| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
The T 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
 Posted: September 15 2008 at 15:02 |
Magnificent Certf1ed, magnificent!  Let me add to the fire:
 Certf1ed wrote:
No The most recurrent "argument"
I don't see influence as being reason enough to add something like Metallica to this site But people saw influence as reasons to add The Doors, Queen, Purple, The Who, etc etc etc. Lovely double standard.
My biggest issue is that I don't see how it would benefit the site at all... More visits, metallers that don't know prog would discover it; on the other hand, how would it AFFECT the website? Some people would leave... people that want things their way or nothing.... The opposite has been proven to be false: all of us defending Metallica's inclusion have remained here and WILL remain here even if the band never gets added...
I also don't believe in retroactively labeling something, especially all these influential bands. "Retroactivity" exists and it's useful. Many, many, MANY things in all orders of life were labeled CENTURIES after they actually happened, when people KNEW BETTER.
This isn't "Anything that at any point ever vaguely resembled something in the general vicinity of the outer reaches of the outer reaches of the most liberal definition of prog rock Archives," it's "Prog Archives" There isn't anything in the vicinity of the outer reaches of the outer reaches of the borders of this "argument" that is even barely understandable..
An 8-minute thrash metal song is still a thrash metal song. Oh look, classical-ish acoustic guitar parts and leads! Um, that's progressive! Mmm.... On one hand, my favorite band DT has lots of this.. maybe we have to take them out of PA.... On the other hand, any 4/4, 4-instrument song that happens to have a dissonance, voila! Avante-garde! This pick of little elements, as always, leaves room for weird double standards.... Anyway, Metallica's song were not just "thrash songs"..... Music is more than just one word defining everything.
No The mighty argument seems to return.......
I don't think metallica shoul be added in the forum, after all, it's about progressive rock and metallica do not bear even a slight hint of progressive. Good explanation... Now where's the definition of progressive here?
I think: NO, despite somewhat "Progressive" elements in his music, Metallica is pure Heavy Metal creation,So what differentiates "pure heavy metal" of progressive metal? And even if we agreed, this arguments recognizes some prog elements in their music.. for some people, that at least would guarantee prog-related.
No I think they are not even close to the word "prog", and I don't see particoular musicianship in their albums either and I think Lars Ulrich's drumming is very weak (remember Metallica fans, that's just my opinion) Lars' drumming, weak or no (I think it's odd but it fit the albums well...) is not a reaons for progressiveness. Then let's take Arena and Marillion's first out of PA.. after all, Mike Pointer is VERY weak....
So Hetflied might want to say to his interview that are other bands that do elaborate, and intricate long solos with multiple tempo changes, etc, and he and Metallica, don't interest at all. He can say what he wants. It's US who hear his music and discover what he really wanted. And it's HIM who created that music and let us know, with music, not words, what he really wanted.
Because their music is not prog. You can tell they are Metal, Hard Rock, whatever you want but they are not prog, absolutely. Instrumentals like "Metal Militia", may be pleasant, but not prog. Besides the obvious lack of argument here, let me say: METAL MILITIA is NOT an instrumental... This may reveal the level of knowledge of some of the "Metallica NO" people .....
As musician skills, well, the solos are all the same, and have you ever heard mr. Hammett doing the "One" solo in concert correctly? The same as I said with Pointer... Or with any other weak prog performer who was better in the studio than live... Anyway, I think while not the greatest, Hammett is a skilled guitarist for the music they make.
note when you enter a music record store you donīt find Metallica in the progressive section by the way.
I not agree that Metallica is progressive Sorry but in 90% of the stores ther's NO PROGRSSIVE SECTION (maybe in somwe countries...)... Anyway, seldom have I found The Who in the progressive section either.... even in websites....
a general opinion in a simple internet swarm discover: Metallica are not a Progressive Rock Group. And that's a fact. That's is actually a fact. But they are a progressive-METAL group, or related at least (so people can digest easily)
No way, wake up collaborators, Metallica on PA, come on, they are trash al the way in the early years, now something that only they know what are palying. Definetly not prog Where's the ARGUMENT here?
site credibility You should've think of that before the WHOLE PROG-RELATED AND PROTO-PROG genres where created....
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. hear some riffs and hear some development.. But anyway, that's ONE album...
(Ride The Lightning)
As for the music, Anthrax, Metallica and Slayer have more or less the same schematic music. Have you even HEARD these three bands? They can't be more different!!! Ignorance is a bliss........ for those without arguments....
no way is Metallica prog! I think of them as a band who took a variety of important ideas in metal, did them really well, and made them accessible to a larger public, rather than strictly innovating. Master of Puppets? They took some ideas and DEVELOPED them to a point no other metakl band had done... They made them accesible? It was the black album the real popular-success of the band, the album that none of us really say it's prog. NONE, none has innovated metal and helped prog-metal as Metallica.
What about Awaken the Guardian, or Energetic Disassembly? Yes... what about them???????
Lots of bands were playing faster, harder, and longer, before Metallica, Lots of bands, like Motohead (faster), Venom (Harder), Maiden (longer)... so... what does this prove??????? |
|
|
|
 |
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: September 15 2008 at 15:12 |
And, let's dissect the POR list, in the sake of justice... for all.... 
Certif1ed wrote:
PROS:
much of their early work was done with prog ideals can be refuted. Ideals don't make music prog.
Arguably much of Metallica's early is indeed more progressive in nature than Queensryche True. And Queensryche is here.
Metallica were more prog in the 80s than many 80s prog bands, no question True. But they're not here.
Ride The Lightning: (...) not entirely progressive in nature, but again, pushed heavy metal compositional boundaries to greater heights and hence a degree of prog ideals ARGUMENT.
Master Of Puppets: Prog. Not a doubt. Extended and a lot of the time far from straight forward compositons, odd time signatures, very thematic album and just more complex than most anything ever really done in the heavy metal field ARGUMENT
..And Justice For All: Prog. Not a doubt. The music had become pretty challenging compositionally and I could think of whole "prog" albums less compex than AJFA. Hell, even some of Rush's proggier moments were still less proggy than AJFA could be. ARGUMENT
I'm gonna have to say RTL is the real deal too, so change my position to Metallica having released 3 full prog albums. Opinion. No way to say anything against or supporting.
If there is ANY band that influenced progressive-metal (even the flag bearers and favorite band of mine DREAM THEATER) and which released three albums of full progressive-metal, that is Metallica. (My point). And a FACT. Of course, influencing isn't everything. But when you influence the FLAG BEARER, usually you're at least related.
one prog album/composition/riff/minute/second is enough to guarantee the addition A little extreme.
influences/influencing counts more than music itself Not really.
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 themesARGUMENT.
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 Opinion + ARGUMENT
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. ARGUMENT
...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. ARGUMENT
I have often pointed out on here that their album Master of Puppets was one of the first 80s albums to capture that introverted {existential/spiritual real me vs the plastic rest of you'll} early 70s emotional musical and lyrical feel that typified so much of classic prog rock bands, especially Pink Floyd, Black Sabbath and Gabriel led Genesis. ARGUMENT
Notice the rhythmical gimmick starting at about 2 minutes, when the drums get "out of sync" with the rest of the band by one 4th note. Dream Theater would use this technique many times later on, becoming one of the (many) trademarks of prog metal. MUSICAL ARGUMENT
...if you want to understand why Metallica is just progressive as many 'prog' artists, you have to listen to it in the correct context, and you absolutely must, know heavy metal history. We keep forgetting Voivod, one the other pioneers of combining thrash with prog to make progressive metal. Listen to them as well, and that will help to make people see how Metallica were truly progressive. Good way to say: those who think MEtal Militia is instrumental (hence, those who have barley even heard Metallica) please don't comment based on prejudices.
Metallica really threw out the rule book with their compositions on the 3 prog metal albums they did
Metallica should, for reasons already mentioned by others, be included automatically in the Progressive Metal category. ARGUMENT
Well, let's use this site's characterization of progressive rock. As said, that definition is for progressive-ROCK.
Long compositions, sometimes running over 20 minutes, with intricate melodies and harmonies that require repeated listening to grasp: Admittedly, Metallica's longest pieces approach 10 minutes, but many of them feature "intricate melodies and harmonies." Even there we can stretch it and find strong relationship.
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.
Ignoring their debut album, the remainder of Metallica's work (even during their '90's nadir) exhibit such themes. I don't really agree on lyrics having anything to do with progressiveness. If "Close to The Edge" was a love song with the lyrics dealing about a break-up, it'd still be THE prog-epic.
Concept albums, in which a theme or storyline is explored throughout an entire album in a manner similar to a film or a play: It's well known that Master of Puppets is about manipulation and ...And Justice for All is about injustice. Again, not defining for me.
Use of unusual time signatures, scales, or tunings. Many pieces use multiple time signatures and/or tempi, sometimes concurrently. ARGUMENT. Metallica has these (if we go by elements)
Metallica has some songs in 5/4 and 7/4, for example. They also "play" with tempo, i.e. although the actual tempo doesn't change one perceives that the tempo has slowed (or quickened as the case may be). More frequently, they employ intricate and dynamic rhythms. MUSICAL ARGUMENT,.
Inclusion of classical pieces on albums: They don't perform classical pieces, but they do incorporate some rudimentary classical techniques (e.g., the opening leads in "Fade to Black" and "One"). Weak, but ARGUMENT.
An aesthetic linking the music with visual art... (covers of RTL, MoP and AJFA) Not relevant for me.
Metallica expanded the limits of thrash, using speed and volume not for their own sake, but to enhance their intricately structured compositions." (ALLMusic) ARGUMENT.
They would be an excellent fit with the collection of bands already here. opinion. And as said, their effect on PA shouldn't be first thing to consider. If we run a true prog-encyclopledia, the goal is to keep it as COMPLETE AS POSSIBLE.
always thought of Puppets and Justice as prog-metal albums Opinion. But I agree...
Dream Theater used Metallica riffs in some of their early songs, and covered the "Master of Puppets" album). Both things true. And, for prog-related, ARGUMENT.
Hetfield has written a number of songs based on classic literature. Completely irrelevant.
|
Edited by The T - September 15 2008 at 15:12
|
|
|
|
Ricochet
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 27 2005
Location: Nauru
Status: Offline
Points: 46301
|
Posted: September 15 2008 at 15:40 |
The T wrote:
one prog album/composition/riff/minute/second is enough to guarantee the addition A little extreme. |
just noticed this, does it belong by any chance to me? cause I remember stating such a thing If so, it was taken out of context, I mostly was against this sort of argument for a musician/ band's addition. I was just sarcastically extending the shape of that logic to minimum sizes (riff/minute/second), but anyway under no circumstances did I used it as a PRO.  POST-CHECK EDIT: yep, was part of one of my statements (in a bit of a rant that didn't even catch on to the subject itself   ), but, just to be clear, i disagree with the idea, so I'm afraid it's CONS. Putting it in Metallica's case, if one should come and say " one album X is prog, so Metallica should be added"*, I'd mostly be against his argument. So cons.  *of course, I am aware that we're not talking just one Metallica prog album, but several.
Edited by Ricochet - September 15 2008 at 15:45
|
|
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: September 16 2008 at 05:49 |
^Sorry about that, I was trying to compile the list quickly, and in a non-judgemental way, so that the two sides spoke for themselves.
I'm glad I only mis-copied one from the first 12 pages...
It does have to be said that T's analysis is correct - the PRO statements fall into the category of reason-backed arguments, with verifiable examples, while the CON statements fall into the category of opinions presented without reasoning or examples, on the whole.
The PRO arguments tend towards the musical - with nothing too tricky for the average person to grasp; use of time signatures, modes, long songs with multi-section instrumentals, concepts, developing musical material, usage of different techniques and styles in the forging of a new one, etc. - and it's quite clear where the factual basis for these arguments lie. Specific references are given to albums, tracks and musical passages where these facts may be verified - or argued against.
The PRO arguments can be summed up with the phrase; "This is why I think Metallica are at least Prog Related, and here are some pointers that you can agree with or not"
The CON arguments tend towards the superficial, and make broad statements, often based on straw-manning, and where there are examples given, they are vague and without specific reference. The references given by the PRO arguments are almost always skated around or ignored.
These can all be summed up with the simple phrase "I don't think so". There is almost no "because" given.
I think that's a fair summary - I'm beginning to think the "CON" side is just a con... |
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
Windhawk
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 28 2006
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 11401
|
Posted: September 16 2008 at 07:06 |
Same tendency I have observed. I have outlined a CON argument earlier, here's another that have been hinted at, but never really been given a good airing.
Metallica is a band with a solid foundation in heavy metal, and it's innovations is within metal music. Acknowledging them as a prog metal band would set up new guidelines as to the definition of progressive rock as such, as they have no noticeable influences from folk, jazz or classical music - which all artists regarded as progressive today have directly or indirectly. Even post/RIO - where freeform and avantgarde jazz will be a primary or secondary influence.
Acknowledging Metallica's innovations as one belonging to progressive metal will also redefine progressive rock as a genre that includes artists that have been innovative without direct or indirect influence from the genres as listed above - and will open up for several new categories of artists to be included in the site as a direct consequence.
To a lesser degree if they are regarded as related, but it will still be an issue even in that case.
|
|
Websites I work with:
http://www.progressor.net
http://www.houseofprog.com
My profile on Mixcloud:
https://www.mixcloud.com/haukevind/
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21149
|
Posted: September 16 2008 at 07:29 |
Certif1ed wrote:
The PRO arguments tend towards the musical - with nothing too tricky for the average person to grasp; use of time signatures, modes, long songs with multi-section instrumentals, concepts, developing musical material, usage of different techniques and styles in the forging of a new one, etc. - and it's quite clear where the factual basis for these arguments lie. Specific references are given to albums, tracks and musical passages where these facts may be verified - or argued against.
The PRO arguments can be summed up with the phrase; "This is why I think Metallica are at least Prog Related, and here are some pointers that you can agree with or not"
|
I think the major problem is that these elements also occur in straight metal, so some of the CON people don't feel the need to explain themselves, because they think that it's obvious. And I agree - you will find straight metal artists who occasionally use odd signatures, you will find many who use modes and long songs etc.. I think that it mostly depends on how those elements are combined, and whether they are used in a way that makes the music inherently more complex (or "deep", if you resent the word "complex"). The historical context also matters ... Metallica were using all these things in 1986 ... naturally in the 90s more bands adopted them. This, together with the fact that many other straight metal bands use some of these elements to some extent, may be why some people might not see why Metallica are - or rather: were - special.
|
|
|
|
burritounit
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 18 2007
Location: Puerto Rico
Status: Offline
Points: 2551
|
Posted: September 16 2008 at 08:14 |
Windhawk wrote:
Acknowledging Metallica's innovations as one belonging to progressive metal will also redefine progressive rock as a genre that includes artists that have been innovative without direct or indirect influence from the genres as listed above - and will open up for several new categories of artists to be included in the site as a direct consequence.
|
Agreed.
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: September 16 2008 at 09:11 |
Windhawk wrote:
(...)
Metallica is a band with a solid foundation in heavy metal, and it's innovations is within metal music. Acknowledging them as a prog metal band would set up new guidelines as to the definition of progressive rock as such, as they have no noticeable influences from folk, jazz or classical music - which all artists regarded as progressive today have directly or indirectly. Even post/RIO - where freeform and avantgarde jazz will be a primary or secondary influence.
Acknowledging Metallica's innovations as one belonging to progressive metal will also redefine progressive rock as a genre that includes artists that have been innovative without direct or indirect influence from the genres as listed above - and will open up for several new categories of artists to be included in the site as a direct consequence.
To a lesser degree if they are regarded as related, but it will still be an issue even in that case. |
I don't agree that acknowledging Metallica as Progressive Metal would have an impact on the definition of Progressive Rock - the two are essentially separate.
There are, in fact, both indirect and more noticable influences from classical - and even from jazz - and it wouldn't be too hard to compile a list of Progressive artists with none of these influences.
Indeed, the whole concept of developing riffs and using thematic material, rather than a simple succession of diatonically related but seperate ideas stems from both (for one example).
To do this in metal is one of Metallica's greatest contributions to the development of Prog Metal, and is rare (if not non-existent) in earlier heavy metal, as well as non-existent among Metallica's peers.
This musical attribute also a cornerstone of what I would consider the best Prog - so the earlier issue you raised with Prog Rock is a non-issue.
In my opinion, there is a Metallica shaped hole between Progressive Rock and Progressive Metal/Heavy Metal - a kind of missing link, you might say...
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
I think the major problem is that these elements also occur in straight metal, so some of the CON people don't feel the need to explain themselves, because they think that it's obvious.
|
This is the issue I have with all the existing definitions of Prog metal - they all list the elements - but elements are only a small part of the story, as I've often said.
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
And I agree - you will find straight metal artists who occasionally use odd signatures, you will find many who use modes and long songs etc.. I think that it mostly depends on how those elements are combined, and whether they are used in a way that makes the music inherently more complex (or "deep", if you resent the word "complex").
|
An explanation of this should accompany any definition. This is an avenue worth exploring.
Personally, I think that the way the elements are combined has a lot to do with overall form - if that could be ascertained through exploration, then it could show a conclusive link to Progressive Rock and end many of the arguments.
As I said above, and as has been observed by others in this thread, Metallica do combine these elements into an inherently more "complex" or "deep" structure - they've got that whole extra-dimension thing caused mainly by the shifting tempi and developing riffs aspect that is so obviously missing from their peers and "standard" heavy metal.
We should have a yardstick for "standard heavy metal" here - perhaps "Ace of Spades" by Motorhead, "Living After Midnight" by Judas Priest, Strong Arm of the Law (Saxon) and "Number of the Beast" by Iron Maiden - those are all "standard" heavy metal tracks from 1980-2.
Compare any of those with "Seek and Destroy" (plucking an example out of thin air), or "Metal Militia", "Jump in the Fire" or even "Whiplash".
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
The historical context also matters ... Metallica were using all these things in 1986 ... naturally in the 90s more bands adopted them. This, together with the fact that many other straight metal bands use some of these elements to some extent, may be why some people might not see why Metallica are - or rather: were - special.
|
Precisely so - but I think they were using them significantly earlier than 1986 - 1982, to be precise. That is indeed, another reason to consider their early output rather unique.
Before them (in the world of Metal) were Diamond Head (on the near-impossible to obtain "White Album"), Budgie (who have come up for discussion recently) and Iron Maiden - and, to be fair, none of those actually sound like early Metallica, except Diamond Head on one or two tracks (e.g. "Lightning to the Nations", "The Prince" and "Helpless").
There's no way I can see that Metallica played "standard" heavy metal, and neither was it straightforward thrash - not even "Whiplash", which is closest to "pure" thrash (not "trash" - that's something different!).
"Whiplash" has that unexpected note at the end of the 4th bar in the verse, a deliberately obtuse and non-anthemic chorus, and a 2-part instrumental.
It's an unusual construction, even now - and the 1st instrumental section is in a different tempo, not to mention key to the rest of the piece.
The build-up to the second section of the instrumental (yup, a 2-part instrumental section in a 4-minute thrash anthem), with the single bark of "Whiplash!" to interrupt it sounds so natural now - but I'm struggling to think of a precedent.
Granted, it's the least progressive song on "Kill 'Em All" - but that in itself is an indication of how different Metallica were to just about everyone else - focussed on the music itself, and creating artful compositions that are lasting (Whiplash still sounds fresh to my ears), not throwaway bandwagon-jumping artificial nonsense or mindless heavy metal - but with a core of street-level rock, the whole instinctive writing process reined in tightly by intelligent and purposeful writing.
Heavy Metal it may be, mindless - no way. That would be Alberto Y Lost Trios Paranoias
|
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21149
|
Posted: September 16 2008 at 10:01 |
Windhawk wrote:
Same tendency I have observed. I have outlined a CON argument earlier, here's another that have been hinted at, but never really been given a good airing.
Metallica is a band with a solid foundation in heavy metal, and it's innovations is within metal music. Acknowledging them as a prog metal band would set up new guidelines as to the definition of progressive rock as such, as they have no noticeable influences from folk, jazz or classical music - which all artists regarded as progressive today have directly or indirectly. Even post/RIO - where freeform and avantgarde jazz will be a primary or secondary influence.
|
Interesting point. But are influences from other genres (folk, jazz, classical etc) a defining element of prog or are they merely incidental, and a consequence from the spirit of experimentation?
Windhawk wrote:
Acknowledging Metallica's innovations as one belonging to progressive metal will also redefine progressive rock as a genre that includes artists that have been innovative without direct or indirect influence from the genres as listed above - and will open up for several new categories of artists to be included in the site as a direct consequence.
To a lesser degree if they are regarded as related, but it will still be an issue even in that case. |
Of course adding Metallica will change everything ... that's why I would like to add them as prog related. But I don't think that it will change addition policies, because most of the artists you are referring to are - as I see it - already in the database, many of them in the Tech/Extreme Prog Metal category. If anything, adding Metallica would mean to restore consistency.
|
|
|
|
Avantgardehead
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 29 2006
Location: Dublin, OH, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1170
|
Posted: September 16 2008 at 13:01 |
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
Interesting point. But are influences from other genres (folk, jazz, classical etc) a defining element of prog or are they merely incidental, and a consequence from the spirit of experimentation? |
If they are incidental, than prog is nothing more than experimental rock and doesn't mean anything anymore.
|
|
http://www.last.fm/user/Avantgardian
|
|
Alberto Muņoz
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 26 2006
Location: Mexico
Status: Offline
Points: 3577
|
Posted: September 16 2008 at 16:10 |
Cert maybe you know this but a group that first do the so called Metallica revolution is Venom check his album Black Metal of 1982 and the following At War With Satan in 1983 that has the epic 20 minutes title track.
And they are Heavy Metal.
Who in 1983 do a track of 20 minutes and not being prog???
Edited by zafreth - September 16 2008 at 16:11
|
|
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: September 16 2008 at 17:28 |
^It's clear that there are lots of people who equate length=prog. That's of course not the cause. Try Genesis' Can-Utility and the Coastliners and you'll have an epic in 5 minutes; try Guns n' Roses "Coma" and you'll have a 10+-minute song that is simpler than any prog song that lasts more than 10 seconds.
In a way, we could also argue than condensing your structures to the maximum also constitutes experimentation... So Napalm Death's Scum could be prog..  .....
No... length, track duration is an external element, very recurrent in prog. But not a rule again.
And the song you mention is just one collection of thrashing riffs where the only prog element would be length. Sadly, Venom's technical proficiency didn't allow them (nor did they really wanted) to create anything too complex. They wanted to play anti-heavy-metal, and they succeeded in setting the bases for the mlost extreme of metal genres (where, by the way, you cab find prog bands... try Enslaved or Negura Bunget).....
|
|
|
|
Alberto Muņoz
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 26 2006
Location: Mexico
Status: Offline
Points: 3577
|
Posted: September 16 2008 at 22:38 |
The T wrote:
^It's clear that there are lots of people who equate length=prog. That's of course not the cause. Try Genesis' Can-Utility and the Coastliners and you'll have an epic in 5 minutes; try Guns n' Roses "Coma" and you'll have a 10+-minute song that is simpler than any prog song that lasts more than 10 seconds.
You misleading completely the point i put this example because you talk about Metallica that was the band that pioneering many techniques to evolution thrash and heavy metal, but as bad as sound the Venom album, they took advantage ( cronological at least) about a 1980's heavy metal epic, i did not see Venom as a prog band anyway, but his influence about other thrash and heavy metal bands is undisputable...
yeah and i took any Donna Summer disco album and exceeds the 20 minute too
In a way, we could also argue than condensing your structures to the maximum also constitutes experimentation... So Napalm Death's Scum could be prog.. .....
In his own way ANY can be prog
No... length, track duration is an external element, very recurrent in prog. But not a rule again.
I did not set THAT rule but you use that so called rule to make arguments...
And the song you mention is just one collection of thrashing riffs where the only prog element would be length. Sadly, Venom's technical proficiency didn't allow them (nor did they really wanted) to create anything too complex. They wanted to play anti-heavy-metal, and they succeeded in setting the bases for the mlost extreme of metal genres (where, by the way, you cab find prog bands... try Enslaved or Negura Bunget).....
Agree with that.. at last
|
|
|
|
|
Ozzloaf
Forum Groupie
Joined: June 14 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 52
|
Posted: September 16 2008 at 23:30 |
|
How is it even remotely possible for them to not even be in Prog-Related??? Don't you understand that Opeth, Dream Theater, EVERY single Prog Metal band wouldn't exist without Metallica! If that's not Prog Related I don't know what is! Mikael Akerfeldt said it himself here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKFBn-97_9k
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21149
|
Posted: September 17 2008 at 02:59 |
|
|
|
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65249
|
Posted: September 17 2008 at 03:13 |
|
|
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559
|
Posted: September 17 2008 at 03:58 |
zafreth wrote:
Cert maybe you know this but a group that first do the so called Metallica revolution is Venom check his album Black Metal of 1982 and the following At War With Satan in 1983 that has the epic 20 minutes title track.
And they are Heavy Metal.
Who in 1983 do a track of 20 minutes and not being prog??? |
I take from your wink that you're joking - of course Venom weren't Prog, and length is not the only criteria by which we judge Prog. Venom were massively influential on the emergence of thrash - but they didn't actually play it, at least, not properly. I saw them on the "Seven Dates of Hell" tour - and they were bloody awful (at playing, that is... in terms of pure RAWK, they RAWKED and then some... ).
I saw Metallica a couple of years later, and they were incredible - everything that Venom were, except the bloody awful bit. As performers of intricately composed metal, there was no-one to touch them at the time, which is why they became the "figureheads" for the movement, like Iron Maiden were for the earlier British movement.
Venom were from the so called Northern WoBHM, which included other influential bands like Tygers of Pan Tang and Raven (who I believe Metallica started out supporting).
You might as well also argue the case for Bitch and a number of other fast underground metal acts, but, like everyone else, you've overlooked my point about Diamond Head's "Lightning to the Nations", which actually contains the first examples of real thrash - the songs I mentioned, and before that, Ozzy's "I Don't Know", and Judas Priest's "Exciter", which were both proto-thrash.
No-one is saying that Metallica invented thrash - this point was kicked to death ages ago.
Listen to the ways that Metallica USED the "thrash" technique.
Saying Metallica were a thrash band is pretty much the same as saying that King Crimson were a heavy rock band.
The T wrote:
In a way, we could also argue than condensing your structures to the maximum also constitutes experimentation... So Napalm Death's Scum could be prog.. .....
|
In a way, it is... and I'm not laughing
Ozzloaf wrote:
How is it even remotely possible for them to not even be in Prog-Related??? Don't you understand that Opeth, Dream Theater, EVERY single Prog Metal band wouldn't exist without Metallica! If that's not Prog Related I don't know what is! Mikael Akerfeldt said it himself here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKFBn-97_9k |
So we've got endorsements from Mike Portnoy and Mikael Akerfeldt - surely these guys know what they're talking about, even if I don't? 
Edited by Certif1ed - September 17 2008 at 04:02
|
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|
Windhawk
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 28 2006
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 11401
|
Posted: September 17 2008 at 04:47 |
|
At this point in time it seems to me that it would be useful that whoever's in charge of prog related left a notice in here signalling what they think. Even if undecided. No new arguments of major importance will come in this debate now it seems, and no use in flogging a dead horse for the pro crowd nor flogging back from the con crowd if a decision has already been made. And if it hasn't been made - perhaps it could invigorate this somewhat stale debate a bit.
|
|
Websites I work with:
http://www.progressor.net
http://www.houseofprog.com
My profile on Mixcloud:
https://www.mixcloud.com/haukevind/
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: September 17 2008 at 05:14 |
^ I think that is a fair observation Olav, I cannot imagine that any radically new opinions are going to appear any time soon.
The way Prog Related and Proto-Prog works is not like the normal genre teams: An SC proposes a band to us, we evaluate it and allow the SC to add the band or not. We do not scour the forum looking for bands to add, and we don't add bands ourselves.
So, if *someone* of SC status wants to propose them for addition, they know the routine (...they PM Bob).
|
|
What?
|
|
MikeEnRegalia
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21149
|
Posted: September 17 2008 at 05:43 |
|
I think that honor should fall to Certif1ed ... if he can settle for prog-related.
@Certif1ed: I read the last post where you compared Metallica with King Crimson. I think it's obvious that even on Master of Puppets or AJFA were several levels below King Crimson in terms of "Progressiveness", yet still several levels above their peer. I think that prog-related is the perfect place for them on this website.
|
|
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Should Metallica be in the forum?
