Should Metallica be in the forum?

Hi Zaphret, I don't believe Metallica is causing divisions itself, it's the way they are being used to justify the inclusion of other bands, even when they are not here yet.

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - September 21 2008 at 14:02

To sidetrack this discussion a bit: There are a lot of people active in this debate that wants to specifically expand the metal side of the artist rooster here.

First of all I suggest that such discussions in the future should take place inside the collaborators section of the forum; both when it comes to metal acts and other acts that would expand the boundaries of the site; be them controversial or not.

Secondly: The metal fans in particular might want to use their energy to write bios instead; there are more than 100 prog metal/tech/extreme acts currently cleared that needs bio, discography, picture to be added. That backlog should be cleared before even considering any further expansions boundary-wide for metal acts.....in my personal opinion at least ;-)

This makes sense to me - but if this is sounds logical to others I don't know; just an attempt at being constructive ;-)

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Windhawk wrote: To sidetrack this discussion a bit: There are a lot of people active in this debate that wants to specifically expand the metal side of the artist rooster here. First of all I suggest that such discussions in the future should take place inside the collaborators section of the forum; both when it comes to metal acts and other acts that would expand the boundaries of the site; be them controversial or not. this is kind discriminating dont you think? Secondly: The metal fans in particular might want to use their energy to write bios instead; there are more than 100 prog metal/tech/extreme acts currently cleared that needs bio, discography, picture to be added. That backlog should be cleared before even considering any further expansions boundary-wide for metal acts.....in my personal opinion at least ;-) This makes sense to me - but if this is sounds logical to others I don't know; just an attempt at being constructive ;-)     Iván

Zafreth, that is not discrimination at all, I remember starting the Symphopnic cleaning in the open forum, anfd the debates took forever, in this case they have taken 32 pages and no agreement has been reached, still the majority of voters don't want Metallica here but being so many members, the poll keeps growing.

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - September 21 2008 at 15:25

Dean wrote:   To my mind, Proto should be expanded to include a lot more of the Psychedelic underground bands of the late 60s from the UK, USA, Europe, Australia, South America etc. and so give it more substance and form to support the bands that are currently there.

When working wih genres, we will never agree in everything.

Dean wrote: micky wrote: ahhh... that is true Dean... and is the whole problem here since the inception of those categories... Proto as it is defined and utilized now...is a pointless sub....  we have seen that with the slow creep of bands from proto to the main genres...  if they did progressive rock... before or after 1969 they are.. and have been slowly moved. The Nice.. Procol Harum to name a few.  Either they did prog rock.. or were nascient influences ON it.  So in effect you have influences on prog.. in two completely different categories. Tell me my friend.. .how does that serve this site...  having.. as you say... groups that were influential on prog put away in related.. where those who do take an interest in such a thing.. for the history and lineage of prog is SUCH a wonderful and interesting area of exploration. Ah, well, the bands that have moved (crept? implies stealth, which I don't believe is true) are not that many, and those remaining that have done prog rock albums (we know who they are ) are also few.   To my mind, Proto should be expanded to include a lot more of the Psychedelic underground bands of the late 60s from the UK, USA, Europe, Australia, South America etc. and so give it more substance and form to support the bands that are currently there.   However, to do that would require a pro-active effort, not the ad hoc one we currrently use. 'crept'...  implying slow and steady rather than secretive and stealthy and yes.. we know who they are hahahha Anyway...I can dig that and have long called for an expansion of proto (though in a different area.. which can be dealt with later).. I can see where you are coming from on expanding upon  the psych stuff that is already in proto.. some of the more dubious IMO addtions to proto-prog have been that in the realm of west coast psychedelia which was killer music.. but again.. had very little to do with prog.  It can be argued.. and quite successfully I believe that prog was a rebellion of sort to exactly that kind of unstructered jam orientated music. Structure ..structure ..structure. That can be argued to be what prog is considered if you had to explain it with a gun to your head.  That is another discussion though.. I think though  it is a fine line.. a very fine line musically between those groups.. and what this site categorizes as psych prog.  micky wrote: If you want to keep proto as it is... but this site deserves to have a seperate section.. not hidden away in related for those who are interested in the groups that made prog what it is.  As David said earlier...  this site is THE trailblazer.. and let's face it... THE resource for those interested in prog. Any dumbsh*t can listen to this stuff...  what this site can do is EDUCATE.  That is what some of us have always had in the back of our minds.  The way this site is structured... makes that damn difficult.. I don't have the time to point out these bands ... nor do you.. or anyone. The structure of the site can make our job easier.  anyway.. my two cents on that.  I agree with other comments here - further discussions on Prog Related should move to the SCZ (and then CZ) before being expanded here. yes that is the place for it.. ... and as I posted before... there is no reason.. no earthly reason why that can't.. or shouldn't happen.  I'll take the damn project on if need be.  The site would be well served by having a category drawn from proto and related that implicitly details the musical influences that made prog what it is.

debrewguy wrote: Actually, going over my Uriah Heep anthology (three 80 minute CDs), I'm still questioning their status as prog anything. I still remember too many mid 70s reviews and comments calling them "heavy metal" or  a poor man's Deep Purple.

1. Look at Yourself
2. The Magician's Birthday
3. Demons & Wizards

Amd no way is the Poor Man's Deep Purple, in the 70's the loyalties were divided between Heepers and Purpleheads, and IMO UH are far better and much more versatile than DP.

Oh well, the Purple albums prior to 1970 contains some pretty interesting stuff though.

A real fun cover of "River Deep, Mountain High" can be found on one of those too ;-)

More of the "Cliff Bass Effect", of course this bass effect gave to the songs an effect of heavyness and also sounds like a steamroller in most of the MOP songs, a very kind of "thick" sound that enchaces the overall sound.