."  The most progressive artists usually aren't.  They are usually more concerned with doing what they are doing, rather than trying to do what was already done so they can also be called that.  Knowing Radiohead, a band which eschews labels as best they can, they probably couldn't care less with what genre they fall under; they just want to do what they want to do, labels be damned.

[TheGreatPretender]

No, but it doesn't matter.  The early prog rock bands had no idea what progressive rock was; they were just doing creative, exciting and new things, just like Radiohead has been doing, and the labels for what they were doing, which are usually out of control of the artist anyway, didn't matter.  I remember when Neil Peart was once asked if Rush, at the time in the mid 70s, were aware that they were blending hard rock and even a bit of what was metal at the time with progressive rock, and he laughed and said, "No, we were never that self-aware."  The most progressive artists usually aren't.  They are usually more concerned with doing what they are doing, rather than trying to do what was already done so they can also be called that.  Knowing Radiohead, a band which eschews labels as best they can, they probably couldn't care less with what genre they fall under; they just want to do what they want to do, labels be damned.

Well, then who cares? I mean, personally, I'm just not into the Radiohead sound. What does it matter if I consider them progressive or not? If  they were labeled as progressive and I acknowledged them as such, it wouldn't make me like them any more just because of that label. There are plenty of experimental bands out there, and if you were to call all of them Progressive, then Progressive wouldn't be a genre, it would be some other form of super classification, since a genre should have certain audio elements. In which case what would Dream Theater's genre be called? But Progressive has become what people call the genre of music that involves, at the most basic level, many complex time changes. I'd sooner take bands like Radiohead and call them, "Experimental Rock" or "Experimental Metal" or whatever subgenre may apply to any given band, and save the "Progressive" term for the time changes, extended solos, etc.
Either way, like I said, different people will label bands differently, especially when a band doesn't define its own genre. And Progressive probably having the most variety in how people choose to define it.

[countoftuscany42]

People tend to forget, the difference is that radiohead sucks..

[Zantera]

And yes, DT is Progressive Metal and not 'hard rock', but that pretty much makes it better by default.

Holy shit. 

Aaah, the little things in life.

I remember when I used to be a progsnob. Oh the ol' days.

[SystematicThought]

But structurally speaking, Progressive Rock/Metal is automatically more interesting than non-Prog Rock/Metal.

You say it like it's a fact. For the most part in my opinion, there are more dull progressive rock/metal bands than the regular hard rock bands

[TheGreatPretender]

I remember when I used to be a progsnob. Oh the ol' days.

Don't be callin' me no prog snob. In my initial statement I said, "Dream Theater is Progressive Metal" and frankly, why does everyone suddenly focus on the Prog part and not the Metal part? The fact that Dream Theater plays Metal is a huge part of the reason why I think it's automatically better than Hard Rock.

Most modern hard rock isn't very good and that includes Foo Fighters. In fact, I have yet to hear a modern Hard Rock band that I would say is REALLY good. There are a few that might sound really good when you first hear them, but then all their songs end up sounding the same, so they don't have to offer much more than their breakthrough single. (In this instance I'm referring to bands like Theory Of A Deadman.) Then there are others like Weezer, that, while they might have greater variety, they just don't have that soul. And don't get me started on the godawful modern Punk Rock like Greenday.

So yeah, modern hard rock kinda sucks. In fact, for the most part (there are probably some exceptions) I would say that since Metal became popular in the 80's and 90's, there hasn't been a really good new Hard Rock band. At least none that I could think of. Whereas, there's quite a few modern Metal bands that I think have done or are doing some really interesting things. Great melodies, powerful riffs, amazing vocals, etc.

My initial statement would've also been true (to me, obviously) if I had said "Megadeth is Thrash Metal not hard rock, but that pretty much makes it better by default."

[slycordinator]

I DO think that DT deserved that award, but the thing is, The Foo Fighters song wasn't even metal.

The song didn't need to be metal to win. The slash in Hard Rock/Metal represents the word "or." So to be in the category a song would need to be either hard rock or metal (or both).

Look back at 1989 for the "Best Hard Rock/Metal Performance Vocal or Instrumental" category. Jethro Tull won despite not being metal. Although I liked the band's jokey response, taking out a magazine advertisement saying "The flute is a heavy, metal instrument!" 

[Perpetual Change]

I get that, but what's the rationale behind putting the same bands in different categories. If you already have a band under "Best Rock Performance", why would you put them under "Best Hard Rock/Metal Performance" too? There's no point in distinguishing between different styles if you're just going to fill the different categories with mostly the same music.

[Adami]

I get that, but what's the rationale behind putting the same bands in different categories. If you already have a band under "Best Rock Performance", why would you put them under "Best Hard Rock/Metal Performance" too? There's no point in distinguishing between different styles if you're just going to fill the different categories with mostly the same music.

I agree. Having a Best Rock, and then Best Hard Rock categories seems pointless. Just put all of the hard rock people under Rock.

[Super Dude]

I'm really surprised there are so many Foo Fighters fans here. They're not that good.

Except that they are.  They don't do anything crazy or innovative; they just crank out some good old-fashioned hard rock.  And they bring it live like very few do. 

My thoughts exactly. I don't expect them to be experimental or to push the envelope because they're good at what they do, they have a niche and a great one at that. I also find it somewhat funny that you happen to be named The Great Pretender. Or maybe I'm just seeing coincidences that aren't there.

[TheGreatPretender]

My thoughts exactly. I don't expect them to be experimental or to push the envelope because they're good at what they do, they have a niche and a great one at that. I also find it somewhat funny that you happen to be named The Great Pretender. Or maybe I'm just seeing coincidences that aren't there.

They won 4 Grammies. I'd say it's a hell of a lot more than a niche, and as far as I'm concerned, 4 more Grammys than they deserve.

The Great Pretender was an old song by The Platters that Freddie Mercury reinterpreted. What coincidences do you see?

[Super Dude]

Oh, there's a Foo song called The Pretender.

[TheGreatPretender]

Oh, there's a Foo song called The Pretender.

Nope, it's got nothing to do with that. 

[SystematicThought]

The Great Pretender was an old song by The Platters that Freddie Mercury reinterpreted.

Hmm, I always thought your name was The Great Pretender because you liked The Great Debate and JLB's Pretender, so you decided to combine them.

[TheGreatPretender]

Haha, nope. Actually, The Great Debate is one of my least favorite DT songs.