Metallica?

 

Diabolical...

 

(In a very funny way!)

 

I fail to hear the blues in Judas Priest or Accept though.

 

 Incredibly true....

 

And I repeat: to those like Akin who say that no other prog site has Metallica, with all due respect, this point is invalid. No other prog site has Metallica?  1. Bad for them. Should we be like everybody else? 2. With that into consideration, as I already said, MANY bands of those you love and claim to be the proggiest of them all shouldn't be here, starting with all post-rock, post-metal, Kayo Dot, and even such a beloved band like Tool. Search for Tool in the major prog-websites.... Did you find them? Ok, then, if all of these artists are here (and DESERVE TO BE HERE, as much as i don't like most of them), shouldn't they be deleted because other major porg sites don't have them on their lists? Or is it actually a proof as to the quality of THIS website that we INCLUDE bands from every kind, as long as they represent something important for progressive music?

 

Yes, Queensryche is everywhere.. Metallica is nowhere.... Now hear Operation:Mindcrime... I love the album...BUT: where are the "odd time signatures, the complex structures, the incredible long solos, the long songs" you're talking about? If that albums is such a cornerstone of progmetal is maybe because it's a concept album, and also because, well, it's actually very polished, clean, well-crafted heavy metal....But all those elements YOU were asking for in Metallica aren't there in one of the Holy albums of prog-metal....that's weird... Meanwhile, we CAN find odd time signatures in Metallica (I think you haven't heard MOP, the album), we CAN find long solos, we CAN find long song, we CAN find instrumental songs....we CAN find as complex harmonies as those in Queensryche's albums....(I'm not quite the harmony-wizard anyway)... So, if we face O:M, an album EVERY prog site has, versus MOP, an album NO prog site has... guess which one wins using YOUR pre-requisites for progginess?

 

Anyway, those aren't the only requistes for progressiveness, but also taking music beyond its status quo, so to speak, among many others.....

 

 

I don't really see that as a particularly significant question - but my answer would be that Metallica started out as a METAL band that wanted to take the genre to the next level.

 

As you're no doubt aware, this was quite the thing to do in the SF Bay area at the time, and, thanks to the NWO(B)HM (much of which has both acknowledged and unacknowledged progressive elements), the genre of thrash metal emerged.

 

Almost to a band, the tendency was to try to do something different - witness the huge variations in style, especially compared to NWOHM. This is very similar to the "birth" of Progressive Rock, where all bands had distinct styles, yet were unified by certain characteristics.

 

Metallica spearheaded a movement, just as Iron Maiden did (neither were first; both took the reins and popularised the music). This movement was hugely influential on the way that metal as a whole would develop over the next few years, and without the unprecedented success of Metallica as a metal band, it is unlikely that Metal would be so pervasive today - it was incredibly unpopular in the Popular press in the late 1970s/early 1980s.

 

In the same way, it is unlikely that Rock would have developed quite as quickly as it did without the Beatles - who, after all, started out as a mere skiffle band among so many others, and "progressed" into a beat band that played rock and roll covers - among so many others.

 

The main difference, of course, is that the Beatles progressed in just about every way possible, rather than specifically to a genre - but the influence of Metal, the thrash style and the "Big" modern sound can be found in many areas of music.

 

So I don't think their influence is restricted to a particular genre, which is why I earlier made the sweeping generalism that they influenced metal as a whole (which, being a generalism, is not 100% accurate, admittedly).

 

 

Atomic_Rooster wrote: this isn't a very hard decision.  The ProgArchives defines progressive in a particular way, and Metallica doesn't fit the bill.

 

Good reasoning, like your style - avoiding the contradictions well, I see...

 

 

Atomic_Rooster wrote:  While some of you argue that they are progressive, they aren't by ProgArchive standards and thus shouldn't be included.  If you want to argue that the definition be changed, then that's a different matter.

 

Actually, I do want the definition changed - and I'm going about changing it.

 

The definition here isn't at all wonderful (most of it came from Wikipedia, which again, I am working on changing so that it is more accurate).

 

It could also easily be argued that Metallica DO fit the bill according to the existing definition - and just as easily that most Prog Metal bands DO NOT.

 

Don't get me started on that one

 

Atomic_Rooster wrote: If some band that you think is equally or less prog than Metallica is on here and you think that gives you precedence to argue endlessly for a lost cause, just suck it up and move on.

 

 

Atomic_Rooster wrote: Metallica's inclusion on the site won't really matter at all.

 

The inclusion won't matter - it's not something to get upset about - but it is helpful to understand the roots of much Prog Metal, just as much - if not more so - than Iron Maiden.

 

Atomic_Rooster wrote:  This is a prog site and not a mildly prog sounding bands site.

 

Couldn't agree more.

 

We need the TRULY progressive bands here.

 

However, that does raise the question...

 

WHAT IS PROG?