Metallica?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Suggest New Bands and Artists
Forum Description: Suggest, create polls, and classify new bands you would like included on Prog Archives
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=37985
Printed Date: November 24 2024 at 11:40
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Metallica?
Posted By: The T
Subject: Metallica?
Date Posted: May 15 2007 at 17:10
Well, the search option sucks, and my laziness to use it sucks, too. I will go against everything I said some three months ago in an unrelated thread about another band and say that now that I've heard Metallica's albums more than years since the last time I did, and with a LOT of prog-metal in my bloodstream, I'm ready to recognize the fact that Hetfield, Ulrich and the others deserve a spot here as much as Iron Maiden did. I know I'll get some violence because of this (so, let me act ahead of you... ... Ok... ), but it's just undeniable that without Metallica, even that band I tolerate, Dream Theater, , wouldn't exist, and when we look at the history of metal and how thrash was being developed, there's no other band that actually progressed and made metal progress as this band did. Maybe for symphonic prog they didn't do anything... But for progressive-metal, one of prog's most important genres today, whether we like it or not, Metallica was the cornerstone. I'd say that the mix that generated prog-metal is Rush+Iron Maiden+Metallica, with a little bit of Sabbath, Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple... Of these, 4 are already here. I don't know about Sabbath, but when you hear theevolution from Kill 'Em All to the evolved-thrash of Ride The Lightning to the actual progressive metal of Master of Puppets and And justice for All, to how they finally destroyed what thrash was about releasing a fantastic mature metal album as the Black album, where riffs have their shiniest moment of glory, I'd say there could be no doubt.
Of course the genre would be an issue: proto-prog? (in the 80's?
 ), prog-metal? (the best maybe), prog-related (awful , doesn't work here IMHO)......What do you think? Please, stop the madness and the violence... ... I don't want to be stoned.... ------------- 
|
Replies:
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: May 15 2007 at 17:11
|
No, no, no, no, no. I get where you're coming for, T, but no. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: NutterAlert
Date Posted: May 15 2007 at 17:15
 Stop! Stop, will you?! Stop that! Stop it! Now, look! No one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle! Do you understand?! Even, and I want to make this absolutely clear, even if he did say 'Metallica'. ------------- Proud to be an un-banned member since 2005 |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 15 2007 at 17:16
yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. Seriously, Metallica's masterpiece Master of Puppets is much more progressive than anything that Iron Maiden ever recorded. Not very humble, but my opinion.  ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to: 
|
Posted By: paolo.beenees
Date Posted: May 15 2007 at 17:28
If you add Metallica, I expect a spot also for Celtic Frost and Mercyful Fate. 
erm... I almost forgot King Diamond... forgive me Kim! ------------- 
|
Posted By: Ed_The_Dead
Date Posted: May 15 2007 at 17:31
|
no... just no! ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/ed_the_dead/?chartstyle=asimpleblue5"> 
|
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: May 15 2007 at 17:43
No, the point isn't to turn this site into an all-metal site, no. But Metallica was a cornerstone, probably THE influence for progressive-metal, they influenced SO many of today's prog-metallers... And, anyway, looking at their work and the time in music history, their music is prog-metal by its own merits, even if they hadn't influenced anybody!
If you're going to stone me, please, try to aim for the middle area.... -------------
|
paolo.beenees wrote:Posted By: akin
Date Posted: May 15 2007 at 17:59
|
This was already discussed and this issue falls in the realm of the great prog-related problem. I don't like very much Metallica, I don't see any progressiveness in their music and if I had a prog site it would be forbidden to mention Metallica on it, but I don't care what the team members or admins may decide. |
Posted By: enteredwinter
Date Posted: May 15 2007 at 22:33
|
You raise a valid point, but a very similar argument could be made for Black Sabbath, Megadeth, and many other bands that are considered heavy metal but not prog. Before we knew it, it would look like we should be including almost any heavy metal band that may have influenced prog-metal, and it would just get out of hand. Sure, certain additions, such as Iron Maiden, probably opened up a floodgate for this kind of addition. However, I say close the floodgate, instead of opening it further, or the site is going to start losing a lot of credibility. Either we'd become "ProgArchives with MetalArchives included!", which makes no sense, or the people who run the site would have an increasingly difficult time trying to justify not including certain metal bands. IMO, better to put a halt to this kind of thing before it devolves into one of those two scenarios. ------------- 
|
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: May 15 2007 at 23:55
I understand that approach and I'm ready to shut up in the matter for the reasons you mentioned. But only as a talking point, I'd say Sabbath and Metallica only. Megadeth and other metal bands, while good, didn't have the musical elements nor the importance and influence of these two in progressive-metal. I'd say as much of maybe more than Iron Maiden. What I say is: if progressive-metal is an integral part of our site (and a large one at that), we could find room for arguably the grandfathers. We have one (Iron Maiden), we have some other that are related (LZ, Deep Purple).
But as you say, maybe it's better not to think about this. -------------
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: May 16 2007 at 00:02
|
I'd say no.. and I grew up in S.F., they were our boys.
and T, you say you don't want to be stoned, but I think you already are (  kidding)
|
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: May 16 2007 at 00:10
 -------------
|
Posted By: Cheesecakemouse
Date Posted: May 16 2007 at 01:49
|
Hell no, Metellica is a joke just like the Sex Pistols or Liberace
------------- |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 16 2007 at 02:22
so many negative general comments, but nobody explains to me why Master of Puppets isn't prog. I assume that most posters here simply don't know the album and judge the band based on Enter Sandman and Until it Sleeps (if not, *please* elaborate). ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Cheesecakemouse
Date Posted: May 16 2007 at 02:27
Please don't take offence but I find Metellica to be 'thug rock' like Sex Pistols, AC/DC, Def Leppard etc. Which is pretty much the antithesis of prog. After all you listen to prog to get away from such (how shall I put this) 'stuff'. ------------- |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 16 2007 at 02:34
ok, I guess you really don't know the album.------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Cheesecakemouse
Date Posted: May 16 2007 at 02:38
Yeah you've got me there  .But the rest of their discography isn't prog? ------------- |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: May 16 2007 at 02:53
|
*sigh*
It's the same as it always was - 1,000's of people ready to say "NO" without a single thought.
There are strong arguments for why - ie, they practically invented Prog Metal, and were far more progressive as a band than, for example, Iron Maiden (there are plenty more, but until there is ONE SINGLE ARGUMENT that is convincing on the "No" side of the fence, these will do).
Just because you don't SEE progressiveness in their music, it doesn't mean it isn't there - it is, in fact, in spades - more so than some accepted Progressive Rock bands (who I won't name or shame).
Even "Kill 'Em All" is progressive, from a strict point of view - it's not simply thrash, and there are so many influences that the album represents the start of a new genre. Lyrically, much of it is in the fantasy realm - like Prog Rock, the riffs are not just metal riffs - they enter a new dimension - the structures are complex and the playing is superior to Iron Maiden (as a single example) at the time.
I do agree with Celtic Frost - with bands like Death and VoiVod already in the archives, their ommission is puzzling, and to some extent, Megadeth.
Black Sabbath are a less concrete case - unless they're filed under "Proto" or "Prog-Metal Related", which is fair enough - especially since Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple are here - it doesn't make much sense to leave out the final part of the triangle.
To compare Metallica to the Sex Pistols, AC/DC or Def Leppard is to not have listened to the music. Sure, the attitude is born of a similar aggression, but there are plenty of Prog bands with that kind of aggression as the root of their music, and including elements from other genres is a significant part of Prog. Metallica's music (until their self-titled album) was NEVER simple or straightforward like those three luminaries.
So YES.
Metallica belong here - I've been saying this since I joined, and it's good to see that people who have actually thought about this rationally agree.
/edit: And when talking about bands at the root of Prog Metal, don't forget Judas Priest or the Scorpions - I'm not arguing for the inclusion of either, but both are at least as - if not more - significant than Iron Maiden.
/edit 2: I tracked down some Mercyful Fate albums, and I get where supporters are coming from, but unfortunately, Metallica trumped them severely. While the 'Fate's riffs are glorious, they are still strongly rooted in Judas Priest, and unlike Priest (at least, on the albums I've heard), made no use of the alternate pick thrashing technique that Metallica evolved so successfully. Priest are the stronger link in the chain for historical reasons - 'Fate just happened to have a similar but more polished sound, and from what I can hear, didn't really evolve it (read:Progress). ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 16 2007 at 03:03
The following album (...And Justice For All) was very technical and could be seen as prog-related because it's very technical and complex regarding to song structure (much more dedicated to form than any other Thrash Metal album I know), and there are some single tracks on the previous albums that are quite "proggy", most of all Call of Khtulu. But you're right, I think that only Master of Puppets can be seen as prog (prog-related on this website, prog if you take the word literally). I think this is why most people don't see the connection ... with Iron Maiden the case is simpler, because they have never been very progressive, but consistently so on a greater number of albums. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: May 16 2007 at 03:04
|
but the starter of a new genre often gets left behind in said new genre, like when Led Zep is cited as the first heavy metal band. They may have recorded some of the first 'heavy metal' ('Good Times, Bad Times', 'Communication Breakdown'), but Sabbath brought it all together and presented an, if you will, real or pure kind of heavy rock. Metallica may be in that perpetual protozoic stage, and may not be seen as having the sophistication that Maiden had. Just a thought.
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 16 2007 at 03:08
|
^ Despite the fact that Led Zeppelin don't have anything to do with metal (neither sound-wise nor composition-wise) ... Metallica run circles around Iron Maiden in terms of musicianship, but again you need to know Master of Puppets (and And Justice For All in this case) to understand my point of view. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: May 16 2007 at 03:14
I do, and that's debatable.. I'm just postulating as to the resistance toward Metallica at a prog website. |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: May 16 2007 at 03:28
Metallica had far more sophistication than Maiden - and the specific genre of Metallica's music is different to Maiden's because of the integration of the alternate picking thrash style - don't overlook just how significant this technique is in the formation of Prog Metal.
Led Zep weren't the first heavy metal band - Blue Cheer were, just as Metallica weren't the first thrash band - Judas Priest were.
Metallica brought it all together - and developed Prog Metal (just listen to "Sanitarium" on "Master of Puppets", "One" on "...And Justice for All"... the list goes on). ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: May 16 2007 at 03:39
Except 1, Maiden were more progressive from the very first note 2, Harris formed the band in 1975, 1st album 1980. Metallica formed 1981, first album 1983. When I was road crewing for the Bay Area metal scene (this was back when Kirk was with Exodus) the term 'progressive metal' was just beginning to be batted about, unfortunately few thought of Metallica as PM, wheras Maiden was the definitive ProgMetal band. That perception may have changed since then, of course. |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: May 16 2007 at 03:44
No - not true.
I cannot think of a single example that would prove this - can you?
Time is irrelevant - we're talking about different musical styles.
No-one thought of Genesis, King Crimson, Gentle Giant or Yes as Prog Rock in 1970 - the perception may have changed somewhat... ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Rocktopus
Date Posted: May 16 2007 at 03:49
|
I think neither Deep Purple, Led Zeppelin, Iron Maiden or Metallica's got much to do in a Progarchive. Although I like all of them, as most of the forum-member does. I suspect that's the main reason they are all here. I own all 80's Metallica albums, and have loved them since the late 80's. Metallica surely progressed as a thrash-metal band and sophisticated that genre. To me, you all admitting that progmetal is mainly built on Metallica + NWBHM proves to me that the progressiveness of most other progmetal = nil. Btw: Although I'm against I'd rather have Metallica here, a band that truly progressed than most later DT-school so-called progmetal. ------------- Over land and under ashes In the sunlight, see - it flashes Find a fly and eat his eye But don't believe in me Don't believe in me Don't believe in me |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: May 16 2007 at 03:50
Sure, the first Maiden album ..it contains more complexity, musicality, and what could be thought of a pseudo-classical passages. This is not evident on 'Kill`em All.
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: May 16 2007 at 04:09
|
No - it doesn't contain more complexity or musicality than Kill 'Em All (which is demostrable, BTW) - but you're right about the pseudo classical passages.
However, Metallica didn't just have one single rhythmic approach.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5jaRipA5_M - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5jaRipA5_M
(Phantom of the Opera - remember, Maiden had been gigging for many years, as pointed out and built up a solidity in their sound and confidence with the material)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5I4p6B1yugQ - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5I4p6B1yugQ
(No Remorse - remember, as also pointed out, Metallica hadn't been gigging long - Perhaps not the best example, but reasonable for comparison if you can stick with it!)
------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: May 16 2007 at 04:18
|
Hey Certife1d, you're great, I really respect your tenacity and understanding.. and what great footage! I'd forgotten M opened for Raven ("Kill`em All For One Tour" Thanks.. though I think those videos only prove my point, but no worries.. if Metallica make it on to PA, good for them, I say.
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: May 16 2007 at 04:37
|
I know they're not the best examples - Metallica live videos almost always suck in comparison to a) the albums and b) the experience of being there.
There's no evidence of superior musicality in Iron Maiden though - and as far as complexity is concerned, sure, there's a quiet passage in the Maiden track, but there's at least equal variety in the Metallica song - one thing I've always disliked about Maiden is their tendency to use exactly the same rhythms all the time - something they have never stopped doing, as it is integral to their sound: Once you've heard one Maiden album you've heard the lot from that perspective.
Also, are you telling me that Kirk Hammett doesn't pwn Maiden with his soloing in that clip? He doesn't use excessive effects to hide the bum notes and bluff (they're all there, but harder to spot because there are less of them!).
Another excuse to post more Maiden and Metallica - Yay!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWfx2bY37no - Prowler
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YS_FOpBPUYs - Metal Militia (warning, James' vocals suck more than usual... and spot the allusion to Maiden at 4:30)
(this really proves we're comparing chalk and cheese, but as to which is white and crumbly and which cheesey, that's for you to decide...
 ).The point is that Metallica's thrash style is more innovative and influential than Iron Maiden's distinctive rhythmic variants on the old metal theme - thrash as a style is a direct root of Prog Metal, and can be heard easily in Dream Theater (not to mention specific Metallica riffs  ).------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: May 16 2007 at 04:55
|
yes, good point about Maiden's continual use of trademark patterns, it got quite tiresome, even by NOtB. And yes, Metallica's thrash-isms were, or became, breakthrough (though not very original).
As for Kirk's playing.. he has to be one of the biggest bluffers in the history of metal. True, at that time Dave and Dennis are not enormously better but, though the techniques may be simple as compared to what an Uli Roth or Randy Rhoads were capable of, their playing and innovative twin harmonies were near perfect with *no* bluffing, just polished musicians after years of gigging. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 16 2007 at 05:17
|
^ with all due respect to a fellow collaborator, but you should definitely listen to Master of Puppets and Justice before comparing Metallica to any other band.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: NutterAlert
Date Posted: May 16 2007 at 05:19
|
In spite of their, errm, unusual attraction to sheep and goats, Metallica rock. I agree with Mike that Master of Puppets is an epic.
------------- Proud to be an un-banned member since 2005 |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: May 16 2007 at 05:26
I've listened to both. And yes, Puppets is an epic (and Justice kicks ass), I just can't get past the artistry and new colors Maiden brought to the rock scene, and I don't usually hear that in Metallica.. maybe that's just me. |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: May 16 2007 at 05:37
With all respect, the twin harmonies had to be better, or people would notice. Thin Lizzy did it better
And I don't think that Kirk's solos are bluff - they're carefully put together from the various technical bits and pieces he got from his studies with Joe Satriani. granted, they're not perfect compositions, but they stand out a mile from many metal guitarists at the time - obviously you can't really compare him to Rhoads or Roth - but there's more than a nod or wink to Schenker.
I can't see why you don't appreciate Metallica's thrash-isms (as you put it) to be original - they're far more varied and inventive than Priest or Metal Church, and more coherent than Megadeth or Exodus (even if Mustaine did write half of them on "Kill 'Em All). ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 16 2007 at 05:37
|
^ maybe you simply don't like the colors that Metallica introduced ...
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: BiGi
Date Posted: May 16 2007 at 05:38
I agree with you, Certif1ed! And also with MikeEnRegalia! As a matter of fact the whole Master of Puppets and ...And Justice for All, with their long and complex songs (with plenty of intricate time signatures) do definitely belong in the ProgMetal section! And also many tracks from Kill 'em all! and Ride the Lightning stand out from that point of view! As a matter of fact, anyway, they haven't done anything prog-related since ...And Justice for All, in my opinion! I would be a little more careful about Scorpions: the first two efforts of theirs, however, do contain elements of prog rock (especially the wonderful title track from Fly to the Rainbow) ------------- A flower? 
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: May 16 2007 at 05:42
Yes, perhaps so. They did progress, there's no doubt about it, especially as they matured.. but they didn't seem to have the cleverness and unique linear qualities Maiden had. maybe I'm just Anglocentric when it come to my metal. |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: May 16 2007 at 06:36
|
I haven't read all the posts here, but its a big YES!!! from me. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: May 16 2007 at 14:13
|
I was hearing MASTER OF PUPPETS yesterday... Mi views were totally confirmed.
battery - melodic thrash with a very very intricate, complex riff
masterof pupptes - need I say more? Length,, riffing, structure, melody
the thing that should not be - in the thrash world, such a HEAVY riff and song as this was new. This is one of the most pure HEAVY songs ever.
Sanitarium - structure, length, even tempo changes
Disposable heroes - such an underrated track. the riff is incredible, the dynamics, the change in speed, even some odd time signatures, that song BRED Death, DT and many more. Nobody pays attention to it. It amazed me yesterday.
Leper Messiah - well, this one sucks.....
Orion -need I say more? An 8 minute instrumental with quite a great, GREAT intro, how the bass is slowly joined by the drums and then THE monster riff, then the solos...PLEASE.... EVEN MASTER PETRUCCI wouldn't exist without this.
Damage Inc - the other flawed song, but NOT straight-forward thrash.
And don't get me started in And Justice for All (tomorrow I'll know better)
And I don't agree with the Black album not being progressive... Actually, in a weird way, it's the logical conclusion of all the progression of Metallica since Kill 'Em All, but achieving total conciseness.... All the riffs reduced to their perfect expression, all the multi-sections and dynamic changes reduced to their most punching, effective strength. Sorry, the BLACK album is thrash metal being de-thrashed and "proggesized" into a new, almost perfect in its effect, form of METAL.
Of course, if we talk about St. Anger....
 As Cert1fied said, most of the negative answers have been : "NO", "
", "They suck"... the MUSICAL answers? Those that favor the YES. Because, musically, there's no question about it. -------------
|
Posted By: progismylife
Date Posted: May 16 2007 at 14:34
*throws stone* |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: May 16 2007 at 14:42
*it hits the wall of irrationality and gets back to the legendary poster, hits him in the head and causes him to fall down, lose conciousness, and, un-able to poast for days and days, his record goes down the drain, now merely a memory, this once master-poster*...
and all of this for not agreeing to the most evident of truths: Metallica deserves a spot. -------------
|
Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: May 16 2007 at 14:46
|
Metallica?.....in suggest new bands? ...well at least this makes a change from some of those obscure european bands with un-pronouncable names, god bless 'em...
shall i pass this one up to Jody, then...?
or will they join Black Sabbath on the "rejected" list?
-------------  Prog Archives Tour Van 
|
Posted By: paolo.beenees
Date Posted: May 16 2007 at 15:40
That's the point, T. For the same reason I would remove also the Iron Maiden (and I like them, and know that they play a complex and epic kind of music): if you accept them as "prog related" and would welcome Metallica, you open the way to any advantgarde/complex/epic metal band: Celtic Frost's dark obsessions, Mercyful Fate's complex textures and rythm shifts, King Diamond's neo-gothic concept albums, Manowar's epics... You're right: this would become a metal site. Therefore, weren't it better if we keep this site as it is? -------------
|
Posted By: enteredwinter
Date Posted: May 16 2007 at 17:18
Whoa, hold on there a second. Black album ... prog? I agree on the sentiment that MOP and AJFA give strong arguments for inclusion, but the Black album is really some of the least-proggiest music I've ever heard. Relatively short verse-chorus-verse songs lacking the complexity of their peak, no concept throughout the album as can be seen to some degree in MOP and AJFA ... really now, your argument that they should be included is strong, don't kill it with a "Black album is prog" argument that makes very little sense (IMO). Also, in terms of musical answers favoring "yes", note that my original post, as well as paolo's post above this one, as well as some others, either imply or outright state that people who know Metallica's music are uncomfortable with the slipperly slope this will lead us into ... i.e. downhill towards ProgAndMetalArchives. -------------
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: May 16 2007 at 18:50
|
Posted By: heyitsthatguy
Date Posted: May 16 2007 at 18:57
the flaw I see in this is that they influenced the METAL side of prog-metal, not the PROG side. True, they have a few dramatic changes throughout albums like MOP, and And Justice for All is pretty close to a prog album, but not enough for inclusion on this site, IMO. We can't go adding every band that influenced prog, otherwise we're going to be adding classical composers and early rock acts that have only a vague connection to prog ------------- 
|
Posted By: debrewguy
Date Posted: May 16 2007 at 21:28
So we can't add Uriah Heep ?  ------------- "Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case. |
Posted By: heyitsthatguy
Date Posted: May 16 2007 at 21:43
http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=1157 -------------
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: May 17 2007 at 03:20
One of the points is that they introduced a whole new sound to metal - which in itself is progressive.
However, there ARE significant progressive aspects to the music itself, in all 5 of the basic areas - which is what Prog Metal bands have since buit on;
1. Rhythm - this is the principal area in which Metallica were so progressive - and I agree with The T - right up to and including the Black album.
Although the latter is extremely pared down compared to it's predecessors, it cleverly blends in thrash rhythms with "straight" rhytms that are pure metal. Metallica distilled metal music and made it pure by stripping out the last remains of "swing" - the main ingredient that differentiates metal from rock in a rhythmic sense.
Metallica's approach to rhythm uses the broadest palette of any thrash band in the 1980s; much broader than any metal or "standard" rock band previously. Even Lars, while not the best drummer on the planet ever, drove the rhythm section with a sensitivity that added new range and dynamic to metal, varying the speed and intensity in a manner that's surprisingly subtle. Yes. Subtle.
2. Melody - if we ignore Hetfield for just one moment... (actually, he's not so bad!), Metallica brought new approaches to metal melodies in the guitar riffs, bass lines and solos - which was facilitated by the new approach to riffing. Metallica's melodies are strong, instantly recognisable as their own, and frequently have a modal flavour that I think of as Egyptian ("Creeping Death" is the strongest example). The guitar solo in "Master of Puppets" blew my mind the first time I heard it (on the day the album came out). Hammett may never have been the greatest, but his solos are constructed - composed - from technical building blocks that are easily identified. This compostition (definitely not bluff!!!) is far more rigorous than that of most earlier metal bands (especially Maiden) - as far as I can tell, Michael Schenker stands almost alone in this approach before Metallica. /edit... I just thought of a very few more - but they're still the exception rather than the rule.
3. Timbre - Metallica changed sound for every album, and not all of it was engineering. "Ride The Lightning" has the definitive Prog-Metal sound (minus a few tweaks for clarity), and the next 3 built on that (even if the production on "AJFA" sucks badly...). Their approach to the textures in the music is what Prog Metal is built on - the lights and shades of "Fade to Black" and "Call of Cthulu", for example, rivalled Iron Maiden's lights and shades. This would seem to be one of the very roots of Prog Metal.
4. Harmony. OK, so "KEA" started out with an overdose of Sabbath-esque tritones. "RTL" enters Iron Maiden territory on more than one occasion - but I'm sure (and this is only from memory) that there's modal harmony on there. "MOP" and "AJFA" definitely feature modal harmony - which is a significant portion of the Prog in Prog Metal.
5. Form. While it's true that Iron Maiden did interesting things with form, most of what they did was add twiddly bits between sections. This is not to belittle what they did, just to illustrate the difference. Metallica added sections to the standard song form like building blocks - a bit inelegant and lacking in grace, but totally suited to metal. Not only that, but they varied sections, such that the same riff may feature a different drum pattern, or a riff is changed by a few notes to construct a new one. This is a fundamental feature of Progressive ROCK - an approach that may be found in Genesis "The Musical Box".
In short, Metallica stand alone as a significant if not crucial influence on Prog Metal, just as the Beatles do for Prog Rock (after all, no-one's suggesting we add the Rolling Stones!). ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: May 17 2007 at 07:03
|
Silly me - I forgot to include verifiable examples - here we go;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3HJXTiY_ZY - RIDE THE LIGHTNING (RTL)
Clear evidence of an extended structure, there is twin guitar soloing of at least the sophistication of Iron Maiden, if not more so - note that the use of the thrash technique is for dramatic effect only, not as a mindless basis for the entire song. Note also the contrasting rhythmic sections, and lack of clear verse and chorus. I suspect use of melodic modes from the "Egyptian" sound that flavours the piece, but can't be bothered at this point to analyse to that depth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WElvEZj0Ltw - SANITARIUM (MOP)
OK, the verse riff is "stolen" from Bleak House's "Rainbow Warrior", but the light/heavy structure is clear, as are the clear melodies and variation of riff in order to build a dramatic structure. The "thrash" section is subtle, with off-kilter rhythmic variants - and I for one hear the influence of this song very strongly in Dream Theater's early work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j39ABZyzek - ONE (AJFA).
No need for explanation. ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: May 17 2007 at 07:09
|
Who wants to write the Bio? ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: May 17 2007 at 07:29
|
3 guesses... ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: debrewguy
Date Posted: May 17 2007 at 12:10
And to think I thought Metallica ripped the riff for Sanitarium from their song Fade to Black >>>/ ------------- "Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case. |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: May 17 2007 at 12:48
|
Metallica did the riff a favour... http://www.truemetal.org/battle/remasters1.html - http://www.truemetal.org/battle/remasters1.html (scroll down a bit). ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: May 17 2007 at 13:42
|
I just want to point out aganin the fact that all the answers going for the YES are "slightly" more in-depth and musical than those going for the NO. And I'm not trying to say all nay-sayers are irrational or something, no. But it's very easy to understand a few reasons for this:
Metallica were THE band that really exemplified what metal was in the 80's-90's, and for many adults or almost-adults, it was THE enemy as it was the main carrier of "noise, destruction, violence and suicide" into their houses (let's not forget the Fade to Black thing)... While Slayer, Megadeth and the such were not known by most not-young people (had they known Slayer's "christian"lyirics, oh my God), Metallica was the frontman, the metal band that meant everything that was wrong in the world at that time. Even going past the stupid make-up and alcohol-womanizing antics of the hair-bands, Metallica was much more of a "threat" because it was a more SERIOUS one, a more REAL one. Whereas the hair-bands were so ridiculous that all their "depravation" was seen as another act, the true metal acts were so... real, you could see your boy, your cousin, your neighbour dressed just as an everyday youngster, maybe with no flash, maybe slightly darker than others, but in the end it was REAL, hence the DANGER was real. Many people, even young people not used to "dark" persons, were immediately turned off by metal, and Metallica, though hardly the most violent or "dangerous" band, was without a doubt the most popular, and its name became a synonym with chaos and violence. If your son came with a record from Poison in his hand, the parents would say "oh, crazy young stuff, he'll get over it", the reaction for the same kid having a copy of Master of Puppets with its weird cover full of crosses and red colors (believe me, the connection between the art and the title track and its lyrics doesn't show at first sight) would be of worry. That's just ONE of the reasons for Metallica being rejected so swiftly (and I'm not saying any of you fall into this category, but many could. Even at a subconscious level, that name means infamy).
Also, the name itself: Metallica. There's really no much to question about it. Whereas even names like Celtic Frost convey picturesque ideas that can be more easily related to art, or even a name like DEATH which could be seen as a meaningful, deep name, METALLICA is just a declaration of principles:this band plays METAL. It doesn't have any artsy ring to it, no abstract, painting-like name like Dream Theater, even Iron Maiden (which maybe many not know is not really named after a beautiful, humane device, but a torture one)....these names leave some place to the imagination... METALLICA doesn't. It's clear as water, red as hell: METAL. There can't be no "prog" in such a band, how can a band be progressive if their name doesn't create thousands of possible pictures in my brain?
Yesterday I heard AJFA and while it may be true that the production is so-so (the drums sound like in-your-face cardboard boxes, whilst the bass is almost absent), that album is THE album for metal, even for my band, DT. Without AJFA, there wouldn't have been a I&W, as much as it is painful for me to acknowledge that. (
)... The title track itself should warrant the band its inclusion. Even an erratic drummer as Lars Ulrich plays incredibly... well in this album, with his weird, unique (there's hardly any other drummer whom I could recognize as easily as him), crash-cymbal with snare-drum, following-the-guitar-with-the-drums style, enhances the music. The structures, the riffing, the turning of violence into a coherent musical entity....DEATH is here. Why? Because they play very technical metal. They play riff after riff after riff, no matter how well they connect to each other, but it SOUNDS progressive because the riffs are difficult and the speed and pace at which they change is amazingly difficult to follow, with some weird-sounding off-key bass notes here and there, some 1200 mph double-bass drumming...... But in the end, they're here BECAUSE THEY KNOW HOW TO CHANGE FROM RIFF TO RIFF IN NO TIME. There's not much more than that.
Metallica was THE school of riffing. And the school of HOW TO CREATE A DYNAMIC STRUCTURE with them. One where everything seems glued together coherently, not just by... glue.
Anyway, as long as you don't take THE DREAM out of PA.... -------------
|
Posted By: cuncuna
Date Posted: May 17 2007 at 13:46
I just... NO. ------------- ¡Beware of the Bee! |
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: May 17 2007 at 14:36
|
Well, if Iron Maiden are "progressive" enough for the archives, I can't see how Metallica aren't. The best idea, however, would be to remove the Prog Related and Proto-Prog categories. |
Posted By: akin
Date Posted: May 17 2007 at 17:42
|
There were some pretentious affirmations by some people for the
inclusion of Metallica in the site as if they were the only in
condition to judge whether Metallica is prog or not but the facts speak
for themselves, since Metallica was never relationed with prog apart
for these discussions. Some arguments are correct, but the way you are
talking will lead to nothing because people will accuse you of
fanboyism as they unfortunately made to other Collabs that eventually
quit just because they supported the addition of controvertial acts. Yes, I've heard all their albums (apart for Crap Anger) and I own some of them. I listened many times Master Of Puppets (I used to own a somewhat beaten up record that I later exchanged for better records). I own a cassette from And Justice for All. And I see that there are some elaborated parts in a few songs. Not only in those albums, but in their first two (Kill 'Em All & Ride the Lightning). Even their later albums that people don't like (Load, Reload) have some fine arrangements. Cliff Burton introduced them to a more musical approach in metal, teaching them how to compose in a "classical" way. They are not pure thrash metal and I wouldn't even call them thrash. But from this to prog is the same situation of thousands of bands. They have, let's say, 10 more or less prog songs in their career as many artists. The other argument is the influenced, but the influences are the same of Black Sabbath or Hendrix or Miles Davis or Coltrane or John Cage or Stockhausen or Bach or Beethoven to prog. Of course the fans of prog-metal defend their influence on prog-metal as huge and many fans of fusion defend Davis and Coltrane influences on fusion as huge. The most prog Metallica can be is Prog Related, because compared with Iron Maiden or Led Zepelin, for example, they are at the same level. So if this is the matter, the right thing is to lobby with the owners, because they are who authorize these controvertial additions to the site. |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: May 17 2007 at 17:46
Not neccesarily so. Admin can also decide on a Prog Related addition. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: akin
Date Posted: May 17 2007 at 17:47
Of course, but to these controvertial additions they leave to the owners decide. |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: May 17 2007 at 17:51
No they don't as far as I know. Can you think of an example? ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: May 18 2007 at 04:09
We're not talking about Prog Rock related - although I identified a couple of areas in which Metallica were Prog related.
Prog Metal is different to Prog Rock - which is exactly why Iron Maiden are included here.
You may take my comments as fanboyism if you like, but I can assure you that is not the case - I am not pushing for Metallica to be included in the site because I like them a lot - there is genuine reasoning in my arguments based on observable fact - and even examples that illustrate those facts.
I could care less about their inclusion really, but the ommission has never made sense to me.
I'm not sure why you'd say my arguments are pretentious - as I said, they're based on fact, and are emphatically NOT trying to be something they're not. I'd be interested if you could illustrate the pretentious parts of my arguments so that I can improve my communication of my research and ideas.
The ultimate decision needs to be taken by the Prog Metal team, who are the experts in such matters. All I can do is present evidence and arguments, and I respect their decision even if I don't agree with it. ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 18 2007 at 05:37
|
Iron Maiden were added by the admins ... previously the PMT had rejected the addition unanimously. Metallica were also rejected by the PMT unanimously ... due to the fact that Iron Maiden are now here I reversed my vote to "yes" which in this case means Prog-Related. But since Metallica could only be added as Prog-Related, the PMT chart is no indication of what will actually happen ... you'll have to ask the admins.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: akin
Date Posted: May 18 2007 at 10:07
Nobody is talking about prog rock related or prog metal related, just prog related, since prog rock related and prog metal related and prog fusion related and prog electronic related are the same in essence.
I don't take your comments as fanboyism, but if Metallica is added many people will discharge their hates for the inclusion in those who strongly supported the addition, accusing them of fanboyism, like people already did and led some collabs to quit.
Your first post is pretentious because it states that people who said no didn't think about the subject, when it is not true. ("It's the same as it always was - 1,000's of people ready to say "NO" without a single thought"). The other pretentious post were not yours.
It will not be a PMT decision because they already said they rejected it and even those who are in favour of them hardly say they are Prog, but that they have some proggish songs and they influenced bands, which is a common case for prog related. So the decision is more up to the admins (or owners if they make like in case of Led Zeppelin, when M@X voiced his will to adding them). |
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: May 18 2007 at 10:14
|
This thread and the popular argument of Metallica having a place here is, in my opinion, stretching really dangerously, moreover it was revived after a long "sleep", which is even more curios. By me:
The first ever added and defined progressive Archives bands included (if not started, from the first place, with) around the most of all the best bands and the most representative values of Prog Rock/Prog Genre. Do you think that, if Metallica would have the quintessential taste for Prog Metal, it wouldn't have been added already by now? Do you think that Metallica is really a "forgotten essential band", which wasn't added at the time of shaping up, representatively, the Prog Rock/Prog Genre values? ------------- 
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 18 2007 at 10:34
|
^ to answer your question: I think that Metallica is a band which was always overlooked by the Prog Rock fans ... and when in the 90s Prog Metal became popular the band was already on the decline. It takes some courage to forget the preconceptions and prejudices and judge a band purely by their music and not by their image ... if you do you'll have to agree that Master of Puppets belongs here. Especially in the light of which bands were already included as Prog-Related (Iron Maiden!). ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: akin
Date Posted: May 18 2007 at 10:48
Maybe not. We don't have to agree with your opinion in this matter because defining what is prog and what is not is somewhat subjective. But by listening to their music without preconceptions, one can see that they are almost in the same level of progressiveness than Iron Maiden. So my position in relation of Metallica's inclusion is the same as my position in relation of Iron Maiden's inclusion. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 18 2007 at 10:51
|
^ you're free to disagree, I'm just very sure that I'm right here.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: clarke2001
Date Posted: May 18 2007 at 15:00
Well, one of the best known and most important names in the history jazz rock/fusion, Billy Cobham, had been added to the archives not so long time ago. For the another, this time controversial example, you have Led Zeppelin...they're not really progarchives' "Senior Members". Furthermore, bands are changing, definitions are changing, perhaps even the path that website is following is changing, I guess...if so, I hope it will be for better. So, for Metallica's addition to the site: I say yes, but not yet. Not now. This site is got a huge credibility in the prog rock world; we need that credibility to became monstruously spectacular, and then it will be possible (if necessary and if anyone will be interested) to add artist less-but-still-related to prog without unovaidable controversy harming the website itself. ------------- |
Posted By: Sckxyss
Date Posted: May 19 2007 at 03:09
1000% AGREE
|
Posted By: debrewguy
Date Posted: May 19 2007 at 11:26
So bands that indulge in multiple time/tempo changes, lengthy suite like songs, lyrics that are more serious that typical pop have no place in PA ??? Check out Ride the Lightning, Master of Puppets & And Justice for All. True, their entire discography is not "ultra" prog. But if we're going to tighten up our so called values, are you willing to review all the groups here to ensure that none of them became less prog or released albums that are hard to qualify as prog. Remember that one of the things that supposedly defines prog is the open-mindedness to expanding musical boundaries & going beyond the three minute boy/girl pop single. So if you don't like Metallica, say it. But to presume your "values" reflect 100% of PA's is a bit much. Metallica was very important as an influence on the prog metal scene, and their inclusion would in no way demean the so called values you talk about. And this little tidbit to explain the basic nature of this site - it is a COMMUNITY of like minded music fans. Not a heterogeneous mass of one track thinkers. You have a right to your opinion, just as others do. If you want to make an argument for or against, present it using points that can be debated, not "waste of space", not "shaking up PA values", not the slippery eel that is "the best and most representative" (???) of prog rock/prog genre, nor "bands added dangerously" (?????). There are additions that can be debated, but in the end, their place here was considered by admin based upon their opinion of said act, AND the arguments advanced by our fellow members, whom I would hazard a guess, likely consider their tastes as valid as any other on this site. If you are deeply troubled, explain why. This is a fan based site, not a theoretical dissertation nor an iron-clad last word on what is to be accepted blindly as "it" whatever "it" is supposed to be. Whew, now I'm off to tilt at the next windmill. Off we go Iago. Onward, Bernard. Yippie tie yay Ray. P.S. If you continue, I will start a campaign to have AC/DC & Motorhead included. After all, Lemmy was in a prog band once (Hawkwind), & once a progger, always a progger. We could put them in RIO/Avant-garde as they are monstrously noisy buggers. ------------- "Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case. |
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: May 19 2007 at 11:39
-------------
|
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: May 19 2007 at 14:28
-------------
|
... But its influence was so important that those three-to-four albums really changed everything.....
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: May 19 2007 at 16:20
It is quite clear that there are no reasons to omit Metallica apart from blind prejudice - or are there? ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: magnus
Date Posted: May 19 2007 at 17:45
|
Metallica is the most obvious band that hasn't already been included to prog metal/prog related. MoP and AJFA were prog metal albums, and the previous two had plenty of proggy elements. But I do understand the view of all the naysayers; if you just scratch the surface of their music, it could easily seem like straight forward heavy/thrash metal, and I never really thought about Metallica as a prog-metal band until lately, but now... it's very clear to me, MoP and AJFA are compared to the other Metallica albums perhaps like Argus is to most of Wishbone Ash's discography?(I haven't heard very much Wishbone Ash, so I can't be 100% sure of this) ------------- The scattered jigsaw of my redemption laid out before my eyes Each piece as amorphous as the other - Each piece in its lack of shape a lie 
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: May 20 2007 at 03:38
|
^Argus is a great album, but not as progressive as RTL, MOP or AJGA, simply because most of it is just jamming over repeated riffs - Wishbone Ash generally do not display such attention to detail in their instrumental passage constructions - and none of their rhythmic ideas are overtly different to anything else in the early 1970s.
There is more in WA compared to other "Classic Rock" bands of the time, but their relation to prog is much more tenuous than Metallica's.
If you like "Argus", check out "Pilgrimage" - although it's not quite as slick as the former, I much prefer it - and even if you don't actually prefer it, you won't regret adding it to your collection! ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 20 2007 at 04:15
Actually there are ... I think the biggest reason against their addition would be the effect it has on the less flexible members and visitors. Even if we mention that Metallica are here because of albums like RtL or MoP, most prog fans who aren't familiar with these albums will not bother to give them a listen ... Having said that ... personally I wouldn't care much about this "side effect". It would subside quickly, just as you say too.  BTW: I like the statement you made about Metallica removing the blues from metal ... it's exactly how I would describe the difference between "classic metal" and "modern metal".  ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: May 20 2007 at 11:24
That in itself looks like blind prejudice to me - and if some people choose not to listen to them, then that's hardly going to hurt.
I'd imagine that they would attract a lot of negative reviews with low scores, nonetheless - from the same prejudice. This would take more time to go away.
I am concerned about the impact of yet another controversial band - especially one as high profile as Metallica - but then the Beatles, Led Zeppelin and Iron Maiden are hardly low profile.
It strikes me that Metallica have done as much for metal as the Beatles have done for Rock music as a genre, and that without Metallica, one could speculate quite easily that Prog Metal may never have happened.
Thanks
I think Black Sabbath initiated the "modern metal sound" (depending on whether we agree what that is!) with "Heaven and Hell", and that Raven went a significant way to develop the style to something a bit more than just a new sound; As Atavachron pointed out, Metallica supported Raven in the "Kill Em All For One" tour in 1983. While I'm not suggesting Raven as Prog metal related, check out "All For One", if you don't already know it; "Run Silent Run Deep" is fantastic. ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: May 20 2007 at 20:09
|
We shouldn't really care about the "uproar" Metallica's inclusion would cause. What's this "uproar"? Probably two things:
1. Heated debates
2. Members leaving
1. Even if a few debates could get out of hand, what's the most negative that can come out of them? Debate is always for the better, it helps people underdstand each other and their reasons; 80% of the time, those that enter a heated discussion won't change their mind even if the evidence and the reaons are 100% against them... But it will be for the benefit of those others that are yet to decide on an issue or that still are magin their minds. What if a debate goes out of hand? Well, topic closed. We have one of them every week. And many for non-musical reasons. This site is an INTERNET site, while there should be harmony between the members, that's not a requisite. As long as we respect the rules and don't do anything that damages the website, if some people don't get along with others that's fine, it's over the internet, we won't meet each other, we're only sharing some bandwidth because Fate has wanted us to like somewhat of the same kind of music.
2. If members DO leave because of A BAND's inclusion, that's FINE! Great! This site doesn't need to have 100000 of members but just GOOD members who are ready to accept some decisions that are made. If a member leaves the site only because a polemic band was added, he/she's showing that he/she can't take another person's arguments winning over his/hers, and PA is better off without that individual. But that shouldn't be a problem, as most leaving members will most likely COME BACK. Why? Once they go out and see all the other prog-websites, they'll start seeing that NOT ONE is as complete (nearly as complete) as this one....Seriously... I don't like Post-rock, but I agree that's a prog genre... How many other prog websites have GY!BE or MOGWAI in their lists? You know how much I love Kayo Dot, yet I can see why they are here. How many other prog websites have Kayo Dot? Most prog websites don't even have bands like Mr. Bungle, any Zeuhl, or someone as important as Zappa!! And most of every other website may acknowledge the fact that Yes, Genesis and all of those existed, but where can you find all their discography and reviews? So believe me, the "members leaving" issues is not really an issue.... Call it PURIFICATION. What needs to go, will go. What needs to stay, will either stay, or go and come back.
I see this site as a huge, gigantic encyclopedia of prog. Instead of a 30000-page book that would need quite the coffee table to hold it, we have a website with all the information. Now think that any encyclopedia is better when IT"S COMPLETE. And progressive-metal's history IS NOT COMPLETE when its main creator is not even mentioned. -------------
|
Posted By: clarke2001
Date Posted: May 21 2007 at 07:10
All I can say:  ------------- |
Posted By: Rocktopus
Date Posted: May 21 2007 at 07:28
ca. 85% AGREE ------------- Over land and under ashes In the sunlight, see - it flashes Find a fly and eat his eye But don't believe in me Don't believe in me Don't believe in me |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 21 2007 at 07:42
|
I agree with clarke's statement about 242% ... people should focus more on the bands which they approve of than on the bands which they don't think belong here. After all, if a band like Metallica gets added anyone who objects gets the chance to submit a review which explains in detail why they think the band (or in this case the particular album) doesn't belong here.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Rocktopus
Date Posted: May 21 2007 at 07:53
|
I'd give Metallica three or four five stars if they actually get included. It will of course, just like them being here, be misleading. I'm not gonna punish an album for not being prog if I think its a masterpiece. Now, and in discussions like this is the time to say I don't think Metallica belongs here, and why. ------------- Over land and under ashes In the sunlight, see - it flashes Find a fly and eat his eye But don't believe in me Don't believe in me Don't believe in me |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: May 21 2007 at 08:21
|
I've only been active on the forum for a few days so am not qualified to say what should or should not be included; however I have been a passive reader of the Archive for many years and find it an invaluable resource. Apart from the RSS feeds, the pages are passive, they just sit there until someone searches them. If Metallica are/were there then I would never find them because I simply would never think of looking.
Would they have to change their name to Hetfield and the North?  ------------- What? |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: May 21 2007 at 08:23
You forgot to say why
That hardly matters - no-one's saying that Metallica are a major Prog Rock band, just that their contribution to Prog Metal is such that the entire genre would probably not exist without them.
------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: May 21 2007 at 08:47
::sharp intake of breath::
Yes it would, the origins of Prog Metal go back a little further than Metallica and the genre would have arisen regardless. There is a wonderful family tree of metal http://downlode.org/Creative/metal_family_tree.txt - here that shows a tenuous link between Bay Area Thrash and Prog Metal ------------- What? |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 21 2007 at 09:02
|
^ it's a nice chart, but it suggests that prog metal is a confined genre derived from heavy metal, nwobhm and prog rock. That's quite correct if you look at the early years of prog metal (80s) but in the last 20 years many other sub genres of metal have been "infected" with prog ... one of these genres is thrash metal, and Metallica laid the foundation for that development ... call it "Prog Thrash Metal" if you will.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: May 21 2007 at 09:17
That was/is my contention, though you have expressed it far more fluently, prog metal existed before thrash metal, but as you say, it has changed over the past 20 years and drawn influences from everywhere. Cathedral's Endtyme has huge slabs of prog-influence (and even experimental space-rock) running through it, but their brand of doom goes nowhere near Metallica.
(erm, I'm not actually against Metallica being in the archive btw. I just question their world domination) ------------- What? |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 21 2007 at 09:30
|
^ I don't think that Metallica "invented" prog metal ... but they expanded the metal "vocabulary", and their new "words" were later also used by various prog metal bands. It's not pure coincidence that Dream Theater performed Master of Puppets in its entirety ... ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: May 21 2007 at 09:36
I haven't heard their version (yet), and acknowledge Metallica's influence on Dream Theater, but not necessarily on bands like Riverside or Evergrey. ------------- What? |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 21 2007 at 09:51
|
Like I said above: "Prog Thrash". Metal is a really wide genre ... of course there are bands with very little influence of Thrash Metal and no apparent connection to Metallica.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Rocktopus
Date Posted: May 21 2007 at 10:23
This isn't my first post here. ------------- Over land and under ashes In the sunlight, see - it flashes Find a fly and eat his eye But don't believe in me Don't believe in me Don't believe in me |
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: May 21 2007 at 13:09
I would also prefer removing Iron Maiden, but it isn't going to happen, unfortunately. Because the site apparently has a policy to let all inclusions stay, however wrong they may be. Regarding certain artists in the Prog Related and Proto-Prog categories which needs to be here, I think it's better being under-inclusive than over-inclusive. Some artists make those two categories make sense, but having the categories results in more questionable and unnecessary additions than necessary ones, just have a look. |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: May 21 2007 at 13:22
The world domination is fairly obviously down to the huge cross-over popularity of the Black album - but the thrash style remains the most significant development in metal music since the tritone and the riff, and Hammett's constructed approach to solos was pretty rare at the time.
The "prog metal" that existed before Metallica was fairly lame, on the whole - if we take Queensryche as the prime example (maybe they're not, but the genre was hardly awash with great bands in the early 1980s), then what we have is a kind of clinically precise version of a Judas Priest/Iron Maiden clone - not progressive in the slightest, just a bit of spit and polish on the old music to remove the feeling.
Metallica dominated because a) they wanted to, b) the music was strong enough and unique/original enough to do it and c) they had the right producer.
Dream Theater brought Prog Metal to everyone's attention, and their style depended heavily on Metallica - hence it's obvious that Prog Metal owes them a huge debt. Dream Theater could not have produced their early albums without Metallica riffs.
Cathedral are hardly Progressive - most Doom metal isn't, even though its fans might like it to be.
It is in this thread. ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: May 21 2007 at 13:29
|
I don't listen to Metallica much, and though I like Master of Puppets a bit, I admit The Black Album is certainly my favorite. I think that on their earlier thrash albums, which I admit I haven't listened to often or completely (Kill 'Em All, Ride the Lightning), they seem like extended metal songs to me, with hardly much virtuosity (a key element of most prog metal I've heard of) except in the solos. The shifts in their songs seem to be mundane, and they are rarely atmospheric or unpredictable, I believe. To me, Metallica was their best when they wrote rock songs, not thrash songs. If they had a better, less monotonous drummer, maybe they could pull off thrash better.
------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: May 21 2007 at 13:31
|
^You can refresh your memory with the clips earlier in this thread. ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: May 21 2007 at 13:53
Actually it isn't... He's made more posts. |
Posted By: Angelo
Date Posted: May 21 2007 at 14:59
That would just mean more work for Guigo and Bob, because that is a violation of review guidelines. ------------- http://www.iskcrocks.com" rel="nofollow - ISKC Rock Radio I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected] |
Posted By: akin
Date Posted: May 21 2007 at 15:17
Yes, there are many reasons and the most important reason is that appart from few songs they have nothing in common with prog elements (song structure, unusual structure, singatures, complex melodic parts, harmonies). Other reason is that they influenced the metal side of prog-metal bands, not the prog side of the prog metal bands (I challenge you to mention statements made by prog metal musicians saying that Metallica had a primary influence in their prog part of sound. And the argument of blind prejudice is usually used by those who have prejudice and try to invert the situation stating that all the arguments that do not agree with theirs are filled with prejudice. |