| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Snow Dog 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
|
 Posted: July 06 2009 at 08:27 |
|
In fact it has become progressive.
|
|
|
 |
Transgressor
Forum Newbie
Joined: July 04 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 12
|
Posted: July 06 2009 at 08:33 |
 Mr ProgFreakFor example, when Certif1ed talks about riff development he doesn't mean that their riffs got more and more complex with each album ... he's refering to the technical term development as it is used in music theory and - first and foremost - classical music. It means that within a composition a motif (or riff) is not merely repeated, but constantly developed (expanded/varied).
[/QUOTE wrote:
That's also what I have intended.
So has RIP a motif merely repeated?...I don't think...
but I'm just a poor ex-drummer. I've never studied composition...but I have ears.
And Metallica certainly isn't Mozart or Stavinsky...
However I quit discussion because I've said what I have to say ...and the time spends to responds and follow the thread is not so short...
|
That's also what I have intended. So has RIP a motif merely repeated?...I don't think... but I'm just a poor ex-drummer. I've never studied composition...but I have ears. And Metallica certainly isn't Mozart or Stavinsky... However I quit discussion because I've said what I have to say ...and the time spends to responds and follow the thread is not so short...
Edited by Transgressor - July 06 2009 at 08:38
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: July 06 2009 at 08:36 |
|
^ 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.
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: July 06 2009 at 09:25 |
Transgressor wrote:
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  ).
|
Your nose tells lies, sir - this is not fanboyism, and neither is it my opinion.
Metallica developed the riffs = fact. Please read my reviews and listen to the music.
Transgressor wrote:
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. |
I intend to - and I do listen extremly carefully
Transgressor wrote:
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... |
Complex and complicated are not the same thing, and Metallica's riffs are complex.
Please try to understand what developing riffs means!
Transgressor wrote:
If you don't see the similarity in structure of Metallica's songs it's not my problem, really. |
Maybe because it's not there?
Transgressor wrote:
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.
|
Yes - I've fully analysed "Last Rites / Loved To Death" - and its simplicity is almost laughable.
It's based on 2 chords in the verse and 2 in the chorus - and the verse/chorus sections are all there is, apart from the intro!
This is kindergarten compared even to, say "Hit The Lights" - which isn't particularly complex in itself.
I could post the full analysis - but one listen to the song will prove this as fact.
Besides - my full analyses are not short, because they are very thorough.
Transgressor wrote:
That's also what I have intended.
So has RIP a motif merely repeated?...I don't think...
but I'm just a poor ex-drummer. I've never studied composition...but I have ears.
And Metallica certainly isn't Mozart or Stavinsky... |
Heh - no Prog band is equivalent to the great composers, and certainly no Prog Metal band I've ever heard - that is a pointless comparison!
We weren't talking about RIP, we were talking about KIMB, which is packed with short riff motifs merely repeated.
I'll get onto RIP if this discussion gets around to that album.
Transgressor wrote:
However I quit discussion because I've said what I have to say ...and the time spends to responds and follow the thread is not so short...
|
Running away so soon? 
Edited by Certif1ed - July 06 2009 at 09:27
|
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
Transgressor
Forum Newbie
Joined: July 04 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 12
|
Posted: July 06 2009 at 09:54 |
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.
|
|
Transgressor
Forum Newbie
Joined: July 04 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 12
|
Posted: July 06 2009 at 10:06 |
|
However, You should listen and focus on Peace Sells...but who's buying?, So far So good so what and RIP for what I've said:
songs like:
Wake up dead
The conjuring
good mourning/black friday
bad omen
Into the lungs of hell
Set the world afire
Mary Jane
In my darkest hour
and all rust in peace
and yes, you also have right for some things
I'm thinking about songs like Fade to Black, for whom the bell toll, the call of ktulu in Ride the lightnig. Considering that this album is of \1984 I should reconsider also RTL for prog. And not only for technical part.
But I think also about Iron Maiden...and songs like To tame a land (from 1983 album) and obviously Rime of the ancient Mariner...so who was ahed at times?....So this is the reason why I have chose to start when technical things grow-up (in 1985).
We should remeber at least of RUSH and WatchTower.
Energetica disassembly was written in 1983.
The last thing: my list concerning prog and technical metal...and I'm focus on technical -thrash that's why I have listed KIMB (as an album that inspires techno-thrash...but it's Thrash Metal...)
Edited by Transgressor - July 06 2009 at 10:44
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46838
|
Posted: July 06 2009 at 14:15 |
|
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
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: July 06 2009 at 14:38 |
Transgressor wrote:
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". |
"Free Composition" would certainly come into the Prog remit as an element - I'd be interested in hearing it.
It's definitely not on the first track on KIMB - if anything, that song is less advanced than standard song format.
I will listen and analyse.
Transgressor wrote:
However, You should listen and focus on Peace Sells...but who's buying? |
I know that album very well - the band I used to be in covered most of the tracks on there - but we stuck with the title track live.
Certainly there's some diversity and experimentation in style, but not much branching out from standard song structure - nowhere near the level of complexity that Metallica attained.
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
Transgressor wrote:
and yes, you also have right for some things
I'm thinking about songs like Fade to Black, for whom the bell toll, the call of ktulu in Ride the lightnig. Considering that this album is of \1984 I should reconsider also RTL for prog. And not only for technical part. |
Thank you - but if you listen hard, I hope you'll also agree that there is something about Metallica's music from that time that really stands out as innovative, above and beyond later bands.
Sure, Watchtower were technically very impressive - but it's not really very nice to listen to, is it?
What I mean is, after just a few listens, it gets old pretty quickly - while RTL, for example, just seems to be as good if not better than the last time you heard it? Or maybe I am a bit of a fanboy (I don't really mind admitting it, but for the purposes of this type of argument, I really do try hard to switch the fanboy off in favour of the hardened critic).
Transgressor wrote:
But I think also about Iron Maiden...and songs like To tame a land (from 1983 album) and obviously Rime of the ancient Mariner...so who was ahed at times?....So this is the reason why I have chose to start when technical things grow-up (in 1985). |
I never really got the feeling of Prog from "Piece of Mind" - I found that album a bit boring after Number of the Beast, and I think that their first two albums are more progressive, even if they are more primal.
It's not such a conundrum - Can wrote some extremely primal, if not primaeval music, and there's no disputing its progressiveness. [/quote]
Transgressor wrote:
The last thing: my list concerning prog and technical metal...and I'm focus on technical -thrash that's why I have listed KIMB (as an album that inspires techno-thrash...but it's Thrash Metal...)
|
To my ears, there's little that's actually "Prog" about technical metal generally - it's technically oriented heavy metal, not progressive metal per se.
Prog has a kind of organic feel to it, whether rock or metal. It develops and grows - takes you on a journey, and I think it should have little do do with ordinary song structures with their regular refrains. The instrumental section of Ride The Lightning is a good example of this, even though the overall map of the piece is song form. The fact that Metallica bothered to structure this section separately is very telling about the craft they put into their compositions.
It's the same difference between "proper" prog bands like ELP and Genesis, and bands which were commonly called progressive rock like Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple - really, the music is very, very different, but it's that elusive word, progressive again!
|
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: July 06 2009 at 14:43 |
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? 
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: July 06 2009 at 15:49 |
No I'm not raising the bar too high, I'm selecting a group familiar to anyone into Prog (and if not, why not?  ) in whose music complexity is obvious.
Maybe you're setting the bar too low?
I could equally have said Frank Zappa, Gong, or any other band that plays in the more complex realms of Prog - it's just an example for illustration purposes.
I've frequently referred to Can, Hawkwind and Pink Floyd - in this thread, I believe - whose music is entirely different, and yet complex at times.
All 3 use/d this composed/improvised organically developing form of composition but at different (and not necessarily "lower") levels, because all 3 wrote Prog.
I've addressed the definition of Prog fairly thoroughly a few times and mainly had support for my viewpoint, evolving, though it is, so I'm happy that I have a reasonable handle on what it really is.
It is true to say that King Crimson, despite being one of the defining bands of Prog, never set out to write it, and Fripp even now denies he ever wrote it or was involved with it, IIRC.
Prog is as Prog does and it's all in the music.
Edited by Certif1ed - July 06 2009 at 15:55
|
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: July 06 2009 at 15:59 |
|
^ I'm neither saying you're wrong, nor that you don't have supporters. Although I'd like to say that when someone posts a complex (sic) theory in a forum, a lack of critical posts doesn't necessarily mean that there is no criticism.
BTW: Do you agree with my approach (sic, yet again) of splitting prog into two components (approach vs. style)? Your interest lies primarily in the approach part, but surely the style part can't be ignored ...
|
|
debrewguy
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596
|
Posted: July 06 2009 at 20:14 |
|
Just in case Ivan is actually reading - I do believe that many legal appeals are launched when new evidence or a STRONGER ARGUEMENT comes forward.
Slavery, Racial Segregation, Women's rights in America (as in many countries) was not won on the first court case, nor the first election. But once the proper legal arguement was found , these issues were resolved as they should have been long before.
T has every right to ask why you have not retracted your "pressure" comment. And you really don't seem to be able to recognise that M@x may have changed his mind not because of this "pressure", but that a sufficiently strong case was made for their inclusion.
If M@x, the site owner, who has so far very successfully guided PA ... if he can be open-minded enough to change his position in a situation like that, why is it impossible for you to come forward & apologise for the "offense" that was taken ? You keep insisting none was meant, but refuse to see that it did hurt some people here. People that you have worked with and , from the looks of it, that you respect.
They're not looking to use this apology as an admission of fault so as to bring you to court . They're telling you quite clearly that they were insulted by the comment.
In Quebec, they have a phrase - "Allume !"
|
|
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: July 07 2009 at 00:54 |
Claude, I apologize if my comment was missunderstood as an attack to anybody, never had he intentoion of offending any member, adm or owner.
I also apologize for talking about a closed issue against why I always do.
But I'm an honest person who says what I think, and would be dishonest with the members to lie saying I don't believe what I said
Ivan
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - July 07 2009 at 01:10
|
|
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: July 07 2009 at 01:35 |
Certif1ed wrote:
No I'm not raising the bar too high, I'm selecting a group familiar to anyone into Prog (and if not, why not? ) in whose music complexity is obvious.
Maybe you're setting the bar too low?
I could equally have said Frank Zappa, Gong, or any other band that plays in the more complex realms of Prog - it's just an example for illustration purposes.
|
This is exactly my point: Within Prog there is a bandwidth of complexity ... some bands are more complex, some less.
Certif1ed wrote:
I've frequently referred to Can, Hawkwind and Pink Floyd - in this thread, I believe - whose music is entirely different, and yet complex at times.
All 3 use/d this composed/improvised organically developing form of composition but at different (and not necessarily "lower") levels, because all 3 wrote Prog.
I've addressed the definition of Prog fairly thoroughly a few times and mainly had support for my viewpoint, evolving, though it is, so I'm happy that I have a reasonable handle on what it really is.
It is true to say that King Crimson, despite being one of the defining bands of Prog, never set out to write it, and Fripp even now denies he ever wrote it or was involved with it, IIRC.
Prog is as Prog does and it's all in the music.
|
Sorry, but I really think that you're bending your rules as you please, so that they support your favorite styles and exclude that which most of us call Prog Metal. "At different levels" ... so who are you to define that DT's "level" isn't Prog while Metallica's is? I fail to see any objective reasoning behind this. So you see through the "episodic" structure of many DT epics ... big deal. Not every Prog Rock epic is structured like a symphony. I think that Prog has many facets. The kind of complexity shown by DT is one of them. And yes, I call it complexity. To you shifting time signatures, polyrhythms, songs with many different parts that are connected seamlessly, extended instrumental parts/solos effortlessly played while being insanely difficult may mean nothing, but these are all part of "Prog".
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: July 07 2009 at 03:41 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^ I'm neither saying you're wrong, nor that you don't have supporters. Although I'd like to say that when someone posts a complex (sic) theory in a forum, a lack of critical posts doesn't necessarily mean that there is no criticism. |
I didn't say there was unanimous support
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
BTW: Do you agree with my approach (sic, yet again) of splitting prog into two components (approach vs. style)? Your interest lies primarily in the approach part, but surely the style part can't be ignored ...
|
If there was a prog style, then it wouldn't really be prog, would it?
One of the main points of this great music is that it's all different - and that is one reason Metallica should not be ruled out as just a heavy metal band, because, as the existence of Prog Metal confirms, Metal has a place in the pantheons of Prog.
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
No I'm not raising the bar too high, I'm selecting a group familiar to anyone into Prog (and if not, why not?  ) in whose music complexity is obvious.
Maybe you're setting the bar too low?
I could equally have said Frank Zappa, Gong, or any other band that plays in the more complex realms of Prog - it's just an example for illustration purposes.
|
This is exactly my point: Within Prog there is a bandwidth of complexity ... some bands are more complex, some less.
|
Hmm - not sure what you're getting at, as I have always made it clear that I agree with this.
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
I've frequently referred to Can, Hawkwind and Pink Floyd - in this thread, I believe - whose music is entirely different, and yet complex at times.
All 3 use/d this composed/improvised organically developing form of composition but at different (and not necessarily "lower") levels, because all 3 wrote Prog.
I've addressed the definition of Prog fairly thoroughly a few times and mainly had support for my viewpoint, evolving, though it is, so I'm happy that I have a reasonable handle on what it really is.
It is true to say that King Crimson, despite being one of the defining bands of Prog, never set out to write it, and Fripp even now denies he ever wrote it or was involved with it, IIRC.
Prog is as Prog does and it's all in the music.
|
Sorry, but I really think that you're bending your rules as you please, so that they support your favorite styles and exclude that which most of us call Prog Metal. "At different levels" ... so who are you to define that DT's "level" isn't Prog while Metallica's is? I fail to see any objective reasoning behind this. So you see through the "episodic" structure of many DT epics ... big deal. Not every Prog Rock epic is structured like a symphony.
|
Not at all - I am trying very hard to include Prog Metal and ignore "style", because I do not think that is a particularly valid way to analyse.
It's a way to categorise, for sure, but it's not very useful otherwise.
I do not see how I have "bent" the rules (although there is no reason the rules can't be bent that I can see - surely that's one of the points of Prog) in this case - I have concentrated on a method of composition which I have found in bands which are considered to be Prog. There are very, very few exceptions - which rather proves the rule in the first place.
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
I think that Prog has many facets. The kind of complexity shown by DT is one of them. And yes, I call it complexity. To you shifting time signatures, polyrhythms, songs with many different parts that are connected seamlessly, extended instrumental parts/solos effortlessly played while being insanely difficult may mean nothing, but these are all part of "Prog".
|
Elements are not the same as the overall approach.
Time signatures, polyrhythms and multi-section songs and extended instrumentals are all things that can be found in Prog, but don't necessarily indicate it - it's how these things are used, not whether they are used or not, and it doesn't matter if the techniques involved are simple or advanced - it's the end result that matters to most listeners, not the technicality.
The "difficulty" has nothing to do with it at all and is relative. Angus Young, Michael Schenker and Randy Rhoades (among many others) all played some "difficult" parts, yet none are identified with Prog (although Ozzy/Rhoades has come up for discussion before, and not without reason).
As for the sections in DT's music being "seamless", apart from this not being a particular indication of prog either, I would dispute this - much of it sounds tangential to me... but that's a different discussion.
The devil is in the detail, and Prog is about the bigger picture than the minutae.
DT may have written some complex music, but the compositions are rarely truly complex - there's a difference. In most of the stuff I've heard by them, the standard song structure stands out plainly, and the multi-section instrumentals that give a clear Metallica/Maiden link are not developments of earlier ideas, but simple insertions of new material that is fine if you like that sort of thing, and fine if it adds dramatic purpose - but I don't feel it does.
Some things can only be felt - it's not important as a detail, just another way of expressing it - don't get bogged down with this kind of point.
The main point in this dialogue appears to be complexity, and I'm simply pointing out the difference between complexity and complicated.
Let's take a much earlier example; Judas Priest's "Killing Machine" album.
For some reason, few would consider this a Prog Metal album - and yet it exhibits every element you describe above.
If you were a beginner, with basic chord and pentatonic scale knowledge, you'd find it difficult to play anything on "Killing Machine" - I must admit that I find some of the solos difficult to reproduce, and I do not consider myself a beginner.
More recently, System of a Down wrote complicated riffs (pre Mesmerise). It's fashionable among heavy metal bands now to write riffs in odd time signatures and stuff - it's simply become part of what metal is, because it's an evolving genre.
Even in its early days, it was more complex than people liked to give it credit for - so it can be hard to draw a line between heavy metal and progressive rock, because the two emerged at the same time from the same Progressive Music scene, so in some ways are fundamentally related.
But the essential difference at the time was that Progressive Rock pieces were compositions, rather than straightforward songs, yet sounded improvised - as if they were somehow "free" compositions.
Metal preferred to stick to rigid structures, on the whole. Sabbath were actually verging on the Prog with their compositional approach, as were Purple, but Priest preferred standard song structure on the whole, as did UFO - both progressive metal bands in terms of technique; Schenker's widely copied soloing chops and Priest's even more widely copied riff and vocal techniques.
Going back in time to contemporaries of Sabbath, the Pink Fairies and Steppenwolf are among of the best examples of non-tritonic metal in the early 1970s, and it's not hard to hear huge variation in style within their music - it's just not a particularly progressive thing. It's just what metal bands do.
Until you've "got" why Moon Child is every bit as amazing as I say it is - Note: I am not saying that you have to like it or there is something about it that is fundamentally "good" - but in terms of progressive composition, it is absolutely stunning, in that they present a song (with a relatively interesting structure), then break it into pure essence. This is not my opinion - there are clear signals in the music that this is really the composer's intention.
It's the method that should be admired here, even if the end result is not pleasing - and this is a good illustration of what Prog is about, without dipping into technicalities. There are other examples, of course - this is just one of the finest, IMO.
In terms of style - it's unquestionably Prog, isn't it?
And complex without being particularly complicated.
...and it's not one of my favourite pieces of music.
Edited by Certif1ed - July 07 2009 at 03:44
|
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
Transgressor
Forum Newbie
Joined: July 04 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 12
|
Posted: July 07 2009 at 05:09 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
I think that Prog has many facets.
|
I really really quote your line. I'm writing my very last post about this thread (I hope so...) only to stress out some points. Certified: I really think that you are talking from your personal point of view (and that's obvious...everyone has one's) and also about your feelings about Metallica's music. My tastes are for complex and experimental music. I really like Metallica has a thrash metal band but to my point of view they are not so experimental compared to other metal bands. I find WatchTower more interesting than Metallica. And I really like very much strange/personal/prog metal bands like Voivod and Mekong Delta. I'm really into bands like Fates Warning, Sieges Even, Psycothic Waltz, Thought Industry...and technical/experimental stuff like Spastic ink, Spiral Architect, Dillinger escape plan...and others...(I don't want to make a list...these are examples). And other bands... I'm a big fan certainly of the mother of all prog metal...is it "true" prog, is it "dream theater" prog, or technical metal: Rush... About Megadeth: Metallica have their style...and Megadeth have their too. Metallica is magniloquent, epic and powerful; Megadeth is technical (compared to Metallica) mixing melody and harsh. I think Megadeth is also more rockish. Metallica's album (from RTL on) are certainly influenced by Rush ...the progressive influence helped certainly Metallica to expand the thrash metal concept...but it doesn't mean that's not thrash. Master of puppets is the quintessential of Bay Area Thrash Metal. Thrash Metal (especially of the bay area) doesn't mean only simple structure and aggressivnes...and Metallica has showed that. Megadeth, to me, is a more strange band than Metallica...their Thrash Metal is particular and dismisses from the thrash that Metallica has standardized. They show another possibility to make thrash, that's not Metallica's or Slayer's...Megadeth blends together things that seems to be opposite...a controversial album like So far so good what, for example, that it has complex and technical songs with a mood that in some is punky and in other is "melodical" and "dark" . And Poland touch gives a feeling bluesy to the Peace sells... album and the title track seems to be a rock songs (like a complex ac/dc) turned to thrash metal. Yes, they are not the only one...but It seems to me that in Megadeth, especially during the '80 this things ("opposition?" I don'to find a special meaning) is more marked than other thrash bands (excluding experimental bands). Rust in peace is more standardized and solid...(but it's always a Megadeth record). Metallica certainly has evolved themselves ( but what I was trying to say is that the "base" the "root", the conception beyond RTL, MOP and AJFA is the same; with riffs that become more intericated album per album and so the time signature) But I think that also Megadeth did it (I mean, about evolving thir style) PSBWB is a jump in quality compared to KIMBABIG and RIP is one step ahed PSBWB (and SFSGSW but this album is more particular and isolated). However, Metallica and Megadeth are two fundamental metal bands, similar for some things (without questioning who's proggish....all two bands finished their thrash metal era with albums that have prog elements: justice and RIP) but really different from many other. And, about this thread... I have nothing against Metallica (I also like them)... I have taken this thread as a pretext to show that I'm not so ok with the all the prog related thing into a prog site because it could cause confusion to a listener. It seems ridicoulous to say after my words: but I don't like stricted
classification. A lot of great bands reassumed different style into its
personal one (but it's also important to see what is the style that's more "dominant") * So the other point: there are other bands that could enjoy "prog related"...So, why take only some of them and leave out all the others? *So , also If I don't care of strictly classification, calling Metallica, like Certified, a true prog band sounds to me "wrong"...because in metal history Master of puppets is one of the examples of the Thrash Metal (the most famous 4 albums that defines the genre Master, Pease Sells, Reign in blood, and Amog the living). I hope that I've explained better my personal point of view. P.S. aehm..sorry for my english. I have written very quickly.  P.P.S Certainly it's my fault, but I didn't want to create another Metallica vs. Megadeth or focus only on Mustaine's band... 
Edited by Transgressor - July 07 2009 at 05:38
|
|
Easy Money
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: August 11 2007
Location: Memphis
Status: Offline
Points: 10669
|
Posted: July 07 2009 at 06:36 |
|
By the way, welcome to PA Transgressor, you know your music. We need more people like that around here.
Band additions are a tricky thing around here and often a subject of much debate. Certified pulls a lot of weight on band additions because he's been here a long time and people trust his opinion. Agree with him or not, but guys like him and Teo and Mike did a great job, because I think Metallica was one of our most contested additions ever.
I hope you stick around and get to know some people. You'd be suprised, before long people will be looking to you for opinions on bands too.
When I first joined the site I noticed some artists missing too. After working on the site for a while people began to trust my opinion and I have been able to get a lot of missing artists added to PA.
P.S. If you want to make a case for Megadeth, first drop the Metallica comparisms, Megadeth has to make it on their own music. Get to know some people and start expanding your influence, don't bring up Megadeth constantly, that will undermine your efforts. Just stick around and help out the site and you may be suprised what you may accomplish.
Edited by Easy Money - July 07 2009 at 06:40
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: July 07 2009 at 06:45 |
Lars Ulrich is on record as having a strong dislike for the term "thrash" to describe what Metallica did - and with very good reason.
I think of thrash as the music of Testament, Kreator, Dark Angel et al - the music is primarily in the same vein, ie continual open E riffing - thrashing.
If you can make a good argument for other bands as Prog Related, then fair enough - chances are they haven't been discussed, or only discussed briefly.
The music on Ride The Lightning is a very clear departure from this kind of thrashing, which is strongly represented (but not totally dominant) on Kill 'Em All - Metallica were never a "pure" thrash band - and it's far from "standardised" - can you back up this assertion?
Megadeth, however, were always closer to the spirit of thrash, despite the fact that they did vary their style fairly frequently (as many metal bands did - the Scorpions played a kind of reggae on the album "Lovedrive") - take the song you mentioned as an example of "free composition", The Skull Beneath the Skin;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6im6aRuLyg
The thing with discussing music is that opinion will almost always enter into the discussion - it's almost unavoidable. Stop trying to see it all in black and white, and just concentrate on the factual aspects. My opinionated suggestions are merely that - suggestions, but the facts speak for themselves;
Fact: This song opens with a sequence of diminished arpeggios and almost all the riffs are based on the open E - Bb tritone (diminished fifth - or augmented 4th, if you want to call it A#!)
Opinion: This sequence seems to me to be more a display of prowess than an essential part of the song. The fact which backs up this opinion is that this sequence does not appear again.
Fact: The use of the tritone, especially open E - Bb is very common in heavy metal
Opinion: The use here is very simplistic - not at all "complex".
Fact: After the sequence, there are some E power chords over a drum beat.
Opinion: This seems like the introduction "proper", because it is in the same root key - E (no surprises there!). It's a very simple introduction, with each power chord falling on the strong beat - it's not as imaginative as the introduction to, say "Hit The Lights". The drum beat bears a lot of similarity to that used by John Bonham in The Immigrant Song.
Fact: Riff 1, is a short motif based around a tritone, dominates the song and only varies every other bar - an old technique used extensively by Judas Priest. It is also pedantically single-beat based (ie, you count 4-1-2-3-4, 1-2-3, 4-1-2-3-4, 1-2-3).
Opinion: Rhythmically, this riff is quite interesting - but loses interest after a few iterations. It doesn't go anywhere - this is a very simple metal approach. The drums are quite interesting here, but so are Bill Ward's - this isn't an indication of Prog, it's just a bit different.
Fact: Then we return to the power chords, for a restatement of the introduction with guitar solo bluff over the top.
Opinion: This confirms to me the desire to show technical prowess - it hasn't really moved the music on, it's just showy.
Fact: Then Riff 1 reappears, several times, unmodified and topped with more bluff. Unsurprisingly, it's the tritone again.
Opinion: The soloing here is remarkably similar to that used by Kirk in Whiplash, but without the direction.
Fact: Then Riff 2 is presented. Several times, unmodified. You guessed it, based on the tritone.
Opinion: Riff 2 is just a link between the preceeding introduction material and the first verse. You don't really feel the music develop or increase in intensity - an intensity level has been reached and it stays there. It doesn't feel like this was spontaneous, but carefully thought about - and it doesn't feel like much of a composition, as no attention has been paid to musical logic - the rules that are being followed or broken. In other words, in no way does it meet this specific criteria of Prog.
Fact: Riff 2 is open E based - almost entirely. It shifts chromatically around the open E, but that's no big deal - so do most Hawkwind riffs.
Opinion: Riff 2 doesn't feel like a development or continuation of riff 1, but rather a different idea. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but rather that it's not particularly progressive.
Fact: Riff 3 follows, which is a short two-bar riff based on the tritone, repeated verbatim.
Opinion: Riff 3 sounds very similar to riff 1, but again, doesn't feel like a development, just another riff idea.
Fact: Riff 4 follows this, but is mainly open E chords.
Opinion: This seems like a kind of restatement of the power chords in the intro - it's like to-ing and fro-ing between two very simple ideas; Tritonic riffs and single power chords. Like many simple ideas, it's admirable in a way - and more clever than the impression I'm giving. But I feel it doesn't really work very effectively - it's OK, but while the ideas are modified, I never get the feeling that the piece is developing or progressing. If I wasn't paying close attention, I might even think that all the riffs are the same.
Fact: At 1:27, we're back to the power chords again, this time with a short open E based tritonic riff layered on top. This is followed by another short tritonic open E based riff over which the verse is sung. Following this is more open E tritone material, with more verse and an inserted E/tritone based bass solo. These two simple ideas continue for quite some time, and a solo completes the piece.
Opinion: These riff ideas are very short, to the point of being almost indistinguishable from each other - there is no turning upside down of ideas, no changing key, no tempo change - although there are some reasonably interesting rhythmic changes.
Fact: The structure is different to standard song structure.
Opinion (it's all opinion fromhere, interspersed with a smattering of facts): OK, it's different. but different is not the same as progressive. It's not a standard heavy metal song, but plenty of heavy metal bands wrote non-standard songs. What I'm really looking for is that big picture - the overall composition showing up a game plan which is greater than the sum of its parts - and I'm not hearing it. I hear more of this type of game plan in Judas Priest or Slayer, and I certainly wouldn't recommend Slayer for the archives - even though they are one of my favourite bands, above Metallica.
Essentially, this song is really simple - Intro/Verse/Chorus, but could be broken down differently - it is quite interesting from that point of view.
The riffs, however, do not have that progressive flow, and the melodies are almost non-existent, as they are confined into a very narrow area - mostly simple step movement. It's like there's only a vocal melody at all because there are lyrics, and they have to be expressed by being sung. Dave's singing style is OK for the music, but James Hetfield has a much better sense of what makes a "good tune".
Kirk, too, has a better sense of what makes a melodic and composed solo, even if he's not as technically adept as Mr Mustaine. James and Kirk (and Cliff, of course!) also have a way of writing riffs that are not only catchy and somehow familiar (yes, I'm aware of how much Metallica plundered!), but have a strong harmonic pull on each other, such that the overall shape of the song pans out in a dramatic way without losing intensity. Mustaine's go for sustained intensity, which gets wearying quite quickly.
Harmonically speaking, it's just open E/tritone riffing all the way. Even "Hit The Lights" avoids this trap.
Timbrally, it's the same intensity all the way through. Even though they've clearly made an effort to create contrasts through rhythmic differences between the power chords and riff sections, there's none of the light and shade of, say, "Criminally Insane" by Slayer. Yup...it's not as subtle as Slayer...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYplo6ioyIk
There's not really enough in "Skull Beneath The Skin" for a progger to get their teeth into, IMO - and it's very short.
Edited by Certif1ed - July 07 2009 at 06:54
|
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
akin
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 06 2004
Location: Brazil
Status: Offline
Points: 976
|
Posted: July 07 2009 at 07:06 |
|
I love the logic in forums, this one (PA) in special:
If you are the last person in a thread writing: "Insert your opinion here is a fact", your opinion is proven as a fact.
The important thing is not to stop posting, till the people who disagree with you quit the discussion.
BTW, there are so many great things being achieved in forums on the internet that I don't know how people could live without them in the past.
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: July 07 2009 at 07:09 |
I do not believe I have done that at all.
Your opinion is your opinion, I suppose, and you're welcome to it.
BTW, I fail spectacularly to see how this has anything to do with Metallica, and is nothing but a troll.
I would, of course, be interested in your explanation.
Edited by Certif1ed - July 07 2009 at 07:19
|
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Metallica ?
