Metallica?

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.

Edited by Rocktopus - May 24 2007 at 06:29

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

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.

Edited by Certif1ed - May 24 2007 at 03:30

The German prog site Babyblaue Seiten has listed "Master of Puppets" and "And Justice for All" as prog metal for quite some time now, and I fail to see how the presence of those albums could have harmed the site. I certainly still visit it regularly (great reviews!)

http://www.babyblaue-seiten.de/index.php?content=band&left=alpha&top=reviews&bandId=403&alpha=m

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.

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. 

I never said Metallica couldn't be prog I was just saying what you think other people (like other proggers) would think of the site if Metallica was included.

And so you guys thought about it and gave a very good answer (nice one The T )

progismylife wrote: ^ But that's just your opinion (to which you are, of course, perfectly entitled) PA would still lose credibility with people and could become the laughing stock of the other prog websites for including something that seems to not be prog in any sense.

Certif1ed wrote: I found a moment...   akin wrote: I don't like very much Metallica, I don't see any progressiveness in their music and if I had a prog site it would be forbidden to mention Metallica on it, but I don't care what the team members or admins may decide.   OK - this is the grounds for all your arguments, not reasoned analysis. You don't like Metallica and don't see (hear) progressiveness in their music.   A lot of people said (and are still saying) that about Radiohead, I seem to recall.   akin wrote: the facts speak for themselves, since Metallica was never relationed with prog apart for these discussions. Some arguments are correct...   Going back to the post, the context doesn't change the meanings - you're agreeing with the arguments, but basing yours on the simple fact that other sources don't associate Metallica with Prog - so therefore, in your opinion, this site shouldn't.   akin wrote: If Metallica is not metioned in almost evert other prog reliable source and a band that you state is less prog than Metallica, like Queensryche, is cited in every reliable source for prog, it is an evidence that you are creating arguments to support a theory that can only convince yourself and a few that already think like you, but hardly are expressing the truth.   Again - because other sources don't list Metallica is a pretty poor reason for avoiding the truth.   It was pretty much the same with Radiohead - but this site leads the way so others can follow. That's proven by the fact that it's now the biggest Prog Rock site on the Internet (which it wasn't at the time I joined...).   akin wrote: They have, let's say, 10 more or less prog songs in their career as many artists.   Even as a number pulled out of thin air, that's still a straw man argument. In my opinion, virtually the whole of their first 4 albums are progressive to a greater of lesser extent - in terms of Progressive Metal. In terms of Progressive Rock, very few Prog Metal bands I've heard have actually written something that's Prog.   We need to maintain the context with Prog Metal or this aspect gets confused.   akin wrote: Of course the fans of prog-metal defend their influence on prog-metal as huge and many fans of fusion defend Davis and Coltrane influences on fusion as huge.   Fusion isn't a genre of Progressive Rock - it's related to it. We don't have "related-related" acts here... yet!   akin wrote: It is not the same in essence only if you are not just and you have a preference for prog-metal over other genres, otherwise you would know that every related-band is related to prog. This is crucial because you weakest argument is that almost any Prog Metal album released is related to Metallica. Many bands have some relation to Metallica's sound because they are metal. Non-prog folk artists have much in common to prog-folk artists, because they are folk. The same goes with prog metal and Metallica.   The argument that almost every Prog Metal band is related to Metallica is (mostly) valid, because Metallica (with Bob Rock) perfected the "Modern" metal sound which pervades Prog Metal as a genre - with exceptions, like any rule.   It's also valid because of the techniques Metallica used - and crucially developed - which until then were not staple parts of metal. Metallica weren't a clone of what had gone before, they were something entirely new (and so were many other bands at the time, but Metallica were ahead of the game at every step until the 1990s).   Ask anyone - I don't have a preference for Prog Metal, but Metallica's importance to it is as, if not more fundamental than Iron Maiden's, and the evidence is in the music.   akin wrote: There is no progressive nature at all.   Why do you say this, when the evidence it to the contrary?   I really, really don't understand why you would think this.   akin wrote: Yes, there are many reasons and the most important reason is that appart from few songs they have nothing in common with prog elements (song structure, unusual structure, singatures, complex melodic parts, harmonies).   See earlier - this statement contains no truth.   You even state: "long solos and long songs do not make anything progressive."   akin wrote: As for time signatures, Queensryche have by far more songs with unusual time signatures and changes than Metallica   With regard to time signatures, so does Stravinsky - I fail to see the point you're making.   With regard to changes, number is not important. Queensryche make the elementary error of continually going off at tangents, robbing their music of a logical or dramatic coherency and reducing most of them to a bland clone of everything they've ever done.   Metallica use changes cleverly - in that tangents are sparingly used, while subtle riff development using additive and subtractive techniques is used more often to create dramatic climaxes and troughs.   "Master of Puppets" is a supreme example of all of this.   akin wrote: As for Harmony, Metallica's harmony is usually pretty simple (with some exceptions, of course)(...) Queensryche had some songs with the same harmonies but had more songs with more elaborated harmonies.   Hmm. Isn't this saying the same thing about both bands?   Could you be specific about the "elaborated" harmonies - I've yet to hear any in Queensryche's music.   Melody is a weak point for Metallica, but for few songs.   The opposite is true - the melodies inherent in Metallica's riffs and lead solos are powerful and strong. Hetfield is not a melodic singer - and he doesn't pretend to be - his vocals are part of the overall texture.   Queensryche are the weaker melodically - I cannot hum a single tune of theirs.   akin wrote: Oh No, if ProgArchives will be demoted to RockArchives it will be the same as the classic rock station here in my town that was demoted to a plain rock station and in the future will probably open for other genres.   Another fundamental part of your argument...       In summary of all your arguments so far;   1. You don't like Metallica.   2. You're worried that their presence will dilute this site's purity or affect its credibility - as outlined above by another poster. Personally, I think this is nonsense - as if the Beatles, Queen, Radiohead, Led Zeppelin and Iron Maiden affected the credibility of this site - I rather think that all those bands enhanced it and attracted more new members.   3. Other Prog sites don't list Metallica.   4. You don't hear the progressiveness of their music - but cannot explain why this is, and do not seem to be able to grasp the fundamental progressive techniques they used, or hear the techniques you can grasp.       I hope this is a fair summary and that I have not missed anything fundamental.

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.

Certif1ed wrote: progismylife wrote: ^ But that's just your opinion (to which you are, of course, perfectly entitled) PA would still lose credibility with people and could become the laughing stock of the other prog websites for including something that seems to not be prog in any sense.     Scaredy cat!!!     We're not a laughing stock because of the other bands I mentioned - far from it, we're more popular than ever.   Why would adding Metallica be so different.   Answer: It wouldn't.   Metallica would disppear into the "related" vaults (where they BELONG), and, after a few weeks of rabid reviews, the fuss would die down - exactly as it did before.     See... nothing to worry about.     Now let's talk about the <FONT size=7>MUSIC.

just because eventually the whole thing will quite down, will not make that inclusion right.. just because i stopped screaming my lungs out for including Iron Maiden in here doesn't mean i've made my peace with it nor i stopped believing this site has lost its credibility.. don't count on "time heals everything"...
nobody forgets nothing never...

Edited by toolis - May 23 2007 at 08:53