Author |
Topic Search Topic Options
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: May 23 2007 at 08:05 |
progismylife wrote:
^ But that's just your opinion (to which you are, of course, perfectly entitled)
PA would still lose credibility with people and could become the laughing stock of the other prog websites for including something that seems to not be prog in any sense.
|
Scaredy cat!!!
We're not a laughing stock because of the other bands I mentioned - far from it, we're more popular than ever.
Why would adding Metallica be so different.
Answer: It wouldn't.
Metallica would disppear into the "related" vaults (where they BELONG), and, after a few weeks of rabid reviews, the fuss would die down - exactly as it did before.
See... nothing to worry about.
Now let's talk about the MUSIC.
|
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 23 2007 at 08:02 |
Rocktopus wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
[
One of the points is that they introduced a whole new sound to metal - which in itself is progressive. ? So did Mayhem. And Bob Dylan introduced a new sound to folk when he went electric, (and Schoenberg to classical when composing atonal works and developing twelve tone etc). |
|
But that misses the ROCK connection - or, more specifically to this discussion, the Prog Metal connection.
Dylan is important to the development of progressive rock, but only insofar as he influenced the bands that influenced Prog Rock bands - I think that's a layer of the onion too far, but it's the Site owner's decision, as someone else pointed out, and a different discussion.
Buffalo Springfield are probably more immediately important than Dylan on the development of Prog - where would Yes be without them - and they should probably be here.
Mayhem are interesting, from the point of view that their music probably wouldn't exist if it hadn't been for theinnovation of thrash. "Master of Puppets" is more progressive by orders of magnitude than "Deathcrush" - a sloppy mess of an album that only displays potential.
Rocktopus wrote:
No matter how convincing it looks, isn't this just your opinion on what sums up and qualifies as prog?
Your five points Rhythm, Melody, Timbre, Harmony, Form is also based on association. I'm quite certain some Indo/raga, kraut, progressive electronic and prog-folk would fail to qualify as prog, if you took them trough that test. Does that mean its wrong that they are in the archives? Or does it mean that your five points doesn't always work. |
Those points are basic elements of all music - it's just one way of assessing the progressiveness - and, if you look on Wikipedia, the Typical Characteristics of Progressive Rock are classified this way.
It's a grass roots way of examining music - nothing more. They will always work - and you're right, there's much in the archives that would fail to qualify - but we're not discussing removing anyone here.
Neither is it my opinion - you can verify everything I listed under those 5 elements as fact - it's not subjective at all.
There are many more objective elements that can be pulled out - let's keep going with this part of the discussion, please, as it's the only valid part.
If you can explain why the music is not progressive in these terms, then there's a discussion, instead of a crushing.
Rocktopus wrote:
80's Metallica is a band I associate with the other thrash and speed metal bands I was into as a teenager: Megadeth, Anthrax, Slayer, Testament (a band that probably would do well in your test too) etc... and not so much with prog (except progmetal, that I acknowledge exists, but not as a progressive music genre).
|
It is a progressive music genre - but that depends on how you define progressive music (another discussion!).
I recently posted my own definition - and the resounding response was that I'd "Nailed it" (not my words). This definition is based on verifiable and observable fact - although it needs a lot of fleshing out.
It does go some way towards proving that I understand progressive music fairly well - or, at least, that I have a handle on what it is, when all subjective elements are removed.
I don't think Testament fit - at least, not with any of their 1980's releases (which I own, along with those of the other bands you list), and neither do Megadeth - their influence isn't observably strong enough, and their music inconsistent. Obviously there's the Metallica link - but that would be the same as arguing for Samson, Dio, Motorhead or a number of other bands with ex Prog or Prog-related musicians in.
Testament were initially too focussed on one single style - I don't know if they changed much since 1990 - but they don't seem to have caused many ripples in the gene pool.
Association is a powerful thing - I associate Led Zeppelin, Uriah Heep, Blue Oyster Cult and Deep Purple with "Classic" Hard Rock, Iron Maiden with NWOBHM, and Death with thrash/Death Metal of a very simple variety - but those are only my associations.
Some people associate Pink Floyd with the Blues, and don't hear what's so progressive about Hawkwind - you can't please them all!
With Metallica, the issues are clearly NOT with the music (the single most important factor), but how the band are perceived.
As I suggested earlier - this looks to all the world like blind (or rather deaf) prejudice.
Edited by Certif1ed - May 23 2007 at 08:03
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
Rocktopus
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 02 2006
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 4202
|
Posted: May 23 2007 at 07:51 |
|
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
|
|
progismylife
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2006
Location: ibreathehelium
Status: Offline
Points: 15535
|
Posted: May 23 2007 at 07:39 |
^ But that's just your opinion (to which you are, of course, perfectly entitled)
PA would still lose credibility with people and could become the laughing stock of the other prog websites for including something that seems to not be prog in any sense.
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: May 23 2007 at 07:34 |
^That's a recurring objection - but objections should be on MUSICAL grounds alone, in my opinion.
People still scoff about Radiohead, Queen and the Beatles - but that hasn't affected membership negatively - so I think this is a moot point and can be safely ignored.
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
progismylife
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2006
Location: ibreathehelium
Status: Offline
Points: 15535
|
Posted: May 23 2007 at 07:27 |
clarke2001 wrote:
Okay, my dear friends, we, err...well, we discussed reasons to include (or not ) Metallica on the site from the musical analysis point of view. They're certainly not 100% prog, otherwise they would be here already. But they certainly have some progressive rock elements, otherwise the discussion won't be so heated and long, right?
What about the other issue? The issue that was touched a few times in this thread by some forum members: Credibility of this web site?
If Metallica will be included, then:
1) PA will be ridiculed all over the net and it will lose its credibility. Metallica prog? Don't make me laugh...
or:
2) PA will be even more well-respected as detailed, encyclopedic source. Wow, someone finally recognised prog elements there! Well done!
I hate to admit it, but that is maybe more important issue than including a certain amount of non-prog/omitting some prog on the site.
What do you think? The truth is probably somewhere in the middle...
|
I agree, no matter how many times we argue why they should/shouldn't be here what ordinary visitor to the site will search for why they are here? That visitor will probably laugh and not visit the site again thinking it is ridiculous that Metallica is on here.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: May 23 2007 at 06:38 |
My only reservation is that their albums will get 4 and 5 star ratings for being 5 star Metal albums not for bieng 5 star prog or prog-metal albums... they fail to meet the criteria for 4 & 5 stars in the PA. I could not honestly recommend any Metallica album, let alone MoP, to another Progger as an excellent addition to their collection, but I would happily recommend them to another Mettaller.
So what if they get 5 stars?
Due to the number of ratings they will receive they will enter the top 100, most likely in the top 10 ~ Personnally I think this will make a mockery of the whole chart.
|
What?
|
|
Rocktopus
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 02 2006
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 4202
|
Posted: May 23 2007 at 06:31 |
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
^ and you would really say that Master of Puppets is just "ordinary" thrash like early Anthrax or Testament, for example?
|
No. I wouldn't say that about Slayer's Seasons in the Abyss either. I'd say Master of Puppets is an extraordinary thrashmetal album.
|
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
|
|
Cheesecakemouse
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 1751
|
Posted: May 23 2007 at 06:23 |
Cheesecakemouse wrote:
Aren't Metellica Prog-Metal Related rather than Prog Related? just as techno is Progressive Electronic Related rather than Porg -Related Because if that is true what is stopping techno artists being in the archives if Metellica is allowed in?
|
No-ones challenged this viewpoint yet.
|
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21199
|
Posted: May 23 2007 at 06:19 |
^ and you would really say that Master of Puppets is just "ordinary" thrash like early Anthrax or Testament, for example?
|
|
|
Rocktopus
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 02 2006
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 4202
|
Posted: May 23 2007 at 06:14 |
Certif1ed wrote:
[
One of the points is that they introduced a whole new sound to metal - which in itself is progressive. ? So did Mayhem. And Bob Dylan introduced a new sound to folk when he went electric, (and Schoenberg to classical when composing atonal works and developing twelve tone etc).
However, there ARE significant progressive aspects to the music itself, in all 5 of the basic areas - which is what Prog Metal bands have since buit on;
1. - this is the principal area in which Metallica were so progressive - and I agree with The T - right up to and including the Black album.
Although the latter is extremely pared down compared to it's predecessors, it cleverly blends in thrash rhythms with "straight" rhytms that are pure metal. Metallica distilled metal music and made it pure by stripping out the last remains of "swing" - the main ingredient that differentiates metal from rock in a rhythmic sense.
Metallica's approach to rhythm uses the broadest palette of any thrash band in the 1980s; much broader than any metal or "standard" rock band previously. Even Lars, while not the best drummer on the planet ever, drove the rhythm section with a sensitivity that added new range and dynamic to metal, varying the speed and intensity in a manner that's surprisingly subtle. Yes. Subtle.
2. Melody - if we ignore Hetfield for just one moment... (actually, he's not so bad!), Metallica brought new approaches to metal melodies in the guitar riffs, bass lines and solos - which was facilitated by the new approach to riffing. Metallica's melodies are strong, instantly recognisable as their own, and frequently have a modal flavour that I think of as Egyptian ("Creeping Death" is the strongest example). The guitar solo in "Master of Puppets" blew my mind the first time I heard it (on the day the album came out). Hammett may never have been the greatest, but his solos are constructed - composed - from technical building blocks that are easily identified. This compostition (definitely not bluff!!!) is far more rigorous than that of most earlier metal bands (especially Maiden) - as far as I can tell, Michael Schenker stands almost alone in this approach before Metallica. /edit... I just thought of a very few more - but they're still the exception rather than the rule.
3. Timbre - Metallica changed sound for every album, and not all of it was engineering. "Ride The Lightning" has the definitive Prog-Metal sound (minus a few tweaks for clarity), and the next 3 built on that (even if the production on "AJFA" sucks badly...). Their approach to the textures in the music is what Prog Metal is built on - the lights and shades of "Fade to Black" and "Call of Cthulu", for example, rivalled Iron Maiden's lights and shades. This would seem to be one of the very roots of Prog Metal.
4. Harmony. OK, so "KEA" started out with an overdose of Sabbath-esque tritones. "RTL" enters Iron Maiden territory on more than one occasion - but I'm sure (and this is only from memory) that there's modal harmony on there. "MOP" and "AJFA" definitely feature modal harmony - which is a significant portion of the Prog in Prog Metal.
5. Form. While it's true that Iron Maiden did interesting things with form, most of what they did was add twiddly bits between sections. This is not to belittle what they did, just to illustrate the difference. Metallica added sections to the standard song form like building blocks - a bit inelegant and lacking in grace, but totally suited to metal. Not only that, but they varied sections, such that the same riff may feature a different drum pattern, or a riff is changed by a few notes to construct a new one. This is a fundamental feature of Progressive ROCK - an approach that may be found in Genesis "The Musical Box".
In short, Metallica stand alone as a significant if not crucial influence on Prog Metal, just as the Beatles do for Prog Rock (after all, no-one's suggesting we add the Rolling Stones!). |
No matter how convincing it looks, isn't this just your opinion on what sums up and qualifies as prog? Your five points Rhythm, Melody, Timbre, Harmony, Form is also based on association. I'm quite certain some Indo/raga, kraut, progressive electronic and prog-folk would fail to qualify as prog, if you took them trough that test. Does that mean its wrong that they are in the archives? Or does it mean that your five points doesn't always work. 80's Metallica is a band I associate with the other thrash and speed metal bands I was into as a teenager: Megadeth, Anthrax, Slayer, Testament (a band that probably would do well in your test too) etc... and not so much with prog (except progmetal, that I acknowledge exists, but not as a progressive music genre).
|
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
|
|
toolis
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 26 2006
Location: MacedoniaGreece
Status: Offline
Points: 1678
|
Posted: May 23 2007 at 05:45 |
if you tell James that some people see a connection between his music and prog, he'll laugh at your face, for sure...
|
-music is like pornography...
sometimes amateurs turn us on, even more...
-sometimes you are the pigeon and sometimes you are the statue...
|
|
Cheesecakemouse
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 1751
|
Posted: May 23 2007 at 05:39 |
Aren't Metellica Prog-Metal Related rather than Prog Related? just as techno is Progressive Electronic Related rather than Porg -Related Because if that is true what is stopping techno artists being in the archives if Meteelica is allowed in?
|
|
|
Rocktopus
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 02 2006
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 4202
|
Posted: May 23 2007 at 04:46 |
Certif1ed wrote:
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... |
Yes, its all just my opinon, and that's more or less what I can offer. I wrote that I think and I suspect, It proves to me etc...
|
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 23 2007 at 04:17 |
I found a moment...
akin wrote:
I don't like very much Metallica, I don't see any progressiveness in their music and if I had a prog site it would be forbidden to mention Metallica on it, but I don't care what the team members or admins may decide. |
OK - this is the grounds for all your arguments, not reasoned analysis. You don't like Metallica and don't see (hear) progressiveness in their music.
A lot of people said (and are still saying) that about Radiohead, I seem to recall.
akin wrote:
the facts speak for themselves, since Metallica was never relationed with prog apart for these discussions. Some arguments are correct... |
Going back to the post, the context doesn't change the meanings - you're agreeing with the arguments, but basing yours on the simple fact that other sources don't associate Metallica with Prog - so therefore, in your opinion, this site shouldn't.
akin wrote:
If Metallica is not metioned in almost evert other prog reliable source and a band that you state is less prog than Metallica, like Queensryche, is cited in every reliable source for prog, it is an evidence that you are creating arguments to support a theory that can only convince yourself and a few that already think like you, but hardly are expressing the truth. |
Again - because other sources don't list Metallica is a pretty poor reason for avoiding the truth.
It was pretty much the same with Radiohead - but this site leads the way so others can follow. That's proven by the fact that it's now the biggest Prog Rock site on the Internet (which it wasn't at the time I joined...).
akin wrote:
They have, let's say, 10 more or less prog songs in their career as many artists.
|
Even as a number pulled out of thin air, that's still a straw man argument. In my opinion, virtually the whole of their first 4 albums are progressive to a greater of lesser extent - in terms of Progressive Metal. In terms of Progressive Rock, very few Prog Metal bands I've heard have actually written something that's Prog.
We need to maintain the context with Prog Metal or this aspect gets confused.
akin wrote:
Of course the fans of prog-metal defend their influence on prog-metal as huge and many fans of fusion defend Davis and Coltrane influences on fusion as huge.
|
Fusion isn't a genre of Progressive Rock - it's related to it. We don't have "related-related" acts here... yet!
akin wrote:
It is not the same in essence only if you are not just and you have a preference for prog-metal over other genres, otherwise you would know that every related-band is related to prog. This is crucial because you weakest argument is that almost any Prog Metal album released is related to Metallica. Many bands have some relation to Metallica's sound because they are metal. Non-prog folk artists have much in common to prog-folk artists, because they are folk. The same goes with prog metal and Metallica.
|
The argument that almost every Prog Metal band is related to Metallica is (mostly) valid, because Metallica (with Bob Rock) perfected the "Modern" metal sound which pervades Prog Metal as a genre - with exceptions, like any rule.
It's also valid because of the techniques Metallica used - and crucially developed - which until then were not staple parts of metal. Metallica weren't a clone of what had gone before, they were something entirely new (and so were many other bands at the time, but Metallica were ahead of the game at every step until the 1990s).
Ask anyone - I don't have a preference for Prog Metal, but Metallica's importance to it is as, if not more fundamental than Iron Maiden's, and the evidence is in the music.
akin wrote:
There is no progressive nature at all.
|
Why do you say this, when the evidence it to the contrary?
I really, really don't understand why you would think this.
akin wrote:
Yes, there are many reasons and the most important reason is that appart from few songs they have nothing in common with prog elements (song structure, unusual structure, singatures, complex melodic parts, harmonies). |
See earlier - this statement contains no truth.
You even state: "long solos and long songs do not make anything progressive."
akin wrote:
As for time signatures, Queensryche have by far more songs with unusual time signatures and changes than Metallica |
With regard to time signatures, so does Stravinsky - I fail to see the point you're making.
With regard to changes, number is not important. Queensryche make the elementary error of continually going off at tangents, robbing their music of a logical or dramatic coherency and reducing most of them to a bland clone of everything they've ever done.
Metallica use changes cleverly - in that tangents are sparingly used, while subtle riff development using additive and subtractive techniques is used more often to create dramatic climaxes and troughs.
"Master of Puppets" is a supreme example of all of this.
akin wrote:
As for Harmony, Metallica's harmony is usually pretty simple (with some exceptions, of course)(...)
Queensryche had some songs with the same harmonies but had more songs with more elaborated harmonies. |
Hmm. Isn't this saying the same thing about both bands?
Could you be specific about the "elaborated" harmonies - I've yet to hear any in Queensryche's music.
Melody is a weak point for Metallica, but for few songs.
|
The opposite is true - the melodies inherent in Metallica's riffs and lead solos are powerful and strong. Hetfield is not a melodic singer - and he doesn't pretend to be - his vocals are part of the overall texture.
Queensryche are the weaker melodically - I cannot hum a single tune of theirs.
akin wrote:
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. |
Another fundamental part of your argument...
In summary of all your arguments so far;
1. You don't like Metallica.
2. You're worried that their presence will dilute this site's purity or affect its credibility - as outlined above by another poster. Personally, I think this is nonsense - as if the Beatles, Queen, Radiohead, Led Zeppelin and Iron Maiden affected the credibility of this site - I rather think that all those bands enhanced it and attracted more new members.
3. Other Prog sites don't list Metallica.
4. You don't hear the progressiveness of their music - but cannot explain why this is, and do not seem to be able to grasp the fundamental progressive techniques they used, or hear the techniques you can grasp.
I hope this is a fair summary and that I have not missed anything fundamental.
Edited by Certif1ed - May 23 2007 at 04:18
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
The Whistler
Prog Reviewer
Joined: August 30 2006
Location: LA, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 7113
|
Posted: May 23 2007 at 04:03 |
Wait, we're respected somewhere? ...I'm out.
|
"There seem to be quite a large percentage of young American boys out there tonight. A long way from home, eh? Well so are we... Gotta stick together." -I. Anderson
|
|
clarke2001
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: June 14 2006
Location: Croatia
Status: Offline
Points: 4160
|
Posted: May 23 2007 at 04:01 |
Okay, my dear friends, we, err...well, we discussed reasons to include (or not ) Metallica on the site from the musical analysis point of view. They're certainly not 100% prog, otherwise they would be here already. But they certainly have some progressive rock elements, otherwise the discussion won't be so heated and long, right?
What about the other issue? The issue that was touched a few times in this thread by some forum members: Credibility of this web site?
If Metallica will be included, then:
1) PA will be ridiculed all over the net and it will lose its credibility. Metallica prog? Don't make me laugh...
or:
2) PA will be even more well-respected as detailed, encyclopedic source. Wow, someone finally recognised prog elements there! Well done!
I hate to admit it, but that is maybe more important issue than including a certain amount of non-prog/omitting some prog on the site.
What do you think? The truth is probably somewhere in the middle...
|
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: May 23 2007 at 03:12 |
tuxon wrote:
I don't understand anything so if wanted my post can be ignored. But . Prog music is a musicians genre, not based on incidentally or accidentally playing so bad you turn up with uncerain accidental sttrange possible perceived as progressive changes.
|
Can't agree 100% - what about, for example, ELP?
Not all of that is intended - and nor is it supposed to be.
Improvisation is all about "incidents and accidents" (happy ones) - and so, to a large extent is full-on composition.
It's this "alive" or improvised feel that is key to great Prog Rock, and differentiates it from carefully planned and composed hit singles.
Most musicians revel in decent improvisation - Bach, Mozart and Beethoven were all renowned improvisors - and the best music is not clinically planned to the last note (otherwise computers would be able to write it).
tuxon wrote:
For me deliberate progressive approachhas value, not unvolantary based on incompetence lack of skills should be of any vallue.
|
There's much in that as a statement on its own - but I can't really see how it fits in with this discussion, unless you're agreeing with Metallica as a Progressive band, as that is exactly their approach; I have videos of Lars being interviewed in the 1980s, and turning his nose up at the suggestion that Metallica might somehow be a "thrash" band. They were so much more than that in the 1980s, and this is not largely appreciated.
akin wrote:
Well, I think I stated my arguments for their not inclusion and all of them are valid, the agreement or not falling into the realm of each own opinion, since it is not an objective matter.
|
I hate to keep disagreeing like this, but actually, it is objective - that's the point.
And the objective parts are being overruled on the grounds of subjectivity alone - so the case for inclusion is looking very strong.
akin wrote:
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. |
Don't get me started on Queensryche and how progressive they AREN'T... at least, on their early albums - the ones that were released at the same time as Metallica's. Metallica wipe the floor with Queensryche in every aspect apart from personal preference - especially Operation Mindcrime.
If you want the facts and analysis... well, you could check out my reviews first...
akin wrote:
I will not keep on answering each post because most of the disagreement is in each own opinion and because the decision is not made in this forum. |
But the decision will be influenced by discussions in this forum - you clearly feel passionately that Metallica don't belong here, and so far, I do not understand why this should be - except that you don't think they should.
So far you have just contradicted my points - and not managed to state why you think my observations - or those of The T or MikeEnRegalia are incorrect.
They are all verifiable through the YouTube links I posted in this very thread - we're not making it up in order to get our favourite band in - there's no fanboyism in this. It's the understanding of why Metallica are important in the development of Progressive metal, and why they are also Progressive as a band - in the true sense, not the so-called "literal" sense.
It's fair enough to hold an opinion, but opinion is not enough against objective facts and agreements with current definitions - but I'll go over your arguments again, when I get a moment, and try to pick out the salient points. You can then correct me if I interpret the points wrongly - and we might reach an understanding
Edited by Certif1ed - May 23 2007 at 03:22
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
tuxon
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 21 2004
Location: plugged-in
Status: Offline
Points: 5502
|
Posted: May 22 2007 at 22:26 |
I don't understand anything so if wanted my post can be ignored. But
. Prog music is a musicians genre, not based on incidentally or accidentally playing so bad you turn up with uncerain accidental sttrange possible perceived as progressive changes.
For me deliberate progressive approachhas value, not unvolantary based on incompetence lack of skills should be of any vallue.
|
I'm always almost unlucky _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Id5ZcnjXSZaSMFMC Id5LM2q2jfqz3YxT
|
|
akin
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 06 2004
Location: Brazil
Status: Offline
Points: 976
|
Posted: May 22 2007 at 18:20 |
Well, I think I stated my arguments for their not inclusion and all of
them are valid, the agreement or not falling into the realm of each own
opinion, since it is not an objective matter.
I will not keep on answering each post because most of the disagreement
is in each own opinion and because the decision is not made in this
forum.
|
|