Metallica?

Certif1ed wrote: akin wrote: 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.   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.

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.

akin wrote: 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.

Snow Dog wrote: akin wrote: 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.   Not neccesarily so. Admin can also decide on a Prog Related addition.

Of course, but to these controvertial additions they leave to the owners decide.

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.

The T wrote: 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....

I just... NO.

Metallica did the riff a favour... http://www.truemetal.org/battle/remasters1.html (scroll down a bit).

3 guesses...

Silly me - I forgot to include verifiable examples - here we go;

debrewguy wrote: heyitsthatguy wrote: The T wrote: paolo.beenees wrote: If you add Metallica, I expect a spot also for Celtic Frost and Mercyful Fate.   erm... I almost forgot King Diamond... forgive me Kim!   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.... 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 So we can't add Uriah Heep ?

http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=1157

The T wrote: paolo.beenees wrote: If you add Metallica, I expect a spot also for Celtic Frost and Mercyful Fate.   erm... I almost forgot King Diamond... forgive me Kim!   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....

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