maiden had a huge influence on bands like queensryche and fates warning, but I doubt they would like themselves to be qualified as a prog band.

lucas wrote: maiden had a huge influence on bands like queensryche and fates warning, but I doubt they would like themselves to be qualified as a prog band.

ah they are atleast PROG RELATED whic was the genre i wanted them under

Unless there's a 'Completly not prog' section in PA, they shouldn't be here.

Still wan't to debate that once again? I really am sick of that...

Kohllapse wrote: Borealis wrote: Unless there's a 'Completly not prog' section in PA, they shouldn't be here. Still wan't to debate that once again? I really am sick of that...  I disagree!

Hey, I appreciate your devotion to "the Maiden," but I have to tell you, I think you're fighting an extremely uphill battle with this one. Genre's are loosely defined boundaries, but they are still that---boundaries.

Iron Maiden fits too closely into another genre. My question to you is, "why do you care if they get recognized as prog or not? What "mantle of authority" does having it classified as "prog rock" add to the band?" They need no help from the prog world. They rock their own world better than any prog band will ever rock the prog world. Revel in that, give them that. And tell the lean-built "Soft Machine" fans that they'll never experience this kind of stuff. And then proceed to play electric guitar out of a distorted practice amp

bluetailfly wrote: Kohllapse wrote: Borealis wrote: Unless there's a 'Completly not prog' section in PA, they shouldn't be here. Still wan't to debate that once again? I really am sick of that...  I disagree! Hey, I appreciate your devotion to "the Maiden," but I have to tell you, I think you're fighting an extremely uphill battle with this one. Genre's are loosely defined boundaries, but they are still that---boundaries. Iron Maiden fits too closely into another genre. My question to you is, "why do you care if they get recognized as prog or not? What "mantle of authority" does having it classified as "prog rock" add to the band?" They need no help from the prog world. They rock their own world better than any prog band will ever rock the prog world. Revel in that, give them that. And tell the lean-built "Soft Machine" fans that they'll never experience this kind of stuff. And then proceed to play electric guitar out of a distorted practice amp

"you're right , you never said they should be put in the "prog metal"category, only that they should be added to the site . With all of the  different "genre" categories available i'm sure that they would fit in one of them. "

Kohllapse wrote: bluetailfly wrote: Kohllapse wrote: Borealis wrote: Unless there's a 'Completly not prog' section in PA, they shouldn't be here. Still wan't to debate that once again? I really am sick of that...  I disagree! Hey, I appreciate your devotion to "the Maiden," but I have to tell you, I think you're fighting an extremely uphill battle with this one. Genre's are loosely defined boundaries, but they are still that---boundaries. Iron Maiden fits too closely into another genre. My question to you is, "why do you care if they get recognized as prog or not? What "mantle of authority" does having it classified as "prog rock" add to the band?" They need no help from the prog world. They rock their own world better than any prog band will ever rock the prog world. Revel in that, give them that. And tell the lean-built "Soft Machine" fans that they'll never experience this kind of stuff. And then proceed to play electric guitar out of a distorted practice amp Perhaps you were unclear on what I meant by "I disagree".  What I disagree with is saying "completly not prog" I never said they were, if you would have read all of the post in this thread you would know that.I said they could be put in the "Proto prog" "you're right , you never said they should be put in the "prog metal"category, only that they should be added to the site . With all of the  different "genre" categories available i'm sure that they would fit in one of them. "

But what you say sort of begs the same question. Why? And I have no real stake in the matter either. I am just honestly wondering why having them seen as "prog-related" matters. I wouldn't want AC/DC classified as prog-related, even though I suppose one could mount an argument for it (a skilled orator). As a Maiden fan, I don't want them to be prog-related. Why throw in with Anderson, Phil Collins, Ambrosia? They don't want to be there; they don't want to be "related" to them.

They want something else. 

They want something else. 

And i see it as important that we maiden to the archives to listen to where most prog-metal bands got their influences from..afterall that is what is the point of the proto-prog genre right

I also see maiden as the first real prog metal band there ever was...and dont bring me Deep  Purple,Black Sabbath and Zeppelin and all those...they are bascially just hard rock bands...

maidenrulez wrote: And i see it as important that we maiden to the archives to listen to where most prog-metal bands got their influences from..afterall that is what is the point of the proto-prog genre right I also see maiden as the first real prog metal band there ever was...and dont bring me Deep  Purple,Black Sabbath and Zeppelin and all those...they are bascially just hard rock bands...

First of you need to read the definiton of proto-prog.  It sstates bands that were formed or did the majority of their work prior to 1969.  I hardely think Iron Maiden fits into that. 

I will bring those other bands because without that foundation you would have no Iron Maiden or any other metal band that came in the 80's.

Metallica influenced far more (prog) metal bands and redefined the entire metal genre more often and more deeply than Iron Maiden did, and both Rainbow and Dio had many proggy elements.

Just a couple of points worth considering .

Hmm... great... I don't even wonna argue anyomore... its pointless...

Certif1ed wrote: Metallica influenced far more (prog) metal bands and redefined the entire metal genre more often and more deeply than Iron Maiden did, and both Rainbow and Dio had many proggy elements. Just a couple of points worth considering .

AND MAIDEN INFLUENCED METLLALLICA...think about that

RAINBOW is exactly the same stuff as DEEP PURPLE ie not metal and DIO does not suddenly get proggy because it feutures DIO on vocals and also DIO came later than IRON MAIDEN

maidenrulez wrote: Certif1ed wrote: Metallica influenced far more (prog) metal bands and redefined the entire metal genre more often and more deeply than Iron Maiden did, and both Rainbow and Dio had many proggy elements. Just a couple of points worth considering . AND MAIDEN INFLUENCED METLLALLICA...think about that RAINBOW is exactly the same stuff as DEEP PURPLE ie not metal and DIO does not suddenly get proggy because it feutures DIO on vocals and also DIO came later than IRON MAIDEN

A different discussion really, but since you bring it up...

There is not much Iron Maiden influence in Metallica's music - but there is a more direct link from Metallica to, say, Dream Theater or just about any band playing metal from the 1990s onwards.

Rainbow has Ritchie Blackmore, but the style of music is different to Deep Purple - less improv and more classical allusions, with mystical themes to some of the lyrics and long song structures every now and again.

Dio's own band continues the fantasy themes to new depths (heights?), with startlingly accurate guitar work, obviously inspired by but not copied from Van Halen, and precision riffing similar to Black Sabbath's "Heaven and Hell" - there is a direct line that is crowned by the voice of RJD that shows a progression from Metal as it was in the 1970s (yes, it did exist back then) through the NWOBHM (New Wave, remember!). Iron Maiden's sound is unique to Maiden (and the rip-off bands like Helloween, etc.) - it is not a general influence on the metal genre, and it has not particularly changed over the years. Each Iron Maiden album sounds unmistakably like an Iron Maiden album, with the same song structures and riff patterns done slightly differently - like AC/DC or Motorhead.

Iron Maiden in 1983 released "Piece of Mind". In my opinion, Dio's "Holy Diver" is a much better album - much stronger all round. "Piece of Mind" was hardly prog... and nor was "The Number of The Beast" or anything Paul DiAnno recorded with IM. Sure there are moments, like "Phantom of the Opera", but Rainbow had been doing proggy things way before then. "Holy Diver" contains many proggy themes, the songs are very well and dramatically structured, and there are moments where the band are each doing their own thing. Note "moments", not entire passages as with bona fide prog. This is something that Iron Maiden lack.

Remember also that RJD was in a band called Elf before he joined Rainbow in 1976 (or was it 5?), so he predates Iron Maiden by a VERY long time! The best Bruce Dickinson can manage is a band called Samson, who were amazing, and put out two very raw-edged metal albums in the late 1970s. "Head On" is well worth checking out. Quite progressive.

Metallica obliterated all of that with a single stroke - aptly named "Kill 'Em All", which rips the pages out of the history book as far as the metal genre is concerned, by introducing the concept of thrash, without succumbing to the undiluted form, unlike most other thrash bands at the time.

Metallica always denied being a thrash band - and they were right. They used thrash techniques to develop a very progressive form of metal right up to "...And Justice For All", whose riffs can be heard virtually verbatim in Dream Theater's early work. As if to underline this, "Kill 'Em All" has fantasy themes in some of the lyrics - indicating prog pretensions. This is underlined by the developing riffs - "Seek And Destroy" has some of the most organically developing riffs in metaldom, and "The Four Horsemen" relates all the material back to itself. A stark contrast to those sad bands who go off at tangents because they cannot think of a way to develop the existing material.

And that's (partly) why Metallica are more progressive than Iron Maiden, and should be considered over IM as prog related.

Think about that

Useful_Idiot wrote: As Garion already mentioned, Maiden is still under conisderation.  It's a tough call, there's no question that they've influenced tons of prog-metal bands.  My vote is against them though, there are countless other influential metal bands who've had some very proggy moments despite being far from prog bands.  If we add Maiden, it opens the door for tons of other non-prog metal bands.

It should be the other way round ... Prog Related (aka Prog Influenced) should be for bands that were influenced by prog, not the other way round. Iron Maiden influenced many other metal bands, including progressive ones. But I think they always influenced the metal side of those bands ... not the progressive aspects.

Small prog influeces... DIO is more prog... Ow God, I give up...

Btw... The beatles are god damn proto prog!...

 Thx Mike

btw why don't You try messing the albums up a bit? Not one artist - 1 or 2 album & then another artist... Separate Tyranny from Room V, Awake for SDoIT 'n'stuff...

 Btw.. I'll be laughing my head off cuz of You if Maiden get here

I'm sure he did, although I never heard/read that interview - and Maiden would have had an effect on many metal bands of the time - it was all new back then. However, effect and influence are different things.

 and a reason why it does not sound like maiden is because metallica messed it up trying to show the world how fast they can riff their gutiars and how agressive they can sound

No, Metallica brought the thrash technique to the world - it's not messed up, it's inspired and brilliant. It's not just about the speed - there were many bands that were faster. It's about the buzz that is created that sets up harmonics that create a sound beyond the individual sounds. If thrash is so messed up, how come nearly every Metal band on the planet uses the technique these days?

and the main reason why you dont want maiden to be added is basically because you seem to like metallica, dio and rainbow over maiden and that is fine but you cant use that to back up your argument why it is not progressive.

That is not the reason, that is your assumption. I am merely making points.

I am not using my opinion to back my argument up - try concentrating on the technical facts that I am using and not getting diverted into what you think I'm saying.

And comparing it to ac/dc shows what a complete moron you are

It doesn't, actually. There are many things that could show what a moron I am, but that was not one of them.

Obviously rainbow had about two albums with dio before they went totally 80's synth pop and also DIO's song structure is just plain heavy metal as done by judas priest.

Hmm. You don't know much about this do you?

All the maiden songs sound the same eh? Ah ok have you heard

Prodigal Son

Blood Brothers

Sign Of the Cross

The Unbelivier

Seventh son of a seventh son

Genghis Khan

Dance Of death

To tame a land

Revelations

Hooks in you

Deja Vu

Another Life

Gangland

Transylvania

Wastin love

Montesegur

Dream of mirrors

The Nomad

Judgement of heaven

How the f**k can you say that these songs sound the same?  

The underlying style is the same. The instrumentation is the same. The approach to song writing is the same and the structures are the same. That's how I can say they sound very similar!

I dont care how much metallica is your favorite band...they where not the first PROG METAL BAND ON THE SCENE REMEMBER THAT YOU LITTLE TWAT

No need to resort to insults.

And I'm not little.

I'm 6'4"

And I don't care if Iron Maiden is your favourite band... they were not the first prog metal band on the scene remember that...

its funny that mikeenregalia thinks KAMELOT and QUEENSRYCHE and PORCUPINE TREE to be VERY progressive while maiden is not at all progressive...

Are Kamelot that wierd metal band that do a kind of symphonic rock with lots of brass, trying to sound kind of Crusaderish? I note they describe their music as Progressive Metal - and I doubt they'd lie.

Queensryche probably are the first prog metal band, so that's a fair comment from Mike.

Porcupine Tree likewise are held by many to be a prog band - I'm working my way through their catalogue, and so far I don't hear much evidence - but they do sound a bit like a cross between "h" Marillion and Radiohead in many places, so that's a good starting point.

and certified YOU turned to insults by comparing the crap that is ac/dc to maiden by saying they where just as progressive.

I beg to differ - that is not an insult.

AC/DC are a fantastic, some might say legendary rock band - some of their material is classic rock of the highest order, and the track "Let There Be Rock" is epic. Have you ever seen them live? Do you know all of their albums that you can make such a sweeping criticism?

And where in this thread did I ever say that AC/DC are as progressive as Iron Maiden?

And songs like I surrender. since you been gone and street of dreams leave no doubt that Rainbow is a very progressive band i can agree with that

You really don't know very much about Rainbow, do you? Ronnie James Dio didn't sing on those tracks.

I don't think much of "Running Free", "Run To The Hills" or "Bring Your Daughter to the Slaughter" as prog rock either, so touche!

However, what about Stargazer?

And i dont care to ask what ye rates as the first prog metal band as im sure you are a metallica fanboy wich thinks ST.ANGER is the biggest prog-masterpiece since close to the edge.

You think what you like. It's not true, but if it makes you happy, then that's fine. If you actually read what I said earlier, you would have noted that... never mind.

And there are certainly more power-metalish prog-metal bands on this page than there are thrash-metalish prog metal bands on the site.

Your point being?  

And yes maiden uses BASS,DRUMS,GUITARS on all the tracks so i can agree that it sounds exactly the same...they should have changed instruments to TRUMPETS,SAXOPHONES and BAGPIPES so that it would not all sound the same

Are you saying that they're not very progressive, then?

No i dont care to discuss with neither Mikeenregalia or the metallica fanboy as their opinions are to silly to be discussed...and afterall i dont think mikeenregalia has said ONE thing that i can agree with on this forum

You don't have to agree with people's opinions - but you should respect the elegant way Mike puts his arguments, his respect for the people he is discussing music with, and his deep knowledge of Metal as a genre and the musicians that play it.

I note you haven't disputed any of my technical points concerning Metallica - I guess that counts as a victory to me on that debate then.

Personally I think it's silly to just toss names at people, rather than think about the topic at hand and discuss the MUSIC.

But that's just me.

its funny that mikeenregalia thinks KAMELOT and QUEENSRYCHE and PORCUPINE TREE to be VERY progressive while maiden is not at all progressive...

and certified YOU turned to insults by comparing the crap that is ac/dc to maiden by saying they where just as progressive.

And songs like I surrender. since you been gone and street of dreams leave no doubt that Rainbow is a very progressive band i can agree with that

And i dont care to ask what ye rates as the first prog metal band as im sure you are a metallica fanboy wich thinks ST.ANGER is the biggest prog-masterpiece since close to the edge.

And there are certainly more power-metalish prog-metal bands on this page than there are thrash-metalish prog metal bands on the site.

And yes maiden uses BASS,DRUMS,GUITARS on all the tracks so i can agree that it sounds exactly the same...they should have changed instruments to TRUMPETS,SAXOPHONES and BAGPIPES so that it would not all sound the same

No i dont care to discuss with neither Mikeenregalia or the metallica fanboy as their opinions are to silly to be discussed...and afterall i dont think mikeenregalia has said ONE thing that i can agree with on this forum

maidenrulez wrote: its funny that mikeenregalia thinks KAMELOT and QUEENSRYCHE and PORCUPINE TREE to be VERY progressive while maiden is not at all progressive... and certified YOU turned to insults by comparing the crap that is ac/dc to maiden by saying they where just as progressive. And songs like I surrender. since you been gone and street of dreams leave no doubt that Rainbow is a very progressive band i can agree with that And i dont care to ask what ye rates as the first prog metal band as im sure you are a metallica fanboy wich thinks ST.ANGER is the biggest prog-masterpiece since close to the edge. And there are certainly more power-metalish prog-metal bands on this page than there are thrash-metalish prog metal bands on the site. And yes maiden uses BASS,DRUMS,GUITARS on all the tracks so i can agree that it sounds exactly the same...they should have changed instruments to TRUMPETS,SAXOPHONES and BAGPIPES so that it would not all sound the same No i dont care to discuss with neither Mikeenregalia or the metallica fanboy as their opinions are to silly to be discussed...and afterall i dont think mikeenregalia has said ONE thing that i can agree with on this forum

You're turning into quite the little smart-ass,you know that?

maidenrulez wrote: its funny that mikeenregalia thinks KAMELOT and QUEENSRYCHE and PORCUPINE TREE to be VERY progressive while maiden is not at all progressive... and certified YOU turned to insults by comparing the crap that is ac/dc to maiden by saying they where just as progressive. And songs like I surrender. since you been gone and street of dreams leave no doubt that Rainbow is a very progressive band i can agree with that And i dont care to ask what ye rates as the first prog metal band as im sure you are a metallica fanboy wich thinks ST.ANGER is the biggest prog-masterpiece since close to the edge. And there are certainly more power-metalish prog-metal bands on this page than there are thrash-metalish prog metal bands on the site. And yes maiden uses BASS,DRUMS,GUITARS on all the tracks so i can agree that it sounds exactly the same...they should have changed instruments to TRUMPETS,SAXOPHONES and BAGPIPES so that it would not all sound the same No i dont care to discuss with neither Mikeenregalia or the metallica fanboy as their opinions are to silly to be discussed...and afterall i dont think mikeenregalia has said ONE thing that i can agree with on this forum

You're turning into quite the little smart-ass,you know that?

Cert has discussed this in a very proffesional manner,with no trace of anger,and no insults thrown your way.

Mike is one of the nicest guys on this forum and really knows his stuff,just because you don't agree with the points he has made or the things he has said,they both don't really deserve your vitriolic behavior.

You are acting like a child who wants something but can't have it,and is now throwing a tantrum.

[/QUOTE wrote:

Professional manner? He has some opinions that can not even be taken seriosly by saying thinks like ac/dc and motorhead composes songs in the same way. I think i have never ever heard such an insult.

And i would love to hear what makes queensryche soooooo fantastically progressive instead of just stating that Queensryche is prog and maiden is not.

Besides i do not care for the opinions of a nu-metal fan

as i said ONLY THE TWO FIRST rainbow albums where progressive the rest was 80s synth pop 

No - you said, and I quote:

maidenfanboy wrote:  And songs like I surrender. since you been gone and street of dreams leave no doubt that Rainbow is a very progressive band i can agree with that

...if ever metallica could write a complex song like rhyme of the ancient marnier then i think james hetfield head would blow up....

Er... how about "Master of Puppets", "Orion", "Call of Cthulu", "The Four Horsemen", "...And Justice For All" (The entire album) - or even "Battery". "Rhyme..." is not very complex when you look at what Maiden were doing in the song. It's great, don't get me wrong, but there really aren't that many ideas at work when you pull it apart, and it's a bit long

Metallicas music composing skills= Oh lets write a really AGRESSIVE RIFF..it does not mather if it is good as long as it is AGRESSIVE and then lets put in a really bad ballad with lots of cliches in it to let people think that we can write intelligent songs...

That's not true, now, is it. (Note that's not a question).

What is a good riff?

I like most of Metallica's riffs, up to the Black album (as I said before - not Load or anything later) and I guess they do too - so from that point of view, they're good.

Are you saying that Iron Maiden wouldn't stoop to writing an aggressive riff? You seem to be suggesting it. I don't think that's strictly true.

Now please tell me where the ballads are on any of the first 4 Metallica albums?

And how come, if it's so bad, Metallica released "Nothing Else Matters" twice - once in an orchestrated version, and people still bought it. What is bad? Are you saying that Ballads are bad? Did Iron Maiden ever write a ballad...?

Did Iron Maiden never use cliches?

People use cliches because they work. Composers throughout history used cliches. Mozart used cliches - was he a bad composer?

How does using cliches and writing bad ballads make people think you're intelligent?

Oh.

I See.

Sarcasm.

Very droll

I remember kirk hammet and lars ulrich on the making of the black album saying that making it sounds the most agressive was the most important thing in their music...

Do you have a link to that interview anywhere?

Professional manner? He has some opinions that can not even be taken seriosly by saying thinks like ac/dc and motorhead composes songs in the same way.

I think i have never ever heard such an insult.

I could give you worse insults if you prefer.

But I don't understand where the insult lies. Both AC/DC and Motorhead are rooted in the blues - of course the way they put songs together is similar!

And i would love to hear what makes queensryche soooooo fantastically progressive instead of just stating that Queensryche is prog and maiden is not.

Go on then - listen to some Queensryche - I dare you!

Besides i do not care for the opinions of a nu-metal fan

Would you take the opinions of a Musique Concrete fan instead then?

Uh... Maidenrulez... the most biaised childish argumenter I ever saw on those forums, just thinking back at the 'Those who makes weird music just want to seem weird' thread makes me sick (Oh well, Why not a link to it? http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=11407 - Check it here ). Can you base yourself on music instead on the what the band said, or your stupid personal opinions on their way to think? Or says arguments against what you hate that won't apply to Iron Maiden as well?... Anyway...

blah i have Operation mindcrime and that is nowhere any more metal than maiden.

We're talking about progressive music here, not the metal aspect. And many people hold Queensryche to be a progressive metal band.

And certainly if you dont see that a song like blood brothers got a very diffrent song structure like a song like  hooks in you then i dont care to discuss this with you because it is going nowhere...and calling a song like master of puppets for complex is a big laugh

Why? It is complex - it depends on what you're comparing it to. If you compare it to, say, anything by Gentle Giant, then you are comparing chalk and church organs.

If you compare it to any heavy metal album released in the 1980s, then it's probably in the top 10 at least. It was and is a benchmark for what can be done with the heavy metal format, and as such is deeply progressive. Countless bands are influenced by that album - Dream Theater covered the entire album, such was the debt they felt they owed to it. For some reason, they also covered "Number of The Beast", but let's not go there...

ID SAY LETS CEASE THIS ENDLESS ARGUMENT IM TIRED AND ANGRY

What's the difference between argument and discussion?

I wish I could think of a witty answer, but the straight answer is that in a discussion, you think more about your position and the side you are taking, and do some research into the material that will help you to convince your "opponent" that your side of the debate is correct.

That might sound heavy, but since it simply entails listening to loads of great music and reading about the bands, it's actually one of the most enjoyable things there is, IMO

An argument is like a debate, but horribly emotional and lacking in research and clear thought.

a apologize for my mindless insults but as i was trying to suggest that tool was a nu-metal band(as a joke) to provoke the protogolist....and that is basically how i feel when you say that iron maiden writes just as simple songs lilke ac/dc and motorhead because i know that it is entirely wrong and therebefore provocative. And i hope you did not suggest than maiden was blues based?

There would be nothing wrong in suggesting that Iron Maiden were blues based (or rather blues rooted), as that suggestion carries far more weight than I suspect you realise;

Check out some of the power blues bands like Cream, Bakerloo, May Blitz, Fuzzy Duck, High Tide, Spooky Tooth, etc. The music is obviously not the same as Iron Maiden - but some of those bands wrote some dynamite riffs, and, if you listen to the structuring, you'll hear much that inspired bands like Maiden. 

As for Judas Priest, get "Sad Wings of Destiny", if you don't already own it. Once you've got over the rubbish production, you'll hear the forefathers of Maiden's branch of metal. "British Steel" is cool too - but most definitely pure NWOBHM - no prog). You should also listen to Budgie, Samson and Riot - especially Samson ("Survivors", "Head On" and "Shock Tactics"), IMO.

The point is that the Heavy Blues bands started to depend more and more on the riffs rather than the blues structures that they created the riffs from in the first place. Even Black Sabbath paid tribute to their blues roots in some numbers - but listen to "Spooky Two" by Spooky Tooth, and marvel at the large number of Black Sabbath, Deep Purple and Led Zeppelin riffs that the three bands all appropriated.

There's another point here: Progressive Music and Progressive Rock are different things. Prog-related is different again, and I think that Iron Maiden had their progressive moments - ie they wrote progressive music occasionally, but do not fit prog-related as there are no "Pure" progressive rock bands that you can relate them to.

Is that fair comment?

maiden had a huge influence on bands like queensryche and fates warning, but I doubt they would like themselves to be qualified as a prog band.

What bout the verdict, Easy?

Are maiden prog related or not?

Did the collabs have a poll bout this or what?

maidenrulez wrote: I DID NOT MAKE THIS (deleted) THREAD TO DISCUSS IF MAIDEN WAS PROG RELATED OR NOT SO (deleted) EVERYBODY IM GETTING VERY TIRED ABOUT THIS

Keep it civil please Maidenrulez

If you start a thread on Iron Maiden, people are quite entitled to voice their opinions on them, especially when you are seeking their inclusion the archives.

I have just been on a Uk radio station (arfm found at arfm.co.uk) to be interviewed about my debut album and while on the show the dj says to me do you have anything you would like playing...........well...........I like my prog as much as the next man so i went for something that influenced a part of my album (my album been a concept album).........what did i go for you ask.....................Alexander the great by IRON MAIDEN.

Maiden are the KINGS or rock and they are the birth kings of metal prog.

I always liked the more "longish" Maiden songs, the ones with big instrumental breaks and list is a long one.

MAIDEN ROCK.........................forever

Easy Livin wrote: maidenrulez wrote: I DID NOT MAKE THIS (deleted) THREAD TO DISCUSS IF MAIDEN WAS PROG RELATED OR NOT SO (deleted) EVERYBODY IM GETTING VERY TIRED ABOUT THIS Keep it civil please Maidenrulez If you start a thread on Iron Maiden, people are quite entitled to voice their opinions on them, especially when you are seeking their inclusion the archives.

I started the thread to hear how it was going on with the inclusion of maiden ( if you had gotten the files i sent and so on...) instead i get lots of replies about other bands that they want included i dont want this discussion now

I think it is fair to say that Iron Maiden are the best heavy metal band in the world, bar none. Trying to get them into prog archives is understandable but was always doomed to failure. But considering other bands/solo artists that have been included here, Maiden were unlucky. As for Metallica, they are just thrash metal, and from what i've heard of them, nowhere near prog.

But hey that's just me.

bluetailfly wrote: Why do some people need the prog archives to "beknight" these metal bands with the prog archives seal of approval?

There it came! A truth at last.

It's OK to propose bands to be added here, but how can the value of having any band added (or not added) here be so great, that one shoul lose his/her temper for that issue?

Useful_Idiot wrote: For those wondering, Maiden's inclusion has been rejected in a very close vote.

YES! There is a god!

In a very close vote IM was turned down. Sorry MR.