| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
The T 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
 Posted: May 22 2007 at 14:56 |
 Proletariat wrote:
The T wrote:
evilromero wrote:
It's funny someone mentioned Evergrey on page 5. Can somebody actually argue that EG is any more prog than Metallica (MoP/AJFA)? Yet EG, without question, is included on the site? Why? Well, they come from Sweden and they're on a prog metal label. |
 Incredibly true....
And I repeat: to those like Akin who say that no other prog site has Metallica, with all due respect, this point is invalid. No other prog site has Metallica? 1. Bad for them. Should we be like everybody else? 2. With that into consideration, as I already said, MANY bands of those you love and claim to be the proggiest of them all shouldn't be here, starting with all post-rock, post-metal, Kayo Dot, and even such a beloved band like Tool. Search for Tool in the major prog-websites.... Did you find them? Ok, then, if all of these artists are here (and DESERVE TO BE HERE, as much as i don't like most of them), shouldn't they be deleted because other major porg sites don't have them on their lists? Or is it actually a proof as to the quality of THIS website that we INCLUDE bands from every kind, as long as they represent something important for progressive music?
Yes, Queensryche is everywhere.. Metallica is nowhere.... Now hear Operation:Mindcrime... I love the album...BUT: where are the "odd time signatures, the complex structures, the incredible long solos, the long songs" you're talking about? If that albums is such a cornerstone of progmetal is maybe because it's a concept album, and also because, well, it's actually very polished, clean, well-crafted heavy metal....But all those elements YOU were asking for in Metallica aren't there in one of the Holy albums of prog-metal....that's weird... Meanwhile, we CAN find odd time signatures in Metallica (I think you haven't heard MOP, the album), we CAN find long solos, we CAN find long song, we CAN find instrumental songs....we CAN find as complex harmonies as those in Queensryche's albums....(I'm not quite the harmony-wizard anyway)... So, if we face O:M, an album EVERY prog site has, versus MOP, an album NO prog site has... guess which one wins using YOUR pre-requisites for progginess?
Anyway, those aren't the only requistes for progressiveness, but also taking music beyond its status quo, so to speak, among many others.....
|
Valid point, I almost started to listen untill you began to take pot-shots at post rock Kayo Dot and Tool. It is especially frustrating for you to say they are not prog and then say that the defonition of prog used here is not open minded enough, or that there are other ways of looking at it. I dont think that alot of the prog-metal bands on the site belong here. I am often surprised when I see them on the site. Also don't get so worked up, theres no reason to put other peoples bands down. we all have artists we want to see on the site, sometimes that doesent happen. I got over alot of my suggestions. We rule by democracy not yelling, sorry. |
My friend, please READ. I'm very clearly saying that even though I, THE T, ME, don't like Post-rock and Kayo Dot, I SAY THEY DESERVE TO BE HERE. And that this is one of the few prog sites that has such bands listed. And that THAT's WHAT MAKES PA MORE COMPLETE THAN OTHER SITES. Where are the pot-shots? Sorry if I upset you by don't liking their music, but that was not the point of my message. The point was: there are these bands, I don't like them, but they are surely prog, they're here, not there, SO HERE IS BETTER.
Please read carefully before saying "I'm yelling".
Peace. 
Edited by The T - May 22 2007 at 14:59
|
|
|
 |
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21206
|
Posted: May 22 2007 at 14:18 |
^ here's another nice piece of music which I'd call progressive: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-2TASdz4XI ... I bet most people would disagree too, but I don't care! 
|
|
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: May 22 2007 at 13:50 |
Rocktopus wrote:
It probably takes three times longer for me to write something in english than you, and I'm no good with musical theory terminology (even in norwegian). But I know and have heard more music than most.
I think neither Deep Purple, Led Zeppelin, Iron Maiden or Metallica's got much to do in a Progarchive. Although I like all of them, as most of the forum-member does. I suspect that's the main reason they are all here.
I own all 80's Metallica albums, and have loved them since the late 80's. Metallica surely progressed as a thrash-metal band and sophisticated that genre.
I think what I wrote makes sense. And I its not my problem that you don't believe in genres. I think these bands got too much plain rock, heavy or thrash, and too little of what I associate with prog to have a natural place here.
|
But that's just your opinion (to which you are, of course, perfectly entitled) - there is no reasoning behind it - at least, none that you've stated.
I'm not disputing genres in this thread - I'm trying to keep the discussion specific.
You don't need to be eloquent to come up with some kind of justification - your whole statement seems to boil down to: You don't think Metallica should be here, and that you don't think Prog Metal should either - as the rest of your post expressed;
Rocktopus wrote:
To me, you all admitting that progmetal is mainly built on Metallica + NWBHM proves to me that the progressiveness of most other progmetal = nil.
Btw: Although I'm against I'd rather have Metallica here, a band that truly progressed than most later DT-school so-called progmetal. |
Sorry, but there's no "proof" in there, or any reason that would give understanding to your point of view.
I can't pretend to have heard every piece of music ever written, but I've certainly listened to my fair share too...
|
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
akin
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 06 2004
Location: Brazil
Status: Offline
Points: 976
|
Posted: May 22 2007 at 13:46 |
Mumakil wrote:
C'mon... Metallica... they are sure a very good band (lots of ups and
downs) but they are not progressive at all... Long songs, long solos...
this is bs for me... If so, let Sepultura, Megadeth and whatever other
thrash bands in!
I
think that the limits of 'being prog or not' 'are getting too blurry in
here. You can bash me for that, but it seems to me that 'Progarchives'
could abruptly die and be re-named 'Rockarchives'; it's just like other
members said before, although we like lots of non-prog bands, sometimes
they do not deserve to be here just because they are good.
And you
know, Progarchives has been of invaluable assistance for me through the
last two or three years, because it is a reliable place to get reliable
information about one particular genre: PROG, man, I found so many good
bands in here and now I spend my money wisely when buying records.
So,
imho, including 'off-prog' bands can really mess with people's heads in
respect to 'what is prog'; and, in the end, the site loses its
integrity. If people wanna learn about Metallica, sorry, this may not
be the right place to be.
EDIT: Although I like Iron Maiden very
much (I learned to play the guitar by listening to them on a 24/7 basis
for several years when I was a teenager), I'd also rather prefer to see
Iron Maiden out than Metallica (and other non-prog bands) in...
Or maybe Duran Duran, Devo, Men at Work and The Police will also be added as "new-wave-pop-80's-prog bands"...
|
Oh No, if ProgArchives will be demoted to RockArchives it will be the
same as the classic rock station here in my town that was demoted to a
plain rock station and in the future will probably open for other
genres. 
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21206
|
Posted: May 22 2007 at 13:19 |
akin wrote:
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
akin wrote:
Long solos and long songs do not make anything progressive.
Agreed.
As for time
signatures, Queensryche have by far more songs with unusual time
signatures and changes than Metallica.
Actually:
depends on the album. You won't find too many unusual time signatures
on Operation: Mindcrime, for example ... and the time signature of the
main MoP verse is much more adventurous than any time signature
Queensryche ever used (btw: I'm a Queensryche fan).
4/4 plus one bar of 5/8 is not that much
adventurous. Suite Sister Marie has 15/4 parts, Waiting for the 22 has
7/4 and 4/4 parts. More or less the same.
Try playing MoP first ... Suite Sister Mary is really, really easy in comparison. The 5/8 bit is really throwing you off-beat, while in Suite Sister Mary it's essentially just four bars of standard 4/4 with the last 4th note ommitted.
As for Harmony, Metallica's
harmony is usually pretty simple (with some exceptions, of course),
with the majority of songs consisting in power chords and the sequences
not uncommon.
But
then again the use of power chords does not imply simple harmonies.
Granted, Metallica aren't using complex chords too often, but there are
other ways to create complex harmonies ... Metallica do it by means of
the interplay between the rhythm guitars and in the acoustic
intros/interludes/outros.
I know this, but many times they did not create
complex harmonies with interplay, even in MoP. Queensryche harmonies
are richer because they use some complex chords and the same resources
Metallica uses.
Queensryche is "richer" ... well, maybe you're right. But they're also much more tame ... and not very progressive, at least on Operation: Mindcrime. Promised Land is a different story ... 
Queensryche had some songs with the same harmonies but
had more songs with more elaborated harmonies. Melody is a weak point
for Metallica, but for few songs.
Disagreeing
strongly here ... especially MoP is full of strong melodies. The intro
of Battery alone is (or at least was at the time) completely innovative
in its layering, and the twin lead solo in MoP is awesome in its
contrast to the rest of the song ... then you have the atonality of The
Thing that Should Not Be, then the melodic verse of Sanitarium ... and
above all you have the ultra-smooth second part of Orion.
Strong but few harmonies. For example, Operation
Mindcrime has lots more (good ones ) than Master of Puppets. Think one
is better than the other is more a matter of taste.
Ok, Operation: Mindcrime is a blueprint for Melodic Metal. But again it may be melodic, but progressive?
So everything is in favour of
Queensryche. This only proves that MOP does not deserve to be here
unless in Prog Related, but this is a decision that is not up to you or
me.
You
can't really compare these two bands ... it's entirely subjective,
because it's two completely different styles, especially if you compare
Operation: Mindcrime to Master of Puppets.
Yes, they are different styles. Queensryche is a
prog-metal band and Metallica is a prog-related wannabe thrash metal
(no disregard for the quality of the music, just for the
classification).
Hold on a second ... Queensryche may be quoted as one of the pioneering prog metal bands, but their two "signature" albums (Operation: Mindcrime and Empire) are not very progressive ... just read the reviews. Their early albums - the EP, debut and Warning - are what relates them to prog.
And I wouldn't call Metallica a "prog-related wannabe" band either ... two of their albums are progressive in nature (and the earlier ones too depending on how you define "progressive"), but as a band they're certainly not "prog".
Just made the comparison because others were comparing
and saying that Operation:Mindcrime is not justifiable as prog and
Master of Puppets is. Of course this is entirely subjective, but
comparing the prog properties I've mentioned I prove my opinion.
Opinions can rarely be proven ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mumakil
Forum Newbie
Joined: August 02 2005
Location: Brazil
Status: Offline
Points: 27
|
Posted: May 22 2007 at 13:05 |
C'mon... Metallica... they are sure a very good band (lots of ups and downs) but they are not progressive at all... Long songs, long solos... this is bs for me... If so, let Sepultura, Megadeth and whatever other thrash bands in! I think that the limits of 'being prog or not' 'are getting too blurry in here. You can bash me for that, but it seems to me that 'Progarchives' could abruptly die and be re-named 'Rockarchives'; it's just like other members said before, although we like lots of non-prog bands, sometimes they do not deserve to be here just because they are good. And you know, Progarchives has been of invaluable assistance for me through the last two or three years, because it is a reliable place to get reliable information about one particular genre: PROG, man, I found so many good bands in here and now I spend my money wisely when buying records. So, imho, including 'off-prog' bands can really mess with people's heads in respect to 'what is prog'; and, in the end, the site loses its integrity. If people wanna learn about Metallica, sorry, this may not be the right place to be. EDIT: Although I like Iron Maiden very much (I learned to play the guitar by listening to them on a 24/7 basis for several years when I was a teenager), I'd also rather prefer to see Iron Maiden out than Metallica (and other non-prog bands) in... Or maybe Duran Duran, Devo, Men at Work and The Police will also be added as "new-wave-pop-80's-prog bands"...
Edited by Mumakil - May 22 2007 at 13:19
|
|
"Fly, you fools!"
|
|
akin
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 06 2004
Location: Brazil
Status: Offline
Points: 976
|
Posted: May 22 2007 at 12:38 |
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
akin wrote:
Long solos and long songs do not make anything progressive.
Agreed.
As for time
signatures, Queensryche have by far more songs with unusual time
signatures and changes than Metallica.
Actually:
depends on the album. You won't find too many unusual time signatures
on Operation: Mindcrime, for example ... and the time signature of the
main MoP verse is much more adventurous than any time signature
Queensryche ever used (btw: I'm a Queensryche fan).
4/4 plus one bar of 5/8 is not that much
adventurous. Suite Sister Marie has 15/4 parts, Waiting for the 22 has
7/4 and 4/4 parts. More or less the same.
As for Harmony, Metallica's
harmony is usually pretty simple (with some exceptions, of course),
with the majority of songs consisting in power chords and the sequences
not uncommon.
But
then again the use of power chords does not imply simple harmonies.
Granted, Metallica aren't using complex chords too often, but there are
other ways to create complex harmonies ... Metallica do it by means of
the interplay between the rhythm guitars and in the acoustic
intros/interludes/outros.
I know this, but many times they did not create
complex harmonies with interplay, even in MoP. Queensryche harmonies
are richer because they use some complex chords and the same resources
Metallica uses.
Queensryche had some songs with the same harmonies but
had more songs with more elaborated harmonies. Melody is a weak point
for Metallica, but for few songs.
Disagreeing
strongly here ... especially MoP is full of strong melodies. The intro
of Battery alone is (or at least was at the time) completely innovative
in its layering, and the twin lead solo in MoP is awesome in its
contrast to the rest of the song ... then you have the atonality of The
Thing that Should Not Be, then the melodic verse of Sanitarium ... and
above all you have the ultra-smooth second part of Orion.
Strong but few harmonies. For example, Operation
Mindcrime has lots more (good ones ) than Master of Puppets. Think one
is better than the other is more a matter of taste.
So everything is in favour of
Queensryche. This only proves that MOP does not deserve to be here
unless in Prog Related, but this is a decision that is not up to you or
me.
You
can't really compare these two bands ... it's entirely subjective,
because it's two completely different styles, especially if you compare
Operation: Mindcrime to Master of Puppets.
Yes, they are different styles. Queensryche is a
prog-metal band and Metallica is a prog-related wannabe thrash metal
(no disregard for the quality of the music, just for the
classification). Just made the comparison because others were comparing
and saying that Operation:Mindcrime is not justifiable as prog and
Master of Puppets is. Of course this is entirely subjective, but
comparing the prog properties I've mentioned I prove my opinion.
|
|
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21206
|
Posted: May 22 2007 at 10:30 |
akin wrote:
Long solos and long songs do not make anything progressive.
Agreed.
As for time
signatures, Queensryche have by far more songs with unusual time
signatures and changes than Metallica.
Actually: depends on the album. You won't find too many unusual time signatures on Operation: Mindcrime, for example ... and the time signature of the main MoP verse is much more adventurous than any time signature Queensryche ever used (btw: I'm a Queensryche fan).
As for Harmony, Metallica's
harmony is usually pretty simple (with some exceptions, of course),
with the majority of songs consisting in power chords and the sequences
not uncommon.
But then again the use of power chords does not imply simple harmonies. Granted, Metallica aren't using complex chords too often, but there are other ways to create complex harmonies ... Metallica do it by means of the interplay between the rhythm guitars and in the acoustic intros/interludes/outros.
Queensryche had some songs with the same harmonies but
had more songs with more elaborated harmonies. Melody is a weak point
for Metallica, but for few songs.
Disagreeing strongly here ... especially MoP is full of strong melodies. The intro of Battery alone is (or at least was at the time) completely innovative in its layering, and the twin lead solo in MoP is awesome in its contrast to the rest of the song ... then you have the atonality of The Thing that Should Not Be, then the melodic verse of Sanitarium ... and above all you have the ultra-smooth second part of Orion.
So everything is in favour of
Queensryche. This only proves that MOP does not deserve to be here
unless in Prog Related, but this is a decision that is not up to you or
me.
You can't really compare these two bands ... it's entirely subjective, because it's two completely different styles, especially if you compare Operation: Mindcrime to Master of Puppets.
|
|
|
|
|
akin
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 06 2004
Location: Brazil
Status: Offline
Points: 976
|
Posted: May 22 2007 at 09:56 |
The T wrote:
evilromero wrote:
It's funny someone mentioned Evergrey on
page 5. Can somebody actually argue that EG is any more prog than
Metallica (MoP/AJFA)? Yet EG, without question, is included on the
site? Why? Well, they come from Sweden and they're on a prog metal
label. |
Incredibly true....
And I repeat: to those like Akin who say that no other prog site
has Metallica, with all due respect, this point is invalid. No other
prog site has Metallica? 1. Bad for them. Should we be like
everybody else? 2. With that into consideration, as I already said,
MANY bands of those you love and claim to be the proggiest of them all
shouldn't be here, starting with all post-rock, post-metal, Kayo Dot,
and even such a beloved band like Tool. Search for Tool in the major
prog-websites.... Did you find them? Ok, then, if all of these artists
are here (and DESERVE TO BE HERE, as much as i don't like most of
them), shouldn't they be deleted because other major porg sites don't
have them on their lists? Or is it actually a proof as to the quality
of THIS website that we INCLUDE bands from every kind, as long as they
represent something important for progressive music?
Yes, Queensryche is everywhere.. Metallica is nowhere.... Now hear
Operation:Mindcrime... I love the album...BUT: where are the "odd time
signatures, the complex structures, the incredible long solos, the long
songs" you're talking about? If that albums is such a cornerstone of
progmetal is maybe because it's a concept album, and also because,
well, it's actually very polished, clean, well-crafted heavy
metal....But all those elements YOU were asking for in Metallica aren't
there in one of the Holy albums of prog-metal....that's weird...
Meanwhile, we CAN find odd time signatures in Metallica (I think you
haven't heard MOP, the album), we CAN find long solos, we CAN find long
song, we CAN find instrumental songs....we CAN find as complex
harmonies as those in Queensryche's albums....(I'm not quite the
harmony-wizard anyway)... So, if we face O:M, an album EVERY prog site
has, versus MOP, an album NO prog site has... guess which one wins using YOUR pre-requisites for progginess?
Anyway, those aren't the only requistes for progressiveness, but
also taking music beyond its status quo, so to speak, among many
others.....
|
If you had read my previous posts you would not say false things
because I stated before that I used to own a MOP record, so I've
listened to it many times.
Long solos and long songs do not make anything progressive. As for time
signatures, Queensryche have by far more songs with unusual time
signatures and changes than Metallica. As for Harmony, Metallica's
harmony is usually pretty simple (with some exceptions, of course),
with the majority of songs consisting in power chords and the sequences
not uncommon. Queensryche had some songs with the same harmonies but
had more songs with more elaborated harmonies. Melody is a weak point
for Metallica, but for few songs. So everything is in favour of
Queensryche. This only proves that MOP does not deserve to be here
unless in Prog Related, but this is a decision that is not up to you or
me.
|
|
Rocktopus
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 02 2006
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 4202
|
Posted: May 22 2007 at 05:38 |
Certif1ed wrote:
Philéas wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
It is in this thread. |
Actually it isn't... He's made more posts.
|
...but none that actually say anything...  |
You're only right about that if you think that the only correct way of deciding this, is your way. It probably takes three times longer for me to write something in english than you, and I'm no good with musical theory terminology (even in norwegian). But I know and have heard more music than most. I think neither Deep Purple, Led Zeppelin, Iron Maiden or Metallica's
got much to do in a Progarchive. Although I like all of them, as most
of the forum-member does. I suspect that's the main reason they are all
here.
I
own all 80's Metallica albums, and have loved them since the late 80's.
Metallica surely progressed as a thrash-metal band and sophisticated
that genre.I think what I wrote makes sense. And I its not my problem that you don't believe in genres. I think these bands got too much plain rock, heavy or thrash, and too little of what I associate with prog to have a natural place here.
|
|
Over land and under ashes
In the sunlight, see - it flashes
Find a fly and eat his eye
But don't believe in me
Don't believe in me
Don't believe in me
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: May 22 2007 at 03:04 |
Atavachron wrote:
The Metallica supporters have made a persuasive case. One of the questions emerging seems to be; was Metallica a metal band with progressive elements that primarily influenced metal/thrash, or a metal band with progressive elements that primarily influenced prog metal.
|
I don't really see that as a particularly significant question - but my answer would be that Metallica started out as a METAL band that wanted to take the genre to the next level.
As you're no doubt aware, this was quite the thing to do in the SF Bay area at the time, and, thanks to the NWO(B)HM (much of which has both acknowledged and unacknowledged progressive elements), the genre of thrash metal emerged.
Almost to a band, the tendency was to try to do something different - witness the huge variations in style, especially compared to NWOHM. This is very similar to the "birth" of Progressive Rock, where all bands had distinct styles, yet were unified by certain characteristics.
Metallica spearheaded a movement, just as Iron Maiden did (neither were first; both took the reins and popularised the music). This movement was hugely influential on the way that metal as a whole would develop over the next few years, and without the unprecedented success of Metallica as a metal band, it is unlikely that Metal would be so pervasive today - it was incredibly unpopular in the Popular press in the late 1970s/early 1980s.
In the same way, it is unlikely that Rock would have developed quite as quickly as it did without the Beatles - who, after all, started out as a mere skiffle band among so many others, and "progressed" into a beat band that played rock and roll covers - among so many others.
The main difference, of course, is that the Beatles progressed in just about every way possible, rather than specifically to a genre - but the influence of Metal, the thrash style and the "Big" modern sound can be found in many areas of music.
So I don't think their influence is restricted to a particular genre, which is why I earlier made the sweeping generalism that they influenced metal as a whole (which, being a generalism, is not 100% accurate, admittedly).
Atomic_Rooster wrote:
this isn't a very hard decision. The ProgArchives defines progressive in a particular way, and Metallica doesn't fit the bill.
|
Good reasoning, like your style - avoiding the contradictions well, I see... 
Atomic_Rooster wrote:
While some of you argue that they are progressive, they aren't by ProgArchive standards and thus shouldn't be included. If you want to argue that the definition be changed, then that's a different matter.
|
Actually, I do want the definition changed - and I'm going about changing it.
The definition here isn't at all wonderful (most of it came from Wikipedia, which again, I am working on changing so that it is more accurate).
It could also easily be argued that Metallica DO fit the bill according to the existing definition - and just as easily that most Prog Metal bands DO NOT.
Don't get me started on that one
Atomic_Rooster wrote:
If some band that you think is equally or less prog than Metallica is on here and you think that gives you precedence to argue endlessly for a lost cause, just suck it up and move on.
|
Atomic_Rooster wrote:
Metallica's inclusion on the site won't really matter at all.
|
The inclusion won't matter - it's not something to get upset about - but it is helpful to understand the roots of much Prog Metal, just as much - if not more so - than Iron Maiden.
Atomic_Rooster wrote:
This is a prog site and not a mildly prog sounding bands site.
|
Couldn't agree more.
We need the TRULY progressive bands here.
However, that does raise the question...
WHAT IS PROG?
|
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21206
|
Posted: May 22 2007 at 02:24 |
evilromero wrote:
It's funny someone mentioned Evergrey on page 5. Can somebody actually argue that EG is any more prog than Metallica (MoP/AJFA)? Yet EG, without question, is included on the site? Why? Well, they come from Sweden and they're on a prog metal label.
|
Of course they are more prog ... I hope that their last album isn't the only one you listened to. BTW: I guess that if you're serious about this claim you should probably create a separate thread. 
|
|
|
|
Atomic_Rooster
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 26 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1210
|
Posted: May 21 2007 at 23:36 |
Atavachron wrote:
^ but that doesn't pre-empt our right to discuss it.. relax.
|
I'm just cautioning overreaction and bashing other bands that are already on the site. by all means discuss whatever you want.
|
|
I am but a servant of the mighty Fripp, the sound of whose loins shall forever be upon the tongues of his followers.
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65268
|
Posted: May 21 2007 at 23:32 |
|
^ but that doesn't pre-empt our right to discuss it.. relax.
|
|
Atomic_Rooster
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 26 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1210
|
Posted: May 21 2007 at 23:28 |
|
this isn't a very hard decision. The ProgArchives defines progressive in a particular way, and Metallica doesn't fit the bill. While some of you argue that they are progressive, they aren't by ProgArchive standards and thus shouldn't be included. If you want to argue that the definition be changed, then that's a different matter.
If some band that you think is equally or less prog than Metallica is on here and you think that gives you precedence to argue endlessly for a lost cause, just suck it up and move on. Metallica's inclusion on the site won't really matter at all. This is a prog site and not a mildly prog sounding bands site.
|
|
I am but a servant of the mighty Fripp, the sound of whose loins shall forever be upon the tongues of his followers.
|
|
Proletariat
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 30 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1882
|
Posted: May 21 2007 at 23:25 |
^^^
or a thrash metal band that primarily influenced thrash, and after the black album began to influence main stream metal.
|
|
who hiccuped endlessly trying to giggle but wound up with a sob
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65268
|
Posted: May 21 2007 at 23:23 |
|
The Metallica supporters have made a persuasive case. One of the questions emerging seems to be; was Metallica a metal band with progressive elements that primarily influenced metal/thrash, or a metal band with progressive elements that primarily influenced prog metal.
Edited by Atavachron - May 21 2007 at 23:37
|
|
Proletariat
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 30 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1882
|
Posted: May 21 2007 at 23:21 |
The T wrote:
evilromero wrote:
It's funny someone mentioned Evergrey on page 5. Can somebody actually argue that EG is any more prog than Metallica (MoP/AJFA)? Yet EG, without question, is included on the site? Why? Well, they come from Sweden and they're on a prog metal label. |
Incredibly true....
And I repeat: to those like Akin who say that no other prog site has Metallica, with all due respect, this point is invalid. No other prog site has Metallica? 1. Bad for them. Should we be like everybody else? 2. With that into consideration, as I already said, MANY bands of those you love and claim to be the proggiest of them all shouldn't be here, starting with all post-rock, post-metal, Kayo Dot, and even such a beloved band like Tool. Search for Tool in the major prog-websites.... Did you find them? Ok, then, if all of these artists are here (and DESERVE TO BE HERE, as much as i don't like most of them), shouldn't they be deleted because other major porg sites don't have them on their lists? Or is it actually a proof as to the quality of THIS website that we INCLUDE bands from every kind, as long as they represent something important for progressive music?
Yes, Queensryche is everywhere.. Metallica is nowhere.... Now hear Operation:Mindcrime... I love the album...BUT: where are the "odd time signatures, the complex structures, the incredible long solos, the long songs" you're talking about? If that albums is such a cornerstone of progmetal is maybe because it's a concept album, and also because, well, it's actually very polished, clean, well-crafted heavy metal....But all those elements YOU were asking for in Metallica aren't there in one of the Holy albums of prog-metal....that's weird... Meanwhile, we CAN find odd time signatures in Metallica (I think you haven't heard MOP, the album), we CAN find long solos, we CAN find long song, we CAN find instrumental songs....we CAN find as complex harmonies as those in Queensryche's albums....(I'm not quite the harmony-wizard anyway)... So, if we face O:M, an album EVERY prog site has, versus MOP, an album NO prog site has... guess which one wins using YOUR pre-requisites for progginess?
Anyway, those aren't the only requistes for progressiveness, but also taking music beyond its status quo, so to speak, among many others.....
|
Valid point, I almost started to listen untill you began to take pot-shots at post rock Kayo Dot and Tool. It is especially frustrating for you to say they are not prog and then say that the defonition of prog used here is not open minded enough, or that there are other ways of looking at it. I dont think that alot of the prog-metal bands on the site belong here. I am often surprised when I see them on the site. Also don't get so worked up, theres no reason to put other peoples bands down. we all have artists we want to see on the site, sometimes that doesent happen. I got over alot of my suggestions. We rule by democracy not yelling, sorry.
|
|
who hiccuped endlessly trying to giggle but wound up with a sob
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: May 21 2007 at 23:14 |
evilromero wrote:
It's funny someone mentioned Evergrey on page 5. Can somebody actually argue that EG is any more prog than Metallica (MoP/AJFA)? Yet EG, without question, is included on the site? Why? Well, they come from Sweden and they're on a prog metal label. |
Incredibly true....
And I repeat: to those like Akin who say that no other prog site has Metallica, with all due respect, this point is invalid. No other prog site has Metallica? 1. Bad for them. Should we be like everybody else? 2. With that into consideration, as I already said, MANY bands of those you love and claim to be the proggiest of them all shouldn't be here, starting with all post-rock, post-metal, Kayo Dot, and even such a beloved band like Tool. Search for Tool in the major prog-websites.... Did you find them? Ok, then, if all of these artists are here (and DESERVE TO BE HERE, as much as i don't like most of them), shouldn't they be deleted because other major porg sites don't have them on their lists? Or is it actually a proof as to the quality of THIS website that we INCLUDE bands from every kind, as long as they represent something important for progressive music?
Yes, Queensryche is everywhere.. Metallica is nowhere.... Now hear Operation:Mindcrime... I love the album...BUT: where are the "odd time signatures, the complex structures, the incredible long solos, the long songs" you're talking about? If that albums is such a cornerstone of progmetal is maybe because it's a concept album, and also because, well, it's actually very polished, clean, well-crafted heavy metal....But all those elements YOU were asking for in Metallica aren't there in one of the Holy albums of prog-metal....that's weird... Meanwhile, we CAN find odd time signatures in Metallica (I think you haven't heard MOP, the album), we CAN find long solos, we CAN find long song, we CAN find instrumental songs....we CAN find as complex harmonies as those in Queensryche's albums....(I'm not quite the harmony-wizard anyway)... So, if we face O:M, an album EVERY prog site has, versus MOP, an album NO prog site has... guess which one wins using YOUR pre-requisites for progginess?
Anyway, those aren't the only requistes for progressiveness, but also taking music beyond its status quo, so to speak, among many others.....
|
|
|
|
evilromero
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 14 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 118
|
Posted: May 21 2007 at 17:46 |
|
It's funny someone mentioned Evergrey on page 5. Can somebody actually argue that EG is any more prog than Metallica (MoP/AJFA)? Yet EG, without question, is included on the site? Why? Well, they come from Sweden and they're on a prog metal label.
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Metallica?
