Should Metallica be in the forum?

birdwithteeth11 wrote: The more I check back on this thread the more it looks like everybody's throwing up all over it

There is much regurgitation here (same points being made multiple times, or the same questions raised).  The problem is that it's covering so much territory, and goes back and forth.  It's very disorganised/ sloppy, partially because it's not evolving from the initial post in a linear manner (as in if person one responds to the first post, person 2 responds to the second post, and so on, thereby building on each other's posts --- personal preference, I use it for convenience, but would rather like to get rid of the quote function as it often interferes with the flow of discussion/ ideas, and if one isn't quoting in full the position/ major ideas can be lost, and can be bad for pedantry).  It's all over the place.  I'm particularly guilty of this with my digressions.  It also doesn't help when there is bitty quoting since context gets lost and creates more digression, and more need to explain points being made.

If this had been done as multiple topics that covered specific aspects/ questions, then it would be better (each becoming a part of a greater essay, let's say).  Discussions are fun, but exploratory essays are better reading for coherence/ flow/ development, of course.  A recap of all the major points would be useful (pros and cons -- arguments and counterarguments).  But it should be a fun exercise even if it has a real impact on the site.


Edited by Logan - August 21 2008 at 15:48

The T wrote: Actually.. we've been over 15 pages without any personal insults... Best thread ever...!     The thing is, as much as DT and others have been influenced by Yes or whoever, Prog-Metal is a completely diffewrent kind of monster than prog, governed by its own principles, with its own characteristics. To be 100% honest, a 100% STRICT prog site could survive without including the genre. And progressive-metal could survive on a site of its own. And in such, the equivalent to YEs, Genesis and Crimson here wouldn't be Iron Maiden, wouldn't be Black Sabbath... it would be METALLICA.   For harmony purposes, I retire my proposal for a full prog-metal addition and support 100% the addition of Metallica to Prog-related. Especially to handle outside visitors who may get weird ideas by seeing "St Anger" in progressive-metal..

Well said, I think.  I understand what you're getting at and why Metallica would be so significant in the evolution of metal (progressive and otherwise). When the new definition comes along, I think I might understand why it is a "completely different monster."  And, new definitions may create new, or at least better understood, parameters (as if progressive music should have parameters in way; it's the breaking free of typical genre convention, or at least expanding the frontiers of rock) that may make Metallica's addition to PM more logical, and more easily understood in terms of its significance to progressive music.

Progressive rock camps, or subgenres of rock such as metal, shouldn't have to conform to the same standards (they each have their own character and history, although they do intersect).

And with new definitions can come new approaches to additions, and even open the doors for really cutting-edge/ experimental bands from the metal scene which might not be deemed that appropriate for the progressive metal categories now (quite a few great avant metalish bands to be found in the avant prog category). A Metal in Opposition category does have a ring to it. Like some others, I would in fact like to see the "progressive" part of the Prog equation emphasised more (both with additions and definitions).  Prog refers to more than a style or styles,  it's an attitude and approach to making music (preferably a less "conventional" approach to composition/ arrangements etc.).  And if Metallica can be likened to the Prog pioneers in the way it progressed metal -- in regards to its innovative spirit and progressive qualities/ approach -- then that's all the more cause for it here, and to call it Prog in a true to its origins sense -- flaunting held metal conventions, bringing complexity to the music (not sure how how much one can break metal conventions before it ceases to be true metal; same deal with rock, but metal was more limited in parameters than rock had been many years before Metallica started, I believe -- more conventions, less experimentation and blending of genres/ influences).

And I'll quote Cert which is a response to a part of one of my posts.

"Specifically, much Prog Metal built itself on key innovations and developments that can be traced back to Metallica, such that Metallica's compositional structures can plainly be identified in the work of some high profile (some might say "typical") Prog Metal acts."

If it's not just technique, but compositional structure, then that sounds very significant.

EDIT: Incidentally, one of my favourite bands in Eclectic is the metalish Taal, and I wonder if it would have existed in that form had it not been for Metallica's innovations (or maybe it owes just as much to other heavy metal bands)..


Edited by Logan - August 21 2008 at 17:10

For what it's worth, I think Metallica belongs in prog-related.

"Master of Puppets" to some degree, and "Justice for All" in a high degree, are both releases that have many progressive elements in them - compositional structures and quirky riff patterns for starters - to belong in that category.

In addition they have influenced both prog metal and prog rock bands; if not for anything else they normalized and made popular metal and thrash metal riffs to such an extent that this musical element due to Metallica has become a common tool in music rather than an element in an obscure genre only.

WinterLight wrote: Nice formulation of an elusive yet obvious concept.  We should accept that, despite certain commonalitie   s, prog rock and prog metal are ultimately quite different,   And consequently we should evaluate the merits of artists of these distinct genres according to that genre's standards.    Totally Agree with that...   Nevertheless, there's no reason why prog rock and prog metal simply can't be subsumed under the unifying category of "progressive music."      Although there would be many detractors, their argument would have no rational basis, and so could be summarily dismissed.    ....

I won't be impressed until someone who is completely unbiased and 100% partial (having never heard Metallica before would be good) thinks they should be in prog-related or otherwise.

Of course the fans will be clamoring for their inclusion and the anti-fans will be clamoring just as hard if not harder for the opposite...

^ guitars too thin?? The guitar sound of their classic albums is legendary. Maybe it's thin compared to what can be achieved today, but it was surely setting new standards in the 80s.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ guitars too thin?? The guitar sound of their classic albums is legendary. Maybe it's thin compared to what can be achieved today, but it was surely setting new standards in the 80s.

Mike, objectively I know you're right, but I find Hammett's guitar sound simply doesn't twist knots in my stomach the way Iommi's best work did. I'm not saying it's not impressive work, just that for me it's not visceral. I reminded myself of Metallica's work by listening to 'The Call of Ktulu', 'Master of Puppets', 'Orion', 'Blackened', 'Enter Sandman' and 'The Unforgiven'. Call me a fool, but I don't hear the grunt.

russellk wrote: Mike, objectively I know you're right, but I find Hammett's guitar sound...

Not Hammett but Hetfield as the former generally plays leads only (in the studio, at least).

tokenrove wrote: It's the scooped mids, a sound Metallica pioneered. Actually, their tone came straight out of the Mesa Boogie manuals.  Although he doesn't appear to have them up at present, Flemming Rasmussen (producer of three of their albums) posted his production notes on his website, which amongst other details list the amp settings of the MarkIIC+ they used on those records:  the settings, including the scooped EQ, are similar if not identical to the recommended settings.  Still, it's a great sound.  Metallica's sound is mainly compositional (aside from the double and even triple tracking of guitars). I also think it's thin, and one has to hide the bass to make the guitars audible. Not true.  The bass guitar, despite its name, is really a midrange instrument (like most stringed instruments).  In any case, the bass does get hidden, but only as a result of the multi-tracking of the guitars (which was done in the extreme on ...And Justice for All). Thankfully midrangey guitars seem to have made a comeback since then. Scooped EQ generally sounds good for guitar no matter what style of music is played.  The producer's maxim is that it's better to cut than to boost (and not to do either by more than about 6 dB).

Of course they should be in the forum. They're one of the greatest metal bands and deserve to be discussed a lot here on PA.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: russellk wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ guitars too thin?? The guitar sound of their classic albums is legendary. Maybe it's thin compared to what can be achieved today, but it was surely setting new standards in the 80s. Mike, objectively I know you're right, but I find Hammett's guitar sound simply doesn't twist knots in my stomach the way Iommi's best work did. I'm not saying it's not impressive work, just that for me it's not visceral. I reminded myself of Metallica's work by listening to 'The Call of Ktulu', 'Master of Puppets', 'Orion', 'Blackened', 'Enter Sandman' and 'The Unforgiven'. Call me a fool, but I don't hear the grunt. Sorry, I have no idea what you mean. Could be entirely my fault though, so maybe we should simply forget about it.

Probably my fault, Mike. Toothache can do that to an argument