Metallica ?

Certif1ed wrote: I'm convinced you're confusing complicated with complexity - they are two different things. Complicated is like taking a very simple chord progression, then layering it with related technical stuff that sounds impressive. It's a flashy way of writing, but not complex.  Complex is using long and developing chord progressions, or morphing riffs into other riffs to produce a dramatic chain of events that has a logical or, even better, twisted yet natural flow - or layering parts that are distinctly different to each other for a web of sound. In terms of Classical composers, it's a bit like comparing Paganini to Liszt

That has always been my problem with your point of view ... you're raising the bar for the level of complexity required for something to be called prog so high that only a handful of bands on this planet pass as prog. So who's prog in your book ... Genesis, King Crimson and Gentle Giant?

oh brother...  it is threads and topics like this that give this forum the appeal of a pair of sweaty gym socks.


so you're pissed about Metaliica's addition....  why stop there... there are SCORES of bands here that are not traditionally known as prog.  Get yourself in a tissy over all them as well.    In a tissy because Metalica is here but not in Prog Metal... why stop there... there are lots of groups that did prog albums that are listed in prog related. 

The thing is the group is HERE so people may review the albums.   To show through reviews what musical meatheads might have missed by simply relying on tags and labels rather than their ears.  So what if no one has stuck a prog 'label' on a band.  This site is about progressive music... in all shapes and sizes. 


Pfffff...


Edited by micky - July 06 2009 at 14:16

Certif1ed wrote: Running away so soon?

It takes me too much time to follow the discussion. And I've said all what I have to say.

For KIMB I've said that the "prog" part is about the free composition concerning the form of the song that  isn't the classical form strophe-refrain( and this si more predominated in peace sells..).I'm  thinking about song like Skull beneath the skin fro example. But for you this is not a "prog thing".
I've never said that KIMB is a prog album (and that Megadeth is prog metal. They are a Thrash Metal band like Metallica.
In 1985 KIMB was a technical album (not like WachtTower debut...but Megadeth were more famous). Obviously the other  Megadeth's album are more tehcnical than it.
I don't know music theory, I'm an ex -drummer and all that I can say is that, to my experience and to my ears Megadeth are more technical than Metallica and difficult to play (I have played both bands). But this was also the opinion of many of the musician I palyed with.
For the riffage...I'm not a guitar player. I can say that I think that there is not so diversity about the level of complexity especially between justice and RIP.

  

^ I think that Rust in Peace can be called at least Prog-Related. I also don't think that Metallica's songwriters ever were near the sophistication of the best Prog songwriters, let alone classical composers ... but composition-wise I'd say that MoP is at least one step ahead of RiP.

In fact it has become progressive.

This thread has developed into an interesting new phase.

Edited by Snow Dog - July 06 2009 at 08:26

Ah so Metallica developed the riffs...
 But that's your point of view sir, and as opinion is really opinable- I mean the fact that only them did it (I feel the smell of fanboysm...just a little bit. Yes, i'm sarcastic again, because i't no a little bit  ).


Go and really listen carefully to the first four Megadeth albums...and you will see...album per album...the "progression" of Dave Mustaine, also about the riffage.

So Metallica are prog because they expand the riffs?...they do more complex riffs?
Ah ah but it's obvious because they became more complex and technical album per album...like many bands...and you can hear that also in Megadeth.
KIMBIB to RIP....Rust in Peace the more technical and complex album of the band...
If you don't see the similarity in structure of Metallica's songs it's not my problem, really.

Are you talking  about developing riffage? Listen, as only  examples, to Mental vortex and Grin by Coroner...or  Deception ignored By Deathrow....
And about prog...we have certainly different positions...and I'm glad of it if you consider prog kill'em all.

P.S. and it's obvious that KIMB wasn't completly different from Kill'em all because Dave wrote partly the first Metallica album...and KIMB songs are all composed in 1983 (also other songs from Peace sells and SFSGSW were firstly written in 1983). The differeces are in the composition and the technical abilities.


Edited by Transgressor - July 06 2009 at 08:24

Certif1ed wrote: Ahem...     JJLehto wrote: 3 prog-ish albums does not a prog-related band make.   True, but 5 utterly progressive (including 3 pure Prog Metal albums a Prog Metal band easily makes.   Transgressor wrote: So: Rust in Peace is a prog-thrash album more than every  album Metallica did.     No, it isn't.   It's a good album, but Megadeth never got into the purely progressive way of writing that Metallica did on albums 2-4.   I'll re-listen, but Megadeth are a technical metal band, not a progressive metal band.   Tech is not the same as prog. Transgressor wrote: The question is: why Metallica and not Megadeth or Coroner (or others more proggy and more important for techincal and prog metal music than Metallica)?   Coroner were never as progressive as Metallica - and I cannot think of any band as progressive or more important for prog metal than Metallica.   Can you provide good examples of how Coroner are important to Progressive Metal?   Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Metallica was added because of preasure of a group of members against the opinion of the vast majority, this poll proves it, that ended convincing the owner who was against the inclusion.   Iván     Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: No - Metallica were added because they are fundamentally crucial to the development of progressive metal, as much as the Beatles were to Progressive Rock.   They changed the possibilities of the Metal genre that much.   Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ So Metallica are prog after all?   By the contrary, they are a non Prog band added with the excuse that Prog Related is not Prog, if they were Prog, the Prog Metal Team would had added Metallica.   Iván       On the contrary, they were probably the first Prog Metal band. They are not simply Prog related, they are Prog. By every definition.   JJLehto wrote: Especially when they started as thrash metal, and that was their intent. Really - I don't ever remember seeing them saying that - can you point me to an article where they said that? They always wanted to push the envelope (which they did), hence Cliff Burton was the bassist of choice, not Ron McGoverney.   They wanted someone who could think coherently about pushing musical boundaries, which is why Dave Mustaine was fired from the band. (Nothing against Dave or his phenomenal abilities, just bluntly stating what actually happened).   JJLehto wrote: So because Lars says it, that makes it true?   Actually, no - if you listen to the music, it is true!   JJLehto wrote: Besides Kill 'em All was open E riffing for 5 minutes, with crazy solos of course.   Some tracks have passages of open E riffing, it's true, but not the whole album - that is a fallacy!   You could say the same about many Hawkwind albums, but you'll never see Hawkwind being disputed on this forum.   JJLehto wrote: Thus, proving my point Metallica is a thrash metal band, that was their intent NOT to be progressive.   Sorry - I don't follow the logic.   How is that point proven?   Please explain, and use musical examples so that your logic may be followed more clearly.   JJLehto wrote: However, since they are on this site Megadeth MUST be as well. Someone also mentioned Coroner. These should be added, since Metallica is.   Not at all, unless both bands can be proven to have been as significantly Progressive Metal as Metallica. Which I doubt - but would be very interested to read the arguments, as I like both bands.   debrewguy wrote:   And Master of Puppets & And Justice for All are prog.       And Ride The Lightning - and parts of Kill 'Em All too.     debrewguy wrote: Again, COMMERCIAL SUCCESS is the easiest & biggest reason when it comes to such groups being slammed as not prog. Because everyone thinks they know the music.   Isn't it wierd how commercial success hasn't affected Genesis, Yes, Tull or especially Pink Floyd's standing as Prog Rock groups?

Are you joking?
Metallica has done three pure prog albums?!! Kil'em all is a prog release!!?!
Rust in peace, isnt "prog", and doesn't have prog elements?


What does the term "progressive" means to you? Because now this is the point of the situation.
Progressive isn't only a term of definition for a specified genre of the '70...the Classical prog rock...Now, in 2009 (for me especially), Progressive has expands its definition and areas...
Progressive- progression...should be labeled all the band that expands and experiments on the classical form song.  Progressive doesn't mean doing long song of 8 or 10 minutes...(like Metallica...repeating the same passages all over the song with the structure that remains a Classic structure..).
Megadeth (the fist four albums) presents a complex structure form, with continuing time changes, and a form song LITTERALLY in "progression"  without the strophe-refrain thing! So Dave Mustaine expanding the conception of sogn form (in his personal way)

Metallica is not only less technical than Megadeth but presents simply a classical structure form song.
Megadeth albums is more varied in style and form than Metallica's...Metallica has not only the classical form song but the structure and the conception of the songs remains the same in 3 albums..
examples:
fight fire with fire- battery- blackened
ride the lighting (song)- Master of puppests (song)- and justice for all (song)
the call of ktulu- Orion- to live is to die
fade to black- welcome home- one
...
Master of puppets is simply a union between the roughness and powerful of kill'em all with the more technical and melody of ride he lightning. It's not so different in conception compared to the previous album.. and and justice for all is simply Master of puppets with more technical skills.

What a great experimentation...really...what a true prog band...

And, I repeat, prog metal is NOT only Dream Theater and Theater's clones.

Ah, I've started  my "list" in 1985 because albums like Kill'em all and Show no mercy (slayer) does nothing to do with prog and technical metal.

Technical metal cannot be taken away by progressive term. I have just explained that we must expands the meaning of "progression"....and prog archives has done this
:
Here is not only classical prog rock but also experimental rock/metal, technical metal, Rock in opposition, Art rock etc...

And about Coroner...I think you've never listened to Mental Vortex and Grin to say that...

P.S. However, I've not denied Metallica's influence in prog metal. Especially in certain prog. But i'ts obvious because of the importance and fame of this band.


Edited by Transgressor - July 06 2009 at 06:58

Dean wrote: ^ they didn't play any wrong notes(...)

I still say that the coffee should be smelt, and Metallica added to Prog Metal where they not only belong, but laid down the foundations for the entire genre.