Should Metallica be in the forum?

Using Miles Davis inclusion in jazzrockfusion as an argument for adding Metallica to prog-metal, is as absurd as it gets.

I was thinking that with the addition of Miles, that not Metallica but Herbie Hancock whould be a natural next. I suppose if Metallica gets added, I should use them as my main argument to get Herbie in. Makes a lot of sense, eh?

The T wrote: And of course, the metal-naysayers who have only heard Enter Sandman and The Unforgiven (two fantastic songs btw, but not prog at all) would cry and tear their clothings like Caiphas with such an addition. Black Sabbath, an english, 70's band which is respected even by non-metallers, incited quite a controversy; Iron Maiden, a band added to prog-related in quite an awkward (IMO) move -should be in PM- and respected widely by non-metallers, caused quite the controversy. Deep Purple and Led Zeppelin, two not-yet-metal bands from England from the 70's  caused big controversy........ Imagine: an american band, from the 80's -the dreaded 80's- who started playing music in the same genre of SLAYER, who was accused of inciting violence and even making people kill people, who has appeared on MTV with terrible atrocious performances in recent years, and which, to top it all, is called METALlica.

Why are you suggesting that them being american got anything to do with people questioning their relevance for the PA? Are american bands and artists being discriminated?

Btw: My impression is that non-metallers know Metallica (I got all their 80's albums, and I've owned them  since I was a kid) a whole lot better than most of you metalheads seem know electric Miles.



Edited by Rocktopus - August 10 2008 at 06:43

MikeEnRegalia wrote: why else would Blind Guardian be here for example ?

Several different reasons. The whole "I like it so it's prog" argument, etc. etc.

ANYWAY

I don't see influence as being reason enough to add something like Metallica to this site. Surely we can all know and love Metallica (except for me) despite not having a section here? My biggest issue is that I don't see how it would benefit the site at all...

I also don't believe in retroactively labeling something, especially all these influential bands. For example, let's say a group of strapping young lads all really like Sleepytime Gorilla Museum and are really influenced by their music, yet their band plays indie pop. This band eventually becomes really famous and inspires a whole group of artists in the similar vein. Surely this doesn't make Sleepytime Gorilla Museum indie pop now, right?

Should Metallica be in the forum

This isn't "Anything that at any point ever vaguely resembled something in the general vicinity of the outer reaches of the outer reaches of the most liberal definition of prog rock Archives," it's "Prog Archives"

MikeEnRegalia wrote: micky wrote: Maybe the PMT can take my upcoming Miles Davis addition to heart that you don't have to be a 'prog artist' (whatever the hell that is hahah)  to make prog music Now that does annoy me. This has always been the policy of the PMT ... why else would Blind Guardian be here for example? I have always been the first to point out that we should be looking at albums, not artists.

Ugh.

Micky's statement in blue is always bit stretched out, though I know it's his usual way of provocative vision. If you take a look at classic grounds on which prog rock still stands, if you take a look at the 1 billion topics debating what's the best of prog rock, you will actually notice there are plenty of "prog artists" that define prog rock. So for me, it's less important that (what follows is a purely fictional example) Sting would have made a prog rock album in 1977, influenced by the movement, but rather that bands like Van der Graff Generator were there from the start and through their most important, valuable work, made themselves prog artists without a shred of a doubt.

Prog artists exists, prog music is of course general, but when talking about Metallica, you can't of course talk about prog music (as in general work), but about prog albums.

Now the procedure to focus on music/albums/compositions/riffs/silences/whatever instead of judging an artist is already old, since the issue of "completeness" in creating these archives were several times stuck when reaching an artist that's not progressive by default, but made several albums that tent to have progressive leanings. Metallica has 4 prog-metal albums? Suure, it's more than one prog album anyway, but still...how convenient! Let's just the range of prog artists has ended, and we can go into picking every prog albums non-prog artists have ever done! To me a complete Archives, guys, ya!

Thing is major opinions about how to gestion the prog archiving were always duplicitary:

When talking about additions

• one prog album/composition/riff/minute/second is enough to guarantee the addition
• influences/influencing counts more than music itself

But when talking concretely about the addition

• Some imagine you don't have to add anything but the prog albums - which is false, the site being built on bands and complete discographies
• Some forget about the prog albums they found benefic for the addition and start talking about the non-prog albums that are to be added togheter with those benefic prog ones - because those are the rules: artists, full discography - not albums & just music
  

And when reaching genre-issue

• tags are most of time cared for, out of numerous reasons
• any sudden different sound/style from the original, major one makes that band complex/eclectic/whatever
• the importance of classic prog music (such as Genesis's albums) is neglected in order to go on pointing out the deviation into pop/non-prog and thus to prove that enlarging the window for any artist that made some prog than moved to else/worse can have its place
• such...

So there's no full consensus in anything that validates an artist's entry in this prog rock archive.

Maybe we're on the verge of becoming original in describing and defining the whole movement of prog rock - separating from most of the other sites and chronicles and such - but the sudden urge to take each artist from this Universe and find what prog bit he made in his life is not the good direction, IMO.

I'm sorry for this rant, you can blame it on me being confused and a bit unsatisfyed with some reasons pointed out here.

GentleGiant wrote: No

Easy Livin wrote: Just a reminder that M@x has said no to Metallica being added at all.

*sigh of relief*


Perhaps you could make a sticky thread of all the big name bands whose names are floated every so often (like Metallica) but who have been rejected by Max?


Edited by Pnoom! - August 10 2008 at 07:38

Easy Livin wrote: Just a reminder that M@x has said no to Metallica being added at all.

I had heard no to PR only when it was brought to his attention......that's news to me... and the PMT's I guess as well.........  oh well.

since when has M@X ever unilaterally said a group can not be added here... something smells.. and smells badly

febus wrote: I am sure someday a KISS fanboy will come up with hard facts how Kiss is prog related and ask PA to have them included here as well

you're a better poster than that man....  if people think they belong here.. it might be for a reason other than being a fan of the group. 


Edited by micky - August 10 2008 at 11:55

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Anyone who can't see the progressiveness in Metallica has a lot to learn about music in general ... I know this is a bold statement, but I stand by it. Comparing them with Kiss is ridiculous and only confirms my deepest fears ... most posters here simply don't seem to know what they're talking about. Fortunately they make it obvious for everyone to see ...

I can see how they were groundbreaking, and I can see the mild prog elements in their music (granted I've only heard MoP), but there's a difference between having prog elements and being prog.


Edited by Pnoom! - August 10 2008 at 12:20