| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
micky 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46833
|
 Posted: May 24 2007 at 18:47 |
|
my basic problem is short of an established creation date for 'prog-metal' it can't work.
prog had been around for years.. so had metal.. simply... if Metallica
fused them.. they should be judged AS a PM group... they
didn't create the wheel so to speak.. this stuff had been out
there. What about Uriah Heep... Deep Purple.. Rush....groups that have
that tag thrown at them with some regularity. You can't be proto
if the movement wasn't exactly new...
Edited by micky - May 24 2007 at 18:49
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
 |
WaywardSon
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 23 2006
Location: Brazil
Status: Offline
Points: 2537
|
Posted: May 24 2007 at 18:41 |
The problem is Neo Prog and Prog Metal genres began in the 80´s, so that excludes any influenes for these genres going into Proto Prog.
Maybe the solution is to expand the timeline of Proto Prog, so instead of no bands later than 1970, we have it designed for no bands later than 198_?
Well gentlemen?
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46833
|
Posted: May 24 2007 at 18:35 |
 Tony R wrote:
Proto-Prog Metal?
You're not pushing Rush there you git...  |
hahahah.. I"m on retirement..... 
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46833
|
Posted: May 24 2007 at 18:34 |
Tony R wrote:
One problem I can see is that there isnt anywhere
satisfactory to place Metallica. It seems to me that whilst Cert's
argument is a winning one the argument suggests that they were
Prog-influencers in as much as they influenced Prog-Metal. What I mean
is that they dont sit comfortably with "Prog-Related" and the more apt
"Proto-Prog" was not designed for bands later than 1970...however it
does appear from the arguments that Metallica were Proto-Prog Metal...
|
the problem with that that.. is ... just when IS the established
date for the creation of prog-metal... 1969 is WELL
established as the start date for the prog movement. Thus proto works
well.. .what about prog-metal...
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
Tony R
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: July 16 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 11979
|
Posted: May 24 2007 at 18:34 |
Proto-Prog Metal?
You're not pushing Rush there you git... |
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46833
|
Posted: May 24 2007 at 18:32 |
the idea was put out there Tony to have that category....
If Jody and Mike think it's a good idea.. who can argue  It solves this problem nicely.
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
Tony R
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: July 16 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 11979
|
Posted: May 24 2007 at 18:28 |
One problem I can see is that there isnt anywhere satisfactory to place Metallica. It seems to me that whilst Cert's argument is a winning one the argument suggests that they were Prog-influencers in as much as they influenced Prog-Metal. What I mean is that they dont sit comfortably with "Prog-Related" and the more apt "Proto-Prog" was not designed for bands later than 1970...however it does appear from the arguments that Metallica were Proto-Prog Metal...
Prog-Related Definition on ProgArchives:
A wide subgenre that encompasses two kinds of bands/artist, that either consist of progressive artist that strayed away from their progressive roots into mainstream rock or were influenced by progressive rock.
Proto-Prog
Rock Bands in existence prior to 1969 that influenced the development of progressive rock. The late 60's was a predominately experimental period for music. These bands were moving in a stream that eventually led to prog. The influence could have come from new sophisticated forms of writing and playing music, recording techniques, new instruments and vocal harmonies to name a few. Some of these bands became progressive rock bands themselves others did not.
Could be that there's no room at the inn after all for the metal messiahs...
Edited by Tony R - May 24 2007 at 18:33
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46833
|
Posted: May 24 2007 at 18:18 |
hahahha.. and here we go around in circles... . Pointless dicussions give me a rise however.. I call it mental masturbation.... and it rules hahhaha.
Great post Mark.. it was.. but think on this ....
admin policy ...last time I had the riot act read to me is PR is not a
fall back for rejected artists... you can't have your cake and
eat it too..
if you want to argue the case musically... then it is either prog-metal
or it doesn't belong here. Like every other group there we evaluate on
the site.
if it is PR... that ..as I've tried to explain is a different case...for the simple fact that so
many bands have progressive elements in their music..you have to put
stipulations on it. PR status is not about the music itself.
.it's about the importance of the group in prog terms... their impact
on prog if you will. This of course assumes that these addtions
aren't primarily to generate web hits
That is much harder to argue, than meerly showing that Metallica
varied compositionally from the standard metal of the day. Sounds like
you made a case for them being in Prog Metal.. not Prog Related.
That they had prog elements in their music.. we know...we've heard
it... however since this appears to be a PR question.. That
is a tricky one for Metal groups.. did they just impact
metal as a whole.. or just the Prog-Metal side. One should be
here.. the other shouldn't.
you mention...
'The difference is that very few metal bands in the early 1980s
constructed songs using this technique - it's all intro,
V,C,V,C,SOLO,V,C,C,C...'
that is true... I notice that Dream Theater goes to great lenghs
to cite YES as an influence for example. Instead of attributing
the complex constructions of prog metal over standard Metal to
Metallica.. isn't it fair to assume that Yes or Rush, or
other classic prog bands that might have influenced PM,
could have been that influence instead. You can extrapolate that
Metallica is the main influence on the complex nature of prog metal quite easily just by saying they did.....
however many of those bands grew up ..not listening to Metallica Mark...
but Yes, Rush, and god... even Genesis.
Edited by micky - May 24 2007 at 18:21
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: May 24 2007 at 15:43 |
micky wrote:
good point ^^
personally this issue should be probably be decided on the same question that has kept.. and hopefully will forever keep Black Sabbath out of here.
is Metallica's influence.. on metal itself... or on the 'prog' side of it. We include only Prog Metal groups here.. not the whole spectrum of metal.
I don't think anyone could deny their influence on metal. Prog-Metal is a subset of metal of course. What did Metaliica bring to the PROG side of Prog Metal.
|
That can be demonstrated in the three clips I posted earlier - although there are better examples on the albums.
"Ride The Lightning", for example (the first of this group of 3), contains several changes in the instrumental section, which are carefully constructed to fit around the solo - which again, is carefully composed.
The riffs use elements of each other and are related, while the drumming changes to highlight dramatic change. This is a carefully conceived work, and is the equal, in terms of Prog Metal to anything on "Images and Words".
The latter contains many techniques that are more advanced than Metallica's - but that is to follow Metallica's pattern of getting consistently more progressive with each album until they regretfully stopped.
The formal constructions and compositional ideas are no more advanced than Metallica's - which makes RTL a Prog Metal album in pretty much the same way as "Images and Words" - but without the keyboards.
Let me justify that in easy terms;
The songs on IAW are exactly that - songs with extended bridges, just like RTL.
The difference is that very few metal bands in the early 1980s constructed songs using this technique - it's all intro, V,C,V,C,SOLO,V,C,C,C...
Listen to RTL again - the "chorus" is blurred - more of a refrain than a chanting singalong chorus typical to metal.
And, for luck, listen to the construction of the solo - the dynamic peaks and troughs, changes in tempo and key feel.
Is that really not Prog Metal?
Why not?
Compare it with anything else released in metal in 1984 - does it sound like basic metal, basic thrash or something else completely?
(The context is important!)
Edited by Certif1ed - May 24 2007 at 15:53
|
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: May 24 2007 at 15:36 |
akin wrote:
If when you confront with a mirroring you act like a child you shouldn't even discuss. I addressed your points exactly the same way you addressed mine and you felt bad. |
No - I summarised the way I saw the points that you had raised and asked you if you felt that the summary was fair.
You misinterpreted practically everything I said in order to make it look like you were an injured party somehow.
I didn't feel bad - I saw what you were doing and put a line underneath it.
...or would have, if you hadn't made this response - to which I feel I should clarify the matter.
akin wrote:
Of course you would answer with this ridiculous answer to try to make the others agree with you because they would take pity on you for being answered without technical points to your technical points, but you did the same with mine. So if you are offended, I was offended too first. I have no fun in doing this, but this is the way you refute the others arguments and I'm doing the same with you.
|
Please re-read everything - I don't quite understand your interpretation of the discussion so far - but the bits I do understand are inaccurate.
If you're not having fun, then you can always stop - or ask questions, if you don't understand something.
I thoroughly recommend the latter approach - I'm sure you're not a quitter!
|
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
Ampersand
Forum Newbie
Joined: March 20 2006
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 8
|
Posted: May 24 2007 at 14:12 |
|
With Metallica it may not be the case of progmetal. It is just a band which is quite often sympathised with by prog fans. So, there is no place for personal dislikes. Even if you don't like Metallica, some other guys might. And if it found its way to ProgArchives, it would allow many people, like me, to opine about their albums. Call it prog or not, there are a few bands (like The Cure) I'd like to listen to, but can't find a reliable source of reviews (allmusic sucks, I need something written from the progressive point of view) and if we allowed for a broader range of musical styles, it would let us, progfans, judge non-prog albums from a prog perspective. And it pertains to Metallica as well.
|
|
It's almost a feeling you can touch in the air
You look all around you but nobody's there
|
|
WaywardSon
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 23 2006
Location: Brazil
Status: Offline
Points: 2537
|
Posted: May 24 2007 at 12:18 |
micky wrote:
^ not to rain on the parade here... but that is exactly what can't happen here. Forgive me .. elitist gods of prog for doing this.. but there is a team of people here trying to beat into some of our heads the Prog Metal IS a valid sub-genre of prog. What you are doing with that proposal is seperating Prog Metal from prog.. ostracizing it even more from 'traditional' prog. Going against what hte PMT has tried to work for.
|
The general speaks!  
I can understand what you mean though, it could lead to all sorts of problems, like a proto neo prog genre etc etc..
Also starting a proto prog metal genre would isolate Prog Metal even more. People would start endless debates about it not originating from rock, but from metal.
Hmmm, I´m completely lost as what to do...
Edited by WaywardSon - May 24 2007 at 12:28
|
|
akin
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 06 2004
Location: Brazil
Status: Offline
Points: 976
|
Posted: May 24 2007 at 12:04 |
TheProgtologist wrote:
Rocktopus wrote:
TheProgtologist wrote:
Without
addressing all the points that need addressing in this thread I really
need to point on thing out....
You guys do realize that just because a band is in Prog Related does NOT MEAN THEY ARE PROG.
When will you guys get that through your heads?
Read the definition of the category,I get sick of saying that. |
Honestly...most people don't.Not when they are arguing about how "proggy" they are.
I think most people realize that.
Still
most of us don't want Metallica here. Even if its just in the
(unpopular) prog-related category. They are as I see it related to
progmetal, not directly to prog.
|
Why can't a band directly related to prog metal be in PR?????
That bias angers me to no end,prog metal is a valid PROG sub-genre. |
No problems, as I've already said in my post. If the admins/owners decide Metallica is prog-related, it should be added.
I think what is causing some confusion is that some use the argument
that Metallica is connected with Prog Metal (even influencing it) by
being a metal band, not because their prog qualities. And them others
do not explain clearly that the opposition is based on this. I
explained this when I mentioned that connection of Metallica with Prog
Metal is not valid if it is the same connection Coltrane has with the
Jazz Rock/Fusion and Canterbury genres, because the connection is the
jazz part, not the prog part.
Prog Metal is valid, of course, and it is prog. Unfortunately some use
the argument that a prog metal related band is not the same essence as
a prog related band, which leads the conclusion that Prog Metal is not
the same in essence as the other genres, leading to confusion.
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46833
|
Posted: May 24 2007 at 11:47 |
|
^ not to rain on the parade here... but that is exactly what can't
happen here. Forgive me .. elitist gods of prog for doing
this.. but there is a team of people here trying to beat into some of
our heads the Prog Metal IS a valid sub-genre of prog. What you
are doing with that proposal is seperating Prog Metal from prog..
ostracizing it even more from 'traditional' prog. Going against
what hte PMT has tried to work for.
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
Melomaniac
Prog Reviewer
Joined: May 07 2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 4088
|
Posted: May 24 2007 at 11:30 |
WaywardSon wrote:
melomaniac, I was just about to suggest that. It seems the only way around this.
With a proto prog metal genre we could add bands like Metallica, Malmsteen (His 80´s output was a big influence on bands like SX ec) and maybe Sabbath.
|
Definitely !!!
Sabbath, in a proto prog metal category, should be the first included, as they were the FIRST metal band, and every metal band ever since derives from them.
What do you think, Jody ???
|
|
"One likes to believe in the freedom of Music" - Neil Peart, The Spirit of Radio
|
|
WaywardSon
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 23 2006
Location: Brazil
Status: Offline
Points: 2537
|
Posted: May 24 2007 at 11:27 |
melomaniac, I was just about to suggest that. It seems the only way around this.
With a proto prog metal genre we could add bands like Metallica, Malmsteen (His 80´s output was a big influence on bands like SX ec) and maybe Sabbath.
|
|
Melomaniac
Prog Reviewer
Joined: May 07 2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 4088
|
Posted: May 24 2007 at 11:11 |
TheProgtologist wrote:
Rocktopus wrote:
TheProgtologist wrote:
Without addressing all the points that need addressing in this thread I really need to point on thing out....
You guys do realize that just because a band is in Prog Related does NOT MEAN THEY ARE PROG.
When will you guys get that through your heads?
Read the definition of the category,I get sick of saying that. |
Honestly...most people don't.Not when they are arguing about how "proggy" they are.
I think most people realize that.
Still most of us don't want Metallica here. Even if its just in the (unpopular) prog-related category. They are as I see it related to progmetal, not directly to prog.
|
Why can't a band directly related to prog metal be in PR?????
That bias angers me to no end,prog metal is a valid PROG sub-genre. |
We should have a PROTO PROG-METAL CATEGORY, since prog metal is as valid a genre as any prog sub-genre... If we had that category, I'd be willing to include Metallica in it, and I'd transfer Iron Maiden from prog related to proto prog metal... What do you all think ?
|
|
"One likes to believe in the freedom of Music" - Neil Peart, The Spirit of Radio
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: May 24 2007 at 11:06 |
|
^ ta!
|
|
What?
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21138
|
Posted: May 24 2007 at 11:04 |
|
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: May 24 2007 at 10:43 |
|
Where did the "Is MoP progressive?" Poll go? I appear to have lost it...
|
|
What?
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Metallica?
