Metallica ?

Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ So Metallica are prog after all?

Well I'll agree about Lars, ha ha, but the big difference between Metallica and the other bands you mention, at least to me, had a lot to do with lyrics and emotional tone.

Metallica was the first band I had heard in a long time that could honestly and without pretension come from that same sort of unhappy introspection that put Gabriel, Waters and Ozzy on the map when they were young.

They combined this with music that both recalled classic prog and also came from their thrash metal roots which were already progressive in a sense in that they were taking Black Flag, Motorhead, Minor Threat etc into new territory that also drew upon the past (Pink Floyd, Purple, Sabbath etc).

It may be one of those you had to be there to appreciate it, but in their sincere attempt to take metal/thrash into new and more intelligent places, Metallica wrote lyrics that were real, as well as music that drew on their obvious collection of old Genesis, Sabbath and Pink Floyd records.

P.S. In a time when real original prog rock was almost non-existant and practically irrelevant, Metallica definitley had some moments of resonance with the spirit of prog-rock past without being corny or nostalgic.

Edited by Easy Money - July 04 2009 at 21:29

Easy Money wrote: Well I'll agree about Lars, ha ha, but the big difference between Metallica and the other bands you mention, at least to me, had a lot to do with lyrics and emotional tone. Metallica was the first band I had heard in a long time that could honestly and without pretension come from that same sort of unhappy introspection that put Gabriel, Waters and Ozzy on the map when they were young. They combined this with music that both recalled classic prog and also came from their thrash metal roots which were already progressive in a sense in that they were taking Black Flag, Motorhead, Minor Threat etc into new territory that also drew upon the past (Pink Floyd, Purple, Sabbath etc). It may be one of those you had to be there to appreciate it, but in their sincere attempt to take metal/thrash into new and more intelligent places, Metallica wrote lyrics that were real, as well as music that drew on their obvious collection of old Genesis, Sabbath and Pink Floyd records. P.S. In a time when real original prog rock was almost non-existant and practically irrelevant, Metallica definitley had some moments of resonance with the spirit of prog-rock past without being corny or nostalgic.

yes, further the meticulous arguments of those in support was important ; it may have been a kind of pressure but it was born of a strong belief the band must be here if PA was to reflect a comprehensive Prog archive, especially if Progmetal was to be given a timeline and context from which it sprang - i.e. Sabbath and Maiden, both progrelated due to their use of prog ideas [semiclassical phrases, complex arrangements, themes] as well as their impact on what would become 'progressive metal' [Voivod, Tool, etc]




Edited by Atavachron - July 04 2009 at 22:17

No, they don't.

Its a PROG site... Metallica aren't prog.

------End of discussion------

Metallica were added and some people need to move on and get over it. If I recall it required more solid substantiation and justification than most other controversial inclusions. This is a progressive thinking site and one would think that maybe we need to give certain powers that be credit where credit is due. Perhaps we need to redefine what ' Progressive" is all about and work on the word as opposed to debating ' Genre taboos" and which band/s would compromise the credibility of thisgreat site. Almost 25,000 members, I am sure the owners must be very  proud and with all collaborations and contributions regardless of slants. Metallica are a permanent fixture.......well done to those that made it happen

BTW: I only joined this thread because the use of this argument to justify the inclusion of Metallica:

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - July 05 2009 at 01:53

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: BTW: I only joined this thread because the use of this argument to justify the inclusion of Metallica:   Mr ProgFreak wrote: Lesson #1: The bands that were added to the Prog-Related category are not considered to be prog.   Because that argument is true but flawed at the same time, being that it may imply that any non Prog band can be added to Prog Related or Proto Prog without limits.   Iván

It's really not possible to discuss this topic with you when you constantly keep misunderstanding people on purpose.

I'm not familiar with all the history of Metallica discussions here - but looked up the ones in the suggest new bands section.

In 2007 the admins was handed Metallica as a case for prog related. They were unable to reach a decision in either direction - referred the matter to Max, who at that time said no. The case was closed then - the prog related team had not reached a decision but stopped the issue because the owner said no.

Several discussions then followed, and first and foremost a 36 pages long discussion where the musical merits of the bands were discussed in length, and detail. Where the ones against inclusion were specifically asked and invited to argument for their side of the case several times over. And their main argument for pages and pages where variations over the theme "I don't think they have prog elements and because I think so they shouldn't be added". While the ones for inclusion presented analytical stances and arguments both in terms of influence, musical construction and musical details. Analysis in short.

It was this discussion that made Max change his mind, and when he changed his mind the admins continued their discussion from 2007, and managed to get to a decision. Which in this case was a positive one.

If they had been rejected as a prog related case earlier I don't know. From what I understand they were rejected as a prog metal act - but even if the admins had rejected them previously they decided by themselves that the topic was worthy of a new discussion rather than upholding a past decision. One may like this or not - but it is the admins choice to do so.

When someone states that this addition was sorely due to pressure from a small group of members I do think that opinion belittles the work, ethics and moral fibre of the site owner as well as the admins - basically stating that these persons can be pressured into making wrong decisions that they themselves can't vouch for.

In my mind that is, planned or accidentally, undermining the authority of the people running this site.

It's fair to disagree with decisions, but claiming that the people running this site doesn't  know what they are doing is unfair, and uncalled for.

As for the various polls in this matter, this thread has the most votes, with just over 100 members out of 20.000 voting. The others in the past: About 50 - or less. Not really sufficent material to draw conclusions of when less than 1 percent of the members vote. It speaks volumes for that one percent, but that 1 percent is and will always be just one percent, the 99% that didn't care to vote constitues by far the majority of the members - and if one can draw assumptions from that the main one would be that 99% of the members of this site doesn't care whether or not they'll find Metallia here.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: It's really not possible to discuss this topic with you when you constantly keep misunderstanding people on purpose.   I don't misunderstand you, I only say that this argument can be used to add any band, as a fact it has been used to sugest bands such as TOTO or BOSTON.   Some people ghave even daid that there is no problem adding determined non related bands because at the end Prog Related is not Prog.   Not saying it's your case, you are the one misunderstanding, you say this with good intentions (I know you are sincere in your beliefs), but this same arguments will be used by others to suggest almost anything.   Iván