Worst Album Of The Year

TheMasterMofo wrote: The argument against would be that most of their music, though often experimental or changing, uses straight time signatures and has a common song structure.

An argument that has never been held against Queensryche when it could just as well apply to them.  Consider that Metallica are at any rate classified here as Prog Related (hence not prog) whereas Queensryche is Progressive Metal. I can certainly hear the influence of Operation Mindcrime on prog metal to come but I am not sure just how much it fits as prog on this website.  I think it has much more to do with that, just like Led Zeppelin or The Who, Metallica have been marked down as metal for so long and are so popular that having to relate to them in prog terms seems awkward.  Otherwise, musically, even if they may not be such a perfect fit as a King Crimson, they are more eligible than several other additions to the archives.

DavetheSlave wrote: rogerthat wrote: TheMasterMofo wrote: The argument against would be that most of their music, though often experimental or changing, uses straight time signatures and has a common song structure. An argument that has never been held against Queensryche when it could just as well apply to them.  Consider that Metallica are at any rate classified here as Prog Related (hence not prog) whereas Queensryche is Progressive Metal. I can certainly hear the influence of Operation Mindcrime on prog metal to come but I am not sure just how much it fits as prog on this website.  I think it has much more to do with that, just like Led Zeppelin or The Who, Metallica have been marked down as metal for so long and are so popular that having to relate to them in prog terms seems awkward.  Otherwise, musically, even if they may not be such a perfect fit as a King Crimson, they are more eligible than several other additions to the archives.   Operation Mindcrime is a prog metal classic and is universally recognised as such. To put Metallica and Queensryche on the same page relating to prog, to me, is ludicrous. I own many Metallica albums but if they were stolen it wouldn't worry me in the least. Having said that Lulu does intrigue me after having listened to some of it .

Universally recognized on what basis? And you are wrong, it depends on the community of music listeners you talk to. For pure metal lovers, OM is more of a heavy metal classic because they don't care about prog metal or OM's impact on it. Queensryche is a heavy metal band that went proggy as opposed to DT who were prog metal from the get go.  And if you bothered to actually listen to the music than go by these dubious consenses, perhaps the suggestion would sound less ludicrous to you.  Why on earth is Quadrophenia not prog if Salisbury is supposed to be? These are just labels, and a lot of rock labels are not accurate at all. It doesn't matter, either.

Quadrophenia..........poppy?

Edited by Snow Dog - October 29 2011 at 13:00

I heard a bit of Lulu, and I can safely say that it isn´t the worst album to come out this year.
I heard Neil Morse´s Testimony 2 here the other day, and this is of course my personal tastes, but it really sounded awful to me. He is a great keyboard player though, I just wish he´d use his talent differently that´s all.  

DavetheSlave wrote: I don't even want to start listing the sources that list O M as prog just as I don't want to start looking for sources that list Metallica as prog besides here. A conceptual album with an incredible story, changing rythm structures throughout, melody and an ambiance of its own as well as  a score here of 4,22 from 437 ratings. This aint a discussion I wanna be having because it doesn't make sense to me  .   Basic Metal music has a very simple structure and I seldom listen to it unless the Metal has musical reason behind it - virtuosity, melody, strong structure.    The Quadrophena album by the Who I don't like because it is too poppy for me but I won't argue that there isn't prog there. Metallica are a heavy basic grunge, thrash band who wrote music that appealed to the masses a while back. I dunno who they appeal to now .

Have you EVER heard Master of Puppets, Ride the Lightning or And Justice for All albums properly?  They have as much sense of song structure and time signature changes as Sister Suite Mary which is the proggiest track on OM. They have a distinct flavour and ambience of their own, in the midst of all the hundreds of 80s thrash metal albums.  For that matter, Seventh Son of a Seventh Son too would qualify as a prog metal album if OM does. Especially, the title track has a long instrumental break and is divided into different sections.  I am sorry, it is all about perception with regard to why Queensryche are considered prog metal and you are clearly influenced far more by perception than the actual substance of the music.

I must say that I doubt cery much Mettalica (then or now) might have considered themselves in the prog rock group light. Hey you giuys arer nearly as good as Jethro Tull or words to that effect.

After all if one were tp describe prog rock to the uniiated (or sane) then we'd be saying well prog sounds like, er, The Beatles or um, Metallica.

That should should clear that question up yes?

I had a read of the Metallica intro on PA; ie why are Metallica here. Obviously Metallica are a pioneering metal band. Why? Because of their treatment of a riff or motif. They would take a riff and approach it diffferent ways. Not original - take Beethhovans 5th first movement which is that one riff treated several different ways (there's a big orchestra to do that)  and only two other parts (one early, one late where there is different music). Of coourse there is the rest of the symphony but as riff piecce I thought I'd just use that as an example. Back to Metallica.

They were also described as eschewing blues influence in metal Hardly pioneering - Sabbath may have done that first but in terms of fast Metal perhaps Priest and all the NWOBHM acts circa 1979. Possibly to a large extent Rainbow (Blackmore Blues solo in concert aside) Rainbow were hardly a blues based heavy rock act.

But nobody really likes (or admits to liking) history so Metallica did do thrash and then made it musical (after Kill 'em All).

Did Metallica think they were pioneering (a bit I suppose) or progressive? That term has a lot of dodgy associations - even Gnesis biographers avoid it in case people think Genesis are a progressive rock band. The one I'm thinking of described Genesis as soul music in their book.

Oh dear.

That undoubtedly helped untold...

Does S&M (the album...) make Metallica a symphonic progressive rock band? Or what about that Kiss Live with an orchestra? Hell, Yes only did this twice this makes Metallica and Kiss just as prog as Yes.

FWIW progressive rock means to move rock onward from the standard cadence and make it more sophisticated. So Metallica do belong but they are not really a symphonic band (that would seem self evident) so they do not get called that. It's the second category (IMHO) that defines an entry on Prog Archives.

Inevitably this means the unbrella of progressive is largely redundant due to being vague. Yes, I noticed the prog metal relationship or association.

Trouble is the definitions. Sectional peices of music (e.g. Suppers Ready) are usually held to be prime examples because of this relationship with classical modes of structure  - adding bits on until they can bring the thing to a peak...) but unlike most romantic classical there no rules or means of identifying a rock symphony and it's landmark moments as it's too confused with songman ship (a different form of musical art). It (symphonic rock) is  just a way of using those classical ideas within a rock context.

However prog rock / metal et al needs, in order to progress, something to progress from, pardon my grammar. Symphonic prog rock uses earler ideas. e.g  A Day In The Life, or Romantic classical (more likely modern with the relaxation of rule adherance) to move their version of rock from this point A to point B.

Prog metal in other words has to start somewhere before it moves on to somewhere else. It does not necessarily have to sound like an influence to be what it is, but I doubt very much that progressive metal would be anywhere were it not for an infusion of ideas which. logically have to come from somewhere, same as with the apparent (on this site) parallel example of symphonic rock. With the impact Metallica have had I doubt there influence is negligible. They even brought metal to the masses like no one had ever done before (and only The Osbournes since).

Once ignited, the ideas abound. Metallica were a thrash band and while I've only the 2nd and 3rd albums (now...) they are certainly not dumb thrash. How technical does a metal band have to be, what are the criteria?

Still, back to tthe worst album this year... it gets talked about a lot but what exactly are we afraid of hearing?

Being actually progressive certainly creates reactionaryism (is that a word...??). People hate change; no wonder progressive is a controversial term.

Reminds me of something I read recently - relating to music and what people want with something new. Completely different but still the same.

It's all different opinions - they are just opinions though. I very much doubt that the Metallica guys ever sat down together and said - "let's be progressive". I personally ( and I mean personally here guys ) don't attach any importance whatsoever to Metallica. Black Sabbath, Budgie, Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, Krokus, Anthrax etc etc etc I love and I find that their music - to my mind has been very influential. To my way of thinking Deep Purple was far far more important in influenicing a band like Dream Theater than Metallica ever were.

Edited by DavetheSlave - October 30 2011 at 08:14

DavetheSlave wrote: It's all different opinions - they are just opinions though. I very much doubt that the Metallica guys ever sat down together and said - "let's be progressive".

KC never called themselves progressive AFAIK...that's irrelevant here. 

 

DavetheSlave wrote: To my way of thinking Deep Purple was far far more important in influenicing a band like Dream Theater than Metallica ever were.

Perhaps but the metal soundscape Dream Theater stepped into was profoundly influenced by Metallica and would have sounded very different without them.  Petrucci himself has cited both Metallica and Iron Maiden as influences. I am sure Deep Purple would figure too but Dream Theater's music is built around 80s metal and Metallica defines 80s metal to a large extent.

^^^^ They don't even have to be because, as I said before, they are only here as a Prog Related band.  At least half of the ire at the Metallica is misdirected. Are they an important influence on progressive metal? Absolutely and people have to look at this from an objective light because we are looking at INFLUENCE on BANDS and not one's personal preferences in music.  They are one of the most obvious additions to PR from a prog metal perspective.