| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Certif1ed 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
 Posted: May 24 2007 at 03:01 |
 Rocktopus wrote:
A progmetal connection is not enough for me. |
You've focussed on the wrong word and lost the sense - it's not just a "connection", Metallica are the root - Dream Theater use their riffs in their songs and cover their albums, and "MOP" and "AJFA" are Progressive Metal albums in all but wide acceptance.
You have avoided all my points relating to the music here in order to focus on a term, which is a triviality.
Rocktopus wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
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. Ok it came out wrong. I meant how you use it
|
|
What's wrong with the way I use it?
Rocktopus wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
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. But we are discussing what decides which bands should be in the Progarchives (even if you're certain that you are always right, and everyone disagreeing are deaf).If your method tells us that Metallica should be included, and many bands a lot of people agree has a natural place here, should not. Why shouldn't we question your use of that method, and your conclusions?
|
|
You're only questioning my conclusions - not my methods.
I haven't seen a single discussion which specifically questions a method I use to reach my conclusions.
If you're not willing to discuss the music, then that seems absolutely crazy to me - why is this discussion even taking place?
It's all about the music - nothing else matters... 
Rocktopus wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
You must have noticed that there's many here that don't want to discuss this on your terms.
|
|
I know - no-one wants to talk about the music, just their misapprehensions and fears. 
My terms are basic musical terms, not some esoteric claptrap that I've made up off the top of my head - it's all fundamental, simple stuff - not rocket science. You can read it in any decent musical textbook.
Rocktopus wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
It is a progressive music genre - but that depends on how you define progressive music (another discussion!). So how people define progressive is irrelevant? Isn't that the reason people disagree here?
|
|
That's not what I said at all - the opposite is true!
I'm saying that how people define progressive is essential to the argument (and that it's another discussion)!!!
This is all peripheral stuff, and I refuse to get into any more of it.
Rocktopus wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
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. then you are no different than most progfans.
|
|
No - most progfans go by the subjective elements - your good self included.
Rocktopus wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
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. |
|
Rocktopus wrote:
I think it looks more like people hearing different things in Metallica's music, and put different meaning into the musical term Prog.
|
Then why are people discussing issues relating to perceptions of the band instead of issues relating to the music??
Thank you for not disagreeing with me on this vital point 
Edited by Certif1ed - May 24 2007 at 03:06
|
|
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 24 2007 at 03:08 |
akin wrote:
Ok, let's analyse you posts the way you analyse mines.
1- You hear a progressiveness in Metallica's music, but you cannot explain rather than saying that you hear something progressive. You invent some "progressive techniques" to them when it is just a opinion, not a fact.
2 - Your concept of intrincate harmonies and melodies and song structures is your opinion, but you state them as it would be the truth while my views are expressed as an opinion that cannot be proven.
3- You think the addition of bands like Metallica will be benefical to the site and attract more people to it and you want the site to list bands that are not in other prog sites with the intent to make people think it is better than the others.
4- You stretch the number of songs from Metallica that could be considered progressive, but anyone can do this to support inclusion of Cat Stevens, Bee Gees, Elton John, etc. It becomes rather easy when you take one song that is prog-related in an album and say that almost the whole album is progressive.
5- You say that Metallica was a primary influence to prog metal, but it is not, mainly in the prog part of prog metal. Rolling Stones are cited as influence by many prog rock musicians, but never for their prog side. The same is with major prog metal bands, like Dream Theater, as you like to mention, and Metallica.
So if your opinions have more influence over admins or owners (whether if you are the father-in-law of M@X or if you have lent a big amount of money to them  ), you can be with the reason. But if opinions are the same and you only say that your opinion is truth because they are your opinions, your participation in the forum will not be useful concerning to Metallica's addition.
If you have got something new, bring it along. But if you will keep on the same argument that your opinions are the truth and mine are just opinions, don't waste your time. Better accept the general consensus of the world, that Metallica does not have to do with prog.
|
OK, you've had some fun, with this post - which I find rude, as you've chosen to attempt to pick my post apart the way that you imagine I do yours as a way of getting your own back, instead of addressing any of the questions I posed or continuing with the discussion.
Sadly, you display a lack of understanding so fundamental that there is no way I'm going to answer this crap - instead of asking questions and exploring the actual issues (which is my technique), you're just larking around.
Edited by Certif1ed - May 24 2007 at 03:30
|
|
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 24 2007 at 03:10 |
micky wrote:
have stayed out of this one... but after reading the T's post there.. I'll throw my two cents out there because I can I guess hahah. The category is prog-related.. in fact it's like that damn thingy with Kevin Bacon. If you can't prove a 'progressive' artist (which by the way includes MANY MANY artists that would be laughed at for even being mentioned) is prog-related in some way. You should stick to pop music. It can be done.. and easily.
The case whether or musically is not important at all really for that reason ^.... it's a question of the direction of the site and what's best for it. Otherwise we'd be free to add them ourselves.
in case I've missed it... the discussion .. if not here.. then at admin level should be....
what benefit does Metlalica bring to this site... that should be the question. If they are ...then add them. If not.. why in the hell would you add them. They are only one of .... dozens of groups.. that could have strong cases musically made for them. None of the them really being associated with prog ... prog as we know it... and prog as a visitor to this site knows it. As a wise admin said to me once.. it's all about the listeners expectations... do prog fans expect to come here and find Metallica listed. Thinking out loud. and throwing my two cents out there.. that are more important things going on with the site than additions that ...aren't prog... or could cause even more fractures in an already thin vaneer of patience with the direction of the site. If it's a benefit ...add them.. if not... it's simply not imporant to the scope of this site to add them.
|
If I wanted to talk business, I'd join a business forum 
Metallica's essential and inescapable relation to prog metal is all that matters to me - it's entirely about being consistent in our categorisations and band additions.
It would be a MASSIVE benefit:
The number of visitors would increase dramatically, and be breadcrumbed straight into prog metal through the Metallica->Dream Theater-> anything with a thrash and/or technical basis, and ultimately into the realms of real prog.
The other stuff about expectations - well, you might just as well say that about the Beatles, Queen, Radiohead and a large number of controversial bands - so I think that whole discussion is irrelevant.
It's not a question of the direction of the site - it's more an acceptance of the Prog-Related category for what it is;
A way to broaden the appeal of Prog Rock.
A way to bring newcomers to the site
A way to encourage music fans to boldly go, etc...
I also think that the heated debates which will necessarily follow are good for the site - membership has always picked up following one, and it keeps the forum alive to have so many discussions.
"The case whether or musically is not important at all really"
Christ - I'm on the wrong site. I'm only here for the music.
"Otherwise we'd be free to add them ourselves"
So we can only add a band if they bring a benefit to the site?
I can think of 100s that were never discussed in that way. This whole issue is trivial, in my mind, in comparison to the music itself - but that's just my opinion.
Edited by Certif1ed - May 24 2007 at 04:01
|
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
toolis
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 26 2006
Location: MacedoniaGreece
Status: Offline
Points: 1678
|
Posted: May 24 2007 at 04:30 |
Barla wrote:
A big YES! I have EVERY album by Metallica, including all non bootleg live, I'm a big fan of the band, so I'm not one of those "No, just because no!" guys that have never heard Metallica seriously except for Enter Sandman and Frantic and say they do not belong by any way here on this site.I say it's not just the incredibly big influence Metallica had on Metal overall (including progressive metal, of course), also they're relatively progressive, both on evolving and 'progressiveness' (spelling?):- The average lenght of their songs is 6 minutes, with some tremendous instrumentals like "The Call Of Kthulu".- Outstanding playing, specially from Hammet, all the innovation, very unique and intelligent solos he did, specially on the early albums.- They innovate sounds, every albums sounds completely different from the others, and even their debut is very, very interesting.- ...And Justice For All is a technical PROG metal album, as is the all time classic Master Of Puppets and Ride The Lightning.- Metallica is NOT music for the simple minded metaleer exclusively, in fact, many of us listens to Metallica, and the band has a a lot non-metal fans out there.- They were never afraid of taking different directions with their music, despite of what everyone said (Load, great album), and not being the typical 4 minute song thrash metal band.They absolutely deserve the addition here, if not as Prog Metal, as Prog Related. I hope we're considered this time.
|
- song length has nothing to do with prog if the music is not prog... oh, and Call Of Kthulu is Mustaine's work who left the band like 25 years ago...
-Hammet is just a good student (Satriani's student), no innovations in his playing... the guy is using a wah-wah pedal for over two decades now...
-they don't innovate sounds, they change their sound, very different thing, due to dif productions and their sound has progressed from thrash to heavy metal to heavy rock...
-Ride The Lightning and Master Of Puppets are heavy/thrash metal and Justice... is tech/thrash, not prog... would you call Coroner's Grin, prog? i wouldn't..
-Metallica have sold many many millions of albums and, yes, many of us listen to Metallica as many classic rock fans do, as many pop music fans do and so on.. so, i don't think they're not for the simple minded.. au contraire, they're very very popular...
-no, they weren't afraid of taking different directions but they never went prog... Load is a back-to-the-routes album with a Sabbath-Zeppelin sound...
Edited by toolis - May 24 2007 at 04:35
|
|
-music is like pornography...
sometimes amateurs turn us on, even more...
-sometimes you are the pigeon and sometimes you are the statue...
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21138
|
Posted: May 24 2007 at 06:02 |
toolis wrote:
- song length has nothing to do with prog if the music is not prog... oh, and Call Of Kthulu is Mustaine's work who left the band like 25 years ago...
Ok, all very interesting ... but if the music is progressive or not is what we are discussing here. You're essentially saying that non-prog music can also feature long songs ... it's not exactly new info. And whether Call of Kthulu was written be Hetfield, Ulrich or Mustaine or when Mustaine was kicked out has nothing to do with whether the song is progressive or not.
-Hammet is just a good student (Satriani's student), no innovations in his playing... the guy is using a wah-wah pedal for over two decades now...
So because he was Satriani's student for some time he cannot be innovative? Every musician was a student at some point ... and if you think about it, even masters are still students - you never stop learning. And about the wah-wah: It's an old effect - does that mean that it can't be used anymore in prog music, or that it makes the music less prog? I don't think so ...
-they don't innovate sounds, they change their sound, very different thing, due to dif productions and their sound has progressed from thrash to heavy metal to heavy rock...
The progression and innovation that most of us are discussing here happened in their early albums, from Kill em All to Master of Puppets/AJFA ... after that they drifted off into mainstream territory, influenced by Bob Rock on the Black Album, and on Load/Re-Load they even re-embraced Blues which I found quite interesting, but is really regressive musically.
-Ride The Lightning and Master Of Puppets are heavy/thrash metal and Justice... is tech/thrash, not prog... would you call Coroner's Grin, prog? i wouldn't..
Nobody is calling AJFA "Prog" ... you're missing the point.
-Metallica have sold many many millions of albums and, yes, many of us listen to Metallica as many classic rock fans do, as many pop music fans do and so on.. so, i don't think they're not for the simple minded.. au contraire, they're very very popular...
Master of Puppets wasn't very popular when it was released ... at least not from a mainstream point of view. Not that popularity would contra-indicate Prog anway ... usually the really successful albums are not prog, but there are many exceptions (Dark Side of the Moon, anyone?).
-no, they weren't afraid of taking different directions but they never went prog... Load is a back-to-the-routes album with a Sabbath-Zeppelin sound...
*sigh* ... as long as you allow their later albums to cloud your judgement, you won't be able to properly participate in these discussions. You have to discuss albums, not bands, because bands constantly change their style ... if you can discuss Close to the Edge without referring to 90125 you should also haven no problem discussing Master of Puppets without referring to Load, am I right?
|
|
|
|
|
Rocktopus
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 02 2006
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 4202
|
Posted: May 24 2007 at 06:20 |
Certif1ed wrote:
Rocktopus wrote:
[QUOTE=Certif1ed]
You must have noticed that there's many here that don't want to discuss this on your terms.
|
|
I know - no-one wants to talk about the music, just their misapprehensions and fears.
My terms are basic musical terms, not - it's all fundamental, simple stuff - not rocket science. You can read it in any decent musical textbook.
[QUOTE=Certif1ed]
You're the one making rocket science out of the simple stuff. Most others seem to trust their gut feeling. As in: Metallica prog? No way! Dumbest thing I've heard. I know that's the dumbest thing you've ever heard, of course. No one's arguing against that they are both related and essential to prog metal. But they are not a progmetal band themselves, and that's only a subgenre of prog. That makes them a band related to a genre that's a subgenre of prog. Just like almost any late 60's psychedelic band, most acid folk and lots of jazzartists that went electric during that same period, + early composers experimenting with moogs and early electronics.
So its a question of how inclusive the term prog should be. Progrelated composers like Terry Riley, and Stockhausen are probably more important to prog than Metallica. The former even rocks at times. But in general most people who has any knowledge of them, feel (ha-ha) that contemporary music history has already found a better and more natural place for them in music history. Just like with Metallica.
I have never read any (decent) musical textbook, but surely some other folks with knowledge on prog must have? If your basic terms of deciding what's prog and what's not, works so perfectly. Where are all the others that understands this correctly the way you do? Are you alone among the 'scholars' in the world with no misapprehensions and fears? The only ones on your side are all the biggest progmetal fans on the site. And Metalica's are not considered for that genre, but Progrelated.
Edited by Rocktopus - May 24 2007 at 06:29
|
|
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 24 2007 at 07:00 |
Rocktopus wrote:
No one's arguing against that they are both related and essential to prog metal. |
.
Rocktopus wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
Rocktopus wrote:
Certif1ed wrote:
You must have noticed that there's many here that don't want to discuss this on your terms.
|
|
I know - no-one wants to talk about the music, just their misapprehensions and fears. 
My terms are basic musical terms, not - it's all fundamental, simple stuff - not rocket science. You can read it in any decent musical textbook.
Certif1ed wrote:
You're the one making rocket science out of the simple stuff. I take that as a compliment - although it's a pity that I'm not expressing myself in a more easily understood format - I'll work on that.
Most others seem to trust their gut feeling. As do I - but gut feeling combined with reasoning and understanding is more powerful. Instincts can get it wrong - the mind can play tricks on the body - consider optical illusions as an example.
As in: Metallica prog? No way! Dumbest thing I've heard. I know that's the dumbest thing you've ever heard, of course. No one's arguing against that they are both related and essential to prog metal. But they are not a progmetal band themselves, and that's only a subgenre of prog. That makes them a band related to a genre that's a subgenre of prog. Just like almost any late 60's psychedelic band, most acid folk and lots of jazzartists that went electric during that same period, + early composers experimenting with moogs and early electronics.
The big difference is that Metallica were one of a kind - the spear-leading figurehead of a "movement" that led the way rather than following fashions - that were brave enough to do something different on each successive album and both redefine and popularise metal at the same time.
The early experiments with electronics are largely doodles, by the way - there's very little of musical note (sic) in the earliest experiments except that they were new sounding.
Consider "Gesang der Junglinge" (Stockhausen - 1956) and compare with his later masterpiece "Kontakte" (1960) - the one that inspired Lennon to write songs such as "Tomorrow Never Knows. Consider also the Silver Apples (1968), and compare with White Noise (1969), who were vastly superior, but also extremely short on ideas of what to do with the new sounds.
Metallica, on the other hand, combined a new sound with new techniques and approaches to musical form in the metal genre from the word go. These fundamentally changed people's attitudes to metal, including those of other metal musicians who saw new possibilities in the music.
I think that Prog Metal as a genre has great potential - that some day, someone will really write something as progressive as the greats did. The pretensions and aspirations are certainly in place.
This is not to knock or dismiss the genre - rather the opposite - I'm saying in essence that I think it will get better. If this site is among the first to recognise Metallica's true place in the scheme of things, then there will more kudos for it.
|
[QUOTE=Rocktopus]
So its a question of how inclusive the term prog should be. Progrelated composers like Terry Riley, and Stockhausen are probably more important to prog than Metallica. The former even rocks at times.
The composers you mention are not primarily associated with rock music, as this site is
|
[QUOTE=Rocktopus]
But in general most people who has any knowledge of them, feel (ha-ha) that contemporary music history has already found a better and more natural place for them in music history. Just like with Metallica.
|
This is just straw-manning.
I'm sure that many, many Metallica fans (more straw-manning ) bemoan the fact that the rest of the world appears to look down on Metallica for the wrong reasons - ie that somehow they're a very basic band that only make a lot of noise at high speed, or that the music is simple thrash.
This is a common misconception - if the music wasn't up to being analysed, I couldn't analyse it - and I wouldn't waste 9 pages of this forum on a simple rock band.
The right reasons to dislike Metallica (IMHO) are that they sold out and produced rubbish, and branded their fans pirates - and so on... but there are one or two prog bands who also sold out, let's not forget...
[QUOTE=Rocktopus]
I have never read any (decent) musical textbook, but surely some other folks with knowledge on prog must have? I wouldn't be surprised if they had....
If your basic terms of deciding what's prog and what's not, works so perfectly. It might not. I never claimed it did, and cannot possibly know that without listening to every piece of Prog ever written - but it does work like magic in all the cases I've tested it under.
Where are all the others that understands this correctly the way you do? I have never said that I understand it correctly, but I am sure there are others who have a degree of musical learning and can understand what I've written in this thread.
Different people understand things in different ways - I would have thought you might already know this.
Are you alone among the 'scholars' in the world with no misapprehensions and fears?
I don't understand what you mean by this or how it relates to the discussion.
I certainly know how to think for myself, if that's what you're getting at.
The only ones on your side are all the biggest progmetal fans on the site.
That is fascinating, given the perception of me that most Prog Metal fans have - don't you think?
And Metalica's are not considered for that genre, but Progrelated.er... isn't that what this discussion's all about???
...I thought you were disagreeing - I'm sorry if this is all misunderstanding!!!
This is excellent - I'm glad we have another YES for Prog-Related  [/quote]
Edited by Certif1ed - May 24 2007 at 07:31
|
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: May 24 2007 at 07:01 |
Anyone who cannot get past the Thrash element of MoP to see the progressiveness should perhaps listen to the S&M version (or the Apocalyptica version  ), or even Rodrigo y Gabriela's acoustic cover of Orion
IMO Metallica have done "enough" to be in the archive under Prog Related purely on their influence on Prog Metal.
Though I think every album from ...And Justice For All onwards should be excluded (or from Metallica (aka The Black Album) onwards at the very least), with the possible exception of S&M.
|
|
What?
|
|
Rocktopus
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 02 2006
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 4202
|
Posted: May 24 2007 at 07:23 |
Certif1ed wrote:
And Metalica's are not considered for that genre, but Progrelated.er... isn't that what this discussion's all about???
...I thought you were disagreeing - I'm sorry if this is all misunderstanding!!!
This is excellent - I'm glad we have another YES for Prog-Related [/quote] |
If they are related to anything it would be progmetal, so its natural from their point of view to be all for. If this was a progmetal forum there would be no discussion. But they are suggested in prog-related, and I don't think being related to a subgenre like progmetal is close enough to be prog-related. (Terry Riley rocks more than Klaus Schulze, Julverne, Adelberg von Deyen, Conventum...)
|
|
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 24 2007 at 07:24 |
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
toolis wrote:
- song length has nothing to do with prog if the music is not prog... oh, and Call Of Kthulu is Mustaine's work who left the band like 25 years ago...
Ok, all very interesting ... but if the music is progressive or not is what we are discussing here. You're essentially saying that non-prog music can also feature long songs ... it's not exactly new info. And whether Call of Kthulu was written be Hetfield, Ulrich or Mustaine or when Mustaine was kicked out has nothing to do with whether the song is progressive or not.-Hammet is just a good student (Satriani's student), no innovations in his playing... the guy is using a wah-wah pedal for over two decades now...
So because he was Satriani's student for some time he cannot be innovative? Every musician was a student at some point ... and if you think about it, even masters are still students - you never stop learning. And about the wah-wah: It's an old effect - does that mean that it can't be used anymore in prog music, or that it makes the music less prog? I don't think so ...-they don't innovate sounds, they change their sound, very different thing, due to dif productions and their sound has progressed from thrash to heavy metal to heavy rock...
The progression and innovation that most of us are discussing here happened in their early albums, from Kill em All to Master of Puppets/AJFA ... after that they drifted off into mainstream territory, influenced by Bob Rock on the Black Album, and on Load/Re-Load they even re-embraced Blues which I found quite interesting, but is really regressive musically.-Ride The Lightning and Master Of Puppets are heavy/thrash metal and Justice... is tech/thrash, not prog... would you call Coroner's Grin, prog? i wouldn't..
Nobody is calling AJFA "Prog" ... you're missing the point.-Metallica have sold many many millions of albums and, yes, many of us listen to Metallica as many classic rock fans do, as many pop music fans do and so on.. so, i don't think they're not for the simple minded.. au contraire, they're very very popular...
Master of Puppets wasn't very popular when it was released ... at least not from a mainstream point of view. Not that popularity would contra-indicate Prog anway ... usually the really successful albums are not prog, but there are many exceptions (Dark Side of the Moon, anyone?).-no, they weren't afraid of taking different directions but they never went prog... Load is a back-to-the-routes album with a Sabbath-Zeppelin sound...*sigh* ... as long as you allow their later albums to cloud your judgement, you won't be able to properly participate in these discussions. You have to discuss albums, not bands, because bands constantly change their style ... if you can discuss Close to the Edge without referring to 90125 you should also haven no problem discussing Master of Puppets without referring to Load, am I right? |
|
ok, let me make my points clearer:
Hammett is an excellent guitar player, no doubt about that but he is a heavy metal guitarist all the way.. he's a riff machine, he plays excellent heavy solos, he can play really fast and difficult parts but none of them is prog, at least not for me... all i hear is heavy metal, thrash metal, speed metal, tech metal, heavy rock but not prog...
if i'm correct, the only albums that some of you respectfuly consider as prog related are Master... and ...AJFA. am i right?
Master Of Puppets is considered a cornerstone of heavy/thrash metal and influenced many groups to that direction and all i can hear is the same as above: heavy riffs, tech solos, heavy/thrash metal... no prog arrangements, no epics, not anything i would expect to hear from a prog band... even today, 20 years after its release, the major thing that this album is praised for is that it's a seminar for rhythm guitar.. James' fifths and sixths (who he had already "borrowed" from Diamond Head...) would later be seen in almost every heavy, thrash, goth, you-name-it metal band... i really can't see what you guys see.. no prog elements in here...
...AJFA is what Hetfield has admitted it is: an overloaded album, and endless series of heavy riffs...
so, ok, this just my opinion and i hope that i've supported it good enough so that i can "participate" in this discussion... may i?
|
|
-music is like pornography...
sometimes amateurs turn us on, even more...
-sometimes you are the pigeon and sometimes you are the statue...
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46833
|
Posted: May 24 2007 at 07:25 |
Certif1ed wrote:
micky wrote:
have stayed out of this one... but after
reading the T's post there.. I'll throw my two cents out there because
I can I guess hahah. The category is prog-related.. in fact it's
like that damn thingy with Kevin Bacon. If you can't prove a
'progressive' artist (which by the way includes MANY MANY artists that
would be laughed at for even being mentioned) is prog-related in
some way. You should stick to pop music. It can be done.. and
easily.
The
case whether or musically is not important at all really for that
reason ^.... it's a question of the direction of the site
and what's best for it. Otherwise we'd be free to add them
ourselves.
in case I've missed it... the discussion .. if not here.. then at admin level should be....
what
benefit does Metlalica bring to this site... that should be the
question. If they are ...then add them. If not.. why in the hell
would you add them. They are only one of .... dozens of
groups.. that could have strong cases musically made for
them. None of the them really being associated with prog ... prog
as we know it... and prog as a visitor to this site knows it. As
a wise admin said to me once.. it's all about the listeners
expectations... do prog fans expect to come here and find
Metallica listed. Thinking out loud. and throwing my
two cents out there.. that are more important things going on with the
site than additions that ...aren't prog... or could cause even more
fractures in an already thin vaneer of patience with the direction of
the site. If it's a benefit ...add them.. if not... it's simply
not imporant to the scope of this site to add them.
|
If I wanted to talk business, I'd join a business forum
Metallica's essential and inescapable relation to prog metal
is all that matters to me - it's entirely about being consistent in our
categorisations and band additions.
It would be a MASSIVE benefit:
The number of visitors would increase dramatically, and be
breadcrumbed straight into prog metal through the Metallica->Dream
Theater-> anything with a thrash and/or technical basis, and
ultimately into the realms of real prog.
The other stuff about expectations - well, you might just as well
say that about the Beatles, Queen, Radiohead and a large number of
controversial bands - so I think that whole discussion is irrelevant.
It's not a question of the direction of the site - it's more an acceptance of the Prog-Related category for what it is;
A way to broaden the appeal of Prog Rock.
A way to bring newcomers to the site
A way to encourage music fans to boldly go, etc...
I also think that the heated debates which will necessarily follow
are good for the site - membership has always picked up following one,
and it keeps the forum alive to have so many discussions.
"The case whether or musically is not important at all really"
Christ - I'm on the wrong site. I'm only here for the music.
"Otherwise we'd be free to add them ourselves"
So we can only add a band if they bring a benefit to the site?
I can think of 100s that were never discussed in that way. This whole issue is trivial, in my mind, in comparison to the music itself - but that's just my opinion. |
sounds good to me Mark... don't count me as a yes.. but not
in opposition. Personally I think the whole category is crock of
sh*t. and Zeppelin was the final stench on top for me. That
was blatent pandering to web hits.. but that is in the past.
though to address your business forum comment... what exactly do you
think PR is for. Marketing and exposure.... it isn't a
musical catagory. It's about bringing visitors here n Artists not here,
like Bowie, The Who, are argueably more important in the grand
scheme of things here on this site than Metallica's small (in the
scope of this site) inlfuence on prog.
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
Rocktopus
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 02 2006
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 4202
|
Posted: May 24 2007 at 07:29 |
Certif1ed wrote:
The right reasons to dislike Metallica (IMHO) are that they sold out and produced rubbish, and branded their fans pirates - and so on... but there are one or two prog bands who also sold out, let's not forget...
|
I love Metallica. They're among the top five most important bands in my life.
Edited by Rocktopus - May 24 2007 at 07:31
|
|
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 24 2007 at 07:39 |
micky wrote:
Artists not here, like Bowie, The Who, are argueably more important in the grand scheme of things here on this site than Metallica's small (in the scope of this site) inlfuence on prog.
|
Arguably, indeed...
I'm not so sure that Bowie's influence is so great - he wasn't very popular at the "start" of prog, IIRC, his first album had to be re-released because it sold so badly.
I'm not disputing him as a progressive artist, of course - but it depends on how we relate his music to Prog. "Hunky Dory" (1971) does have strings on it - but so does much Mowtown. There aren't too many songs over 5 minutes, time changes, etc, etc, etc... but in comparison to Kate Bush, I'm amazed Bowie isn't here already.
As for the Who... I'm not familiar with all the arguments, but don't hear a very close relation myself. There are occasional examples - but the same could be said for ABBA (whose influence on Prog music is obvious to all...   ).
micky wrote:
though to address your business forum comment... what exactly do you think PR is for. Marketing and exposure.... it isn't a musical catagory. It's about bringing visitors here |
I think my argument covers that quite well... and I can think of more reasons, of course... it's just that I haven't seen a request for business/PR reasons to include bands before - maybe I lurk in the wrong threads. 
Edited by Certif1ed - May 24 2007 at 07:43
|
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21138
|
Posted: May 24 2007 at 07:53 |
toolis wrote:
ok, let me make my points clearer:
Hammett is an excellent guitar player, no doubt about that but he is a heavy metal guitarist all the way.. he's a riff machine, he plays excellent heavy solos, he can play really fast and difficult parts but none of them is prog, at least not for me... all i hear is heavy metal, thrash metal, speed metal, tech metal, heavy rock but not prog...
if i'm correct, the only albums that some of you respectfuly consider as prog related are Master... and ...AJFA. am i right?
Yes, as far as I'm concerned I only consider those two albums prog-related enough to merit inclusion. MoP much more than AJFA though (see last comment).
Master Of Puppets is considered a cornerstone of heavy/thrash metal and influenced many groups to that direction and all i can hear is the same as above: heavy riffs, tech solos, heavy/thrash metal...
no prog arrangements
Just one example: the intro of Battery
no epics,
Sorry, but the track Master of Puppets is an epic.
not anything i would expect to hear from a prog band...
That's why we're not calling them "prog". But when you listen to Dream Theater's Train of Thought ... do you not hear an obvious relation?
even today, 20 years after its release, the major thing that this album is praised for is that it's a seminar for rhythm guitar.. James' fifths and sixths (who he had already "borrowed" from Diamond Head...) would later be seen in almost every heavy, thrash, goth, you-name-it metal band... i really can't see what you guys see.. no prog elements in here...
There's more to Master of Puppets than riffing ... it's the combination of all musical elements that makes the album unique and innovative. The riffing in combination with Cliff's elaborate bass playing, things like the melodic solo in the track MoP, the downtuned riff of The Thing that Should Not Be, the massive layering of guitars in Orion ...
...AJFA is what Hetfield has admitted it is: an overloaded album, and endless series of heavy riffs...
Which is why I would rather call it "technical" than "progressive".
so, ok, this just my opinion and i hope that i've supported it good enough so that i can "participate" in this discussion... may i?
Sure!
|
|
|
|
|
Rocktopus
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 02 2006
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 4202
|
Posted: May 24 2007 at 08:00 |
Certif1ed wrote:
.
As in: Metallica prog? No way! Dumbest thing I've heard. I know that's the dumbest thing you've ever heard, of course. No one's arguing against that they are both related and essential to prog metal. But they are not a progmetal band themselves, and that's only a subgenre of prog. That makes them a band related to a genre that's a subgenre of prog. Just like almost any late 60's psychedelic band, most acid folk and lots of jazzartists that went electric during that same period, + early composers experimenting with moogs and early electronics.
The big difference is that Metallica were one of a kind - the spear-leading figurehead of a "movement" that led the way rather than following fashions - that were brave enough to do something different on each successive album and both redefine and popularise metal at the same time.
The early experiments with electronics are largely doodles, by the way - there's very little of musical note (sic) in the earliest experiments except that they were new sounding.
Consider "Gesang der Junglinge" (Stockhausen - 1956) and compare with his later masterpiece "Kontakte" (1960) - the one that inspired Lennon to write songs such as "Tomorrow Never Knows. Consider also the Silver Apples (1968), and compare with White Noise (1969), who were vastly superior, but also extremely short on ideas of what to do with the new sounds.
Metallica, on the other hand, combined a new sound with new techniques and approaches to musical form in the metal genre from the word go. These fundamentally changed people's attitudes to metal, including those of other metal musicians who saw new possibilities in the music. |
I guess you're familiar with Riley's : A Rainbow in Curved Air/Poppy Nogood And The Phantom Band (+ In C) from '67? Is that largely doodles too? Sorry, I really don't mean to talk about everything and everyone else. But I think there's many bands and artists equally vagely related but more important, than the importance of what Metallica has done for metal, is to prog.
|
|
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 24 2007 at 08:06 |
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
toolis wrote:
ok, let me make my points clearer:
Hammett is an excellent guitar player, no doubt about that but he is a heavy metal guitarist all the way.. he's a riff machine, he plays excellent heavy solos, he can play really fast and difficult parts but none of them is prog, at least not for me... all i hear is heavy metal, thrash metal, speed metal, tech metal, heavy rock but not prog...
if i'm correct, the only albums that some of you respectfuly consider as prog related are Master... and ...AJFA. am i right?
Yes, as far as I'm concerned I only consider those two albums prog-related enough to merit inclusion. MoP much more than AJFA though (see last comment).
Master Of Puppets is considered a cornerstone of heavy/thrash metal and influenced many groups to that direction and all i can hear is the same as above: heavy riffs, tech solos, heavy/thrash metal... no prog arrangementsJust one example: the intro of Battery
yeah? so?
no epics,Sorry, but the track Master of Puppets is an epic.
no, it's not.. it's a long song...
not anything i would expect to hear from a prog band...That's why we're not calling them "prog". But when you listen to Dream Theater's Train of Thought ... do you not hear an obvious relation?
yes, i see a relation: DT to heavy metal..
even today, 20 years after its release, the major thing that this album is praised for is that it's a seminar for rhythm guitar.. James' fifths and sixths (who he had already "borrowed" from Diamond Head...) would later be seen in almost every heavy, thrash, goth, you-name-it metal band... i really can't see what you guys see.. no prog elements in here...There's more to Master of Puppets than riffing ... it's the combination of all musical elements that makes the album unique and innovative. The riffing in combination with Cliff's elaborate bass playing, things like the melodic solo in the track MoP, the downtuned riff of The Thing that Should Not Be, the massive layering of guitars in Orion ...
riffing, bass playing, melodic solos, downtuned riffs, guitar layers.. yeah, i see how this could be your best shot, but no!
...AJFA is what Hetfield has admitted it is: an overloaded album, and endless series of heavy riffs...
Which is why I would rather call it "technical" than "progressive".
finally an agreement...
so, ok, this just my opinion and i hope that i've supported it good enough so that i can "participate" in this discussion... may i?Sure!
it was a retorical question actually but i guess you got that..... |
|
Edited by toolis - May 24 2007 at 08:09
|
|
-music is like pornography...
sometimes amateurs turn us on, even more...
-sometimes you are the pigeon and sometimes you are the statue...
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46833
|
Posted: May 24 2007 at 08:08 |
|
good point ^^
personally this issue should be probably be decided on the
same question that has kept.. and hopefully will forever keep Black
Sabbath out of here.
is Metallica's influence.. on metal itself... or on the 'prog' side of
it. We include only Prog Metal groups here.. not the whole
spectrum of metal.
I don't think anyone could deny their influence on metal. Prog-Metal is a subset of metal of
course. What did Metaliica bring to the PROG side of Prog
Metal.
Edited by micky - May 24 2007 at 08:10
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21138
|
Posted: May 24 2007 at 08:45 |
^ then explain to me how Iron Maiden influenced the prog side of prog metal more than Metallica? 
|
|
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46833
|
Posted: May 24 2007 at 09:06 |
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
^ then explain to me how Iron Maiden influenced the prog side of prog metal more than Metallica?
|
I didn't make that decision.. . the admin team did... I'm not
arguing against Metallica... I'm asking you all to explain why
people should support them being here on a prog site. I've
heard enough prog with Iron Maiden not to get my panties in a wad about
it. Iron Maiden were direcly influenced by 70's prog and you can hear
it in the music... was Metallica influenced by prog? And did they
influence prog-metal specifically... or metal as a whole?
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
akin
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 06 2004
Location: Brazil
Status: Offline
Points: 976
|
Posted: May 24 2007 at 09:52 |
The T wrote:
In many cases, anti-Metallica posts have fallen into the
not-proving-but-confirming category, an atmosphere effect where,
instead of trying to decide whether something is true or false (in this
case, the progresiveness of Metallica), people try to confirm their
points of view, disregarding whatever doesn't fit and just trying to
confirm what they already think about this situation. I'm not saying
we're discussing a scientific matter, which could be proven 100%, but
there ARE facts that are undeniable, as others have wisely pointed out.
Maybe the discussion, as great as it has been (at moments), should very
soon come to a conclusion, with some final "YES" or "NO" from whoever
wants to give his/her opinion. Even though the decision is not made
here, all of this helps the people making that decision to, well,
decide .
And, in my opinion, the arguments have been completely in favor of the
band's inclusion. At least the musical ones. All the arguments dealing
with history, what other sites contain, paranoia and images of PA being
ignored and ultimately closed down due to lack of members are, in my
view, just side notes to a musical debate that I think has been "won"
by one side, if that verb applies. |
You say this just because you overrate the musical arguments for and
underrate the musical arguments against. No opinion is "winning" if we
disconsider your taste.
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Metallica?
