The Viking Metal Sub-genre Discussion

The same idea could be used to solve our "symphonic" problem in my opinion although there is one problem we'd have to overcome. If we had an "extreme symphonic metal" subgenre it'd solve the issue of extreme metal releases residing within The Guardians. The only question would be what clan would you associate an extreme symphonic metal subgenre with. We've already got a symphonic black metal one too.

I personally don't think the Extreme thing solves much. One man's (or woman's) extreme is another's soft. It's pretty subjective, and isn't representative of any particular sound.

That's just my opinion though.

A question that has always bothered me is at what point does an extreme metal release become progressive and what exactly does progressive mean when related to extreme metal. Enslaved, for example, have always written more complex music than a large number of their peers, but I think you would be hard pressed to tag albums like Vikingligr Veldi and Eld as progressive even though, for black metal released at the time, some of the tracks were definitely more convoluted than the norm. So at what point did they become progressive (because latter day releases are) and what would be the criteria and definition of the genre? Personally I think progressive when applied to extreme metal is an over-used descriptor - yes it definitely exists, but in genres like black metal that have evolved so much over the years some bands are producing complex and challenging albums that are way more progressive in a literal sense than some of those actually tagged as progressive - compare Orannsi Pazuzu's current output to the aforementioned Enslaved's and see who is breaking more ground, for example. Incidentally, OP are being tagged as avant-garde, but I don't agree with that tag at all. Avant-garde is a tag that is absolutely overused in metal circles.

Good question Sonny. I think the true meaning of the term "progressive" has been lost on a large portion of the metal scene for a good while now. There seems to be a common misconception that "progressive" equals "technical". Although a large percentage of progressive rock/metal tends to be pretty complex, technicality isn't an essential component of progressive music. Progressive music is about exploring more forward-thinking concepts than traditional music, whether that be through the production, atmosphere, song structure, lyrical themes, artwork, influences, musicianship, track lengths or anything else associated with the art in question. Pink Floyd is a great example of this because very few people will claim them to be overly technical or complex yet they're universally claimed as a progressive rock band & rightly so. Progressive electronic & progressive house producers don't often get referred to as technical either. Their craft is similar to that of progressive rock/metal artists in that it's about creating a more cerebral & often spacey experience for the listener to escape from their every-day life for a while. Coroner is a good example of the two ends of the spectrum as their first three albums are certainly very technical but I've never thought they were particularly progressive. Their 90's material saw them finally branching over into a more progressive atmosphere where I'm comfortable with the tag. Similarly, artists like Anathema & Devin Townsend can have some of their material referred to as progressive while much more technically complex bands like Suffocation, Nocturnus or Spawn Of Possession are better suited by the "technical" label.

So to answer your question, a release becomes progressive when it starts reaching beyond the everyday as far as atmosphere & artistic expression go, not merely structural complexity. It's about reaching for the stars in a literal sense as well as a figurative one. Technicality is a great tool for this which is why it's often used in progressive music but it's not essential & there's more required from an artist in order to be regarded as genuinely progressive.

So to answer your question, a release becomes progressive when it starts reaching beyond the everyday as far as atmosphere & artistic expression go, not merely structural complexity. It's about reaching for the stars in a literal sense as well as a figurative one. Technicality is a great tool for this which is why it's often used in progressive music but it's not essential & there's more required from an artist in order to be regarded as genuinely progressive.

I completely get what you are saying Daniel and I agree with it. Where I struggle with the progressive tag is at what  point does a style of music cease to be progressive. For example, everyone agrees that Dream Theater are a progressive metal act (even me and I don't care for them), but are the hundreds of DT copyists who may be technically proficient enough, still progressive? Or is it a case of progressive metal as merely a covenient label and the actual progressiveness of the work irrelevant? Is an act still progressive if they are basically plagiarising what has gone before, because in a literal sense they are not. If the term is merely a label then it is, in a number of cases, misleading.

I think the practice of taking genre tags literally is thwart with danger Sonny. I mean when was the last time that you found a heavy metal release to be particularly.... well... heavy? Death metal bands wouldn't have a long lifetime ahead of them if their genre name was literal either while the whole post-metal thing would seem to rely on the entire metal genre having completely ceased to exist before it could logically become a thing. I certainly understand what you're saying though & I agree to an extent but I do think that we need to remember what genre tags are really there for & that's to provide a point of reference for the audience. It's open for debate as to whether two bands can sound identical but still be considered to be genuinely "progressive" but labelling a band as a progressive metal artist leads people to develop a clear expectation in the same as any other tag & I don't think that's unreasonable. In my eyes progressive metal doesn't necessarily need to be breaking new ground to be deserving of its label but it does need to take a more expansive & often quite cerebral approach to composition & should also possess accomplished performances, complex song structures, clean & precise production qualities & the ability to build an atmosphere that takes the listener to places that are in direct contrast to their everyday lives.

I personally don't think the Extreme thing solves much. One man's (or woman's) extreme is another's soft. It's pretty subjective, and isn't representative of any particular sound.

That's just my opinion though.

I think it serves its purpose very well Ben. Fans of progressive metal tend to fall into two categories in my experience i.e. those that can tolerate extreme metal & those that can't. Often the fans of the extreme metal variety can't stand the clean stuff either so it makes sense to provide our audience with a way to easily filter out the releases that don't fit their particular taste profile. Also, there are definitely releases that don't fit into any of our traditional brackets & are genuinely built around a core of progressive music as their fundamental building blocks. I don't think it's wrong to bracket those releases together because their fan base generally crosses over. I don't think the meaning of the term "extreme metal" is all that subjective either. It's a commonly used & understood term these days.

I guess it should come as no surprise that another genre discussion has resulted in very little clarity around a best way forward, if indeed there is one. I just want to say that I respect everyone's opinions before I continue, so please don't read any of my comments as combative.

The big issue I have with all of this is the contrasting ways that we're expected to deal with different genres. With Thrash Metal, it's easy. Is the band playing using Thrash Metal techniques (in other words, are they playing Thrash Metal)? Yes? Then it's a Thrash Metal release. The same can be said for the vast majority of metal genres.

For some reason we're expected to treat Progressive Metal in a completely different way. We're not asking whether the band is playing any particular style of metal. We're now asking whether it "takes a more expansive & often quite cerebral approach to composition & possesses accomplished performances, complex song structures, clean & precise production qualities & the ability to build an atmosphere that takes the listener to places that are in direct contrast to their everyday lives". This seems HUGELY subjective to me. The bands could be playing absolutely any style of metal and fit the above description, or they could sound extremely similar to Dream Theater but not meet several of the criteria.

I still think Progressive Metal is flawed as an idea in general. I still stand by the opinion that there should be a genre that covers all the Dream Theater-ish bands, which ideally would not be called Progressive Metal. Almost everything else that gets lumped into Progressive Metal has (or can easily have) a logical place for it to go that doesn't require a this highly misused catch-all.

So in conclusion, Viking Metal is a real thing. 

You know what... I'd completely forgotten that we were talking about Viking Metal! 

The conclusion of that discussion then seems to be:

1. Viking Metal is indeed a thing...

2. ...although it is quite a niche thing.

3. It is an often misused thing.

4. We need to utilise The Hall to correct the mis-labellings

Have I got that right?

Absolutely correct!