lack of metal knowledge in some reviews

 /\  /\  /\

How did we went from discussing metal to Miles Davis?

I was going through ratingfreak and I found out something: Is Miles Davis on the Archives?

TheProgtologist wrote:   We get a lot of suggestions,and we add all of them to our voting chart.I don't take suggestions lightly,even if I think they are ridiculous,you should see our rejected section.

TheProgtologist wrote: CCVP wrote: HughesJB4 wrote: Your pretty much on the money there. Most early BG wasn't prog at all, mainly thrash/speed metal, but certainly there is no way I can listen to that Nighfall onwards and not think of it as power-prog metal. Sure BG aren't the most progressive band around, but their later work has easily enough prog elements in them to safely call BG a power-prog metal band.   Oh and Dragonforce aren't even close to prog, I roflmaoed when I found out someone suggested them for the Archives What? Dragonforce was suggested to the archives? Now what? Are they going to suggest Immortal, Stratovarius, Eminem, etc to the archives too?   We get a lot of suggestions,and we add all of them to our voting chart.I don't take suggestions lightly,even if I think they are ridiculous,you should see our rejected section.

Well, sorry! I don't know all the sub sections of the site yet so there is still some stuff i am not familiar with . . . .


Edited by CCVP - May 12 2008 at 16:35

CCVP wrote: What? Dragonforce was suggested to the archives? Now what? Are they going to suggest Immortal, Stratovarius, Eminem, etc to the archives too?

Pnoom! wrote: CCVP wrote: Pnoom! wrote: CCVP wrote: PS: here i said punk because they repeat themselves too much, like a punk band       Elitism is not cool, especially when it involves disaparaging as awesome a genre as punk. You misunderstood me. Allow me to explain why i said that. Punk rock came into being as the exact opposite of prog rock and, to do so, they rejected the idea of creating music with intricate playing, complex harmonies and many different musical themes. Because of that there were a saying here in Brazil that says: "if there is more than 3 different cords that is not punk" (or something like that). Because of that simplicity, the music usually repeated the same theme over and over again, but they were smarts and only let the songs get 3 minutes long maximum, so it would not get repetitive or boring. Sorry if i looked elitist, but that was not my intention. Maybe now you can understand what i really meant.     Alright, that's more sense.  I got thrown off by repeat themselves too much, like a punk band , which implied that punk bands repeat themselves too much.   Also, you should check out Refused, who were a punk band whose songs were often longer than 6 minutes.  The Shape of Punk to Come is my favorite punk album.

1st: no problem.

2nd: Well, i had never saw any punk band with songs bigger than 4 minutes, and that was like THE biggest song i saw. Most of the songs last from 30 seconds to 3 minutes, but there are the exceptions, like the band you mentioned.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ let me say it again: they were rejected a long time ago.

ok then

^ let me say it again: they were rejected a long time ago.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ you're preaching to the choir here ... I don't think that they're progressive, and I wouldn't add them to the archives. Malmsteen is worth a little bit more consideration though, particularly for is first album. He effectively combined metal and classical music, and that's one of the key aspects of prog. Still, that alone is not enough IMO - it might suffice for prog related though.

But you mean Malmsteen right? OK, Malmsteen on pro related i would have no such problem, but to add him on prog metal or add Dragonforce and Stratovarius on the archives (even on prog related) seems to me as trying to push an elephant through a needle.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ yes, technicality alone is not enough ... usually. There are different types of technicality, which makes the discussion more complicated. Also, many prog (metal) bands are very technical, so it is at least understandable why some people suggest the bands.

True, but i, personally, cant see any prog element on Dragonforce and Stratovarius, except technicality.

And Dragonforce seem even less prog, since it's like they recorded their musical exercises, just like Yngwie J. Malmsteen, just caring about shred their instruments on the hardest way possible. As a matter of fact, Dragonforce seems like, for me, a punk rock band, because their 8 minute songs consists on a theme being repeated over and over again (4 or 5 times) just with different lyrics. Just check any song of theirs such as this one here (http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=BplIrU1Sdtc&feature=related or http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=jdMIQ1jfJm0&feature=related) and see what i am talking about.
Their songs are a test of patience and if they were 3 or 4 minutes long they would be a lot more audible or less boring, like here (http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=0jgrCKhxE1s) they made the same song as above, but with half the length.

PS: here i said punk because they repeat themselves too much, like a punk band


Edited by CCVP - May 12 2008 at 12:11