Metallica: Progressiveness Distribution

Ricochet wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ sorry, but both The Who and criticism of numbers and statistics is off topic ... maybe you could continue those discussions in other threads? I'm not against your statistics, just to mention, Mike... In fact, instead of this graphic, I can easily translate it all in which albums are progressive and which aren't (or I can easily misunderstand the thing, on the other hand )...but that would pretty much be an argument in favour of Metallica having the stuff to enter prog... NOT really! cause based on the infos on have on Metallica (for my super cool metal fan), Metallica and prog does not compute...or, better said, it best not compute...

Well, I would say that you should try to listen to the music yourself.

http://www.myspace.com/metallica

Unfortunately the myspace page - as usual - doesn't feature the more progressive tracks of the albums, but listen to One, Fade to Black and Battery. The latter is quite interesting as far as form is concerned.

Ricochet wrote: here's where nuancing and not statistics works for me...if Metallica has manifested enough progressiveness compared to Metallica, I'd still think over if Metallica has manifested enough progressiveness compared to prog (not prog rock  necessarily, because I basically agree with the main lesson: prog rock ain't prog metal, viceversa likewise) but you're right, let's best use the other thread that won't stop growing into a tireless monster for the above kind of arguments (argumenting) v

Most of us love a good argument ...

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ sorry, but both The Who and criticism of numbers and statistics is off topic ... maybe you could continue those discussions in other threads?

I'm not against your statistics, just to mention, Mike...

In fact, instead of this graphic, I can easily translate it all in which albums are progressive and which aren't (or I can easily misunderstand the thing, on the other hand )...but that would pretty much be an argument in favour of Metallica having the stuff to enter prog...

NOT really! cause based on the infos on have on Metallica (for my super cool metal fan), Metallica and prog does not compute...or, better said, it best not compute...

here's where nuancing and not statistics works for me...if Metallica has manifested enough progressiveness compared to Metallica, I'd still think over if Metallica has manifested enough progressiveness compared to prog (not prog rock  necessarily, because I basically agree with the main lesson: prog rock ain't prog metal, viceversa likewise)

but you're right, let's best use the other thread that won't stop growing into a tireless monster for the above kind of arguments (argumenting) v




Edited by Ricochet - September 10 2008 at 16:46

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Only if you allow it to do so. You rated albums before on this website ... did that also take the beauty out of the music? I really doubt that ...   Describing how an album makes you feel, what is your opinion of the music has nothing to do with percentages and scales, the rating is only telling people how much you recommend an album, that's why I always said that ratings without reviews should not be allowed. BTW: Above you said that for you a band is either not prog, prog-related or prog. Ok, so you're already rating progressiveness on a scale from 0 to 2.   No Mike, it's only a yes or no, nothing more.   Ask anybody do you love your mother is not the same as asking him in a 10 points chart, how much do you love your Mom?   Iván

rushfan4 wrote: Iván A good place to start would be your evaluation of Nemesis in the Neo Thread in the collab zone.  Although you didn't use percentages, you did evaluate each songs as being very progressive, somewhat progressive, and not progressive at all.  These can be translated into percentages, but these percentages would be based on your beliefs and each individual would have their own belief as to what these percentages are.  That is unless someone is ambitious enough to count all of the notes in each song, and all of the notes that are progressive (or at least that exist during what is considered a progressive part of a song) and then a percentage could most definitely be applied that way..

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - September 10 2008 at 16:14

^ sorry, but both The Who and criticism of numbers and statistics is off topic ... maybe you could continue those discussions in other threads?

Ricochet wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Yes guys, but almost 63% of the members who voted in the poll started believe Metallica shouldn't be here.   Honestly, talking about "Levels of Progressiveness" make me laugh,   Iván Pretty pointless since that happened at least to The Who a dozen times, no? The voting, I mean. And, besides, also pretty pointless since Metallica's case is currently kept alive by at least four big members, out of which one said "he won't die if (till?) Metallica don't get added".

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - September 10 2008 at 16:06

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Yes guys, but almost 63% of the members who voted in the poll started believe Metallica shouldn't be here.   Honestly, talking about "Levels of Progressiveness" make me laugh,   Iván

Pretty pointless since that happened at least to The Who a dozen times, no? The voting, I mean.

And, besides, also pretty pointless since Metallica's case is currently kept alive by at least four big members, out of which one said "he won't die if (till?) Metallica don't get added".




Edited by Ricochet - September 10 2008 at 15:42

^ I guess that's the challenge ... simply assess the progressiveness on a 0-10 scale, independently of genre. I agree that there may be a tendency for prog metal to be less progressive than prog rock, but at least for me that doesn't mean that prog metal albums simply get 2 points less or something like that, it's always an album vs. album decision.

Just an update: I increased the number of steps for all tags from 5 to 10.

Oh crap.. I dunno I'll think about it I suppose.