Metallica ? - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Ugh, seems my previous post got stuck hanging between Atavachron's balls.

^ and thank goodness

^

shock & paw ?

The dreaded inclusion has come and gone and now Metallica are here to stay. IMHO not a good move by PA but then I am only one of the silent majority.... Unhappy

"Music is the Wine that fills the cup of Silence"
- Robert Fripp

Edit: Guess I don't need what was written in this post anymore Smile

Edited by HughesJB4 - October 24 2008 at 02:57

Darken Rahl wrote:

Let us see: Metallica=Thrash metal

They played thrash metal - but then Genesis played pop music.

Both bands also played Prog - Genesis played Prog Rock and Metallica played Prog Metal, using the trhash technique.

Not every Metallica song uses the thrash technique, and it is not used exclusively in every Metallica song, ergo Metallica were never *just* a thrash band as, for example, Venom were.

Consider that Dream Theater use the exact same thrash technique (and basic compositional structures, not to mention actual riffs occasionally) as Metallica, and you're essentially saying that Dream Theater are thrash metal too.

Which is an interesting point to make - but I'm sure that you may be corrected on this.

Darken Rahl wrote:

Not really proggy in any sense.

Why?

This sentence doesn't make it at all clear.

Darken Rahl wrote:

Being a band that inspires doesnt make you prog, neither does being "prog for your time" when your time has virtually no prog and the first thing innovative to come along automatically becomes "prog for it's time"... I may not have "posting experience" how that is relevant beyond me, but i have a history for listening to prog and actively reading the reviews for bands on this site.

In that case, you ought to know that there was plenty of Prog at that time - Marillion, Twelfth Night, IQ, Pallas, Shub Niggurath, Holgar Czukay, Ozric Tentacles, The Enid - and updated old school, such as King Crimson, Genesis, Yes, Hawkwind, Gong, Pink Floyd, etc - how can you say there was virtually no Prog when all those bands were actively creating music?

You're also making assumptions that those are the reasons for adding Metallica, when there is another thread containing detailled reasons, stretching to 35-odd pages that you should check before leaping in with this misplaced conclusion.

Also check my recent reviews of Metallica albums - there is REAL PROG on the first 4 albums (also, arguably, on the most recent), and not simply from a historical sense, but Prog in a fundamental and observable way, sharing compositional practices of the Classic Prog bands.

Darken Rahl wrote:

(In a perfect world) All the bands on here have one thing in common, they musically have progressive elements, they aren't ALL inspirational, they aren't ALL prog for their time because it is all relative. A-list prog metal bands like Dream Theater got their progressive side from bands like RUSH and PINK FLOYD, not METALLICA. Metallica inspired DT's approach to their metal elements, not their prog elements. That is because there was nothing progressive to draw from Metallica.

That last sentence is what destroys your argument - DT didn't only steal riffs from Metallica and draw on their metal surface sound, but the fundamental composition techniques too - this is clearly evident on DT's early albums, which draw far more from Metallica and Maiden than Rush or Pink Floyd.

If you think there was nothing progressive to draw from Metallica, you NEED to go back and re-listen - and this time HEAR what they did.

Edited by Certif1ed - October 23 2008 at 02:48

The important thing is not to stop questioning.

Darken Rahl wrote:

The arrogance of these "omni-wise" collaborators just shocks me... Opinions from people who do nothing but rate metal albums low because they are metal *coughcertifiedcough* And apparently it is now offensive to call a band "obscenely retarded" because i might hurt the bands feelings... aw, how mean of me. Metallica IS NOT PROG, having influence DOES NOT make you prog. If having influence makes you prog, then prog is nothing but a popularity contest.

For all of you who dont fully understand clear english: Influence is based on whether people like your music or not.

I agree somewhat with Darken here, not wholesomely, but for the most part. I suppose I here some very VERY slight hint of prog (just listened to Master of Puppets, good album really). I even heard some odd meter stuff to my surprise! Smile

But overall I don't think it's enough to be prog related. When you already have Iron Maiden here being considered prog related, then Metallica is added, wouldn't that practically make Iron Maiden all out prog metal? (Not really, of course, but in perspective...).

I mainly completely agree with the notion that just because a band is influential, doesn't mean they're prog or have anything to do with prog. Many great prog bands site Slipknot as an influence. OMG, THAT MUST MAKE SLIPKNOT PROG!!! why should Metallica really be considered any different? Mind you, I'm not comparing the two bands, that would just be plain bashing Metallica. But my point still stands. Just because a MAJOR prog band is INFLUENCED by a band, does NOT mean that band has ANYTHING to do with PROG. Point made. Tongue

Edited by Draith - October 23 2008 at 04:06

Darken Rahl wrote:

The arrogance of these "omni-wise" collaborators just shocks me... Opinions from people who do nothing but rate metal albums low because they are metal *coughcertifiedcough* And apparently it is now offensive to call a band "obscenely retarded" because i might hurt the bands feelings... aw, how mean of me. Metallica IS NOT PROG, having influence DOES NOT make you prog. If having influence makes you prog, then prog is nothing but a popularity contest.

For all of you who dont fully understand clear english: Influence is based on whether people like your music or not.

you did not call Metallica "obscenely retarded", but the addition of Metallica - therefore the offence was not directed at the band, but at the people who made the addition. That may not have been your intent - but it is the only interpretation of your post.

Metallica are in Prog RELATED - another piece of clear English that says Metallica are RELATED to Prog because of their INFLUENCE on Progressive Metal - that does not obviously follow that Metallica ARE Prog - however, some of our members do hold that view for their first three albums and they are entitled to that opinion.

What?

MikeEnRegalia wrote:

"They were a prog metal band" ... I still don't agree with this at all. I'd love to get my hands on an old issue of Rock Hard or one of the other rock/metal magazines and check how their albums were described when they came out in the 80s ...

that's reasonable Mike, but the term 'progmetal' was just beginning to be used during that period (at least in the Bay Area scene) mostly by a handful of musicians-- 'Progmetal' didn't fully exist in name, maybe progressive metal [Maiden, Voivod, Angelwitch] but not Progmetal .. so you're correct, they were predominantly not considered progmetal, but nor had it arrived as an established style yet.. anyway, these arguments are old territory and I don't want to beat a dead horse Smile

Poll Question: how do you fel about Metallica being added ?
Poll Choice	Votes	Poll Statistics
Metallica are a great inclusion to this site	42	[28.77%]
Metallica are a soso inclusion to this site	29	[19.86%]
Metallica are a bad inclusion (what were they thinking)	75	[51.37%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted