Metallica ?

Easy Money wrote: Well I'll agree about Lars, ha ha, but the big difference between Metallica and the other bands you mention, at least to me, had a lot to do with lyrics and emotional tone. Metallica was the first band I had heard in a long time that could honestly and without pretension come from that same sort of unhappy introspection that put Gabriel, Waters and Ozzy on the map when they were young. They combined this with music that both recalled classic prog and also came from their thrash metal roots which were already progressive in a sense in that they were taking Black Flag, Motorhead, Minor Threat etc into new territory that also drew upon the past (Pink Floyd, Purple, Sabbath etc). It may be one of those you had to be there to appreciate it, but in their sincere attempt to take metal/thrash into new and more intelligent places, Metallica wrote lyrics that were real, as well as music that drew on their obvious collection of old Genesis, Sabbath and Pink Floyd records. P.S. In a time when real original prog rock was almost non-existant and practically irrelevant, Metallica definitley had some moments of resonance with the spirit of prog-rock past without being corny or nostalgic.

yes, further the meticulous arguments of those in support was important ; it may have been a kind of pressure but it was born of a strong belief the band must be here if PA was to reflect a comprehensive Prog archive, especially if Progmetal was to be given a timeline and context from which it sprang - i.e. Sabbath and Maiden, both progrelated due to their use of prog ideas [semiclassical phrases, complex arrangements, themes] as well as their impact on what would become 'progressive metal' [Voivod, Tool, etc]




Edited by Atavachron - July 04 2009 at 22:17

Well I'll agree about Lars, ha ha, but the big difference between Metallica and the other bands you mention, at least to me, had a lot to do with lyrics and emotional tone.

Metallica was the first band I had heard in a long time that could honestly and without pretension come from that same sort of unhappy introspection that put Gabriel, Waters and Ozzy on the map when they were young.

They combined this with music that both recalled classic prog and also came from their thrash metal roots which were already progressive in a sense in that they were taking Black Flag, Motorhead, Minor Threat etc into new territory that also drew upon the past (Pink Floyd, Purple, Sabbath etc).

It may be one of those you had to be there to appreciate it, but in their sincere attempt to take metal/thrash into new and more intelligent places, Metallica wrote lyrics that were real, as well as music that drew on their obvious collection of old Genesis, Sabbath and Pink Floyd records.

P.S. In a time when real original prog rock was almost non-existant and practically irrelevant, Metallica definitley had some moments of resonance with the spirit of prog-rock past without being corny or nostalgic.

Edited by Easy Money - July 04 2009 at 21:29

Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ So Metallica are prog after all?

^ So Metallica are prog after all?

Ok...
So: Rust in Peace is a prog-thrash album more than every  album Metallica did. And Megadeth have marked proggy elements in their first four discs( and also a bit in the last two).
Grin (Coroner): is a prog metal album (not the "standard" prog, but it has unquestionably prog elements). Mental Vortex (coroner) is prog-thrash and their other albums are techno-thrash. More technical than Metallica's and more proggy.

The question is: why Metallica and not Megadeth or Coroner (or others more proggy and more important for techincal and prog metal music than Metallica)?

Metallica is a fundamental band of metal...but for prog and techincal metal there are bands that are more important than them.

The problem is: or "prog archives" includes all bands that deserves it or no one (of the metal bands...we are talking only about metal) should be included in "prog related".

The discourse is not only direct to Metallica but to all of the metal (and the hard rock of the 70, the first type of metal) bands that have been included.

Edited by Transgressor - July 04 2009 at 14:21

^ look at PF then as a way to store your point of view about Nevermore a little bit more permanently than in a 8+ pages forum thread about Metallica.

You seem to have a firm idea about what's prog and what isn't ... PF allows you to submit this information along with your rating. Eventually the data gathered at PF might even be used to implement genre per album here. But personally, I don't think it's going to happen in the next decade. It's also a gargantuan task ... 

^ well, while you're waiting for them to be added here you could easily take a few minutes and tag them at PF. 

http://progfreak.com/Nevermore,_dbe,artists,_auto_1111858.xhtml

If you like you can help us at PF with assigning prog status to albums. For example, currently Nevermore are listed as Non-Prog, but The Politics of Ecstacy is listed as Prog-Related.