| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
russellk 
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 28 2005
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 782
|
 Posted: August 17 2008 at 17:32 |
|
|
 |
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46833
|
Posted: August 17 2008 at 17:36 |
*pleads the 5th* I'm sure I have and never caught it  
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
Avantgardehead
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 29 2006
Location: Dublin, OH, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1170
|
Posted: August 17 2008 at 17:40 |
That's the biggest problem here is that everyone has a different view about prog. In some people's views, stuff like Mudvayne, Disturbed, and Cradle of Filth are prog. 
|
|
http://www.last.fm/user/Avantgardian
|
|
The Doctor
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
|
Posted: August 17 2008 at 17:46 |
 Avantgardehead wrote:
That's the biggest problem here is that everyone has a different view about prog. In some people's views, stuff like Mudvayne, Disturbed, and Cradle of Filth are prog. |
Mudvayne Rock man...mutha....A! Oh, did I just say that? Yikes!!!! 
|
|
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
|
|
Alberto Muñoz
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 26 2006
Location: Mexico
Status: Offline
Points: 3577
|
Posted: August 17 2008 at 18:24 |
russellk wrote:
I'm heartily sick of people saying about band x (not Brand X, micky) "It's not prog" without saying what they mean by prog. Make an argument, for goodness' sake. Tell us what you think prog is, and then, given how adamant you are, it ought to be clear to all of us why band x isn't prog.
Right sir!!!!
So what do I think? My view is that prog can be either innovation in music, where new elements are added to rock (or subtracted from it, in the case of ambient music), or something that is derivative of the 'classic prog' sound of the 1970s. In my opinion Metallica satisfies both criteria to some degree, which means it's a band in that grey area where it's difficult to put up a convincing argument that it's 'heartland' prog as most people would understand it, nor is it easy to dismiss.
Of course that's and argument, not a selfish point of view.
At my most provocative I'd suggest there ought to be a new category here, a third category to cover a third class of bands that are 'proggy' at some point in their career without being 'prog'. We have prog-related and proto-prog - I think a category called 'Prog-influenced' would cover many bands, like Metallica, that had been exposed to the classic prog era and incorporated elements into their own sound - while still being mainly something else other than prog.
So: Metallica for prog-influenced!
|
Well....
|
|
|
|
WinterLight
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 09 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 424
|
Posted: August 17 2008 at 18:55 |
Certif1ed wrote:
...as I said an argument can be made in their favor, but it's a weak one.
No - it's a strong set of arguments, not one single weak one. Please search for older threads - I have no intention of repeating myself.
I was referring not to Metallica but to Megadeth, Slayer, and Anthrax. From other comments in this thread, it appears that you agree that their inclusion here would be inappropriate. Just a glance at the characterization of prog that this site provides more or less precludes this. Don't misunderstand: I think highly of Megadeth. Every incarnation of the band features amazing technicians, and Rust in Peace is amongst my favorite albums. I honestly don't see how one could make them fit under the prog genre, but I'm open to arguments.
|
Edited by WinterLight - August 17 2008 at 19:40
|
|
Alberto Muñoz
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 26 2006
Location: Mexico
Status: Offline
Points: 3577
|
Posted: August 17 2008 at 19:32 |
|
|
|
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: August 17 2008 at 20:40 |
Angelo wrote:
The T wrote:
...(snip...)
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.
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!)
anyway here's what i think of Metallica's discography, which only goes up to the Black Album, because after that they became "Alternica"
Kill 'Em All - 1983 - Not really prog, though a few songs lean towards it, especially The Four Horsemen (Mechanixxx for you Megadeth fans, only more prog). Mostly great thrash metal with great play on themes
Ride the Lightning - 1984 - Mostly prog, they're still coming off their full thrash assault days, but the compositions are now much more elaborate and technical. Also their heaviest album IMO
Master of Puppets - 1986 - Full prog metal. Every song, even the 2 bookended thrash songs, are big prog. This was probably their peak. Then you have a song like Orion, which is barely even metal, but a beautiful full out prog rock song.
...And Justice For All - 1988 - Full prog metal. This time the songs are longer and waaaayy more complex. Odd time signatures everywhere, epic compositions and containing their heaviest song in Blackened. The production sound is cool, i just wish there was some bass.
real quick, i had a friend who had GIANT sub-woofers in his truck play this album with the bass ALLLLL the way up (and when the bass was this high, everything shook). However, even with the bass that high, you could not hear any of Newstead's bass parts. You just heard the natural low tone of the guitars and bass drum... very unfortunate. However, it does give the album its identity...
The Black Album (Metallica) - 1991 - The album everyone knows. A big step back from the previous album, but has some prog moments, the structures are still more complex than anything they did afterwards. Maybe a quarter prog. Still a great rock/metal album.
So with these albums (3 of which being highly influential in the genre of prog metal) i think they have enough credibility to be added to the site. Under which sub genre, i dont know, and will probably be a bigger discussion that this one.
|
Teo, nice overview - I tend to agree, and I'm still hoping for a remastered version of Justice.... but after Newsted's departure that will probably never happen.
Have to say that I have no clue why M@X rejected them - at the time it might have been more of an issue in terms of site credibility rather than something music related.
|
Those are not my words Angelo. Those are Darkshade's. There must have been a mistake made when you quoted him.
Edited by The T - August 17 2008 at 20:43
|
|
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: August 18 2008 at 02:56 |
zafreth wrote:
You really should dig out some of the arguments I put in other threads - they're coherent, very detailed and pretty watertight.
And i dig out and fine the same repetitive arguments... very detailed but repetitive...
|
So what is your point?
Maybe they did get repetitive - it's amazing how many times you have to repeat yourself sometimes in order to get one single point across - but I don't see what this has to do with anything.
zafreth wrote:
So innovators aren't progressive? What about Miles Davis? ...as you said can't compare these two figures... well if we going to find innovation as equivalent to progressive... then i have a bunch f bands that also been incluind, like Rigo Tovar (and really innovator of cumbia music...  ) and also Sumo of Spain ot Divididos or Gustavo Cerati... and many others... i think that with your argument you just trying to justify their inclusion rather than they really are progressive. |
No - that wasn't an argument, just a question.
I'm not claiming that innovation is the same as progressive - but there is a fine line, with plenty of overlap of couse.
So far, you've made NO argument as to why they're not progressive, and have not countered a single argument as to why they were (because they were, and require no justification).
zafreth wrote:
You clearly have your own idea of what progressive is - like most people - but you don't make it at all clear, so it's hard to sympathise with your point of view without this information. Stating it as a bald fact is an opinion - a propagation of a rumour - not an argument.
Not a rumour at all, and i said every time, the poll speaks for itself!!!
|
The poll shows a straw man poll - mere opinions, and besides, we've taken bands with lower ratios of "No" to Yes" in the past - >50% is not necessary for consideration for inclusion.
I justified why you're propagating a rumour, please do not provide a simple contradiction by way of reply, it shows ignorance, and I'm sure you're not ignorant.
zafreth wrote:
WinterLight wrote:
Metallica should, for reasons already mentioned by others, be included automatically in the Progressive Metal category.
|
|
Agree 100%.
NOP.
NOP?
What does that mean? What reasoning do you have?
zafreth wrote:
I remember when Ride The Lighting came out in 1983, |
1984...
-Sorry but it's hard to write at 3:00am.
[/quote]
zafreth wrote:
they, along with "other" bands, (the other big 3) are the founding fathers of a subgenre called Trash, and that my friend was in 1983. |
Actually, the basis of thrash first appears on Deep Purple's "In Rock" (1970), and later, more precisely, on Judas Priest's "Stained Class" (1978), and in full-fledged form on Diamond Head's "Lightning to the Nations" (1979) - with a polite mention to Randy Rhoades' performance on "I Don't Know".
zafreth wrote:
I see recently a tablature for guitar of the whole In Rock album and the fastest tracks of that great album, the tablature marks the tempo of timing that you have to play properly the songs, the fastest tempo are by definition Really Fast Hard Rock, and when you see Metallica's early fastest output, marks Thrash Rock...
|
By what definition are the fastest songs "Really Fast Hard Rock"?
Metallica themselves hated the term "Thrash Metal" (not ROCK - the distinction is important), and some of their songs are slower than some of the songs on "In Rock" - we're not talking a black and white difference here, and besides, this argument contributes nothing. The point is that Thrash did not "Have his birthday" in 1983 any more than Rock and Roll was born in 1955 or Classical music was born with Mozart.
zafreth wrote:
The Thrash subgenre is recognize that his birhday was 1983, like it or not... it's something else...
|
No - as I reasoned above.
zafreth wrote:
Some revisionism is necessary - we should describe music accurately if we want to maintain a complete archive of progressive music. Some music may have more than one label, so it's not inconceivable that a thrash metal album could also be a Progressive metal album - especially if no-one spotted the fact at the time.
Well... that argument speaks for itself
|
Indeed it does - thank you...
Although I see you use a confused smiley.
Let me elucidate:
Deep Purple played Heavy Rock, right?
Didn't they also play Hard Rock?
Progressive Rock (but not Prog Rock!)?
Van Halen played Hard Rock, right?
Or was it Heavy Rock or Heavy Metal?
How about Miles Davis - which single style did he play in?
None, right - he played in several styles in his lifetime.
Ergo, music doesn't have to be one single category, does it?
Hope that clarifies it for you.
zafreth wrote:
The question is ¿Why are trying to fit prog to Metallica's trash legacy???
|
We're not - it's already there. There is much that is not immediately evident about Metallica's music that is missing from their peers.
Maybe for you... as i see you are trying to fit a band than even themselves do not consider Progressive...and most of the people around the world consider Metallica a good thrash band.
[/quote]
So say you - but with no reason.
That speaks volumes  
zafreth wrote:
Bad comparison Miles and Metallica.... MD has a very different way to see the music as an example in his long carreer as a musician he break many boundaries not only for jazz, it's for the entire spectrum of music... just hear his albums of the 70's nothing to do with the 50's and even, nothing to do with the late 80's output... Metallica on the other hand is a great band, with a heavy sound but... his style... it has a constant... don't know how to explain... look, you hear, RDL and you hear ANFA, more or less the same style the same aproach.... good aproach BTW, but nothing really grandious as MD done... i think that Metallica lose worse in a comparison to one of the key figures of music in general...
and i do not stop.. Metallica is not a prog band never.
|
But I do not like this reasoning - "Listen to Miles, and hear his 50s, 70s and 80s output, then listen to Metallica and hear how it's all the same."
Sorry but earlier someone suggest that...
[/quote]
But it's nonsense as an argument - surely you can see that?
zafreth wrote:
Apply this argument to any Prog Metal band and see just how thin and self-repeating it is - it shows your lack of understanding of what Prog Metal is, nothing more or less.
Sorry man but you can say that to me...
|
Do you mean can't?
I think the reasoning speaks for itself - I can say that to anyone, as it's perfectly true. I cannot see your problem, or why I cannot say this to you specifically.
zafreth wrote:
the truht is i like prog metal as much like the other subgenres of prog, but i can see the differences between bands like DT,even Messugahh, and of course the difference with bands like Slayer, Anthrax et, al.
|
So do I - what is your point?
zafreth wrote:
Maybe it would be more honest to you say i like and want that Metallica are add to PA because i like them so much better to justify a bunch of things that can justify anything...
|
Here you're calling me a liar, and I do not appreciate that.
I am nothing but honest - it is probably one of my biggest faults.
Edited by Certif1ed - August 18 2008 at 03:04
|
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: August 18 2008 at 03:11 |
russellk wrote:
At my most provocative I'd suggest there ought to be a new category here, a third category to cover a third class of bands that are 'proggy' at some point in their career without being 'prog'. We have prog-related and proto-prog - I think a category called 'Prog-influenced' would cover many bands, like Metallica, that had been exposed to the classic prog era and incorporated elements into their own sound - while still being mainly something else other than prog.
So: Metallica for prog-influenced!
|
Don't forget the huge number of Prog Metal bands Metallica influenced (including Dream Theater, as the most obvious and high profile case, given that Dream Theater used Metallica riffs in some of their early songs, and covered the "Master of Puppets" album). While I think that Metallica wrote pure Prog Metal, Proto-Prog(Metal) would also be acceptable(ish), and Prog-Related is a given.
Personally, I have few problems describing what Prog is - the problems we're seeing in this thread, as everywhere else, is that no-one has yet managed to state what it isn't, or why Metallica weren't it.
This interview with Lars is an interesting insight into Metallica's approach in the late 1980s (which they sadly then abandoned altogether!). Although Lars talks constantly about Heavy Metal (which is, let's face it, where Prog Metal originates), he shows an obvious distaste for a certain word beginning with "T" (about 3 minutes into the interview) - which is entirely consistent with their music of the time, and the "individual" approach to music writing (which can easily be heard in their music when compared to that of their peers) that he describes from roughly that point on is analogous with Prog.
Edited by Certif1ed - August 18 2008 at 04:11
|
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
Avantgardehead
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 29 2006
Location: Dublin, OH, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1170
|
Posted: August 18 2008 at 04:21 |
|
Does it really matter if a band hates a genre term? That shouldn't affect what we label them as...
|
|
http://www.last.fm/user/Avantgardian
|
|
Petrovsk Mizinski
Prog Reviewer
Joined: December 24 2007
Location: Ukraine
Status: Offline
Points: 25210
|
Posted: August 18 2008 at 04:25 |
|
^It doesn't matter that much.
Metallica called themselves "power metal" (although we now know power metal as being a very different sound than what was contained on the No Life "TIll Leather demo), but here, I am very much willing to call them (at least for their progressive period) progressive thrash metal or I guess in the case of KEA, thrash metal.
|
|
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: August 18 2008 at 06:12 |
Avantgardehead wrote:
Does it really matter if a band hates a genre term? That shouldn't affect what we label them as... |
Of course not - but you have to be careful about saying "we", as "we" don't all label bands the same way.
Most people assume that everyone should label the same way that they do - which is nonsense, of course - or worse, assume that because some music magazine has chosen a label that it's the correct one.
There is no single correct label for any music except music.
|
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
Alberto Muñoz
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 26 2006
Location: Mexico
Status: Offline
Points: 3577
|
Posted: August 18 2008 at 14:03 |
Certif1ed wrote:
zafreth wrote:
|
So what is your point?
Maybe they did get repetitive - it's amazing how many times you have to repeat yourself sometimes in order to get one single point across - but I don't see what this has to do with anything.
Because are the same old "arguments" ???
zafreth wrote:
No - that wasn't an argument, just a question.
Right sir!!
I'm not claiming that innovation is the same as progressive - but there is a fine line, with plenty of overlap of couse.
I agree with you in this case.
So far, you've made NO argument as to why they're not progressive, and have not countered a single argument as to why they were (because they were, and require no justification).
Ok you want arguments... see my next post...
WinterLight wrote:
Metallica should, for reasons already mentioned by others, be included automatically in the Progressive Metal category.
|
|
Agree 100%.
NOP.
NOP?
What does that mean? What reasoning do you have?
See next post...
[
zafreth wrote:
I see recently a tablature for guitar of the whole In Rock album and the fastest tracks of that great album, the tablature marks the tempo of timing that you have to play properly the songs, the fastest tempo are by definition Really Fast Hard Rock, and when you see Metallica's early fastest output, marks Thrash Rock...
|
By what definition are the fastest songs "Really Fast Hard Rock"?
Guitar Player defines this as a way to play propertly a song, Fast Hard Rock is a more than a timing of=155 in guitar playing terms...
Thrash played at breakneck speed like a timing of = 333, like some Metallica songs and Slayer songs, again in guitar playing terms...
Metallica themselves hated the term "Thrash Metal" (not ROCK - the distinction is important), and some of their songs are slower than some of the songs on "In Rock" - we're not talking a black and white difference here, and besides, this argument contributes nothing.
As Metallica do not consider "prog"... but you are right this contribute nothing...
The point is that Thrash did not "Have his birthday" in 1983 any more than Rock and Roll was born in 1955 or Classical music was born with Mozart.
I disagree with you in this but i'm not try to convince in this time i see that we have enter in irreconciliable points of view... respect your opinion but i not share it.
Some revisionism is necessary - we should describe music accurately if we want to maintain a complete archive of progressive music. Some music may have more than one label, so it's not inconceivable that a thrash metal album could also be a Progressive metal album - especially if no-one spotted the fact at the time.
Well... that argument speaks for itself
|
Indeed it does - thank you...
You're Welcome 
Although I see you use a confused smiley.
Let me elucidate:
Deep Purple played Heavy Rock, right?
Right.
Didn't they also play Hard Rock?
No
Progressive Rock (but not Prog Rock!)?
Controversial point... not all all... but they have some elements. It's a mixture.
Van Halen played Hard Rock, right?
Or was it Heavy Rock or Heavy Metal?
How about Miles Davis - which single style did he play in?
None, right - he played in several styles in his lifetime.
Ergo, music doesn't have to be one single category, does it?
Well... like i said earlier by deduction everything can be justify...
But on the opposite side you are quite right.
Hope that clarifies it for you.
zafreth wrote:
The question is ¿Why are trying to fit prog to Metallica's trash legacy???
|
We're not - it's already there. There is much that is not immediately evident about Metallica's music that is missing from their peers.
Maybe for you... as i see you are trying to fit a band than even themselves do not consider Progressive...and most of the people around the world consider Metallica a good thrash band.
[/quote]
So say you - but with no reason.
see next post...
zafreth wrote:
Apply this argument to any Prog Metal band and see just how thin and self-repeating it is - it shows your lack of understanding of what Prog Metal is, nothing more or less.
Sorry man but you can say that to me...
|
Do you mean can't?
I think the reasoning speaks for itself - I can say that to anyone, as it's perfectly true. I cannot see your problem, or why I cannot say this to you specifically.
Because you even don't know how many groups i have heard, and that's is a strong reason,
[/QUOTE]
|
|
|
|
Alberto Muñoz
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 26 2006
Location: Mexico
Status: Offline
Points: 3577
|
Posted: August 18 2008 at 14:09 |
[[/QUOTE]
Don't forget the huge number of Prog Metal bands Metallica influenced (including Dream Theater, as the most obvious and high profile case, given that Dream Theater used Metallica riffs in some of their early songs, and covered the "Master of Puppets" album). While I think that Metallica wrote pure Prog Metal, Proto-Prog(Metal) would also be acceptable(ish), and Prog-Related is a given.
Personally, I have few problems describing what Prog is - the problems we're seeing in this thread, as everywhere else, is that no-one has yet managed to state what it isn't, or why Metallica weren't it.
This interview with Lars is an interesting insight into Metallica's approach in the late 1980s (which they sadly then abandoned altogether!). Although Lars talks constantly about Heavy Metal (which is, let's face it, where Prog Metal originates), he shows an obvious distaste for a certain word beginning with "T" (about 3 minutes into the interview) - which is entirely consistent with their music of the time, and the "individual" approach to music writing (which can easily be heard in their music when compared to that of their peers) that he describes from roughly that point on is analogous with Prog.
[/QUOTE]
Saw the interview and i think that Lars refered the Metallica style as Heavy Metal, not prog... i think if Lars has consider Metallica a "prog band" he would use the right word, don't you???
It seems that you try to fit a Heavy Metal style to fit Progressive Style in genre could be possible and with certain exceptions, but in specie i think do not...
|
|
|
|
Alberto Muñoz
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 26 2006
Location: Mexico
Status: Offline
Points: 3577
|
Posted: August 18 2008 at 14:20 |
| Certif1ed
Most people assume that everyone should label the same way that they do - which is nonsense, of course - or worse, assume that because some music magazine has chosen a label that it's the correct one.
There is no single correct label for any music except music. [/QUOTE wrote:
Well that's it, so, why are we discussing this???
Maybe PA should call Music instead??
Why called myself to like some genres of music if they do not exist???
Why people label the genres, if by your affirmation "There is no single correct label for any music except music?" |
Well that's it, so, why are we discussing this???
Maybe PA should call Music instead??
Why called myself to like some genres of music if they do not exist???
Why people label the genres, if by your affirmation "There is no single correct label for any music except music?"
The worse thing i see is that your affirmation is pure nihilism..
Nietzsche would be proud of you...
|
|
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: August 18 2008 at 14:57 |
Avantgardehead wrote:
Does it really matter if a band hates a genre term? That shouldn't affect what we label them as... |
Sorry Avantgardehead, I'm going to use your post as an example of the usual replies of people who don't want metallica here:
Pro-Metallica in PA (Certf1ed, Mike, Hughes, me -not in this thread- and more....):
- Argument #1
- Argument # 2
- Argument # 3
-Argument # 4
- Argument # 5
- Argument # 6
Against Metallica in PA:
- Argument #1 has something which I don't agree with, therefore all the rest is wrong!
And that's when people actually are considerate enough to actually GIVE any reasons for their opposition... Usually, while you can read enormously long and deep and informed posts by those that think Metallica should be here, the usual reply of the "no metallica" is this:
NO.
Or,
NO. THEY're THRASH (if they write the "h")
Or, in the most elaborate case:
NO. They're Thrash. And They're not prog.
Sadly, arguments are good only when people are willing to at least read and maybe even see some value on them... But in this case, is hopeless. So please, I ask you people who think Metallica should be here, save energy and your liver for other ocassions. This is USELESS.
|
|
|
|
Alberto Muñoz
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 26 2006
Location: Mexico
Status: Offline
Points: 3577
|
Posted: August 18 2008 at 15:04 |
Okayyyyyy ,
Let see... My friend Certi1ed needs arguments that i give to realize that Metallica is a Good Heavy, Thrash or whatever (except prog of course ) Band.
Well let's begin with some examples...
Kill em' All does not figure a prog album, his playing is like a heavy metal band, great riffs but nothing new
Tight and quick tempo, but nothing progressive i mean nothing revolutionary in terms of solid musicianship, Early Tigers of Pan Tang fans or fans of Saxon's early albums like Demin and Leather, should like this album. Symplistic Lyrics that fellow bands Anthrax and Slayer do at the time, but less, less satanic like Slayer's.With lyrics such as "You've been dying since the day you were born".... (Four Horsemen),come on!! this is second hand philosophy, and also is obvious to anyone, that all were in a process of dying since the very day that have been born.
An extract of Motorbread say these: "you only live once so take hold of the chance don't end up like others same song and dance", are you think that this could be prog???? it's seems that the guys want to do poetry...come on give me Peter Hamill any time of day!!
Phantom lord with its lyrics such as "The leathered armies have prevailed, The Phantom Lord has never failed" wheee... i never stepped back on the lyrics of this album!!!, i rarely see prog influenced or being prog, if we assumed one of the qualities of prog written in PA:
"Lyrics that convey intricate and sometimes impenetrable narratives, covering such themes as science fiction, fantasy, history, religion, war, love, and madness. Many early 1970s progressive rock bands (especially German ones) featured lyrics concerned with left-wing politics and social issues".
Well this song is really a failure in lyrics department and difficult to fit in prog. it's not intricate it's not imprenetrable theme, and science fiction... for a wannabe writer of cheap Dungeons and Dragons.
Extrac of Seek and Destroy:
"Our brains are on fire
with the feeling to kill
And it will not go away
until our dreams are fulfilled
There is only one thing
on our minds
Don't try running away
`cause you're the one we will find ".
Man... that's is prog??????? ,come on, no way is obviously a Heavy Metal band that we talked about, so if we consider that they do not prog, the lyrics are fine and suitable for a "genre" like HM.
Extract of Metal Militia lyrics:
"We are as one as we all are the same
fighting for one cause
Leather and metal are our uniforms
protecting what we are
Joining together to take on the world
with our heavy metal
Spreading the message to everyone here
Come let yourself go".
Two things about this lyric, at least Metallica were honest and they consider even the very beginning Heavy Metal, and two, they had seriously have or had an issue with leather.
So my conclusion is: his lyrics on this album not suit progressive rock in any means, they suit for HM all the way.
In the music album they really improves much the heavyness of the songs, palyed at fast tempos but with little variantion in his overrall sound, they do nothing more to brutalize and crunch our ears with the perfectly fine guitars and i dol like a lot!!! to headbandin in all over the places with this album.
If This album gets in PA, please consider also KISS. They have the same quality of lyrics.
So continue with RTL...
Edited by zafreth - August 18 2008 at 15:13
|
|
|
|
Alberto Muñoz
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 26 2006
Location: Mexico
Status: Offline
Points: 3577
|
Posted: August 18 2008 at 15:20 |
And To finish the Kill em' All Subject here's a fine lyric for a band that all of you not consider Prog: SAXON
Frozen Rainbow
Far below the valleys
Hidden deep beneath the snow
There's a man who guards the secret
Of the frozen rainbow
...of all the ages
Lies hidden neath the ice
The man who finds the secret
Holds the power of life
Far below the valleys
Hidden deep beneath the snow
There's a man who's got a secret
Waiting to be told
I've searched through all the ages
To find the hidden truth
The secret of the rainbow
Will never be revealed
I'll find the rainbow, frozen rainbow
I'll find the rainbow, frozen rainbow
Better than the all Kill em' All Album in lyrics department, so why do not consider Saxon a prog band???
|
|
|
|
Avantgardehead
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 29 2006
Location: Dublin, OH, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1170
|
Posted: August 18 2008 at 15:27 |
The T wrote:
Sorry Avantgardehead, I'm going to use your post as an example of the usual replies of people who don't want metallica here: |
That's a pretty bad example since my statement was a very general one that has nothing to do with the inclusion or lack thereof regarding Metallica...
|
|
http://www.last.fm/user/Avantgardian
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Should Metallica be in the forum?
