Metallica?

 

 

Certif1ed wrote: 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 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.   OK, so your worry is that people will hate it and leave.   Most come back, once they've licked their "wounds" and got over their egos - I'm sure that less of that petulant behaviour goes on these days. Almost NO-ONE leaves ProgArchives for good - it really is the Hotel Prognifornia.   As Mike and The T say - and I 100% agree - Metallica are grossly overlooked for their progressive NATURE - not tendencies, mark you, but nature, in the first 5 albums. Their intent may or may not have been to be Progressive - but remember that Robert Fripp's intent was not necessarily to be Progressive either - and he hates the term Progressive Rock, according to reports.   Even Genesis only really managed to progress over 5 albums, if the hardcore fans are anything to go by, so Metallica are in the same league on that level.

Progressive nature? No, it is just an unproven argument to pretend you are with the truth. There is no progressive nature at all. So you can't impair Metallica with King Crimson or Genesis using this argument, or anyone can claim that Cat Stevens, Elton John, David Bowie, Black Sabbath, Bee Gees, Oasis and Black Eyed Peas have a progressive nature.

 

Certif1ed wrote: 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. 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.   That's not being pretentious - it's exactly as it says on the tin;   Since they only said NO, as on countless other occasions, what evidence of careful thought or reasoning is there?   There has been ample oportunity for the "NO" argument to voice its opinion, but "NO" is all that has been forthcoming, apart from the eloquent postings of Atavachron, in this thread.   With no reasons, all that exists is unjustified opinion - and who cares about that?   Once upon a time, everyone thought that the earth was flat - except a few that could plainly see it wasn't, because they had the right tools.

And you consider yourself one of the special selected group who can see the truth about what is prog and what is not? More pretentious than this is impossible. This last statement of yours proves that you are completely out of your reason. If Metallica is not metioned in almost evert other prog reliable source and a band that you state is less prog than Metallica, like Queensryche, is cited in every reliable source for prog, it is an evidence that you are creating arguments to support a theory that can only convince yourself and a few that already think like you, but hardly are expressing the truth. Your arguments are as valuable as the pseudoscience that works to create fake proves to prove a pre-concept of theirs.

Certif1ed wrote: 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. 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).   Thanks for correcting me on that - since I have the power to add bands (I made the controversial addition of The Beatles - with the full permission of M@X), I will see to it that Metallica get added at a time of my convenience.

Only if he agrees with you. Once he is an owner of the site, if he wants Metallica, who can deny it? Otherwise they will never get added at your convenience.

[QUOTE=Certif1ed]

 

It is quite clear that there are no reasons to omit Metallica apart from blind prejudice - or are there?

 

It is in this thread.