non prog metal vote
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Polls
Forum Description: Create polls on topics related to progressive music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4206
Printed Date: November 29 2024 at 20:48 Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: non prog metal vote
Posted By: PROGMAN
Subject: non prog metal vote
Date Posted: March 10 2005 at 05:05
JUST WANT TO KNOW YOUR FAV. GROUPS THATS ALL. THANKS FOR VOTING!!!
|
Replies:
Posted By: Joren
Date Posted: March 10 2005 at 05:23
I voted for Judas Priest. But Iron Maiden are very close. I only like Judas Priest's early records. If you asked me again tomorrow, maybe I would vote for Iron Maiden.
(By the way: AC/DC, Twisted Sister and Guns N' Roses are NOT heavy metal; they're rock 'n' roll bands)
|
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: March 10 2005 at 05:24
Quite like Metallica and Whitesnake (pre shaggy perm/cock rock/Adrian Vandenberg era!!)
I used to go for the likes of Saxon and Iron Maiden when I was very young, but I cant listen to it now, it just sounds crap and embarassing.
Motorhead are my fave metal band, although you could argue they are really a 'rock 'n' roll' band.
Venom are hillarious. Their drummer Abaddon is worse than Simon King of Hawkwind. He is the worst drummer I have ever heard in my life. At war with Satan was arguably quite prog though
------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
|
Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: March 10 2005 at 05:28
Posted By: Emperor
Date Posted: March 10 2005 at 06:15
None of them...
------------- I Prophesy Disaster...
|
Posted By: AngelRat
Date Posted: March 10 2005 at 06:17
Iron Maiden. I grew up on their music. I still like it. Most of it.
-------------
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: March 10 2005 at 06:52
No Motorhead or Black Sabbath?
I guess it doesn't matter, because Metallica are/were the ultimate Heavy Metal band. Before them, Motorhead and Sabbath moulded the genre. Metallica kicked the genre's ass.
|
Posted By: Reed Lover
Date Posted: March 10 2005 at 07:04
Certif1ed wrote:
No Motorhead or Black Sabbath?
I guess it doesn't matter, because Metallica are/were the ultimate Heavy Metal band. Before them, Motorhead and Sabbath moulded the genre. Metallica kicked the genre's ass.
|
...in your very humble opinion......... I think,Metal said all it had to say by 1980.After that it was all about degrees of loudness and crassness! (IMVHO)
Sabbath (Ozzy era and Dio era),Thin Lizzy,,UFO,Rainbow (Dio era),Scorpions (first 5 or 6 albums were very good) early Van Halen could all be very heavy but tuneful with it.Motorhead (in my experience) where, and should have remained, unique and enjoyable for that fact.Lemmy's vocals were at odds with the bands above and seem to have spawned all these "barking" metal vocalists that are so prevalent now.If I was 10 years younger I would have probably got into Maiden, and later,Metallica but they always seemed empty,hackneyed and soulless to me.
-------------
|
Posted By: Wrath_of_Ninian
Date Posted: March 10 2005 at 07:12
Maiden ARE prog. Steve Harris is a massive prog fan, whilst the opening track on Bruce Dickenson's last solo album is called "The King In Crimson". Harris always said he wanted a prog band, but was constrained by the punk attitudes in London in 1977. Maiden is punk-prog!
Really, I dont understand where prog metal stops and heavy metal begins. Maiden p**ses on most of the prog metal staples of this website....
I would never make the case that Maiden should be IN Progarchives (though I'm sure Harris would be flattered), but I would certainly drop some of the bands who wrap themselves in the progmetal-banner hoping that no-one will find them out. No names being mentioned....of course.
------------- "Now all the seasons run together, and the middle days are gone..."
|
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: March 10 2005 at 07:21
Iron Maiden were pretty good musicians, and for a while were probably at the top of the metal dung heap. Their albums Killers and Number of the Beast, were as good as they got IMO. After drummer Clive Burr left and Nicko McBrain joined their souned changed, and not just their drum sound! The guitar solos became 'whingy' sounding, Dave Murrays lead guitar sound became very weak. Bruce Dickinson was putting too much vibrato on his voice. They tried to be as clever and conceptual as their prog idols, and failed because at the end of the day, they were just 'heavy metal' and were therefore constrained within the creative walls of power chords and spandex pants. Long songs, the occasional synth guitar, odd time signature, and reference to an opium smoking poet does not a great band make...
Metallica were able to make better 'progessive' metal because they didn't carry the baggage of cliche that Maiden did.
In MY very humble opinion..
------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
|
Posted By: Rob The Plant
Date Posted: March 10 2005 at 10:00
Wow the only metal band I sort of like is metallica, and other than and justice for all I cant stand thier material. So i voted for none.
------------- Collaborators will take your soul.
|
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: March 10 2005 at 10:08
I voted none of them . This is because I am not much of metal fan (especially with NWOBHMB) but it's a toss between Whitesnake (more bluesih) , Maiden (DiAnno was a superb but crazed vocalist), but no Sabbath or Heep?!?
------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword
|
Posted By: Mategra
Date Posted: March 10 2005 at 10:30
Metal, no thanks!
|
Posted By: Jethro Fish
Date Posted: March 10 2005 at 10:35
I'm afraid I had to go with the "None of them"-option. My favorites are: Deep Purple, Black Sabbath and Dio-era Rainbow (maybe a bit more hard rock instead of metal apart from Sabbath).
I do like Iron Maiden and early Whitesnake ("Ready n' willin'" etc.)
------------- All the best,
Per
www.salvaband.com
New cd: Salva "Left to burn", out now
Available through:
www.caerllysimusic.co.uk
www.progressrec.com
www.justforkicks.de
www.salvaband.com
|
Posted By: Eemu Ranta
Date Posted: March 10 2005 at 10:51
"None of them"
The early genre-creating 70's pioneers just don't satisfy me the
way some newer phenomenons like "death metal" do. Or Opeth, which is
just music that happends sometimes to be metal. Other favourites would
be At the Gates, Carcass, Katatonia...
|
Posted By: Joren
Date Posted: March 10 2005 at 10:56
Sean Trane wrote:
I voted none of them . This is because I am not much of metal fan (especially with NWOBHMB) but it's a toss between Whitesnake (more bluesih) , Maiden (DiAnno was a superb but crazed vocalist), but no Sabbath or Heep?!? |
Nice to hear that you liked DiAnno's singing. Sometimes I'm feeling kinda sorry that he left the band, because sometimes Dickinson's screaming really tires me...
But there's not beating Rob Halford, of course!
|
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: March 10 2005 at 10:59
Joren wrote:
Sean Trane wrote:
I voted none of them . This is because I am not much of metal fan (especially with NWOBHMB) but it's a toss between Whitesnake (more bluesih) , Maiden (DiAnno was a superb but crazed vocalist), but no Sabbath or Heep?!? |
Nice to hear that you liked DiAnno's singing. Sometimes I'm feeling kinda sorry that he left the band, because sometimes Dickinson's screaming really tires me...
But there's not beating Rob Halford, of course!
|
Sad Wings , DiAnno, ya got good metallic taste, young lad!!
------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword
|
Posted By: Joren
Date Posted: March 10 2005 at 11:08
Sean Trane wrote:
Joren wrote:
Sean Trane wrote:
I voted none of them . This is because I am not much of metal fan (especially with NWOBHMB) but it's a toss between Whitesnake (more bluesih) , Maiden (DiAnno was a superb but crazed vocalist), but no Sabbath or Heep?!? |
Nice to hear that you liked DiAnno's singing. Sometimes I'm feeling kinda sorry that he left the band, because sometimes Dickinson's screaming really tires me...
But there's not beating Rob Halford, of course!
|
Sad Wings , DiAnno, ya got good metallic taste, young lad!!
|
Thanks
Before I turned into a proghead, I was a real metalhead... so I know a lot of bands, and I always preferred the early albums of the well-known metal bands. They are the most original. Sadly, many metal bands started playing the same (sometimes commercial) sh*t over and over again after a few albums (Judas Priest - Turbo, Ram It Down, etc. Iron Maiden - No Prayer For The Dying, Fear Of The Dark... Only a few good tracks on those albums...).
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: March 10 2005 at 11:29
Reed Lover wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
No Motorhead or Black Sabbath?
I guess it doesn't matter, because Metallica are/were the ultimate Heavy Metal band. Before them, Motorhead and Sabbath moulded the genre. Metallica kicked the genre's ass.
|
...in your very humble opinion......... I think,Metal said all it had to say by 1980.After that it was all about degrees of loudness and crassness! (IMVHO)
I couldn't disagree more - as a single example, Number of the Beast (1982) was fantastically melodic and very polished.
Kill 'Em All (1983) was very rough, production-wise, but blew old-school metal into the dark ages - it's an incredible album full of fresh, new energy, and I cannot think of an album before it with that kind of buzz (except, maybe Metal Church's debut). Metal Militia and Whiplash are stunning examples of what the band had done to revitalise metal.
Ride the Lightning (1984) added melody and a slick production to Metallica's energy - which intensified in places (Fight Fire with Fire, Trapped Under Ice), whilst being reigned back in others (Fade to Black, For Whom the Bell Tolls).
Master of Puppets (1986) really showed the world a trick or two - this is where prog metal began, IMNSHO. Battery is a devastating assault on the ears, whilst maintaining a powerful integrity. The title track is practically prog rock, with the numerous time-changes and mega-riffathon worthy of Rush, I would suggest. Then there's Sanitarium, plagirised by nearly every so-called prog metal band on the planet, it seems; Orion, showcasing their melodic sensibilities, and Damage Inc., proving that they were still masters of thrash.
...And Justice for All IS the 1st prog metal album. 'nuff said. It's awesome.
Metallica (the Black album) is toned down, but with that massive production that sparked the whole nu-metal thing, and revolutionised metal for the 1990s.
Metallica were the pioneers - the trailblazers of new (not "nu") metal - but they had plenty of challengers;
Slayer, despite the dreadful production on their 1st two albums, kept the faith and produced the ultimate thrash album that has remained a benchmark ever since; Reign in Blood is the ultimate in breakneck speed, brutal riffs, screaming vocals and dive-bombing guitars. South of Heaven was much heavier, thanks to even better production, and is a classic in its own right - out-Sabbathing Sabbath, but remains in the shadow of Reign in Blood.
Other bands that shouldn't be overlooked include the infamous Napalm Death, who took speed metal to its natural conclusion - everything since has just been gravy really. Also worth a mention as pioneers of the darker genre are Helloween, for their early "Maiden on speed" sound, Death, for the notorious and now omnipresent death grunts, Celtic Frost for their daring experimentation, Megadeth, Voivod and Kreator.
All these bands experimented and took their music to new levels - this was a time when creating new music was a good thing again; it was almost like being back in the 1970s to hear all this new stuff being created.
Sabbath (Ozzy era and Dio era),Thin Lizzy,,UFO,Rainbow (Dio era),Scorpions (first 5 or 6 albums were very good) early Van Halen could all be very heavy but tuneful with it.Motorhead (in my experience) where, and should have remained, unique and enjoyable for that fact.Lemmy's vocals were at odds with the bands above and seem to have spawned all these "barking" metal vocalists that are so prevalent now.If I was 10 years younger I would have probably got into Maiden, and later,Metallica but they always seemed empty,hackneyed and soulless to me.
I really don't understand that - Metallica's first 3 albums are crammed full of the passion and hunger that up and coming bands should show - and then some. From the opening of Kill 'Em All - the heavy guitars being gradually faded UP in the mix, through the sheer exuberance of The Four Horsemen, the gleeful power-riffing of Seek and Destroy and the insanity of Whiplash - this is an album full of a new kind of spirit, but based in the rifferama of Black Sabbath (almost constant use of tritones) and Motorhead. Hetfield's voice is atypical of the speed/thrash genre too - it's almost a tuneful "bark"!
Frankly, after Metallica entered the scene, I felt that the old school rock bands (Rainbow, UFO, Lizzy, etc.) all sounded a bit tired, lame and thin. Fortunately I got over that, and can enjoy all these bands - and some of the newer crowd, like Cradle of Filth, Killswitch Engage, System of a Down and Bathory. I still don't like Dream Theater though
Same goes for Slayer, although some of the other bands early material sounded a bit nervous, despite the heavy pretensions. Sacred Reich are another good band of the time - they always sounded like they enjoyed what they did. |
|
Posted By: Cancion del sur
Date Posted: March 10 2005 at 11:43
Posted By: Reed Lover
Date Posted: March 10 2005 at 11:48
Certif1ed wrote:
Reed Lover wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
No Motorhead or Black Sabbath?
I guess it doesn't matter, because Metallica are/were the ultimate Heavy Metal band. Before them, Motorhead and Sabbath moulded the genre. Metallica kicked the genre's ass.
|
...in your very humble opinion......... I think,Metal said all it had to say by 1980.After that it was all about degrees of loudness and crassness! (IMVHO)
I couldn't disagree more - as a single example, Number of the Beast (1982) was fantastically melodic and very polished.
Your opinion Cert! Fantastically melodic???? Iron maiden are extremely melodic?
Kill 'Em All (1983) was very rough, production-wise, but blew old-school metal into the dark ages - it's an incredible album full of fresh, new energy, and I cannot think of an album before it with that kind of buzz (except, maybe Metal Church's debut). Metal Militia and Whiplash are stunning examples of what the band had done to revitalise metal.
Your opinion....
Ride the Lightning (1984) added melody and a slick production to Metallica's energy - which intensified in places (Fight Fire with Fire, Trapped Under Ice), whilst being reigned back in others (Fade to Black, For Whom the Bell Tolls).Opinion
Master of Puppets (1986) really showed the world a trick or two - this is where prog metal began, IMNSHO. Battery is a devastating assault on the ears, whilst maintaining a powerful integrity. The title track is practically prog rock, with the numerous time-changes and mega-riffathon worthy of Rush, I would suggest. Then there's Sanitarium, plagirised by nearly every so-called prog metal band on the planet, it seems; Orion, showcasing their melodic sensibilities, and Damage Inc., proving that they were still masters of thrash.Opinion!!
...And Justice for All IS the 1st prog metal album. 'nuff said. It's awesome.That "O" word again-unless I accept that your opinion is more worthy than mine,I dont really understand what you are taking me to task for?
So I'll give you something to argue about:I think "2112" is the first prog metal album and that was 1976...The title track is guitar based,no real use of keyboards but "symphonic" in the broadest sense of the word....an intro that introduces elements of the main themes,sections that are self-contained but echo the intro's motif and a finale,presenting a story from start to finish..oh and top-notch ensemble playing.
Metallica (the Black album) is toned down, but with that massive production that sparked the whole nu-metal thing, and revolutionised metal for the 1990s.
Metallica were the pioneers - the trailblazers of new (not "nu") metal - but they had plenty of challengers;
Slayer, despite the dreadful production on their 1st two albums, kept the faith and produced the ultimate thrash album that has remained a benchmark ever since;
the "ultimate" in your opinion or general concensus?
Reign in Blood is the ultimate in breakneck speed, brutal riffs, screaming vocals and dive-bombing guitars. South of Heaven was much heavier, thanks to even better production, and is a classic in its own right - out-Sabbathing Sabbath, but remains in the shadow of Reign in Blood. Your use of absolutes suggests that this view is incontravertible.
Other bands that shouldn't be overlooked include the infamous Napalm Death, who took speed metal to its natural conclusion - everything since has just been gravy really. Also worth a mention as pioneers of the darker genre are Helloween, for their early "Maiden on speed" sound, Death, for the notorious and now omnipresent death grunts, Celtic Frost for their daring experimentation, Megadeth, Voivod and Kreator.
All these bands experimented and took their music to new levels - this was a time when creating new music was a good thing again; it was almost like being back in the 1970s to hear all this new stuff being created.
Sabbath (Ozzy era and Dio era),Thin Lizzy,,UFO,Rainbow (Dio era),Scorpions (first 5 or 6 albums were very good) early Van Halen could all be very heavy but tuneful with it.Motorhead (in my experience) where, and should have remained, unique and enjoyable for that fact.Lemmy's vocals were at odds with the bands above and seem to have spawned all these "barking" metal vocalists that are so prevalent now.If I was 10 years younger I would have probably got into Maiden, and later,Metallica but they always seemed empty,hackneyed and soulless to me.
Aha-"to me" -opinion-Ie they did nothing for me!!!
I really don't understand that
What you dont understand why I have that opinion? It is a matter of taste-I didnt say they were rubbish or anything......
- Metallica's first 3 albums are crammed full of the passion and hunger that up and coming bands should show - and then some. From the opening of Kill 'Em All - the heavy guitars being gradually faded UP in the mix, through the sheer exuberance of The Four Horsemen, the gleeful power-riffing of Seek and Destroy and the insanity of Whiplash - this is an album full of a new kind of spirit, but based in the rifferama of Black Sabbath (almost constant use of tritones) and Motorhead.
You are a big-time Metallica fan,I am not......
Hetfield's voice is atypical of the speed/thrash genre too - it's almost a tuneful "bark"!
But a bark nonetheless.
Frankly, after Metallica entered the scene, I felt that the old school rock bands (Rainbow, UFO, Lizzy, etc.) all sounded a bit tired, lame and thin. Fortunately I got over that, and can enjoy all these bands - and some of the newer crowd, like Cradle of Filth, Killswitch Engage, System of a Down and Bathory. I still don't like Dream Theater though
So we are agreeing or disagreeing?
Same goes for Slayer, although some of the other bands early material sounded a bit nervous, despite the heavy pretensions. Sacred Reich are another good band of the time - they always sounded like they enjoyed what they did.
|
|
I dont like thrash/speed metal that is why I am stuck in the 1970's. Tanking along at 100 mph is not condusive to "feel" and "soul", in my opinion.
-------------
|
Posted By: Wrath_of_Ninian
Date Posted: March 10 2005 at 11:51
Blacksword wrote:
Iron Maiden were pretty good musicians, and for a while were probably at the top of the metal dung heap. Their albums Killers and Number of the Beast, were as good as they got IMO. After drummer Clive Burr left and Nicko McBrain joined their souned changed, and not just their drum sound! The guitar solos became 'whingy' sounding, Dave Murrays lead guitar sound became very weak. Bruce Dickinson was putting too much vibrato on his voice. They tried to be as clever and conceptual as their prog idols, and failed because at the end of the day, they were just 'heavy metal' and were therefore constrained within the creative walls of power chords and spandex pants. Long songs, the occasional synth guitar, odd time signature, and reference to an opium smoking poet does not a great band make...
Metallica were able to make better 'progessive' metal because they didn't carry the baggage of cliche that Maiden did.
In MY very humble opinion..
|
Agreed, but with provisions!
Personally I think Powerslave was their strongest moment, but they were still 'creating' by Somewhere In Time (1986/87) and some (not me) would even harbour Seventh Son as their last great masterwork. All you get now is re-hashed versions of the earlier classics. I certainly preferred Dianno's voice, much more punky, and probably Burr's drumming (though McBrain has some exquisite moments).
However, I think they were as clever in places as the idols they draw influence from - especially given that by 1978, Genesis and Crimson made up the musical dung heap (see also Yes, ELP, Tull), and Rush were slowly sliding down the side of it. Most importantly, there are strong melodies beneath all that distortion.
"Long songs, the occasional synth guitar, odd time signature, and reference to an opium smoking poet does not a great band make..."
Agreed. But the collaborators seem to ask alot less of some new 'prog' bands in order to embrace them into the archives....
Unfortunately, where I totally disagree is your summation of Metallica, who are just unlistenable. Tuneless, boring, technique-driven, rifferama, with nothing to offer the discerning listener except the opportunity to shake the excess wax from one's ears by frivilous bouncing of the head. One step down from Techno. And I hate James Hetfield - what a t**t! I have never understood the continuing success of this band. Mind-boggling. I guess we all have our pet hates.
At least Slayer had a bit of blood'n'guts about them.
------------- "Now all the seasons run together, and the middle days are gone..."
|
Posted By: Jimbo
Date Posted: March 10 2005 at 12:09
None of them.. Sorry!
-------------
|
Posted By: Aaron
Date Posted: March 10 2005 at 12:19
this poll is wicked f**king gay
Aaron
|
Posted By: billyshears'67
Date Posted: March 10 2005 at 12:22
Why of course,
The....
IRON MAIDEN!!!!!
Peace & take care
|
Posted By: Manunkind
Date Posted: March 10 2005 at 12:50
Ah, good ol'metal... the thing that defined my tastes before prog...
But hey, these bands up there are more aluminium than real metal. And some are more plastic, too...
Anyway, these are some of my current favs, and this is at least titanium:
Death (all the albums from "Human" to "The Sound of Perseverance", though they probably shouldn't be mentioned here as they are very prog in my opinion).
Cryptopsy (kinda like Meshuggah on speed)
Nile (one of the few death metal acts that aren't boring, repetitive and devoid of expression)
Khanate (slow and heavy like a hippopotamus driving a steam-roller)
------------- "In war there is no time to teach or learn Zen. Carry a strong stick. Bash your attackers." - Zen Master Ikkyu Sojun
|
Posted By: Vaize
Date Posted: March 10 2005 at 13:23
I clicked Iron Maiden, but IŽd like to see Sepultura included in the list.
And I hope that, in the future, the best band of my home, my street, my neighborhood, my town, http://www.veuliah.net/ - Veuliah , will be included in polls such as this...
------------- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://www.myspace.com/veuliahband" rel="nofollow - Veuliah - Brazilian Heavy Metal My page
|
Posted By: greenback
Date Posted: March 10 2005 at 13:33
Iron maiden, followed by judas priest!
iron maiden - killers is the best metal album!
black sabbath should be there!
very honorable mention: ACCEPT!!!!!!!!!
and, if you don't name it metal progressive , MERCYFUL FATE!
ac/dc is not metal
------------- [HEADPINS - LINE OF FIRE: THE RECORD HAVING THE MOST POWERFUL GUITAR SOUND IN THE WHOLE HISTORY OF MUSIC!>
|
Posted By: Vibrationbaby
Date Posted: March 10 2005 at 13:54
Wow! Maybe we should change this site`s name to metalarchives.com.
Metal, like prog, has all kinds of subdivisions and I listen to a
lot of heavy music whether or not it is Rock n`Roll or metal.
Given the choices above I took Priest. Other heavy bands I have
listened to over the years include:
Sabbath (Hell, I played in a Black Sabbath cover band for about 4 months many moons ago)
Iron Maiden
Soundgarden
Scorpions ( In the early 70`s they used to open for Hungarian prog-rockers Omega)
Metallica
Megadeth
9 Inch Nails
Ministry
Ramstein (I just bought ther latest Reise Reise, funny videos, check out Keine Lust)
Laibach
Deep Purple
Tool
|
Posted By: Valarius
Date Posted: March 11 2005 at 03:20
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: March 11 2005 at 03:40
Wrath_of_Ninian wrote:
Blacksword wrote:
Iron Maiden were pretty good musicians, and for a while were probably at the top of the metal dung heap. Their albums Killers and Number of the Beast, were as good as they got IMO. After drummer Clive Burr left and Nicko McBrain joined their souned changed, and not just their drum sound! The guitar solos became 'whingy' sounding, Dave Murrays lead guitar sound became very weak. Bruce Dickinson was putting too much vibrato on his voice. They tried to be as clever and conceptual as their prog idols, and failed because at the end of the day, they were just 'heavy metal' and were therefore constrained within the creative walls of power chords and spandex pants. Long songs, the occasional synth guitar, odd time signature, and reference to an opium smoking poet does not a great band make...
Metallica were able to make better 'progessive' metal because they didn't carry the baggage of cliche that Maiden did.
In MY very humble opinion..
|
Agreed, but with provisions!
Personally I think Powerslave was their strongest moment, but they were still 'creating' by Somewhere In Time (1986/87) and some (not me) would even harbour Seventh Son as their last great masterwork. All you get now is re-hashed versions of the earlier classics. I certainly preferred Dianno's voice, much more punky, and probably Burr's drumming (though McBrain has some exquisite moments).
However, I think they were as clever in places as the idols they draw influence from - especially given that by 1978, Genesis and Crimson made up the musical dung heap (see also Yes, ELP, Tull), and Rush were slowly sliding down the side of it. Most importantly, there are strong melodies beneath all that distortion.
"Long songs, the occasional synth guitar, odd time signature, and reference to an opium smoking poet does not a great band make..."
Agreed. But the collaborators seem to ask alot less of some new 'prog' bands in order to embrace them into the archives....
Unfortunately, where I totally disagree is your summation of Metallica, who are just unlistenable. Tuneless, boring, technique-driven, rifferama, with nothing to offer the discerning listener except the opportunity to shake the excess wax from one's ears by frivilous bouncing of the head. One step down from Techno. And I hate James Hetfield - what a t**t! I have never understood the continuing success of this band. Mind-boggling. I guess we all have our pet hates.
At least Slayer had a bit of blood'n'guts about them.
|
Slayers 'Reign in blood' has to be the best thrash album IMO. You cant really fault the playing, I especially like Dave Lombardos drumming. I couldn't believe the sheer brutallity when I first heard it
But its entertainment at the end of the day. I cant really take most HM seriously at all these days. Its only really Sabbath and Motorhead I have time for these days.
With regard to Iron Maiden, I have a love-hate relationship. They were the first HM band I got into. The number of the beast was the first Maiden album I heard. I had not heard Dianno singing at that point. I liked Dickinsons voice on the Beast, but by the time 'Piece of mind' came out, he was warbling and straining terribly. The songs were weak and lacked the passion of the best off the Beast. Notably 'Sun and Steel' 'Quest for fire' which were absolute drivel IMO. Mind you, 'To tame a land' was good! The voice grated, the lyrics failed me, and as they tried to 'prog out' on subsequent albums I was left wanting them to go back to the Beast format and leave 'clever' music to the masters
RUSH - SLIDING DOWN THE SIDE OF THE DUNG HEAP IN 1978..!!?? NO WAY, BUDDY. THEY WERE AT THEIR PEAK BETWEEN 1978 - 1981. HEMISPHERES TO MOVING PICTURES.
In my opinion..
------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
|
Posted By: Rob The Good
Date Posted: March 11 2005 at 04:00
JETHRO TULL of course!
They won the 1987 Grammy for best metal album with "Crest of a Knave"
They left Metallica in their wake! Ouch!
------------- And Jesus said unto John, "come forth and receive eternal life..."
Unfortunately, John came fifth and was stuck with a toaster.
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: March 11 2005 at 07:00
Reed Lover wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
Reed Lover wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
No Motorhead or Black Sabbath?
I guess it doesn't matter, because Metallica are/were the ultimate Heavy Metal band. Before them, Motorhead and Sabbath moulded the genre. Metallica kicked the genre's ass.
|
...in your very humble opinion......... I think,Metal said all it had to say by 1980.After that it was all about degrees of loudness and crassness! (IMVHO)
I couldn't disagree more - as a single example, Number of the Beast (1982) was fantastically melodic and very polished.
Your opinion Cert! Fantastically melodic???? Iron maiden are extremely melodic?
OK, "fantastically" is my opinion. Iron Maiden have written some very melodic songs, and Number of the Beast is richest in them. That's not my opinion - the melody writing is very strong.
Kill 'Em All (1983) was very rough, production-wise, but blew old-school metal into the dark ages - it's an incredible album full of fresh, new energy, and I cannot think of an album before it with that kind of buzz (except, maybe Metal Church's debut). Metal Militia and Whiplash are stunning examples of what the band had done to revitalise metal.
Your opinion....
No.
Ride the Lightning (1984) added melody and a slick production to Metallica's energy - which intensified in places (Fight Fire with Fire, Trapped Under Ice), whilst being reigned back in others (Fade to Black, For Whom the Bell Tolls).Opinion
No. There IS melody and slicker production on this album. The energy IS intensifed on the tracks I mentioned, and reigned back where I said it was - where's the opinion in that? Have you heard the album?
Master of Puppets (1986) really showed the world a trick or two - this is where prog metal began, IMNSHO. Battery is a devastating assault on the ears, whilst maintaining a powerful integrity. The title track is practically prog rock, with the numerous time-changes and mega-riffathon worthy of Rush, I would suggest. Then there's Sanitarium, plagirised by nearly every so-called prog metal band on the planet, it seems; Orion, showcasing their melodic sensibilities, and Damage Inc., proving that they were still masters of thrash.Opinion!!
Not at all.
What album before "Master of Puppets" did any of the stuff I mentioned?
...And Justice for All IS the 1st prog metal album. 'nuff said. It's awesome.That "O" word again-unless I accept that your opinion is more worthy than mine,I dont really understand what you are taking me to task for?
Nope.
I'm simply disagreeing with the points you made - this is a discussion forum where such things happen.
So I'll give you something to argue about:I think "2112" is the first prog metal album and that was 1976...The title track is guitar based,no real use of keyboards but "symphonic" in the broadest sense of the word....an intro that introduces elements of the main themes,sections that are self-contained but echo the intro's motif and a finale,presenting a story from start to finish..oh and top-notch ensemble playing.
It's a different kind of prog metal - not prog metal as it is known today. To substantiate my claims, you can hear "...And Justice for All" riffs all over "Images and Words" by Dream Theater. Metallica invented a whole new style. So did Rush. Fewer prog metal bands have taken on Rush's style - far more have followed Metallica's lead.
Metallica (the Black album) is toned down, but with that massive production that sparked the whole nu-metal thing, and revolutionised metal for the 1990s.
Metallica were the pioneers - the trailblazers of new (not "nu") metal - but they had plenty of challengers;
Slayer, despite the dreadful production on their 1st two albums, kept the faith and produced the ultimate thrash album that has remained a benchmark ever since;
the "ultimate" in your opinion or general concensus?
You'll probably find that it is a general consensus too, but the facts speak for themselves, if you'd actually listened to the album.
Reign in Blood is the ultimate in breakneck speed, brutal riffs, screaming vocals and dive-bombing guitars. South of Heaven was much heavier, thanks to even better production, and is a classic in its own right - out-Sabbathing Sabbath, but remains in the shadow of Reign in Blood. Your use of absolutes suggests that this view is incontravertible.
OK, tell me why I'm wrong - don't just keep telling me that it's my opinion, because that simply leaves it at the point where it's your opinion that it's my opinion, and your opinion seems to be founded on guesswork, while mine is founded on an appreciation of the music.
Other bands that shouldn't be overlooked include the infamous Napalm Death, who took speed metal to its natural conclusion - everything since has just been gravy really. Also worth a mention as pioneers of the darker genre are Helloween, for their early "Maiden on speed" sound, Death, for the notorious and now omnipresent death grunts, Celtic Frost for their daring experimentation, Megadeth, Voivod and Kreator.
All these bands experimented and took their music to new levels - this was a time when creating new music was a good thing again; it was almost like being back in the 1970s to hear all this new stuff being created.
Sabbath (Ozzy era and Dio era),Thin Lizzy,,UFO,Rainbow (Dio era),Scorpions (first 5 or 6 albums were very good) early Van Halen could all be very heavy but tuneful with it.Motorhead (in my experience) where, and should have remained, unique and enjoyable for that fact.Lemmy's vocals were at odds with the bands above and seem to have spawned all these "barking" metal vocalists that are so prevalent now.If I was 10 years younger I would have probably got into Maiden, and later,Metallica but they always seemed empty,hackneyed and soulless to me.
Aha-"to me" -opinion-Ie they did nothing for me!!!
I really don't understand that
What you dont understand why I have that opinion? It is a matter of taste-I didnt say they were rubbish or anything......
If my words are too cryptic, I mean that I don't understand why anyone would find their music empty or soulless when it's packed full of so much energy and aggression - takes a soul to have aggression.
As for hackneyed, that's bollocks - by using the word "hackneyed" - and also the word "empty", you ARE saying that you think they are rubbish. You're entitled to not like them, but I'm equally entitled to suggest reasons why they are not as bad as you say they are.
The riffs are reasonably complex, the structure of the songs is immaculate rock-song structure with extended bridges and codas (much like Rush), and the riffs and leads are diamond-sharp - there's absolutely no bluff, unlike in most of the old school rock bands where they thought they could get away with it.
- Metallica's first 3 albums are crammed full of the passion and hunger that up and coming bands should show - and then some. From the opening of Kill 'Em All - the heavy guitars being gradually faded UP in the mix, through the sheer exuberance of The Four Horsemen, the gleeful power-riffing of Seek and Destroy and the insanity of Whiplash - this is an album full of a new kind of spirit, but based in the rifferama of Black Sabbath (almost constant use of tritones) and Motorhead.
You are a big-time Metallica fan,I am not......
No sh*t, Sherlock
Hetfield's voice is atypical of the speed/thrash genre too - it's almost a tuneful "bark"!
But a bark nonetheless.
Frankly, after Metallica entered the scene, I felt that the old school rock bands (Rainbow, UFO, Lizzy, etc.) all sounded a bit tired, lame and thin. Fortunately I got over that, and can enjoy all these bands - and some of the newer crowd, like Cradle of Filth, Killswitch Engage, System of a Down and Bathory. I still don't like Dream Theater though
So we are agreeing or disagreeing?
Discussing.
Same goes for Slayer, although some of the other bands early material sounded a bit nervous, despite the heavy pretensions. Sacred Reich are another good band of the time - they always sounded like they enjoyed what they did.
|
|
I dont like thrash/speed metal that is why I am stuck in the 1970's. Tanking along at 100 mph is not condusive to "feel" and "soul", in my opinion.
Speed is irrelevant.
Music is EVERYTHING.
There were crap thrash bands too |
|
Posted By: Joren
Date Posted: March 11 2005 at 07:07
greenback wrote:
Iron maiden, followed by judas priest!
iron maiden - killers is the best metal album!
black sabbath should be there!
very honorable mention: ACCEPT!!!!!!!!!
and, if you don't name it metal progressive , MERCYFUL FATE!
ac/dc is not metal
|
GET YOUR BALLS TO THE WALL MAN!
|
Posted By: Reed Lover
Date Posted: March 11 2005 at 14:02
I find Metallica and their ilk tedious and soulless.
They are not to my taste.I have heard all their albums and they do nothing for me.If you criticise something on this forum you are automatically accused of either never having heard any of the band's music or having an axe to grind.I do not like Metallica's style at all.I do believe that I have heard it all before, but that is because they do not affect me positively-there is nothing wrong with this view,otherwise everybody would like every kind of music.
Cert sees things in them that I dont. He also occasionally has difficulty from discerning the difference between "opinion" and "fact".
If he believes more prog-metal bands have been influenced by Metallica than Rush,that is his opinion.Being an avid "browser" in my local newsagent,I have read many, many musician's magazines and from what I can see, the percentage of prog-metal musicians who cite Rush as their major influence is so high as you can virtually,but not actually,say all of them.This I cant prove,but have no reason to be dishonest or mistaken about this.To me it is a fact.
As for growling vocals......wtf is that all about? If this view is symptomatic of my lack of understanding of this particular sub-genre, then so be it.I have a recording of my mother-in-law's dog yapping along to Paranoid- if you want to take it off my hands,Cert!
-------------
|
Posted By: Pixel Pirate
Date Posted: March 11 2005 at 14:28
The Norwegian Black Metal bands make all the other metal bands sound like Barry Manilow on tranquilizers. Iron Maiden? Judas Priest? Slayer? Ha! They all sound like Bon Jovi to me. I waved goodbye to all of them when I heard Emperor, then I realized that finally someone had made metal that way it should be done. Try "Prometheus: The Discipline Of Fire And Demise" for the ultimate metal album. And then check out the other Norwegian Black Metal bands,they are the only true metal bands,all the rest are ridiculous posers.
------------- Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
|
Posted By: LizardMan
Date Posted: March 11 2005 at 14:38
Iron Maiden is one of my favorite bands... prog or not prog I don't care! I will admit that their lyrics can be kind of lame sometimes. Anyway, that's where my vote went.
Greg
------------- "Life itself is perfect, its people is just what sucks!"
|
Posted By: Gaspy Conana
Date Posted: March 11 2005 at 14:42
Blind Guardian
------------- i no wuts proggeir and u dont so their
|
Posted By: James Lee
Date Posted: March 11 2005 at 14:52
^ LOL, Pixel is Very Metal...who knew?
I'm a Cradle of Filth fan myself. You don't have to take them seriously to recognize how hard and heavy they really are. And Cannibal Corpse is near and dear to me- not only do I like their stuff but I'm from the same place and time.
Not a big fan of the new metal but I have enjoyed System of a Down's stuff from time to time. Reminds me of what Jello Biafra might have been like if he'd been a metalhead instead (if that's even conceivable).
Classics from my youth that I still appreciate: Iron Maiden, undoubtedly. Where I come from, Maiden and Rush were the main choices of discriminating metal nerds. Slayer, Megadeth, Testament, all killer bands that got a taste of success. Celtic Frost almost got huge, but Tom was a little unstable...love 'em anyway (the 80s was a little early for a metal cover of "Mexican Radio"...but it would have been a sure moneymaker in the Marilyn Manson-soaked mid 90s). Who am I forgetting? Sodom. And the first punk-metal crossover bands, like Suicidal Tendencies and DRI. (and you could almost include the first alt-metal crossover bands, like Jane's Addiction and Faith no More).
And the mighty Sabbath still holds down the heavy crown.
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/sollipsist/?chartstyle=kaonashi">
|
Posted By: Lunarscape
Date Posted: March 11 2005 at 15:07
Metal Sucks....And is performed by a bunch of gay posers ! There is no such thing as Progressive Metal !
------------- Music Is The Soul Bird That Flies In The Immense Heart Of The Listener . . .
|
Posted By: Pixel Pirate
Date Posted: March 11 2005 at 16:09
Lunarscape wrote:
Metal Sucks....And is performed by a bunch of gay posers ! There is no such thing as Progressive Metal ! |
I think you need a sizeable injection of Emperor,Lunar. Or even better: Ram-Zet. We'll make a metalhead of you yet!
------------- Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
|
Posted By: Pixel Pirate
Date Posted: March 11 2005 at 16:21
In case anyone is thinking: Ram-who? Ram-Zet is another excellent Norwegian metal band. Their awesome concept album "Escape" is so packed with intelligence,creativity,imagination and innovation,it has to be heard to be believed. Check the review on All Music Guide for confirmation.
------------- Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
|
Posted By: Reed Lover
Date Posted: March 11 2005 at 16:28
Lunarscape wrote:
Metal Sucks....And is performed by a bunch of gay posers ! |
What's Rob Halford ever done to you?
Down Gdub!
Oh wait a minute....I didnt mean that!
-------------
|
Posted By: Pixel Pirate
Date Posted: March 11 2005 at 16:31
Bloody hell! Is that what Halford looks like these days?!
------------- Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
|
Posted By: Reed Lover
Date Posted: March 11 2005 at 16:33
Posted By: Pixel Pirate
Date Posted: March 11 2005 at 16:36
Reed Lover wrote:
Pixel Pirate wrote:
Bloody hell! Is that what Halford looks like these days?! |
Ram-who?
|
Very nearly funny that one.
------------- Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
|
Posted By: Hierophant
Date Posted: March 11 2005 at 16:40
Death should definitly be in the archives, Cynic is added so why not Death
|
Posted By: Reed Lover
Date Posted: March 11 2005 at 16:41
Posted By: Pixel Pirate
Date Posted: March 11 2005 at 17:01
Reed Lover wrote:
Hierophant wrote:
Death should definitly be in the archives, Cynic is added so why not Death |
Cynic's been around these archives for quite a while,although it hasn't quite come to death,yet!
|
------------- Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: March 12 2005 at 08:58
Reed Lover wrote:
I find Metallica and their ilk tedious and soulless.
They are not to my taste.I have heard all their albums and they do nothing for me.If you criticise something on this forum you are automatically accused of either never having heard any of the band's music or having an axe to grind.I do not like Metallica's style at all.I do believe that I have heard it all before, but that is because they do not affect me positively-there is nothing wrong with this view,otherwise everybody would like every kind of music.
And the whole point of a discussion is that people have differing opinions - just because yours are held to question doesn't mean that they're being shot down in flames, it's simply that someone else has different opinions to your own and wishes to discuss salient points.
You've made another salient point that I cannot agree with - I am puzzled as to where you could have heard Metallica's style before (unless you mean Metal Church). I am simply curious, and wish to know what "Kill 'Em All" reminds you of, as it came completely out of the blue as far as I can tell - there was simply very little by way of precedent for Metallica's thrashing style.
Of course, the inspirations are evident - Diamond Head, Motorhead, Budgie, Hawkwind, Black Sabbath, Killing Joke et al - but what I'm getting at is that the style Metallica evolved was unique, albeit with the usual bandwagon jumpers close behind, and inspiration to just about every metal band these days (even if they don't openly admit it - there's more prestige to saying you're inspired by Rush, but less evidence in most bands' music).
It's not a case of axe-grinding, just basic, open curiosity.
Cert sees things in them that I dont. He also occasionally has difficulty from discerning the difference between "opinion" and "fact".
er... actually, I hear things that you don't... maybe I should lay off the cactus juice
As to the last comment, we all have difficulty drawing the line, and I know I blur it occasionally, but I'm not going to write "IMO" every time I express an opinion.
If he believes more prog-metal bands have been influenced by Metallica than Rush,that is his opinion.
I just use my ears and hear the openly stolen riffs.
Being an avid "browser" in my local newsagent,I have read many, many musician's magazines and from what I can see, the percentage of prog-metal musicians who cite Rush as their major influence is so high as you can virtually,but not actually,say all of them.This I cant prove,but have no reason to be dishonest or mistaken about this.To me it is a fact.
Yes, but the number of those bands who incorporate Rush-style riffs in their music can probably be counted on the fingers of one hand. I'm guessing, of course - I just haven't heard many bands that remind me in any way of Rush.
The thrashing style that Metallica pioneered is evident almost everywhere in prog and nu-metal.
As for growling vocals......wtf is that all about?
I wrote a paper about that for my 20th Century music exams - what I said boils down to the fact that the music is growly, so the vocals were made growly to suit it. I find Death (early albums) particularly funny in that respect. I got a starred first for that paper
(doesn't mean I was right, of course - I just argued the case and the examiner agreed. Easiest and most fun paper I ever sat!)
If this view is symptomatic of my lack of understanding of this particular sub-genre, then so be it.
It is - it shows that you haven't listened to much of it. Your call, of course, there are many here who don't even accept prog metal as a sub-genre of prog - and I can sympathise with that.
I just think that, since the music is well over 20 years old now, you might find something of interest in there. If nothing else, I'd recommend a listen to "Master of Puppets" and "...And Justice for All". Then listen to "Images and Words" by Dream Theater - and laugh at the amount of plagiarism.
As I said - if you can think of a single pre-1986 album that does everything you hear on "Master of Puppets", or a single album that pre-empts "Kill 'Em All" (apart from Metal Church's debut, which I know about) - I'd be very interested to hear it to fill in the gaps in my historical knowledge. I truly believe it is a classic that has yet to get the wide acceptance it deserves. I can, of course, elucidate further...
I have a recording of my mother-in-law's dog yapping along to Paranoid- if you want to take it off my hands,Cert!
You're too kind. But no thanks - I've already got a copy of Meddle... |
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: March 12 2005 at 09:19
James Lee wrote:
I'm a Cradle of Filth fan myself. You don't have to take them seriously to recognize how hard and heavy they really are. And Cannibal Corpse is near and dear to me- not only do I like their stuff but I'm from the same place and time.
|
I'm very keen on Cradle of Filth - great band with some very original sounds (although there are so many similar bands around in that genre it's hard to know where it all started). I'm particularly keen on "Bitter Suites to Succubi" - what do you think? Prog Metal? Classic of 20 years from now? (PM me if you'd like a "sample" ).
It's certainly very spooky...
|
Posted By: plodder
Date Posted: March 12 2005 at 09:26
None of the bands on the list.
I have been listening to Tesla a lot though.
|
Posted By: Manunkind
Date Posted: March 12 2005 at 09:47
Certif1ed wrote:
James Lee wrote:
I'm a Cradle of Filth fan myself. You don't have to take them seriously to recognize how hard and heavy they really are. And Cannibal Corpse is near and dear to me- not only do I like their stuff but I'm from the same place and time.
|
I'm very keen on Cradle of Filth - great band with some very original sounds (although there are so many similar bands around in that genre it's hard to know where it all started). I'm particularly keen on "Bitter Suites to Succubi" - what do you think? Prog Metal? Classic of 20 years from now? (PM me if you'd like a "sample" ).
It's certainly very spooky...
|
I'm pretty certain Cradle of Filth was the originator of that whole vampiric, symphonic black metal thing (the Norwegians from Emperor and Dimmu Borgir began their symphonic black exploits around the same time, but their music is quite different). CoF's success spawned some copycats, for sure, the band Hecate Enthroned is said to have copied CoF shamelessly... not really true, IMO. Haven't listened to CoF for a few years now, and most probably never will listen to them again (so much better stuff around), but "Vempire" was my fav. The only bands I listen to now with a similar (but only slightly) air to them are My Dying Bride and Morgion - both big names in the doom metal circles. Highly recommended!
------------- "In war there is no time to teach or learn Zen. Carry a strong stick. Bash your attackers." - Zen Master Ikkyu Sojun
|
Posted By: Reed Lover
Date Posted: March 12 2005 at 11:43
Certif1ed wrote:
Reed Lover wrote:
I find Metallica and their ilk tedious and soulless.
They are not to my taste.I have heard all their albums and they do nothing for me.If you criticise something on this forum you are automatically accused of either never having heard any of the band's music or having an axe to grind.I do not like Metallica's style at all.I do believe that I have heard it all before, but that is because they do not affect me positively-there is nothing wrong with this view,otherwise everybody would like every kind of music.
And the whole point of a discussion is that people have differing opinions - just because yours are held to question doesn't mean that they're being shot down in flames, it's simply that someone else has different opinions to your own and wishes to discuss salient points.
You are arguing about my taste in music. I understand you when you say you are discussing what I have opined, but I made it pretty clear that it was a matter of my personal taste-which obviously, is not open for argument.
You've made another salient point that I cannot agree with - I am puzzled as to where you could have heard Metallica's style before (unless you mean Metal Church). I am simply curious, and wish to know what "Kill 'Em All" reminds you of, as it came completely out of the blue as far as I can tell - there was simply very little by way of precedent for Metallica's thrashing style.
When I wrote "I've heard it all before" I wasnt referring to their "style" as such,just the small things such as the chords, notes and arrangements No,seriously, just as I accept that Geddy Lee's vocals put many people off Rush,as soon as I hear that growl it puts me off.It homogenises the whole genre to me.I am not saying that is a sound technical argument-just the effect it has on me.
Of course, the inspirations are evident - Diamond Head, Motorhead, Budgie, Hawkwind, Black Sabbath, Killing Joke et al - but what I'm getting at is that the style Metallica evolved was unique, albeit with the usual bandwagon jumpers close behind, and inspiration to just about every metal band these days (even if they don't openly admit it - there's more prestige to saying you're inspired by Rush, but less evidence in most bands' music). Might be on this forum,but not in real life trust me.Ask Rhythm magazine. The editor (at that time) once said (I kid you not!) "in future I am going to edit out any reference to Neil Peart in interviews"
It's not a case of axe-grinding, just basic, open curiosity.
I'm not suggesting that you have but you dont seem to understand that if that type of metal does nothing for me,I am not going to persevere and scratch the surface. Maybe it is an age thing-but that is the reaction I have.To me,I repeat,I cant get past the ridiculous vocals-so it all sounds the same to me.
Cert sees things in them that I dont. He also occasionally has difficulty from discerning the difference between "opinion" and "fact".
er... actually, I hear things that you don't... maybe I should lay off the cactus juice It seems to me that any person liking music that someone else dislikes will necessarily hear something the other doesnt.That seems obvious and something that you dont appear to understand.I mean that's the basis of musical taste isnt it?
As to the last comment, we all have difficulty drawing the line, and I know I blur it occasionally, but I'm not going to write "IMO" every time I express an opinion.
I agree about the "IMO", but early in my prog archives membership,I was savaged (not by you) for suggesting that writing "IMO" was stupid and unnecessary tautology. I was informed it was a necessary "Forum Protocol" ()
If he believes more prog-metal bands have been influenced by Metallica than Rush,that is his opinion.
I just use my ears and hear the openly stolen riffs. Is it not more like handling stolen goods?
Being an avid "browser" in my local newsagent,I have read many, many musician's magazines and from what I can see, the percentage of prog-metal musicians who cite Rush as their major influence is so high as you can virtually,but not actually,say all of them.This I cant prove,but have no reason to be dishonest or mistaken about this.To me it is a fact.
Yes, but the number of those bands who incorporate Rush-style riffs in their music can probably be counted on the fingers of one hand. I'm guessing, of course - I just haven't heard many bands that remind me in any way of Rush.
The thrashing style that Metallica pioneered is evident almost everywhere in prog and nu-metal. So, are you saying that Metallica invented Thrash Metal, if so why dont you just say that and your post will make more sense.
As for growling vocals......wtf is that all about?
I wrote a paper about that for my 20th Century music exams - what I said boils down to the fact that the music is growly, so the vocals were made growly to suit it. I find Death (early albums) particularly funny in that respect. I got a starred first for that paper
(doesn't mean I was right, of course - I just argued the case and the examiner agreed. Easiest and most fun paper I ever sat!)
If this view is symptomatic of my lack of understanding of this particular sub-genre, then so be it.
It is - it shows that you haven't listened to much of it. Your call, of course, there are many here who don't even accept prog metal as a sub-genre of prog - and I can sympathise with that.
I just think that, since the music is well over 20 years old now, you might find something of interest in there. If nothing else, I'd recommend a listen to "Master of Puppets" and "...And Justice for All". Then listen to "Images and Words" by Dream Theater - and laugh at the amount of plagiarism.
........Re-listen to Master and Puppets...........
As I said - if you can think of a single pre-1986 album that does everything you hear on "Master of Puppets", or a single album that pre-empts "Kill 'Em All" (apart from Metal Church's debut, which I know about) - I'd be very interested to hear it to fill in the gaps in my historical knowledge. I truly believe it is a classic that has yet to get the wide acceptance it deserves. I can, of course, elucidate further... Who was it who said "pedantry is the last refuge of the anally-retentive"
I have a recording of my mother-in-law's dog yapping along to Paranoid- if you want to take it off my hands,Cert!
You're too kind. But no thanks - I've already got a copy of Meddle... |
|
-------------
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: March 12 2005 at 14:41
Reed Lover wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
Reed Lover wrote:
I find Metallica and their ilk tedious and soulless.
They are not to my taste.I have heard all their albums and they do nothing for me.If you criticise something on this forum you are automatically accused of either never having heard any of the band's music or having an axe to grind.I do not like Metallica's style at all.I do believe that I have heard it all before, but that is because they do not affect me positively-there is nothing wrong with this view,otherwise everybody would like every kind of music.
And the whole point of a discussion is that people have differing opinions - just because yours are held to question doesn't mean that they're being shot down in flames, it's simply that someone else has different opinions to your own and wishes to discuss salient points.
You are arguing about my taste in music. I understand you when you say you are discussing what I have opined, but I made it pretty clear that it was a matter of my personal taste-which obviously, is not open for argument.
I'm not arguing about your taste, I'm simply making the case against the qualifiers you used. I disagreed with what you said.
You've made another salient point that I cannot agree with - I am puzzled as to where you could have heard Metallica's style before (unless you mean Metal Church). I am simply curious, and wish to know what "Kill 'Em All" reminds you of, as it came completely out of the blue as far as I can tell - there was simply very little by way of precedent for Metallica's thrashing style.
When I wrote "I've heard it all before" I wasnt referring to their "style" as such,just the small things such as the chords, notes and arrangements No,seriously, just as I accept that Geddy Lee's vocals put many people off Rush,as soon as I hear that growl it puts me off.It homogenises the whole genre to me.I am not saying that is a sound technical argument-just the effect it has on me.
The chords, notes and arrangements... er... how deep do you want to go? I could argue that the atonal composers of the early 1900s used up all the notes and chords... I don't understand that argument. One of the points I was making was that they spearheaded this whole new style - I even quoted some influences. I could go into a discussion on how music evolves - but I'm sure that's easy enough to grasp on any level...
Of course, the inspirations are evident - Diamond Head, Motorhead, Budgie, Hawkwind, Black Sabbath, Killing Joke et al - but what I'm getting at is that the style Metallica evolved was unique, albeit with the usual bandwagon jumpers close behind, and inspiration to just about every metal band these days (even if they don't openly admit it - there's more prestige to saying you're inspired by Rush, but less evidence in most bands' music). Might be on this forum,but not in real life trust me.Ask Rhythm magazine. The editor (at that time) once said (I kid you not!) "in future I am going to edit out any reference to Neil Peart in interviews"
Sorry, old chap - I don't get that. What "might be on this forum"?
It's not a case of axe-grinding, just basic, open curiosity.
I'm not suggesting that you have but you dont seem to understand that if that type of metal does nothing for me,I am not going to persevere and scratch the surface. Maybe it is an age thing-but that is the reaction I have.To me,I repeat,I cant get past the ridiculous vocals-so it all sounds the same to me.
You don't have that problem with Lemmy?
Cert sees things in them that I dont. He also occasionally has difficulty from discerning the difference between "opinion" and "fact".
er... actually, I hear things that you don't... maybe I should lay off the cactus juice It seems to me that any person liking music that someone else dislikes will necessarily hear something the other doesnt.That seems obvious and something that you dont appear to understand.I mean that's the basis of musical taste isnt it?
That was a kind of jokey aside...
As to the last comment, we all have difficulty drawing the line, and I know I blur it occasionally, but I'm not going to write "IMO" every time I express an opinion.
I agree about the "IMO", but early in my prog archives membership,I was savaged (not by you) for suggesting that writing "IMO" was stupid and unnecessary tautology. I was informed it was a necessary "Forum Protocol" ()
I think it's good protocol to make it reasonably clear where you're expressing opinions - and it's always good to back up opinions with some understanding - which is why I only tend to chime in with positive ones. It might make me look a bit of a "fanboy", but it's better than posting empty negative opinions that have no substance (that wasn't a direct dig, BTW, it was a generalism that applies to the real offenders on this forum).
If he believes more prog-metal bands have been influenced by Metallica than Rush,that is his opinion.
I just use my ears and hear the openly stolen riffs. Is it not more like handling stolen goods?
Being an avid "browser" in my local newsagent,I have read many, many musician's magazines and from what I can see, the percentage of prog-metal musicians who cite Rush as their major influence is so high as you can virtually,but not actually,say all of them.This I cant prove,but have no reason to be dishonest or mistaken about this.To me it is a fact.
Yes, but the number of those bands who incorporate Rush-style riffs in their music can probably be counted on the fingers of one hand. I'm guessing, of course - I just haven't heard many bands that remind me in any way of Rush.
The thrashing style that Metallica pioneered is evident almost everywhere in prog and nu-metal. So, are you saying that Metallica invented Thrash Metal, if so why dont you just say that and your post will make more sense.
No - I'm saying they spearheaded the whole genre. As it stands, I believe that Metal Church invented the thrash style - but they were part of a whole culture in San Francisco from whence the genre emerged 23 or so years ago. Since it's still very much alive, it strikes me that here is a musical genre that has survived longer than most - pretty much unchanged. So it must be fairly fundamentally important in recent musical evolution - even if you don't like it!
As for growling vocals......wtf is that all about?
I wrote a paper about that for my 20th Century music exams - what I said boils down to the fact that the music is growly, so the vocals were made growly to suit it. I find Death (early albums) particularly funny in that respect. I got a starred first for that paper
(doesn't mean I was right, of course - I just argued the case and the examiner agreed. Easiest and most fun paper I ever sat!)
If this view is symptomatic of my lack of understanding of this particular sub-genre, then so be it.
It is - it shows that you haven't listened to much of it. Your call, of course, there are many here who don't even accept prog metal as a sub-genre of prog - and I can sympathise with that.
I just think that, since the music is well over 20 years old now, you might find something of interest in there. If nothing else, I'd recommend a listen to "Master of Puppets" and "...And Justice for All". Then listen to "Images and Words" by Dream Theater - and laugh at the amount of plagiarism.
........Re-listen to Master and Puppets...........
Re-listen - yes! Good idea! It's a great album.
As I said - if you can think of a single pre-1986 album that does everything you hear on "Master of Puppets", or a single album that pre-empts "Kill 'Em All" (apart from Metal Church's debut, which I know about) - I'd be very interested to hear it to fill in the gaps in my historical knowledge. I truly believe it is a classic that has yet to get the wide acceptance it deserves. I can, of course, elucidate further... Who was it who said "pedantry is the last refuge of the anally-retentive"
I dunno - you?
I have a recording of my mother-in-law's dog yapping along to Paranoid- if you want to take it off my hands,Cert!
You're too kind. But no thanks - I've already got a copy of Meddle... |
|
|
|
Posted By: James Lee
Date Posted: March 12 2005 at 14:51
what exactly are you two arguing about? I'm tripping out on the colors and can't keep track of the points made.
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/sollipsist/?chartstyle=kaonashi">
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: March 12 2005 at 14:59
Ah. The colours were supposed to make it clearer...
The sub-topic is Metallica - empty and soulless or spirited, aggressive and genre (re)defining.
Everything else is just two people not understanding each other.
|
Posted By: Reed Lover
Date Posted: March 12 2005 at 15:00
Certif1ed wrote:
Reed Lover wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
Reed Lover wrote:
I find Metallica and their ilk tedious and soulless.
They are not to my taste.I have heard all their albums and they do nothing for me.If you criticise something on this forum you are automatically accused of either never having heard any of the band's music or having an axe to grind.I do not like Metallica's style at all.I do believe that I have heard it all before, but that is because they do not affect me positively-there is nothing wrong with this view,otherwise everybody would like every kind of music.
And the whole point of a discussion is that people have differing opinions - just because yours are held to question doesn't mean that they're being shot down in flames, it's simply that someone else has different opinions to your own and wishes to discuss salient points.
You are arguing about my taste in music. I understand you when you say you are discussing what I have opined, but I made it pretty clear that it was a matter of my personal taste-which obviously, is not open for argument.
I'm not arguing about your taste, I'm simply making the case against the qualifiers you used. I disagreed with what you said.
You've made another salient point that I cannot agree with - I am puzzled as to where you could have heard Metallica's style before (unless you mean Metal Church). I am simply curious, and wish to know what "Kill 'Em All" reminds you of, as it came completely out of the blue as far as I can tell - there was simply very little by way of precedent for Metallica's thrashing style.
When I wrote "I've heard it all before" I wasnt referring to their "style" as such,just the small things such as the chords, notes and arrangements No,seriously, just as I accept that Geddy Lee's vocals put many people off Rush,as soon as I hear that growl it puts me off.It homogenises the whole genre to me.I am not saying that is a sound technical argument-just the effect it has on me.
The chords, notes and arrangements... er... how deep do you want to go? I could argue that the atonal composers of the early 1900s used up all the notes and chords... I don't understand that argument obviously couldnt see the () I explain after the ()
. One of the points I was making was that they spearheaded this whole new style - I even quoted some influences. I could go into a discussion on how music evolves - but I'm sure that's easy enough to grasp on any level...
Of course, the inspirations are evident - Diamond Head, Motorhead, Budgie, Hawkwind, Black Sabbath, Killing Joke et al - but what I'm getting at is that the style Metallica evolved was unique, albeit with the usual bandwagon jumpers close behind, and inspiration to just about every metal band these days (even if they don't openly admit it - there's more prestige to saying you're inspired by Rush, but less evidence in most bands' music). Might be on this forum,but not in real life trust me.Ask Rhythm magazine. The editor (at that time) once said (I kid you not!) "in future I am going to edit out any reference to Neil Peart in interviews"
Sorry, old chap - I don't get that. What "might be on this forum"? err " more prestige to saying you're inspired by Rush"
It's not a case of axe-grinding, just basic, open curiosity.
I'm not suggesting that you have but you dont seem to understand that if that type of metal does nothing for me,I am not going to persevere and scratch the surface. Maybe it is an age thing-but that is the reaction I have.To me,I repeat,I cant get past the ridiculous vocals-so it all sounds the same to me.
You don't have that problem with Lemmy? No,in the same way I dont have a problem with Lee,it's just the old adage "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"-you know,put two equally desirable objects side by side ask someone to choose and then get them to explain the choice.....you seem to want to make music appreciation an exact science, and maybe that works for you,but not for most people I believe.
Cert sees things in them that I dont. He also occasionally has difficulty from discerning the difference between "opinion" and "fact".
er... actually, I hear things that you don't... maybe I should lay off the cactus juice It seems to me that any person liking music that someone else dislikes will necessarily hear something the other doesnt.That seems obvious and something that you dont appear to understand.I mean that's the basis of musical taste isnt it?
That was a kind of jokey aside... Yes, I know () but you miss the point-that is exactly why different people like certain groups in a genre but not others:I mean explain liking Triumvirat but not ELP or visa-versa.
As to the last comment, we all have difficulty drawing the line, and I know I blur it occasionally, but I'm not going to write "IMO" every time I express an opinion.
I agree about the "IMO", but early in my prog archives membership,I was savaged (not by you) for suggesting that writing "IMO" was stupid and unnecessary tautology. I was informed it was a necessary "Forum Protocol" ()
I think it's good protocol to make it reasonably clear where you're expressing opinions - and it's always good to back up opinions with some understanding - which is why I only tend to chime in with positive ones. It might make me look a bit of a "fanboy", but it's better than posting empty negative opinions that have no substance (that wasn't a direct dig, BTW, it was a generalism that applies to the real offenders on this forum).
Give over-you know there is only you and I reading this dross......
If he believes more prog-metal bands have been influenced by Metallica than Rush,that is his opinion.
I just use my ears and hear the openly stolen riffs. Is it not more like handling stolen goods?
Being an avid "browser" in my local newsagent,I have read many, many musician's magazines and from what I can see, the percentage of prog-metal musicians who cite Rush as their major influence is so high as you can virtually,but not actually,say all of them.This I cant prove,but have no reason to be dishonest or mistaken about this.To me it is a fact.
Yes, but the number of those bands who incorporate Rush-style riffs in their music can probably be counted on the fingers of one hand. I'm guessing, of course - I just haven't heard many bands that remind me in any way of Rush.
The thrashing style that Metallica pioneered is evident almost everywhere in prog and nu-metal. So, are you saying that Metallica invented Thrash Metal, if so why dont you just say that and your post will make more sense.
No - I'm saying they spearheaded the whole genre. As it stands, I believe that Metal Church invented the thrash style - but they were part of a whole culture in San Francisco from whence the genre emerged 23 or so years ago. Since it's still very much alive, it strikes me that here is a musical genre that has survived longer than most - pretty much unchanged. So it must be fairly fundamentally important in recent musical evolution - even if you don't like it! Because it is servicable headbanging music for headbangers who dont want anything too complicated. As for growling vocals......wtf is that all about?
I wrote a paper about that for my 20th Century music exams - what I said boils down to the fact that the music is growly, so the vocals were made growly to suit it. I find Death (early albums) particularly funny in that respect. I got a starred first for that paper
(doesn't mean I was right, of course - I just argued the case and the examiner agreed. Easiest and most fun paper I ever sat!)
If this view is symptomatic of my lack of understanding of this particular sub-genre, then so be it.
It is - it shows that you haven't listened to much of it. Your call, of course, there are many here who don't even accept prog metal as a sub-genre of prog - and I can sympathise with that.
I just think that, since the music is well over 20 years old now, you might find something of interest in there. If nothing else, I'd recommend a listen to "Master of Puppets" and "...And Justice for All". Then listen to "Images and Words" by Dream Theater - and laugh at the amount of plagiarism.
........Re-listen to Master and Puppets...........
Re-listen - yes! Good idea! It's a great album.
if you like that sort of thing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As I said - if you can think of a single pre-1986 album that does everything you hear on "Master of Puppets", or a single album that pre-empts "Kill 'Em All" (apart from Metal Church's debut, which I know about) - I'd be very interested to hear it to fill in the gaps in my historical knowledge. I truly believe it is a classic that has yet to get the wide acceptance it deserves. I can, of course, elucidate further... Who was it who said "pedantry is the last refuge of the anally-retentive"
I dunno - you?
Doh!
I have a recording of my mother-in-law's dog yapping along to Paranoid- if you want to take it off my hands,Cert!
You're too kind. But no thanks - I've already got a copy of Meddle...
|
|
|
|
-------------
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: March 12 2005 at 15:41
The only point I'm going to pick up on (because the colours are making my head spin too...) is Because it is servicable headbanging music for headbangers who dont want anything too complicated.
You're voicing an opinion based on the most scant contact with the genre. It's like me saying that all Country and Western is semi-yodelling vocals over plinky guitars and over-sized breasts, or like people on this forum saying that rap is only guys talkgin over music.
None of those opinions are particularly fair, and deserve everything that comes back - I for one am delighted to see the pro-rappers coming back with supportive arguments.
To suggest that Metallica's music was uncomplicated is laughable and I would think that you're only saying it to get a rise - you're certainly not speaking from experience.
But anyway - you miss the whole point of this type of music, like I do with C&W and the stuff that calls itself R&B these days, so this whole argument is moot .
|
Posted By: Reed Lover
Date Posted: March 12 2005 at 15:51
-------------
|
Posted By: Dragon Phoenix
Date Posted: March 12 2005 at 16:07
None of the listed. I'd go for Rammstein.
|
Posted By: Cygnus X-2
Date Posted: March 12 2005 at 16:09
Posted By: Dragon Phoenix
Date Posted: March 12 2005 at 16:13
Posted By: Lunarscape
Date Posted: March 12 2005 at 17:53
Pixel, I had my fair share of Heavy Metal, listening to Sabbath and Sepultura. I used to take some Cds to the Hospital and while operating over the late hours, these bands kept me from sleeping while doing surgery. Since I dont work that much anymore, I keep these records locked up in the basement.
_______
Lunar
------------- Music Is The Soul Bird That Flies In The Immense Heart Of The Listener . . .
|
Posted By: James Lee
Date Posted: March 13 2005 at 03:04
Oh yeah, forgot about Sepultura. I always liked how they worked in South American influences here and there.
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/sollipsist/?chartstyle=kaonashi">
|
Posted By: Pixel Pirate
Date Posted: March 13 2005 at 05:16
To me,metal is all about spirit,artistic vision and a certain kind of philosphy and I haven't heard any band outside of the Norwegian black metal bands who have that spirit,all "ordinary" metal are just entertainment and that's definitely not what metal is about for me. That's why I could never get into it before the black metal scene started to develop here in Norway in the early 90's. I could never take working class yobbos like Maiden and Priest seriously or California airheads like Metallica,it was all so juvenile and intellectually unfullfilling,not to mention too much in common with straightforward rock'n'roll,which I absolutely hate. Norwegian black metal sounded,and has continued to sound,very different from that. It's all to do with cultural and historical background,you can't do metal properly if you come from Hawaii. Or California for that matter. Scandinavia,and Finland and Germany,are the ideal places for TRUE metal to spring from,and a large part of it is because of geography and climate. Long dark winters,big brooding forests lend themselves very naturally to metal. It's difficult to hear Reggae springing forth naturally from the Norwegian cultural and historical soil! To me,metal is not a form of music,it's a state of mind and it's not enough to be agressive and loud,that's only tiresome. Metal done without the proper philosophy is just a hideous noise,and I believe only the Scandinavian and Finnish bands,and possibly the German ones,have that philosophy. Metal is music that is totally reliant on the proper spirit behind it or it simply becomes mindless noise for teenage boys and the feeble minded. When I saw an interview with Lars Ulrich by his Californian mansion,sitting beside his pool,I didn't have to hear a word he said,just by seeing what context he presented himself within told me he didn't have the proper metal spirit. But then again,being brought up in California,how could he? Metal drummers don't play tennis!
------------- Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
|
Posted By: James Lee
Date Posted: March 13 2005 at 14:35
Pixel Pirate wrote:
When I saw an interview with Lars Ulrich by his Californian mansion,sitting beside his pool,I didn't have to hear a word he said,just by seeing what context he presented himself within told me he didn't have the proper metal spirit. But then again,being brought up in California,how could he? Metal drummers don't play tennis! |
There's a pic of Metallica next to the dictionary entry for 'sellout'
Though a lot of good metal has come out of California...remember, Northern California is nothing like LA...life can get pretty cold and dreary at times.
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/sollipsist/?chartstyle=kaonashi">
|
Posted By: Prog Tologist
Date Posted: March 13 2005 at 15:09
I love Metallica. They might not be progrock but they have influenced all these new progressive metal bands like dream theater.
------------- We used to love him,now he's dead we love him more.....
|
Posted By: Glass-Prison
Date Posted: March 13 2005 at 15:35
But I happen to like dream theater for it's progressive aspect. This, in some way, overshadows the bruteness of their heavy metal influences. Essentialy, they are the thinking man's metal group. This may not be to everyone's taste - Their metal may not be as sophisticated as our Norwegian friends, but the progressive element puts them in a class of their own.
------------- Sun Tsu said: To fight and conquer in your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists of breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.
Sun Tsu: The art of War
|
Posted By: Pixel Pirate
Date Posted: March 13 2005 at 15:41
James Lee wrote:
Pixel Pirate wrote:
When I saw an interview with Lars Ulrich by his Californian mansion,sitting beside his pool,I didn't have to hear a word he said,just by seeing what context he presented himself within told me he didn't have the proper metal spirit. But then again,being brought up in California,how could he? Metal drummers don't play tennis! |
There's a pic of Metallica next to the dictionary entry for 'sellout'
Though a lot of good metal has come out of California...remember, Northern California is nothing like LA...life can get pretty cold and dreary at times.
|
It's true that we Europeans have a tendency to think that California is LA and that's it. It's a common mistake for those of us on the other side of the world and I make it too from time to time.
------------- Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
|
Posted By: CrimsonKing
Date Posted: March 13 2005 at 16:47
Pixel Pirate wrote:
Ram-Zet is another excellent Norwegian metal band. Their awesome concept album "Escape" is so packed with intelligence,creativity,imagination and innovation,it has to be heard to be believed. Check the review on All Music Guide for confirmation. |
RAM-ZET rules. Pure Therapy.
------------- RED EYE
|
Posted By: James Lee
Date Posted: March 13 2005 at 16:59
I don't know that it's possible to be a successful metalhead, any more than one can be a successful punk. It's necessary to grow, and it's possible to evolve without damaging your past in the process, and Metallica hasn't really done that...they want their protest and their riches, the celebrity lifestyle and the 'doing it for the fans' attitude...it's a contradiction that has ruined better and smarter bands.
And given the lyrics to many of their songs, it's impossible not to think of them as hypocrites now. All that's left is for Hetfield and Ulrich to join the PMRC...
But I agree, Metallica has been the single most influential metal band since Sabbath...in fact, most of modern heavy rock owes its sound and mainstream acceptance to how ubiquitous Metallica (along with Nirvana) became in the late 80s & early 90s.
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/sollipsist/?chartstyle=kaonashi">
|
Posted By: Pixel Pirate
Date Posted: March 13 2005 at 17:08
CrimsonKing wrote:
Pixel Pirate wrote:
Ram-Zet is another excellent Norwegian metal band. Their awesome concept album "Escape" is so packed with intelligence,creativity,imagination and innovation,it has to be heard to be believed. Check the review on All Music Guide for confirmation. |
RAM-ZET rules. Pure Therapy.
|
Yes,"Pure Therapy" is also brilliant.
------------- Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
|
|