Metallica?

C'mon... Metallica... they are sure a very good band (lots of ups and downs) but they are not progressive at all... Long songs, long solos... this is bs for me... If so, let Sepultura, Megadeth and whatever other thrash bands in!
I think that the limits of 'being prog or not' 'are getting too blurry in here. You can bash me for that, but it seems to me that 'Progarchives' could abruptly die and be re-named 'Rockarchives'; it's just like other members said before, although we like lots of non-prog bands, sometimes they do not deserve to be here just because they are good.
And you know, Progarchives has been of invaluable assistance for me through the last two or three years, because it is a reliable place to get reliable information about one particular genre: PROG, man, I found so many good bands in here and now I spend my money wisely when buying records.
So, imho, including 'off-prog' bands can really mess with people's heads in respect to 'what is prog'; and, in the end, the site loses its integrity. If people wanna learn about Metallica, sorry, this may not be the right place to be.

EDIT: Although I like Iron Maiden very much (I learned to play the guitar by listening to them on a 24/7 basis for several years when I was a teenager), I'd also rather prefer to see Iron Maiden out than Metallica (and other non-prog bands) in...

Or maybe Duran Duran, Devo, Men at Work and The Police will also be added as "new-wave-pop-80's-prog bands"...


Edited by Mumakil - May 22 2007 at 13:19

Mumakil wrote: C'mon... Metallica... they are sure a very good band (lots of ups and downs) but they are not progressive at all... Long songs, long solos... this is bs for me... If so, let Sepultura, Megadeth and whatever other thrash bands in! I think that the limits of 'being prog or not' 'are getting too blurry in here. You can bash me for that, but it seems to me that 'Progarchives' could abruptly die and be re-named 'Rockarchives'; it's just like other members said before, although we like lots of non-prog bands, sometimes they do not deserve to be here just because they are good. And you know, Progarchives has been of invaluable assistance for me through the last two or three years, because it is a reliable place to get reliable information about one particular genre: PROG, man, I found so many good bands in here and now I spend my money wisely when buying records. So, imho, including 'off-prog' bands can really mess with people's heads in respect to 'what is prog'; and, in the end, the site loses its integrity. If people wanna learn about Metallica, sorry, this may not be the right place to be. EDIT: Although I like Iron Maiden very much (I learned to play the guitar by listening to them on a 24/7 basis for several years when I was a teenager), I'd also rather prefer to see Iron Maiden out than Metallica (and other non-prog bands) in... Or maybe Duran Duran, Devo, Men at Work and The Police will also be added as "new-wave-pop-80's-prog bands"...

Oh No, if ProgArchives will be demoted to RockArchives it will be the same as the classic rock station here in my town that was demoted to a plain rock station and in the future will probably open for other genres.

^ here's another nice piece of music which I'd call progressive: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-2TASdz4XI ... I bet most people would disagree too, but I don't care!

Well, I think I stated my arguments for their not inclusion and all of them are valid, the agreement or not falling into the realm of each own opinion, since it is not an objective matter.
I will not keep on answering each post because most of the disagreement is in each own opinion and because the decision is not made in this forum. 

tuxon wrote: I don't understand anything so if wanted my post can be ignored. But . Prog music is a musicians genre, not based on incidentally or accidentally playing so bad you turn up with uncerain accidental sttrange possible perceived as progressive changes.

Can't agree 100% - what about, for example, ELP?

Not all of that is intended - and nor is it supposed to be.

Improvisation is all about "incidents and accidents" (happy ones) - and so, to a large extent is full-on composition.

tuxon wrote: For me deliberate progressive approachhas value, not unvolantary based on incompetence lack of skills should be of any vallue.

There's much in that as a statement on its own - but I can't really see how it fits in with this discussion, unless you're agreeing with Metallica as a Progressive band, as that is exactly their approach; I have videos of Lars being interviewed in the 1980s, and turning his nose up at the suggestion that Metallica might somehow be a "thrash" band. They were so much more than that in the 1980s, and this is not largely appreciated.

akin wrote: Well, I think I stated my arguments for their not inclusion and all of them are valid, the agreement or not falling into the realm of each own opinion, since it is not an objective matter.

I hate to keep disagreeing like this, but actually, it is objective - that's the point.

And the objective parts are being overruled on the grounds of subjectivity alone - so the case for inclusion is looking very strong.

 

Don't get me started on Queensryche and how progressive they AREN'T... at least, on their early albums - the ones that were released at the same time as Metallica's. Metallica wipe the floor with Queensryche in every aspect apart from personal preference - especially Operation Mindcrime.

 

If you want the facts and analysis... well, you could check out my reviews first...

 

akin wrote: I will not keep on answering each post because most of the disagreement is in each own opinion and because the decision is not made in this forum.

But the decision will be influenced by discussions in this forum - you clearly feel passionately that Metallica don't belong here, and so far, I do not understand why this should be - except that you don't think they should.

So far you have just contradicted my points - and not managed to state why you think my observations - or those of The T or MikeEnRegalia are incorrect.

They are all verifiable through the YouTube links I posted in this very thread - we're not making it up in order to get our favourite band in - there's no fanboyism in this. It's the understanding of why Metallica are important in the development of Progressive metal, and why they are also Progressive as a band - in the true sense, not the so-called "literal" sense.

It's fair enough to hold an opinion, but opinion is not enough against objective facts and agreements with current definitions - but I'll go over your arguments again, when I get a moment, and try to pick out the salient points.  You can then correct me if I interpret the points wrongly - and we might reach an understanding

Edited by Certif1ed - May 23 2007 at 03:22

Wait, we're respected somewhere? ...I'm out.

Certif1ed wrote: Rocktopus wrote: It probably takes three times longer for me to write something in english than you, and I'm no good with musical theory terminology (even in norwegian). But I know and have heard more music than most.  I think neither Deep Purple, Led Zeppelin, Iron Maiden or Metallica's got much to do in a Progarchive. Although I like all of them, as most of the forum-member does. I suspect that's the main reason they are all here. I own all 80's Metallica albums, and have loved them since the late 80's. Metallica surely progressed as a thrash-metal band and sophisticated that genre. I think what I wrote makes sense. And I its not my problem that you don't believe in genres. I think these bands got too much plain rock, heavy or thrash, and too little of what I associate with prog to have a natural place here.    But that's just your opinion (to which you are, of course, perfectly entitled)  - there is no reasoning behind it - at least, none that you've stated.   I'm not disputing genres in this thread - I'm trying to keep the discussion specific.     You don't need to be eloquent to come up with some kind of justification - your whole statement seems to boil down to: You don't think Metallica should be here, and that you don't think Prog Metal should either - as the rest of your post expressed;   Rocktopus wrote:   To me, you all admitting that progmetal is mainly built on Metallica + NWBHM proves to me that the progressiveness of most other progmetal = nil. Btw: Although I'm against I'd rather have Metallica here, a band that truly progressed than most later DT-school so-called progmetal.   Sorry, but there's no "proof" in there, or any reason that would give understanding to your point of view. I can't pretend to have heard every piece of music ever written, but I've certainly listened to my fair share too...

Yes, its all just my opinon, and that's more or less what I can offer. I wrote that I think  and I suspect, It proves to me etc...

if you tell James that some people see a connection between his music and prog, he'll laugh at your face, for sure...

^ and you would really say that Master of Puppets is just "ordinary" thrash like early Anthrax or Testament, for example?

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ and you would really say that Master of Puppets is just "ordinary" thrash like early Anthrax or Testament, for example?

No. I wouldn't say that about Slayer's Seasons in the Abyss either. I'd say Master of Puppets is an extraordinary thrashmetal album.