Does Iron Maiden really belong in only 'related'?

I forgot I made this topic on my old account.

Edited by Fearabsentia - October 27 2014 at 14:33

micky wrote: I agree Richard. There were 3 quite divisive additions here that immediately come to my mind, and Iron Maiden was by far the least of them. If you have ears and a mind not completely closed,  they fit this site. Queen was a bit more borderline, but I always thought the side should error on the side of inclusiveness rather than exclusiveness.  This site should be seen as  some private exclusive country club, nor simply a playground for the collabs, but for for the use of those who use the site.  Very few bands outside of the handful of old war horses will ever be universally acknowledged as 'prog groups'. Even Genesis if one was consistent in applying the same stupid 'Is ELO prog?' questions I still see get asked on this site. A group that spent its early years dabbling and putting out a good number (4-6) prog albums before moving on and being known as something other than a prog group. Are either band.. prog bands... no they are not. They moved on and found fame and commerical success as popular music groups. My point being, most people have different notions of what is, and is not prog.  I always thought the site was always best served by simply making the groups available and spelling out why they could fit the site, and let the listeners discover, perhaps reevaluate long held notions, and decide if it fit their views of progginess or not.

Argonaught wrote: richardh wrote: The inclusion of Queen was much more contentious than Iron Maiden for me. Powerslave , Seventh Son and Somewhere In Time stretched metal that bit further. Could be 'prog metal' and some of the inventiveness displayed on something like Phantom Of The Opera is much better than just about anything I'be heard by DT. (IMO) I think I have already written this, but here it is again: Queen is a rare example of an all-genre band .. of the top of my head - jazz, blues, art rock, pop, metal, classical, funk (I think), country, world folk, rock'n'roll, disco - they played everything, and 'most everything they did had a unique Queen imprint on it.  Queen's flamboyant musicianship and constant creative itch helped them churn out a whole bunch of anything-but-conventional stuff - which, IMO, makes some of their albums no less than eclectic prog. As for Iron Maiden .. I used to like them, but that was 25-30 years ago, and at that time I don't recall them sound much different (proggier?) than any other heavy metal band.

bhikkhu wrote: They may have had also some prodding by a couple of people who posted on this thread.

Catcher10 wrote: Raff wrote: Tuzvihar wrote: Raff wrote: Tuzvihar wrote: ^ Welcome back once again, Raff!! Thank you, Bartek! I am happy to meet you once again! I remember when once I asked you if you would come back to PA... Never again!, you said... Well, never say never, I say! Indeed! I got fed up with Facebook and all its drama, and then one day I said, "why not?". Things seem to have changed around here, and for the better. One thing is for sure: I'll stay away from controversial additions! Welcome back Miss Raff.....I too thought you and Micky would never come back.....

thanks (for us both) Raff is an early to bed type hahah.

too many friends here not to... but we both needed the time and distance away.   Life is too short.  I had a really bad experience at work last year and am damn lucky to still be here. It does change ones perceptions and priorities hah.  I survived via a trip to the ER and some facial burns a arcflash out of a electrical box.  Everyone told me I was lucky to be alive, and reading up on the physics of arcflashes on wiki.. I guess I was. Nasty sh*t.

Tuzvihar wrote: Raff wrote: Tuzvihar wrote: ^ Welcome back once again, Raff!! Thank you, Bartek! I am happy to meet you once again! I remember when once I asked you if you would come back to PA... Never again!, you said... Well, never say never, I say!

Indeed! I got fed up with Facebook and all its drama, and then one day I said, "why not?". Things seem to have changed around here, and for the better. One thing is for sure: I'll stay away from controversial additions!

Hi Raff and Micky, good to see you here, see you in a couple of weeks

^ Welcome back once again, Raff!!

lazland wrote: This place has brightened up with the return of Micky & Raff. Welcome back, good people

thanks! We do try to bring some light and love. 

However I will say one thing...it didn't take long here before I remembered just how MUCH I hate the word proggy and progginess  ARRGGG.  I thought that was a word(s) I would never utter again... but I got sucked back in.

I agree Richard. There were 3 quite divisive additions here that immediately come to my mind, and Iron Maiden was by far the least of them. If you have ears and a mind not completely closed,  they fit this site. Queen was a bit more borderline, but I always thought the side should error on the side of inclusiveness rather than exclusiveness.  This site should be seen as  some private exclusive country club, nor simply a playground for the collabs, but for for the use of those who use the site. 

Very few bands outside of the handful of old war horses will ever be universally acknowledged as 'prog groups'. Even Genesis if one was consistent in applying the same stupid 'Is ELO prog?' questions I still see get asked on this site. A group that spent its early years dabbling and putting out a good number (4-6) prog albums before moving on and being known as something other than a prog group. Are either band.. prog bands... no they are not. They moved on and found fame and commerical success as popular music groups.

My point being, most people have different notions of what is, and is not prog.  I always thought the site was always best served by simply making the groups available and spelling out why they could fit the site, and let the listeners discover, perhaps reevaluate long held notions, and decide if it fit their views of progginess or not.