Metallica?

MikeEnRegalia wrote: akin wrote: 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. Cert is giving many examples and explanations to get his point across ... the only problem is that if you're not a musician and/or versed in musical theory you might not understand what he's talking about. Now whose problem is this - his or yours? The problem is yours that thinks I'm not a musician and that I cannot understand the "prog techniques" he invents.  When I say that he invents it is not that the elements are not there, but that they are not progressive techniques. I gave my point also and he divided his points as the truth and mine as opinion without value, so I did the same with him. akin wrote: 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. I don't think that a prog site would be interesting if it only lists bands which are undoubtedly prog ... It is very interesting. I would never go to a prog site to see discography or opinions about Iron Maiden. Led Zeppelin or Metallica. akin wrote: 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. Actually many songs on Master of Puppets are progressive ... you cleverly manipulate our statements to make them appear less credible, which is not a nice thing to do. I was not talking about MoP, but in this case you do the same when you manipulate cleverly your statements to make us feel  that Master of Puppets have many songs that are progressive. akin wrote: 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. Metallica are not a prog metal band, and neither was Master of Puppets a prog metal album. It was "progressive" in nature, and this "progressiveness" influenced and inspired many prog metal bands. Of course Metallica influenced the bands of the 90s in more than one way ... guitarists wanted that special Metallica guitar sound (they used modified amps) for example. "progressive" should not be discussed in this site regarding inclusion of bands, just prog, because millions of artists are "progressive" but not prog.

Without addressing all the points that need addressing in this thread I really need to point on thing out....

Rocktopus wrote: TheProgtologist wrote: Without addressing all the points that need addressing in this thread I really need to point on thing out....   You guys do realize that just because a band is in Prog Related does NOT MEAN THEY ARE PROG.   When will you guys get that through your heads?   Read the definition of the category,I get sick of saying that.   Honestly...most people don't.Not when they are arguing about how "proggy" they are. I think most people realize that. Still most of us don't want Metallica here. Even if its just in the (unpopular) prog-related category. They are as I see it related to progmetal, not directly to prog.

Where did the "Is MoP progressive?" Poll go? I appear to have lost it...

^ ta!

melomaniac, I was just about to suggest that. It seems the only way around this.

^ not to rain on the parade here... but that is exactly what can't happen here.  Forgive me ..  elitist gods of prog for doing this.. but there is a team of people here trying to beat into some of our heads the Prog Metal IS a valid sub-genre of prog.  What you are doing with that proposal is seperating Prog Metal from prog.. ostracizing it even more from 'traditional' prog.  Going against what hte PMT has tried to work for.

micky wrote: ^ not to rain on the parade here... but that is exactly what can't happen here.  Forgive me ..  elitist gods of prog for doing this.. but there is a team of people here trying to beat into some of our heads the Prog Metal IS a valid sub-genre of prog.  What you are doing with that proposal is seperating Prog Metal from prog.. ostracizing it even more from 'traditional' prog.  Going against what hte PMT has tried to work for.

Edited by WaywardSon - May 24 2007 at 12:28

akin wrote: If when you confront with a mirroring you act like a child you shouldn't even discuss. I addressed your points exactly the same way you addressed mine and you felt bad.

hahahha.. and here we go around in circles.... Pointless dicussions give me a rise however.. I call it mental masturbation.... and it rules hahhaha.

Great post Mark.. it was.. but think on this ....

admin policy ...last time I had the riot act read to me is PR is not a fall back for rejected artists...  you can't have your cake and eat it too..


if you want to argue the case musically... then it is either prog-metal or it doesn't belong here. Like every other group there we evaluate on the site.

if it is PR...  that ..as I've tried to explain is a different case...for the simple fact that so many bands have progressive elements in their music..you have to put stipulations on it.   PR status is not about the music itself. .it's about the importance of the group in prog terms... their impact on prog if you will. This of course assumes  that these addtions aren't primarily  to generate web hits That is much harder to argue,  than meerly showing that Metallica varied compositionally from the standard metal of the day. Sounds like you made a case for them being in Prog Metal.. not Prog Related.
That they had prog elements in their music.. we know...we've heard it...  however since this appears to be a PR question..  That is a tricky one for Metal groups.. did they just  impact  metal as a whole.. or just the Prog-Metal side.  One should be here.. the other shouldn't.

you mention...

'The difference is that very few metal bands in the early 1980s constructed songs using this technique - it's all intro, V,C,V,C,SOLO,V,C,C,C...'

that is true...  I notice that Dream Theater goes to great lenghs to cite YES as an influence for example.  Instead of attributing the  complex constructions of prog metal over standard Metal to Metallica.. isn't it fair to assume that Yes or Rush,  or  other classic prog bands that might have  influenced PM,  could have been that influence instead. You can extrapolate that Metallica is the main influence on the complex nature of prog metal quite easily just by saying they did..... however many of those bands grew up ..not listening to Metallica Mark... but Yes, Rush, and god... even Genesis.




Edited by micky - May 24 2007 at 18:21