Metallica ?

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: From all your colorful  post (which you are entitled to writeI have to.... I'm even using your signature blue now... lest our words are mistaken  ) I only will point a couple contradiction.   The T wrote:   - I can accept you insist hundreds of times even after a band is rejected. Yes...   If you like my opinion, it's ok with me if you don't like it, well it's your problem......not mine..I have no problems with you believing anything you want. Just stop the "metallica was added because pressure of a group" even though "once a band is added I let it be"         According to you I have to accept that you insist hundreds of times if you want for a band addition, even if the owner says no and Easy Livin asks you to respect this position...................But you insist that I have to be silent about what I believe................Learn to accept everybody is entitled to his opinion and to voice it.Again, you fail to understand that I don't give a damn about your oppsotion to Metallica's addition from a musical point of view... is that you keep saying that "a group of people pressured the site owner"... you always start with that thing... Then I'll always be there ready to point out that said argument is false.   Again if you agree with this Ok, if you don't.........It's not my problem, I will use my right to voice my opinion as many times as I feel it's necessary.Please do.   If you don't like my arguments.....Go to another post.If you continue to refer to me and thew others (indirectly) as "the people who pressured the site owner into adding a band he rejected originally" then I'll continue with this replies, always.   T wrote: you better learn that your "lawyer" tone is not ALWAYS PLEASING FOR THE REST OF THE PEOPLE.... we ALL can learn something every day   I don't give my opinions to please you or anybody, I write them because I believe in them....If this pleases you or not.....Matters very little to me Bravo, I agree with that. By the way, the CAPS and the big fonts were started by you...     T wrote: I never literally said you did. I said you may think we brainwashed the site owner, which is more an attack to our integrity... But you're a lawyer Ivan, read through my words....   Preasure is not brainwashing, That's why i asked you if that's what you thought... you say is not the same but then you defended yourself of this imagined accusation that you were offending the site owner, which i don't believe really. Then, who confused the terms originally? you beter study the meanigs of the words, every post we make, every suggestion we do is a form of preasure, but a 26 pages thread for a band rejected several times is too much in my opinion.That happened like a year ago. Can't you get over it?   Now I know Metallica are here to stay and believe it or not, doesn't affect me, so this point is over for me, write as many red posts as you want. Blue this time. And I'm happy the point is over. And whenever you say "a group of people pressured the site owner and convinced him" denigrating the addition of this band, I'll be there to reply with the same words.   Remember, I didn't reply to you on your first recent appearance on this thread quoting Mike about the meaning of prog-related and all that... I entered this discussion when you repeated the "group pressured convinced etc " thing.... because that's what is slightly offensive, even if you fail to see why...     Iván Teodoro

Edited by The T - July 05 2009 at 22:55

OK, you can insist how many times you want and I don't.

• What pisses me is  that a band is rejected, the owner says NO, the Administrators say NO...But some people feel entitled to insist ad nauseam and make a 26 pages thread......Well that's OK

I'm sure those who were for them being added will respect the final decision, even though they disagree with it.

• They didn't respected  THE FINAL DECISION, they insisted and insisted and insisted  until the band was added.

• But if this same people protest when you make a comment in an open thread, because they feel entitled to insist as much as they want but I don't have the same right

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - July 05 2009 at 23:17

p0mt3 wrote: But Ivan, if enough people thinm a band deserves to be on the site they support, isn't it very democratic and accurate to re-evaluate a band's 'reject' status? . They are now a part of this site, and that is the way of it. It needs to be klayed to rest (In my opinion).

1. When an Administrator and the owner through him say that is final
2. Or when the people who didn't accepted this final decision get what they want?

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - July 05 2009 at 23:34

p0mt3 wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:   Let Theo answer this question:   The T wrote: PA is not a democracy. And polls have never decided if a band gets here or not.       Iván So . . . ProgArchives is a dictatorship?

I replied you on a PM.to see if his thread dies

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.

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

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

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

This thread has developed into an interesting new phase.

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