Should Metallica be in the forum? - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

Certif1ed

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559

Posted: September 09 2008 at 05:43

npjnpj wrote:

Well, watcha know; A mate of mine gave me a copy of the new Metallica album two days ago and I've only realised that it hasn't even been released yet. I wonder how he got hold of it. Lars Ulrich is going to have kittens!

^Can't find it now, but I read a very recent interview with Lars, who says he's very happy that the album has leaked, as he can't wait for fans to hear it.

I think he's finally realised that giving the music away really doesn't hurt bands, but being hypocritical does.

Edited by Certif1ed - September 09 2008 at 05:44

The important thing is not to stop questioning.

akin

Forum Senior Member

Joined: February 06 2004
Location: Brazil
Status: Offline
Points: 976

Posted: September 09 2008 at 07:53

MikeEnRegalia wrote:

zafreth wrote:

Avantgardehead wrote:

Sheesh, if you guys really want to review Metallica albums and discuss them, why don't you all join Metal-Archives? Way more like-minded people there than on here...

First Thanks Avantgardehead to pass the tip and looking to some reviews about And Justice for All this catch my attetion, here's:

"Done by THE GHOUL on 13 of april of 2008.

Let me establish something first: I never considered Metallica anything new or original, even in their glory days. Kill Em' All was raw, beer-fueled aggression, sure, and Ride the Lightening was pure thrash to the core. But it had been done before, by bands better at it, in greater quantities. Most of the riffs that made Ride the Lightening and Kill Em' All great were Mustaine riffs, and you could definitely start to hear the absence of Mustaine on Master of Puppets. And on this, you can REALLY hear the absence of Mustaine, as well as the lack of any bass presence whatsoever (Newsted isn't to blame, it's the band and the producer), lending it a rather one dimensional sound.

I don't hear much of Mustaine type riffs in most early Metallica songs. Jump In The Fire is the only one which comes to my mind. To me this seems like something which a fanatical Mustaine/Megadeth fan would write ... not a very balanced view, to say the least.

I have a theory that Hetfield was never really a riff genius. He wrote some great lyrics back in the days when they went through rough times (loser lunch, anybody?), and hell, he's come up with a good riff or two. But most of the good riffs from Kill Em' All and Ride the Lightening were most likely written by Mustaine.

Ridiculous.

Metallica didn't dramatically sell out with the Black Album, Load/Reload, and St. Anger. James/Lars (the other two don't really have any creative control, it seems) have have been sellouts long before it showed any signs, even back in the Master of the Puppets days. Why do I mention that album? Because it's basically a facsimile of Ride the Lightening, but instead of being fresh and innovative, it was tired and boring, the "epic" songs long and meandering and the thrash songs copies of past genius.

The albums are very, very different.

Remember when they went on MTV for the first time, and spent the speech whining and bitching about how they didn't get their MTV? They've always wanted money and fame. It's just that when the tide of music started turning, and metal wasn't so popular anymore, they tried making a modern rock album (Load) and when Numetal was really popular, they made a numetal album (St. Anger).

Nu Metal was long gone when St. Anger was recorded ... again, he doesn't know what he's talking about. Besides - show me one nu metal album with that snare sound ... Wink

What does that have to do with ...And Justice For All? Everything. It was made with the same mentality as the Black Album, Load/Reload, and St. Anger. That is, they write songs for the fans, not themselves. They don't use introspection to create metal that came from the depths of their soul, they just write what they think the fans will like, what will be popular. It shows, here, because even though it's touted as progressive thrash, it's not real progressive, and it's really more heavy metal than thrash metal. More specifically, Metallica wanted to create music that was "epic" and slower than their usual fare. That's a good intention and all, but it's entirely disingenuous if there's no real desire for change. See, Metallica are using the same riffs, Kirk doing the same solos, and Lars doing the same drum patterns as always. They wanted to change for superficial reasons, and because of that, little actual change occured.

AJFA was very different from the previous albums ... not just the sound, but also the attitude, it's much more bitter. And what's that thing about "real thrash" ... please, most fans have their own opinion. To some it's Megadeth, to some it's Slayer ... to some it's Metallica.

Having heard music made around the same time attempting the same thing but doing it several times better, ...And Justice For All can't help but sound mediocre. James is a mostly pentatonic riff writer, and you can't really do "epic" with pentatonic riffs, and that's what he tries to do here a lot, and it comes off sounding cheesy and half-baked. His gruff bark, which works for thrash, doesn't work for epics. His cleaner style sounds forced and rather thin, akin to another heavy metal giant of the period, Jon Oliva. Both are better off barking along to pugilistic heavy metal than singing along to more ballad-y music. As well, the "yeah"s and the "uh-huh"s and other cliche'd rockstar-isms Hetfield uses are annoying as hell, and further detract from the seriousness of what they're attempting.

Stop telling us what sucks, tell us who did it better, and how.

But it takes much more terrible vocals to ruin good music, but, alas, if ...And Justice For All had good music. It doesn't. It has mediocre riffs with mediocre solos on top of mediocre drumlines. The bass, of course, doesn't factor in at all. Of course, Justice for All is nowhere near as aggravatingly MTV as the Black Album nor is it as downright embarrassing as Load/Reload and St. Anger, as this is years before Hetfield & Co. started scraping the bottom of the artistic barrel."

Wow ... the worst review I've read in - at least a few weeks. Wink

For me it was a fair review, with arguments that can only be contradicted in subjective terms. When people state that this is the worst review they have read for weeks, it is clear that it is biased because people are trying so hard to contradict any argument against Metallica being prog. There is a strong obsession of some members to track every post saying that Metallica is not prog and trying to refute the arguments given using personal opinions and personal attacks, and calling it a rational position. The general consensus and silence of every other serious source in the world about Metallica being prog other than in PA or PA areas of influence is a clear prove that people here are lacking good judgement. I'm about to throw up every time I see a Prog Metal thread, not because Prog Metal, but because every discussion ends with the same people trying to convince the others how Prog Metal is Metallica.

Considering that the focus of the site is to evaluate and add as many prog bands as it is possible, all Metallica discussions are fruitless and against site policies, since every time a person is frustrated with the disapproval of a certain band, the person is recommended to stop pushing the addition of that band and concentrate in other bands, but since I returned to the forums after a break, I have seem many Special Collabs focused only in adding Metallica to PA. People here know that, despite being rejected by the site owner, some collabs will sneak Metallica sooner or later by the Prog Metal team. They just want other people to resign these fruitless discussions and then have in their pocket that Metallica was discussed but there has been a long time that no against argument surfaced (or use this argument to "convince" the site owners). It is already happening and no one will be surprised anymore to see another band in the database that is considered prog only in PA.

Certif1ed

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559

Posted: September 09 2008 at 08:25

^The site owners have rethought all by themselves, no-one has presented a counter-argument, and Dream Theater admit that Metallica were playing that kind of music before they did. What more do you want?

That review is pretty bad - it starts with the premise that Metallica did nothing new, when all the evidence is to the contrary on 5 separate albums.

He says it's all been done before without examples. He doesn't state what was done before.

Who were these bands that went before that were better at it, I'd like to know.

The Mustaine riffs only make up part of Kill 'Em All, and in fact the Mustaine compositions are the weakest, from a progressive standpoint. Preference of riffs doesn't enter into the equation, but FWIW, I prefer the Hetfield/Hammet compositions to the Mustaine ones, which tend to be over repetitive ("Four Horsemen" for example).

Ride the Lightning contains virtually NO Mustaine riffs - indeed, the writer omits the fact that it contains many Burton riffs ("For Whom The Bell Tolls") which are very strong indeed.

Master of Puppets is Metallica's best, IMO, so if Mustaine is absent from that album, so much the better - it just underlines the point that this line of inquiry is futile and proves the opposite of what it is trying to claim!

Also, quick point: Newstead didn't play on Master of Puppets - he first played on ...And Justice For All.... maybe that's just the way it reads - it looks like he's still referring to MoP, but maybe he isn't after all...

Interestingly, it was quite probably Metallica's first appearance on MTV (playing "One" at an awards ceremony, IIRC) that started the swing towards modern metal, and The Black Album and all its attendant singles that really kicked off Modern AND Nu Metal, leading to the rise of Progressive Metal later in the decade.

The riffs, solos and drum patterns on "AJFA" sound different to earlier ones to me - I'm not sure what planet the reviewer is on, and it's a pity he didn't explain what he meant using examples. You might just as well say that all metal sounds like Black Sabbath or Judas Priest and leave it there.

(Here's an Objective counter-argument for you, akin - can't argue with the facts!)

Talking of the riffs, they're not really Pentatonic, are they? Tritonic would be more accurate.

Since when has there been a flattened fifth or a sharpened fourth in a major or minor Pentatonic scale?

Some music theory knowledge is helpful to people who use the phrases - if you don't know what they mean, then any musician will be able to see through the lack of knowledge and see the bile underneath.

...so it's not a fair review - it makes stuff up and draws on straw-manning to make all the relevant points - and a simple examination reveals all the "factual" stuff to be no better than lies, and the straw-manning to be inaccurate to the point that one would suspect he'd made it all up in order to make the band match his low opinion of them.

It's fair enough not to like a band and their music - but to make stuff up to make them look worse?

That is not fair in my book.

Edited by Certif1ed - September 09 2008 at 08:34

The important thing is not to stop questioning.

MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Online
Points: 21149

Posted: September 09 2008 at 08:39

^ that was also my main point when I criticised the review ... there are so many factual mistakes that I'm having a hard time accepting his opinion, since I fear that it has no objective basis. Be that as it may, I'd like to point out that the criticism - or the review itself for that matter - had very little to do with Metallica's progressiveness.

Recently listened to:

Petrovsk Mizinski View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

Joined: December 24 2007
Location: Ukraine
Status: Offline
Points: 25210

Posted: September 09 2008 at 09:14

zafreth wrote:

Avantgardehead wrote:

Sheesh, if you guys really want to review Metallica albums and discuss them, why don't you all join Metal-Archives? Way more like-minded people there than on here...

First Thanks Avantgardehead to pass the tip and looking to some reviews about And Justice for All this catch my attetion, here's:

"Done by THE GHOUL on 13 of april of 2008.

Who did it before, which bands?

Newsted had nothing to do with MoP, THE GHOUL is talking complete garbage there.

Dave Mustaine only wrote 4 songs off KEA and 2 songs from RTL. Dave Mustaine had very very little to do with the overall writing process on RTL, and had writing credits for 4 songs off KEA.

I have a theory that Hetfield was never really a riff genius. He wrote some great lyrics back in the days when they went through rough times (loser lunch, anybody?), and hell, he's come up with a good riff or two. But most of the good riffs from Kill Em' All and Ride the Lightening were most likely written by Mustaine.

THE GHOUL doesn't even give examples of which riffs he thinks are great, losing even more credibility here.

I liked every riff from the first two albums..... and what do you know, James Hetfield wrote the majority of them.

Metallica didn't dramatically sell out with the Black Album, Load/Reload, and St. Anger. James/Lars (the other two don't really have any creative control, it seems) have have been sellouts long before it showed any signs, even back in the Master of the Puppets days. Why do I mention that album? Because it's basically a facsimile of Ride the Lightening, but instead of being fresh and innovative, it was tired and boring, the "epic" songs long and meandering and the thrash songs copies of past genius.

MoP is so much different from RTL. Orion for example, has a large chunk written in A major.

From what I remember, there is not a single song from RTL that had any parts written in A major.

He obviously has no musical education... anyone with some degree of music theory knowledge would be able to tell you from the A major key signature usage alone (let alone so many other things), that MoP has sections vastly different from that of RTL.

Remember when they went on MTV for the first time, and spent the speech whining and bitching about how they didn't get their MTV? They've always wanted money and fame. It's just that when the tide of music started turning, and metal wasn't so popular anymore, they tried making a modern rock album (Load) and when Numetal was really popular, they made a numetal album (St. Anger).

St Anger is a heavy metal album.

Nu Metal has far different musical traits from St Anger.

THE GHOUL loses more points showing a lack of knowledge between two very different sub genres of metal.

What does that have to do with ...And Justice For All? Everything. It was made with the same mentality as the Black Album, Load/Reload, and St. Anger. That is, they write songs for the fans, not themselves. They don't use introspection to create metal that came from the depths of their soul, they just write what they think the fans will like, what will be popular. It shows, here, because even though it's touted as progressive thrash, it's not real progressive, and it's really more heavy metal than thrash metal. More specifically, Metallica wanted to create music that was "epic" and slower than their usual fare. That's a good intention and all, but it's entirely disingenuous if there's no real desire for change. See, Metallica are using the same riffs, Kirk doing the same solos, and Lars doing the same drum patterns as always. They wanted to change for superficial reasons, and because of that, little actual change occured.

Again, demonstrating a severe lack of knowledge of music.

Having heard music made around the same time attempting the same thing but doing it several times better, ...And Justice For All can't help but sound mediocre. James is a mostly pentatonic riff writer, and you can't really do "epic" with pentatonic riffs, and that's what he tries to do here a lot, and it comes off sounding cheesy and half-baked. His gruff bark, which works for thrash, doesn't work for epics. His cleaner style sounds forced and rather thin, akin to another heavy metal giant of the period, Jon Oliva. Both are better off barking along to pugilistic heavy metal than singing along to more ballad-y music. As well, the "yeah"s and the "uh-huh"s and other cliche'd rockstar-isms Hetfield uses are annoying as hell, and further detract from the seriousness of what they're attempting.

Mostly pentatonic? I would say THE GHOUL is not just "mostly idiot" but a complete moron.

Metallica used Ionian riffs, Aeolian riffs, Phyrgian riffs, the blues scale, tritones and chromatics and if you want to be pedantic, Enter Sandman has an E Locrian riff in it (although arguably just an E Minor Blues riff).

The GHOUL is not getting into Boston Berklee Music college anytime this century.

But it takes much more terrible vocals to ruin good music, but, alas, if ...And Justice For All had good music. It doesn't. It has mediocre riffs with mediocre solos on top of mediocre drumlines. The bass, of course, doesn't factor in at all. Of course, Justice for All is nowhere near as aggravatingly MTV as the Black Album nor is it as downright embarrassing as Load/Reload and St. Anger, as this is years before Hetfield & Co. started scraping the bottom of the artistic barrel."

Riffs that had up until AJFA had been written, were previously unexplored. Drum patterns that proved to be hugely influential and some of which were unheard of in the history of heavy metal before.

Let me also make it clear again, for those that aren't aware, I like Megadeth more than Metallica.

THE GHOUL makes up blantantly incorrect information in his review, absolutely garbage review.

MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Online
Points: 21149

Posted: September 09 2008 at 09:33

^ he's talking about AJFA here, guys ... the review is about that album.

Recently listened to:

Avantgardehead View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: December 29 2006
Location: Dublin, OH, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1170

Posted: September 09 2008 at 15:05

Certif1ed wrote:

It all looks good to me (I suppose it would, as I put much of it forward) - which part(s) of the rationalization look suspect?

It seems like everyone is being blinded by their love for Metallica and pointing out things that aren't exactly prog in order to get them here. The things I've seen that were said about Metallica aren't exactly original and are common traits of metal in general.

They are/were thrash metal, albeit a little more long-winded than ordinary thrash and I guess that qualifies as prog metal these days...

http://www.last.fm/user/Avantgardian

Windhawk

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 28 2006
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 11401

Posted: September 09 2008 at 15:36

Avantgardehead wrote:

The things I've seen that were said about Metallica aren't exactly original and are common traits of metal in general.

They are/were thrash metal, albeit a little more long-winded than ordinary thrash and I guess that qualifies as prog metal these days...

Can't agree with you there mate. I followed the scene back then, being an old metalhead and an avid metal fan in the early 80's, and Metallica most certainly did not play what was regarded as standard thrash back then. Compare them to their peers and what they made back then - Slayer, Anthrax, Testament, Holy Moses, Death Angel, Avenger, Nasty Savage, Agent Steel, Possessed, Flotsam & Jetsam, Bathory....to name a few acts I remember from the top of my head.

25 years later much of what Metallica did has become standard indeed, but back then this stuff was highly innovative. Of their contemporaries Celtic Frost is probably the only band in the genre with a similar impact on music; although their avant-garde and boundary-breaking explorations inspired and influenced a completely different crowd in the world of music; some of which can be found in the extreme metal section of this site today.

The question isn't whether Metallica were innovative or influential though, and their impact on prog metal is undeniable. Their progressive elements aren't questioned by many either - the discussion now is mainly if the band has enough of those to be included as related or as full fledged prog metal - of which I think the former is more correct IF they should be included.

Denying their innovations and their craft doesn't help the debate progress...so to speak. There are many valid arguments against adding Metallica here though - but denying what they did isn't one in my opinion.

Websites I work with:

http://www.progressor.net
http://www.houseofprog.com

My profile on Mixcloud:
https://www.mixcloud.com/haukevind/

The T

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493

Posted: September 09 2008 at 15:57

Certif1ed wrote:

The T wrote:

...external viewers who have the classical narrow definition of prog-metal.

Can you please remind me of what this is... I must be the only person who doesn't know it

You know... "long songs with keyboards and odd time signatures and lng instrumental sections"... the narrow definition that leaves out anything that doesn't have this elements...

Certif1ed

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 08 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 7559

Posted: September 10 2008 at 03:01

Avantgardehead wrote:

Certif1ed wrote:

It all looks good to me (I suppose it would, as I put much of it forward) - which part(s) of the rationalization look suspect?

That doesn't actually answer the question, but raises a great many in my mind;

Which things have been pointed out that "aren't exactly prog"? Are you talking about Prog Rock or Prog Metal?

Which things "aren't exactly original?" Obviously the music came from somewhere - you could argue that there's nothing new under the sun, but that would surely be to ignore the new aspects that Metallica brought.

Which bits are common traits? Do you mean common to metal since Metallica did them, or traits that have always been part of metal? Again, aren't you ignoring the newer aspects that Metallica brought to the genre?

Thrash is certainly an element of much Prog Metal - but not all of it, and it was a significant element of early Metallica - but they did a lot more than simply thrash, and that's where the Prog Metal qualifications lie. Windhawk's post clarifies much of this, and some of Hughes' comments about Ghoul's shredded (sic) review give technical detail.

The T wrote:

Certif1ed wrote:

The T wrote:

...external viewers who have the classical narrow definition of prog-metal.

Can you please remind me of what this is... I must be the only person who doesn't know it

You know... "long songs with keyboards and odd time signatures and lng instrumental sections"... the narrow definition that leaves out anything that doesn't have this elements...

This would suggest that Keyboards are the missing element here - every other box seems to be ticked.

The important thing is not to stop questioning.

MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Online
Points: 21149

Posted: September 10 2008 at 03:32

Avantgardehead wrote:

They are/were thrash metal, albeit a little more long-winded than ordinary thrash and I guess that qualifies as prog metal these days...

If that was true, many more metal bands would be discussed ... but that's not the case. Maybe there's more to music than your over-simplification suggests ("long-winded") ... and if you, as your login name suggests - like avant-garde music, you should know that.

Edited by MikeEnRegalia - September 10 2008 at 03:36

Recently listened to:

b_olariu

Prog Reviewer

Joined: March 02 2007
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 5532

Posted: September 12 2008 at 05:54

No, no, no, no i don't want to see them here. Why, because they are NOT even close to what is called progressive music or related progressive music. From where do you got this idea that Metallica are related in any way with progressive music. They are simply trash in the early days (the '80's) and now they are mixed bag of everything even the musicians don't know what they play. Sorry guys but i'm strongly against the addition here.

Petrovsk Mizinski View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

Joined: December 24 2007
Location: Ukraine
Status: Offline
Points: 25210

Posted: September 12 2008 at 06:04

b_olariu wrote:

No, no, no, no i don't want to see them here. Why, because they are NOT even close to what is called progressive music or related progressive music.

Explain why. You're argument is incredibly weak and is almost groundless.

From where do you got this idea that Metallica are related in any way with progressive music. They are simply trash in the early days (the '80's) and now they are mixed bag of everything even the musicians don't know what they play. Sorry guys but i'm strongly against the addition here.

"From where do you got this idea that Metallica are related in any way with progressive music" I guess you haven't bothered to read much of this thread at all.

Didn't know "trash" was a genre... enlighten me on this please Wink

"even the musicians don't know what they play"
Why do you feel this is the case?

MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Online
Points: 21149

Posted: September 12 2008 at 06:13

b_olariu wrote:

No, no, no, no i don't want to see them here. Why, because they are NOT even close to what is called progressive music or related progressive music. From where do you got this idea that Metallica are related in any way with progressive music. They are simply trash in the early days (the '80's) and now they are mixed bag of everything even the musicians don't know what they play. Sorry guys but i'm strongly against the addition here.

Thrash. It's called T H R A S H. Trash means waste/garbage, Thrash means this.

BTW: If you don't think that Metallica are progressive - that's fine with me, but I'd really like to know why you think that way. Many people here gave specific reasons why they think they are at least prog related, the least you could do - if you expect us to change our minds - would be to point out where those reasons were wrong.

Recently listened to:

Ricochet

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 27 2005
Location: Nauru
Status: Offline
Points: 46301

Posted: September 12 2008 at 06:15

Perhaps the joke/ attentioning regarding "trash/thrash" can be put aside, not everyone masters English perfectly...

(just to note, I am of the same nationality with b_olariu, but this is also the second or third time you pick on his "trash", that's the reason for my intervention... Tongue

)

Edited by Ricochet - September 12 2008 at 06:16

b_olariu

Prog Reviewer

Joined: March 02 2007
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 5532

Posted: September 12 2008 at 06:21

Come on HughesJB4, you need to much explenations about something that doesn't need to be here. Doesn't mean if they were much more complex band than the average trash ones is progressive, simply as that. It's true i don't bother to ready 21 pages of something that doesn't belong here - this Metallica disscusions, again simply as that. And to remind you Trash is a genre , Metallica, Slayer, Anthrax, Death Angel, Testament, etc were and still are among top bands of this genre, they made this so called TRASH music. If i was rude with this response, this is how i feel about addig Metallica here. I have nothing against them, i like'em, but i don't want to read something about them here on PA, they must be on metal site. And from Metallica 1991, they were going done to the bottom, lates albums are uninspired, unintristing, comercial, only the name Metallica save them to become a forgetable band.

b_olariu

Prog Reviewer

Joined: March 02 2007
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 5532

Posted: September 12 2008 at 06:24

Yes a know Thrash - sorry sorry, my mistake, i was in a hurry

MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Online
Points: 21149

Posted: September 12 2008 at 06:24

Ricochet wrote:

Perhaps the joke/ attentioning regarding "trash/thrash" can be put aside, not everyone masters English perfectly...

(just to note, I am of the same nationality with b_olariu, but this is also the second or third time you pick on his "trash", that's the reason for my intervention... Tongue

)

I'll continue picking on it everytime I see it ... it's how I am! LOL

Recently listened to:

Petrovsk Mizinski View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

Joined: December 24 2007
Location: Ukraine
Status: Offline
Points: 25210

Posted: September 12 2008 at 06:40

b_olariu wrote:

Come on HughesJB4, you need to much explenations about something that doesn't need to be here. Doesn't mean if they were much more complex band than the average trash ones is progressive, simply as that.

Yeah okay, but you don't bother to explain why you don't think it is progressive or why it wasn't more complex than other thrash bands... I'm sorry, but it makes your argument about as strong as an ant trying to push over a brick wall.
It is more than reasonable to challenge someone that doesn't provide any real basis for their arguments.
Again, you explain absolutely nothing.

If someone were to say "Don't buy this product because it's not good" and if someone were to say not only state that, but provide good evidence why and provide real strong reasoning behind it, who would be more likely to persuade?
I certainly wouldn't go with the idiot that tells me "ohhh, because it's not that good" and leaves it at that(not implying you're an idiot, but you get my point).

It's true i don't bother to ready 21 pages of something that doesn't belong here - this Metallica disscusions, again simply as that. And to remind you Trash is a genre , Metallica, Slayer, Anthrax, Death Angel, Testament, etc were and still are among top bands of this genre, they made this so called TRASH music. If i was rude with this response, this is how i feel about addig Metallica here. I have nothing against them, i like'em, but i don't want to read something about them here on PA, they must be on metal site. And from Metallica 1991, they were going done to the bottom, lates albums are uninspired, unintristing, comercial, only the name Metallica save them to become a forgetable band.

Yeah okay, I only have Metallica's first four studio albums, because I simply am not interested in the rest.
But whether or not Metallica went downhill or not is completely irrelevant.
I'm not a fanyboy of the band obviously... I would go so far as to say St Anger is one the biggest atrocities ever made in the music world, but what the hell does that have to do with bands inherent progressiveness that I believe was shown in several of their albums?
I don't need educating on thrash metal (no offense intended)... I'm quite aware of the history surrounding it and have been an avid fan of the genre for some time now

You stated what I believed to be the case... you didn't read the 21 pages of this thread.
Go back, read some of the arguments here and see if you can state a better case, because I don't see anything in your argument that hasn't already been covered ad nauseam and was counter argued with a significantly stronger and much more well grounded argument.

Ricochet

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 27 2005
Location: Nauru
Status: Offline
Points: 46301

Posted: September 12 2008 at 06:44

Well, despite all these arguments I'm invited to check back, I instead just read that Metallica won't be ever added, and it was enough for me. Tongue

A point of observation, if I may again: both the original post of this thread and, in fact, your first post in the thread, Hugues, don't point out why Metallica should be prog. In fact, the first person to start on arguments is T (as expected, of course). Maybe this "why" questioning is bit too directed against the nay-sayers, given that the yes-sayers already elaborated 21 pages of arguments and, who knows, might even consider they've got infailable points going on there...

Edited by Ricochet - September 12 2008 at 06:50

Poll Question: Should Metallica be in the forum?
Poll Choice	Votes	Poll Statistics
Yes	36	[37.89%]
No	59	[62.11%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted