Should Metallica be in the forum?

burritounit wrote: Tony R wrote: Man oh man.  If two such luminaries of the site as Mike and Cert propose Metallica for prog-related then it should be done.  Don't mean to be rude...but why? for what reason should they be here? for their relation and influence on prog metal?

WaywardSon wrote: If there was a genre "Proto Prog Metal" it would solve all the problems All the bands which were a strong influence on Progressive metal, Metallica, Malmsteen, Priest could all easily fit in there.   But there isn´t, so, the only place for Metallica is in Prog Related. I voted Yes

Then we'd need a proto post rock category too.  Besides, in regards to proto-prog metal, I'd rather the bands be mentioned that influenced the Prog part of the equation (such as Yes) be there than those which influenced the "metal" (got into that in one of the closed topics).

I think Metallica influenced metal generally, and not specifically Prog Metal.

I will post something I wrote last night in a now closed thread:

This highlights a question I had before reading about Metallica.

metalwiki wrote: ...Bands such as Fates Warning, Queensrÿche and Dream Theater took elements of these progressive rock groups – primarily the instrumentation and compositional structure of songs – and merged them with heavy metal styles associated with early Metallica and Megadeth. The result could be described as a progressive rock mentality with heavy metal sounds....

That Metallica was "progressive" (but not Prog) and influential was not in doubt for me.  That it influenced bands like DT I was aware of.  A concern of mine has been that the Prog part of the equation in those Prog Metal bands comes from classic Prog bands such as Yes, whereas Metallica influenced the heavy metal sounds part.  Those heavy metal sounds being fused with progressive rock elements.  If talking influence, did Metallica progress metal more, generally-speaking, or Prog generally-speaking?  Metallica influenced a whole slew of metal bands, some prog, some not. Not that we can consider Metallica for Proto-Prog anyway.

Another problem I have is that it is being compared to non-prog metal bands. As an example, it was doing more complicated stuff than other thrash (non-prog) bands were doing at the time.  A part of me would rather compare it to what prog bands were doing at the time, and had done before, even if the progressive metal history and progressive rock history are quite different (heck, it's all rock to me).

Anyway, perhaps if I listened to the band's "proggiest," or at least most progressive albums" I might feel differently, but I wouldn't be looking at them historically, I'd be listening to the music based on its own compositional qualities (rather than thinking if this was more progressive than similar bands out there, or if this progressed metal), but if it has sufficient proglike qualities (course it would help if I did know more metal to reference it, but I generally have a decent idea of what is proggy, I think.  Not always... Oh, and I'm also more inclusive than most and do value progressiveness / innovation).

Edited by Logan - August 20 2008 at 19:13

zafreth wrote: The T wrote: [ For the sake of the peace on this site, I'd rather see them added to prog-related. But my opinion will always be that they, during two and a half albums, were full progressive-metal. And as Micky said, there are bands whose entire CAREERS are made of one or two albums...   Is the most poor argument that you have ever done man... maybe i try to do some arguments  and maybe more or less failed but you man... wow it seems that your "logical" arguments are disappeared... if bands whose entire careers are made of one or two albums, and then disappear, well i think that many and many causes extra musical that provoque those decisions has ANYTHING to do  about the Metallica inclusion...

no.. not poor at all... only a matter of perspecive...

this is a prog site is it not....  one that prides itself on being the ultimate prog resource... NOWHERE there does it say that there are caveats attached to that

a) must have more than X amount of prog albums
b) regardless of the music itself.. only bands that are KNOWN to be prog can be included.

See... and I do hate repeating myself....this site is MUSIC.. not group orientated.  You can disagree with Teo based on whether Metallica did PM albums.. Teo is an expert..  so is Mark...I tend to take their views that Metallica had a period of 2 or 3 albums that were Prog Metal.  Now... again...  lesson A people.. this is a PROG WEBSITE.. not allmusic.com.  A visitor here ..is looking for what....

*David raises hand*  Prog Music Michael

Very good David.. .you get some clappies

This site is in the business of cateloging prog music.. IF... read that .. IF Metallica did prog metal albums.. and there are a number of experts here in the field of prog metal that say they did.. then where should they be put...

in Prog Related...  just how is a group.. that MADE prog albums .. .  related.


that is the point I made.. and Teo agreed with.. and really... there is no other way of looking at it.  Any other way of looking at it.. is shortsighted... and NOT what this site is about.  Anyone who wants to see and view Metallica for latter albums...  go to another website that disucsses.. METAL albums.. this is a prog site.


Edited by micky - August 20 2008 at 19:07

micky wrote: you know not done yet I guess...regarding some things said in the collab zone.. and in some PM's being exchanged.... I ask you all... All of you... what is really more important here... adding bands that are 'genrefied'   that is 'Micky speak' for regressive groups that do the right things... sing the right things... but don't have a single PROGRESSIVE bone in their bodies. Yet are only prog ...by association or.... The T wrote:   I beg to disagree Mike. MoP and AJFA are MORE progressive-metal than many bands we have here (including but not limited to Blind Guardian, for example).   groups that actually were progresssive metal... that did what King Crimson and Yes did in the 70's to rock.... listen to those albums.... listen to the state of metal in the early to mid 80's.  Tell me Metallica is not prog metal. The only way you can... is ... if I can be blunt... by saying that what passes, judged  for Prog Metal... is not progressive .. or prog... at all. Only technical complex metal.  This is a prog site people...  those who progress the form... expand what music is and can be are to be celebrated.. end of rant....

I agree with one thing in your post and that is that Metallica did progressed...but within the metal genre not the progressive rock one(or the one of the site). If that was the case of progressive rock(and others subs) then many other bands of other genres that progressed in someway would have to be added even if their not related to progressive rock. I don't think that a band progressing would make them prog and nor is having complexity in the music. As I sad before many other genre's of music can progress and have complexity in their music and still not be prog.

Tony R wrote: Man oh man.  If two such luminaries of the site as Mike and Cert propose Metallica for prog-related then it should be done.

Logan wrote:  (...) in regards to proto-prog metal, I'd rather the bands be mentioned that influenced the Prog part of the equation (such as Yes) be there than those which influenced the "metal" (got into that in one of the closed topics).

zafreth wrote: burritounit wrote: Tony R wrote: Man oh man.  If two such luminaries of the site as Mike and Cert propose Metallica for prog-related then it should be done.  Don't mean to be rude...but why? for what reason should they be here? for their relation and influence on prog metal?   Agree with that, besides after reading the older Thread, Akin has many strong arguments than Cert does not accept and for that pure reason try to put Akin in a position that was not very polite.   I still think than Metallica are not:   1. A prog rock band. 2. A prog metal band.

Neither do I, nor did I suggest that.

I guess some people will never quite get the hang of the idea that Prog-Related means strongly-influencing or strongly-influenced by Prog but not Prog.

The T wrote: Tony R wrote: Man oh man.  If two such luminaries of the site as Mike and Cert propose Metallica for prog-related then it should be done.    Rarely have I seen such wisdom..... in a Rush fan..   You forgot to add other luminaries as Hughes, Atavachorn, Micky... and, well... The LighT

Sorry, I didnt mean to be dismissive of you guys.

I think that if they are accepted as Prog-Related the Bio should be carefully written to explain there relationship and any MP3 samples (could be interesting, given the band's history) should be examples of their relationship.

Tony R wrote: burritounit wrote: Tony R wrote: Man oh man.  If two such luminaries of the site as Mike and Cert propose Metallica for prog-related then it should be done.  Don't mean to be rude...but why? for what reason should they be here? for their relation and influence on prog metal? You got it. That's what Prog-Related is. I appreciate that you are arguing that they influenced the METAL part of Prog-Metal but nonetheless they heavily-influenced a whole Prog genre and that is important if we are going to be the authoritative reference source  we aspire to.

That's where I want it to get, and if that's the reason that they should be added then I'll supported all the way. But to say Metallica is prog metal(which they are not), well...that's another story.

Thanks Tony.


Edited by burritounit - August 21 2008 at 06:42

I've never done a bio before.
If they get added, can I do it?