Should Metallica be in the forum?

 

The intro riff to "Master" is no more chromatic than many Black Sabbath riffs. While it's true that a lot of thrash became more chromatic, much went the other way. The more chromatic bands split into more intense forms, like Death metal.

 

Helloween, for example, became less chromatic, and more interested in clean-lined power metal.

 

Thrash is the alternate-picked riffing technique, nothing more - that's why it's called thrash, because the riffs are literally thrashed.

 

However, people came to associate the term with bands who simply thrashed (like Venom), and were not interested in the nuances that could be produced.

 

Bands that exploited these nuances are the ones we remember - Megadeth for their technical approach, Napalm Death for their extreme approach (in truth, it only worked once, but the blast beat technique owes everything to "Scum") - and Metallica for their Progressive approach.

 

Metallica used thrash in so many ways, exploring the possibilities of it to create music that flowed - the purpose was to create new music with an artful logic. In the case of Megadeth, it was more to create music with a technical slant, and the artful side seems less than Metallica's.

 

Metallica balanced art and technique, fusing various exiting metal styles in a truly Progressive approach that no metal band had used before - and other metal bands took a long time to catch up with them.

 

 

Certif1ed wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: Certif1ed wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: Ok ... call it chromatic/tritonal then instead of atonal. The point is that this was introduced with Thrash ...   No it wasn't - it was introduced with Black Sabbath (or thereabouts)   Introduced ... maybe as a concept, but not as a constant element in the music. Of course Thrash did not invent the tritonus, but it explored "chromatizism" much more than any of the previous metal genres. Consider the intro riff of Master of Puppets for example ...   The intro riff to "Master" is no more chromatic than many Black Sabbath riffs. While it's true that a lot of thrash became more chromatic, much went the other way. The more chromatic bands split into more intense forms, like Death metal. Are we talking about the same riff? I don't mean the four introductory chords ... I mean the fast, palm-muted riff.   Helloween, for example, became less chromatic, and more interested in clean-lined power metal. As far as I'm concerned, even on Keeper of the Seven Keys they were already far away from Thrash. Of course Power Metal can be seen as being derived from Thrash, but the music is totally different - mostly because there are much less rhythmic "quirks" and more traditional (diatonic/modal) harmonies.   Thrash is the alternate-picked riffing technique, nothing more - that's why it's called thrash, because the riffs are literally thrashed. For me it's that together with the chromatic riffing. Iron Maiden for example used alternate picked riffs, but in a much more melodic context, and that's why I would not call them Thrash. Of course you're free to use the most literal meaning of the word ...    However, people came to associate the term with bands who simply thrashed (like Venom), and were not interested in the nuances that could be produced.   Bands that exploited these nuances are the ones we remember - Megadeth for their technical approach, Napalm Death for their extreme approach (in truth, it only worked once, but the blast beat technique owes everything to "Scum") - and Metallica for their Progressive approach. At last - you've used the expression.I fully agree that Metallica were the Thrash band with the most progressive approach - I just think that their style was still too remote from what the first prog metal bands were doing. Or to put it another way: Metallica weren't doing all those things you don't like about Dream Theater and Fates Warning.   Metallica used thrash in so many ways, exploring the possibilities of it to create music that flowed - the purpose was to create new music with an artful logic. In the case of Megadeth, it was more to create music with a technical slant, and the artful side seems less than Metallica's. Agreed. But I wouldn't put any of these bands on that high a pedestal ... I recently read a lengthy article on Yes in the German magazine Eclipsed, and in it Greg Howe said that they didn't care all that much about art. They simply wanted to be the biggest, most spectacular band in every way.   Metallica balanced art and technique, fusing various exiting metal styles in a truly Progressive approach that no metal band had used before - and other metal bands took a long time to catch up with them. That's where we differ ... I appreciate what Metallica did and they're still one of my favorite metal bands, but I think that bands like Fates Warning and Dream Theater took it up one or two notches. Maybe not in the way that you appreciate, but in others which are also - or even more - called "prog".

Certif1ed wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: Are we talking about the same riff? I don't mean the four introductory chords ... I mean the fast, palm-muted riff.     There's more than 4 chords in the intro...   The palm-muted riff you refer to uses exactly the same 4 chords as "Smoke on the Water" - it's hardly chromatic, it just flattens the fifth to get a single tritone. Sabbath used precisely that technique on too many songs to mention.

Now I'm confused ... are we even talking about same song? I'm talking about Master of Puppets, the second track on the album Master of Puppets. It starts with four power chords: E   D C# C. Then the riff follows (only E and A string, and of course the riff I transcribed is only one of several variations):

----2-----3-----4-----3-----2-2-----2-----3-----5/4---5/4---5/4-
0-1---0-1---0-1---0-1---0-1-----0-1---0-1---1-0-3/2-0-3/2-0-3/2-

EDIT: Ok ... how could I forget about the riff that's in between? I take it all back. Anyway - the above riff is what I had in mind, although that other riff is even more chromatic - and I can't see the similarity to Smoke On The Water.

Certif1ed wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: Helloween, for example, became less chromatic, and more interested in clean-lined power metal. As far as I'm concerned, even on Keeper of the Seven Keys they were already far away from Thrash. Of course Power Metal can be seen as being derived from Thrash, but the music is totally different - mostly because there are much less rhythmic "quirks" and more traditional (diatonic/modal) harmonies. When I think of Helloween, I think wistfully of "Walls of Jericho", which was in every way superior to the "Keeper" albums. Gamma Ray was much, much better - eventually... but "Walls...", particularly the track "Ride The Sky" is thrash-based - even in the way you think of thrash, which I kind of understand, but I prefer descriptive terms rather than genres for music. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onFoZS5gdx0

I'm all for descriptive terms ... but some of them happen to have gathered some connotations over the years. So, when it comes to Thrash, I'm keeping the literal meaning in mind but I'm also aware that not all styles which feature "thrashing riffs" are called Thrash first and foremost.

Certif1ed wrote:     MikeEnRegalia wrote: Certif1ed] Bands that exploited these nuances are the ones we remember - Megadeth for their technical approach, Napalm Death for their extreme approach (in truth, it only worked once, but the blast beat technique owes everything to "Scum") - and Metallica for their Progressive approach. At last - you've used the expression.I fully agree that Metallica were the Thrash band with the most progressive approach - I just think that their style was still too remote from what the first prog metal bands were doing. Or to put it another way: Metallica weren't doing all those things you don't like about Dream Theater and Fates Warning.     I don't understand... and I don't think their style was at all remote from Dream Theater - only the execution.   What is so different?

Honestly, I wouldn't know where to begin. It's like two different worlds ... maybe I'll get around to it later.

Certif1ed wrote:     MikeEnRegalia wrote: Certif1ed] Metallica used thrash in so many ways, exploring the possibilities of it to create music that flowed - the purpose was to create new music with an artful logic. In the case of Megadeth, it was more to create music with a technical slant, and the artful side seems less than Metallica's. Agreed. But I wouldn't put any of these bands on that high a pedestal ... I recently read a lengthy article on Yes in the German magazine Eclipsed, and in it Greg Howe said that they didn't care all that much about art. They simply wanted to be the biggest, most spectacular band in every way.   That doesn't stop Yes being a Prog Rock band - even if I do think they suck

I love them. I just know that sometimes fans and critics tend to see more in a work of art than even the artist originally intended.

Certif1ed wrote:   MikeEnRegalia wrote: Certif1ed] Metallica balanced art and technique, fusing various exiting metal styles in a truly Progressive approach that no metal band had used before - and other metal bands took a long time to catch up with them. That's where we differ ... I appreciate what Metallica did and they're still one of my favorite metal bands, but I think that bands like Fates Warning and Dream Theater took it up one or two notches. Maybe not in the way that you appreciate, but in others which are also - or even more - called "prog". It took them a while... and the phrase "took it up one or two nothces" is about right - that is all they did. They did exactly the same thing, but slightly differently. My point is that you can't really say that about bands that influenced Metallica - apart from, maybe, Diamond Head. Metallica are pretty much where Prog Metal starts, and everything that follows is gravy.

I think that Prog Metal pretty much starts where Metallica ended. I'm sure you're familiar with the Beatles. I think that they're for Prog Rock pretty much what Metallica are for Prog Metal. Both bands had amazingly creative songwriters and managed to surprise the listeners with songs which were much more "congenial" than most of their peer. But just like Metallica, they stopped at a point where other artists began to walk through the door which they had just opened ...


Edited by MikeEnRegalia - September 19 2008 at 07:54

^ I'm keeping out of this ... I resigned from the prog metal team, and I don't want to be responsible for adding Metallica either. Consider me an interested bystander with a troubled history ... 

Ricochet wrote: Dean wrote: Metallica have been rejected by the PMT, so it looks as if Prog Related is the only remaining option, so, is anyone willing to nominate them? Cert? Mike? T?

Certif1ed wrote: Ricochet wrote: Dean wrote: Metallica have been rejected by the PMT, so it looks as if Prog Related is the only remaining option, so, is anyone willing to nominate them? Cert? Mike? T?     The PMT have not officially rejected Metallica - there is no rejection post in the Collaborators area.   There is ONE PMT member who simply says "No", but confesses not to be an expert in Prog Metal - or to know much about Metal - so I'm discounting his vote until he can come up with better reasoning than "No, because I don't know" (which is actually a fair representation of what he's said on the matter).   I'm not going to nominate them as Prog Related, because that sends out the wrong message and will create too many of the wrong sort of posts and reviews.   I will nominate them for Prog Metal, and feedback the reasoning in the replies here.

Some observations here:

1) There's a couple of thousand bands rejected for which there is no rejection post in the collab zone. If Dean says they've been rejected, I can confirm that that is what the PMT told the admins.
2) There's been an endless game of ping-pong in this thread between two people looking for inclusion of Metallica. If neither is going to propose them for P-R now, we might as well end this discussion and close the thread for good.

Certif1ed wrote: Ricochet wrote: Dean wrote: Metallica have been rejected by the PMT, so it looks as if Prog Related is the only remaining option, so, is anyone willing to nominate them? Cert? Mike? T?     The PMT have not officially rejected Metallica - there is no rejection post in the Collaborators area.   There is ONE PMT member who simply says "No", but confesses not to be an expert in Prog Metal - or to know much about Metal - so I'm discounting his vote until he can come up with better reasoning than "No, because I don't know" (which is actually a fair representation of what he's said on the matter).   I'm not going to nominate them as Prog Related, because that sends out the wrong message and will create too many of the wrong sort of posts and reviews.   I will nominate them for Prog Metal, and feedback the reasoning in the replies here.

True, the issue with PMT doesn't seem close, I can see, on ProgFreak, that Metallica is still pending. It also seems that, so far, Jody (Progtologist) will cast the deciding vote.

I don't think that "ONE PMT member" simply said 'No', I actually think he made an official statement both in the Team Thread and here. Since even you yourself responded to his statement, I think that, right now, you're just hanging on to a specific phrase he included in that statement. For me, that statement means the member recognizes, with modesty, that he's not a Prog Metal Guru, not that he doesn't know anything. I think the Prog Metal Team itself would be offended by an accuse that they've accepted a new member who doesn't know anything about the genre itself.

Let me put it this way, if burritounit said that "he's not an expert in such bands (as Metallica)", it's still a long way towards understanding "he doesn't know anything to make an opinion over such bands (as Metallica)'.

Furthermore, I think "No" is perfect VOTE, especially when it counts like that. It doesn't matter if it's "no - and let me tell you in 270 pages why not", it's ultimately "no", aka a VOTE against the addition of a band. All Teams mostly operate this way, even though discussions are naturally held - and burritounit participated in the discussion.

It's true, other members of this forum just said "no" and it sounded dry, and that no, in the discussion, has very little value. But I myself already feel like any "no" is unacceptable to the most important members that have build/maintained this large discussion here - and that's a leap into close-mindness.

""No, because I don't know" is not a "fair representation" of what burittounit said on Metallica's matter, as a PMT member, and I've read the same text as you did.



Edited by Ricochet - September 19 2008 at 13:11

It was rejected before by PMT, but, as I understand it, the T re-opened it recently in case there were any changes concerning recent developments.  I agree with Rico on Sebastian, and he was clearly saying that he didn't think that he was as much of an expert on Prog Metal as others on the team (I for one respect humility, and frankly would be more trusting of that kind of person than someone who believes they know it all).  I really think that his record speaks for itself -- he has done an amazing amount for PMT since joining. I found his posts explaining why he voted no compelling, and just because someone disagrees does not mean that they have no merit or should be casually dismissed.  I also found that a very unfair representation, and have to wonder if his words were carefully read and considered (I expect not) since there was clear misinterpretation and misrepresentation.  I wonder if agendas are clouding judgment.


Edited by Logan - September 19 2008 at 13:38

Can I please ask that in future when Teams are re-considering a rejected band that they record the previous vote somewhere and then re-set all the votes on ProgFreak to blank before re-voting.