Should Metallica be in the forum?

^  http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=KSndn8E5FRY

Notice the rhythmical gimmick starting at about 2 minutes, when the drums get "out of sync" with the rest of the band by one 4th note. Dream Theater would use this technique many times later on, becoming one of the (many) trademarks of prog metal.

Edit: It's a 4th note, not a 8th ... I shouldn't be posting these things before my morning coffee.


Edited by MikeEnRegalia - August 13 2008 at 02:26

Easy Livin wrote: For the consipracy theorist who thought they could "Smell a rat", here's an old thread which will be of interest : http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4778

An oldie but a goodie; it's "dated" well.

For the consipracy theorist who thought they could "Smell a rat", here's an old thread which will be of interest : http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4778

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Logan wrote: For me, I find metalish bands such as Hoyry-Kone, Estradasphere, or Secret Chiefs 3 more Prog than prog metal giants ;) such as Nightwish, Blind Guardian, Epica, and Rhapsody (of Fire).  Those aren't "prog metal giants" ... they are on the "outer rim" of Prog Metal. I know you were joking, but I think it's important to point out that I (or the other members of the PMT, to my knowledge) am aware that these bands aren't prime examples of the *style* of Prog Metal. Neither are Secret Chiefs 3. Dream Theater and Fates Warning will always be the two prime examples of Prog Metal ... but of course - and fortunately - that doesn't mean that we can only add DT clones. Yes, a joke with the Prog Metal list, I could have included Lacrimosa too, though it wouldn't fit well with my other choices.  Just in case the context of that portion of my post is lost on anyone who doesn't read back through the thread, the metalish choices were chosen becase they fall under Avant Prog, and it was related to discussion about RiO/ Avant not being generally associated with Prog.  For me what matters is the qualities of the music itself most, not common associations, influence or historical place when it comes to evaluating Prog.  Importantly, the music should speak for itself (though it may say different things to different people, of couse, which can create conflict.  Incidentally, my favouite band in the metal categories is Kayo Dot, but I would hardly call that representative either, or my favourite metalish band in Eclectic -- Taal. Logan wrote: I used to think of RiO/ Avant progressive movements as quite seperate to the Prog movement, but I don't anymore.  I'd go so far to say that RiO (while a particular movement) took Prog to the next level (evolved it), and I think that when typical Prog was waning, certain avant rock artists were the ones who were truly progressing rock -- with integrity to the art, I'd say, and real musical values.  I'd like to say saved Prog, but it wasn't popular enough.  You could also think of the movement as an aftermath of prog - a last attempt at saving the prog "spirit" if you will. In any case, prog was dead at the beginning of the 80s, and what came afterwards was a different kind of music, regardless of which genre you're looking at. Even bands like Anglagard or Wobbler can't re-create the vibe of the original "wave" of prog artists/albums. Yes, one could see it as reaction to a dying spirit of progressive music.   A commitment to oppose the direction rock was taking, to challenge the industry and public.  And bands wanted to continue to make challenging music in a far less than satisfactory musical climate  -- to go against the grain and put art and ideals ahead of commercialism.  A cause and a challenge.  I like to liken the RiO movement to Dogme 95 in film, though not an altogether great comparison. http://www.dogme95.dk/ It's also a continuation (bands continuing with their music -- avant music before), but with reactionary spirit -- the formation of RiO. Logan wrote: Whatever others think of Metallica etc. as prog, and despite historical concerns, it's the musical qualities that are paramount. I don't think of Metallica as prog. It's the old distinction between progressive and prog ... some find it laughable to make such a distinction, but it's really necessary IMO to understand the development of the genres.

I touched on the progressive vs Prog thing before in a response early in this thread.

"I know enough about the history of metal to know that Metallica was innovative/ progressive, I also know that it has been a very influential band (not just to Prog Metal, but to metal generally), what I don't know is if it's Prog (as one can be progressive without being considered Prog here), or what musical qualities make it Prog ...  Historical understanding is good, but I also think that the compositions should speak for themselves."


Edited by Logan - August 11 2008 at 03:41

James wrote: In the forum, rather than on the database? Sure... bring in James Hetfield if he'll post... I'd love to chat to him in the Suede Room. Although they may get trapped here and never release that album...

In the forum, rather than on the database?

Sure... bring in James Hetfield if he'll post... I'd love to chat to him in the Suede Room.

Although they may get trapped here and never release that album...

Logan wrote: For me, I find metalish bands such as Hoyry-Kone, Estradasphere, or Secret Chiefs 3 more Prog than prog metal giants ;) such as Nightwish, Blind Guardian, Epica, and Rhapsody (of Fire).

Those aren't "prog metal giants" ... they are on the "outer rim" of Prog Metal. I know you were joking, but I think it's important to point out that I (or the other members of the PMT, to my knowledge) am aware that these bands aren't prime examples of the *style* of Prog Metal. Neither are Secret Chiefs 3. Dream Theater and Fates Warning will always be the two prime examples of Prog Metal ... but of course - and fortunately - that doesn't mean that we can only add DT clones.

Logan wrote: I used to think of RiO/ Avant progressive movements as quite seperate to the Prog movement, but I don't anymore.  I'd go so far to say that RiO (while a particular movement) took Prog to the next level (evolved it), and I think that when typical Prog was waning, certain avant rock artists were the ones who were truly progressing rock -- with integrity to the art, I'd say, and real musical values.  I'd like to say saved Prog, but it wasn't popular enough.

You could also think of the movement as an aftermath of prog - a last attempt at saving the prog "spirit" if you will. In any case, prog was dead at the beginning of the 80s, and what came afterwards was a different kind of music, regardless of which genre you're looking at. Even bands like Anglagard or Wobbler can't re-create the vibe of the original "wave" of prog artists/albums.

Logan wrote: Whatever others think of Metallica etc. as prog, and despite historical concerns, it's the musical qualities that are paramount.

I don't think of Metallica as prog. It's the old distinction between progressive and prog ... some find it laughable to make such a distinction, but it's really necessary IMO to understand the development of the genres.

Ricochet wrote: About M@X's decision: I think it's either a reminiscence of when M@X and Rony created the site and thus builded its database from scratch, before the creation of Specialist Teams, either it's a final or decisive vote when (you gotta admit) controversial suggestions such as Metallica are concerned. M@X has actually been a main actor back when Led Zep were discussed.

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - August 11 2008 at 02:13

Hope you don't mind my intrusion into your dialogue (will use red).

darkshade wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: darkshade wrote: this is not what im saying. what im saying is that if an artist with many progressive attributes that pushed music further like Miles Davis is finally being added to this site, then a band like Metallica with progressive attributes (in the 80s) that pushed music further should also be added.   That's exactly what if X then why not Y. Metallica should be added at Prog Metal's team criteria  at the end they are the experts, as each and every tream. If Miles Davis is added or not doesn't mean a thing in this case, Miles Davis is not even a Prog Metal artist. Sure he is! But nevermind, my point is not coming across well over the internet . i know i contradicted myself, i just meant Metallica, as with Miles Davis, have the credibility to be here, even though they have not yet been added all this time. So does Cream, I think, but it's not in the site.  The case for Miles Davis credibilty seems more widely recognised than Metallica (in the case of MD, it was his huge discography that also got in the way). darkshade wrote: as to where, i dont know. I am for them being added to PM. Iron Maiden should also be in this category, it's a disgrace they are under PR, as they were more influential than Metallica (they were influenced by Maiden for god darn's sake!) I agree with you about Iron Maiden, but I don't dare to tell a team what they should do, they have the last word AS EACH AND EVERY TEAM. Influence does not equal Prog.  The Beatles was highly influential, yet I wouldn't want it in a Prog category.  At least one can put those artists in proto-prog, but that doesn't work for later progressive movements such as Prog Metal and Post-Rock since they didn't provide the basis for prog, but influenced later strands of progressive music. Prog Metal has decided not to accept Iron Maiden and I respect their decision, as we hope the decisions of all the teams are respected. with this i meant if Metallica are added under PM i would be a little annoyed that a band like Maiden aren't. darkshade wrote: anyway here's what i think of Metallica's discography, which only goes up to the Black Album, because after that they became "Alternica" There I don't give an opinion, I'm not a Prog Metal specialist, that's the decision of the team. Im not either, I am, however, a former Metal specialist, used to be all i listened to, besides some hard rock. but i was just poking fun at Metallica's direction after the Black Album   I don't know enough about Metal to tell Mike and his team what to do and what not to do, it doesn't matter that the votes for Metallica are against the band the PMT have the last and only call AS EACH AND EVERY TEAM. well if enough arguments for their inclusion are made, i dont see why they wont be added. Easy Livin wrote: Just a reminder that M@x has said no to Metallica being added at all. I had thought that teams were more autonymous than that, but if that's the case then it's M@x, not the PMT, that has the last call.   Iván to reiterate, i am not for adding more metal bands if Metallica get it. That's what that other site is for.

Missed which site you're referring to.

darkshade wrote: this is not what im saying. what im saying is that if an artist with many progressive attributes that pushed music further like Miles Davis is finally being added to this site, then a band like Metallica with progressive attributes (in the 80s) that pushed music further should also be added.

If Miles Davis is added otr not doesn't mean a thing in this case, Miles Davis is not even a Prog Metal artist.

darkshade wrote: as to where, i dont know. I am for them being added to PM. Iron Maiden should also be in this category, it's a disgrace they are under PR, as they were more influential than Metallica (they were influenced by Maiden for god darn's sake!)

Prog Metal has decided not to accept Iron Maiden and I respect their decision, as we hope the decisions of all the teams are respected.

darkshade wrote: anyway here's what i think of Metallica's discography, which only goes up to the Black Album, because after that they became "Alternica"