Forum Home Forum Home > Progressive Music Lounges > Suggest New Bands and Artists
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Should Metallica be in the forum?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedShould Metallica be in the forum?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 3132333435 36>
Poll Question: Should Metallica be in the forum?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
36 [37.89%]
59 [62.11%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Author
Message
Angelo View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: May 07 2006
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 13244
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 22 2008 at 16:08
Have you started talking to yourself now, Zafreth? Wink Come and join us in The Shed some time.
ISKC Rock Radio
I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected]
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 22 2008 at 16:23
^Zafreth's been more passionate about this Metallica addition than Certf1ed, Mike, Hughes and me combined...LOL 
Back to Top
debrewguy View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 22 2008 at 22:05
Originally posted by zafreth zafreth wrote:

Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by debrewguy 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.
 
Don't question yourself, Uriah Heep has at least three Prog albums:
  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.

But I guess it's a matter of opinions.
 
Iván
Don't forget SalisburyClap

Can we re-visit Queen's classification, then ?
Would they be proggier if their lyrics tended more towards fantasy / sci-fi ?
Is it that there is no Hammond B3 to be found, nor mellotron ?
The Poor Man reference  is one I recall Uriah Heep being tagged with by detractors in the 70s Rock Press. I hear  similarities, but not outright imitation.
As for the prog aspect, they have some of it. But i wonder if other "heavy" bands from the early 70s are rated as less prog than UH because of the lack of fantasy/sci-fi lyrics, long pieces, and B3/Mellotron.
Now this is IMHO to the hilt. But I do re-state my case that much of the press and fanbase at the mid-point of the 70s saw them as a heavy metal group. Not in the sense of what HM became with the advent of Judas Priest and the NWOBHM onwards. .But rather in the "heavy" rock they played. And in the main, I find UH to be the perfect example of a band deserving of an extensive anthology rather than a complete collection. Through their first 4 albums, for me anyway, the songs split 50/50 great/good vs so-so and oh no.
 With Easy Livin' and Look at Yourself, they'll enjoy Classic Rock airplay for eons. But (imho, in lower case to emphasize the humbility), they really don't rate up there with Purple, Zep, Sabbath among the heavy rockers, nor even with other 70s hard rockers like BTO, Foghat, Aerosmith.
Please remember that even in their heyday, that they did not headline big arenas. If they did, I missed something.
 And too quickly their peak passed. When I was going through my "anthologizing", I picked up Magician's Brirthday. I still can't comprehend its' high standing, and prefer their next 3 releases. Mind you, once more the ratio of good to bad is still at 50% for me.

For those who are big fans, please take heed. I too, have been disappointed and bemused to find out that fave bands of mine like Gentle Giant and Ange are not held to be quite in the same class as other groups.

"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
Back to Top
Chris S View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 09 2004
Location: Front Range
Status: Offline
Points: 7028
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 23 2008 at 04:59
Originally posted by debrewguy debrewguy wrote:

Originally posted by zafreth zafreth wrote:

Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by debrewguy 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.
 
Don't question yourself, Uriah Heep has at least three Prog albums:
  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.

But I guess it's a matter of opinions.
 
Iván
Don't forget SalisburyClap

Can we re-visit Queen's classification, then ?
Would they be proggier if their lyrics tended more towards fantasy / sci-fi ?
Is it that there is no Hammond B3 to be found, nor mellotron ?
The Poor Man reference  is one I recall Uriah Heep being tagged with by detractors in the 70s Rock Press. I hear  similarities, but not outright imitation.
As for the prog aspect, they have some of it. But i wonder if other "heavy" bands from the early 70s are rated as less prog than UH because of the lack of fantasy/sci-fi lyrics, long pieces, and B3/Mellotron.
Now this is IMHO to the hilt. But I do re-state my case that much of the press and fanbase at the mid-point of the 70s saw them as a heavy metal group. Not in the sense of what HM became with the advent of Judas Priest and the NWOBHM onwards. .But rather in the "heavy" rock they played. And in the main, I find UH to be the perfect example of a band deserving of an extensive anthology rather than a complete collection. Through their first 4 albums, for me anyway, the songs split 50/50 great/good vs so-so and oh no.
 With Easy Livin' and Look at Yourself, they'll enjoy Classic Rock airplay for eons. But (imho, in lower case to emphasize the humbility), they really don't rate up there with Purple, Zep, Sabbath among the heavy rockers, nor even with other 70s hard rockers like BTO, Foghat, Aerosmith.
Please remember that even in their heyday, that they did not headline big arenas. If they did, I missed something.
 And too quickly their peak passed. When I was going through my "anthologizing", I picked up Magician's Brirthday. I still can't comprehend its' high standing, and prefer their next 3 releases. Mind you, once more the ratio of good to bad is still at 50% for me.

For those who are big fans, please take heed. I too, have been disappointed and bemused to find out that fave bands of mine like Gentle Giant and Ange are not held to be quite in the same class as other groups.

 
This thread is digressing somewhat but could not help but respond to your comments. I have to agree with you on a lot of UH and sometimes wonder if all those personnel changes affected them to a negative degree. The same could be said of DP and Wishbone Ash . As whole albums they were not that consistent other than those mentioned above including Salisbury. Let's not forget the double live album from 73' eitherWink
<font color=Brown>Music - The Sound Librarian

...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR]
Back to Top
narcolepticus View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie
Avatar

Joined: September 11 2008
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 5
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 23 2008 at 08:16
Metallica are NOT prog in any sense .. I am really surprised that anyone would suggest this.. Ouch

Edited by narcolepticus - September 23 2008 at 08:29
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19546
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 23 2008 at 13:36
Originally posted by debrewguy debrewguy wrote:


Can we re-visit Queen's classification, then ?
 
I don't believe so, the reality of QUEEN is different, they were a Rock band who was close to Prog during their early years, but later had a commercial and mainstream approach, despite the wonderful operatic excesses of Freddie Mercury.

Would they be proggier if their lyrics tended more towards fantasy / sci-fi ?
 
I absolutely disagree, IMO URIAH HEEP's forst and definitive Prog album was "Look at Yopurself" with excellent songs as Look at Yourself with the Osibisa Rhythm section and "Tears in My Eyes" with outstanding changes, excellent chorus, unusual timming and radivcal changes, The Magicians Birthday and Demons & Wizaeds was only a logical step in their evolutiion.
 
Lets remember that before joining UH, Ken Hensley played with Greg Lake and Lee Kerslake in The Gods, so the seeds of Prog were there.
 
Is it that there is no Hammond B3 to be found, nor mellotron ?
 
I never believed that an instrument makes he style, the musician makes the style.
 
The Poor Man reference  is one I recall Uriah Heep being tagged with by detractors in the 70s Rock Press. I hear  similarities, but not outright imitation.
 
Wasn't that the normal press reaction towards many bands with Prog leanings?

As for the prog aspect, they have some of it. But i wonder if other "heavy" bands from the early 70s are rated as less prog than UH because of the lack of fantasy/sci-fi lyrics, long pieces, and B3/Mellotron.
 
As I told you, I believe UH was Prog with Look at Yourself without any Sci Fi or Fantasy refference, now you can't vlame them for using mellotron and Hammond, many bands did so and are not here, they are here because the way they used those instruments.

Now this is IMHO to the hilt. But I do re-state my case that much of the press and fanbase at the mid-point of the 70s saw them as a heavy metal group. Not in the sense of what HM became with the advent of Judas Priest and the NWOBHM onwards. .But rather in the "heavy" rock they played. And in the main, I find UH to be the perfect example of a band deserving of an extensive anthology rather than a complete collection. Through their first 4 albums, for me anyway, the songs split 50/50 great/good vs so-so and oh no.
 
Yes, URIAH HEEP has a lot of bad albums but because they had to allow their two basic members (David Byron and Gary Thain) to leave the band because of their addictions that lead them to death. Fopr example Thain was replaced by the Prog bass player John Wetton, but he couldn't fit the shoes and nobody could ever replace David Byron.

 With Easy Livin' and Look at Yourself, they'll enjoy Classic Rock airplay for eons. But (imho, in lower case to emphasize the humbility), they really don't rate up there with Purple, Zep, Sabbath among the heavy rockers, nor even with other 70s hard rockers like BTO, Foghat, Aerosmith.
Please remember that even in their heyday, that they did not headline big arenas. If they did, I missed something.
 
Since when popularity means good? Many obscure bands are outstanding while many more popular bands are crap.
 
Genesis was playing in small places and universities until Peter started to wear costumes and even The Lamb was played in mid empty halls, to the point that the goodbye concert to Peter Gabriel in France (Believe it was Toullouse) had to be cancelled due to lack of interest.

 And too quickly their peak passed. When I was going through my "anthologizing", I picked up Magician's Brirthday. I still can't comprehend its' high standing, and prefer their next 3 releases. Mind you, once more the ratio of good to bad is still at 50% for me.
If two basic members leave and die a short time after that....any band will suffer, they reached their peak with Hensley, Byron, Kerslake, Thain and Box, when they lost  Byron and Thain, their peak soon passed, as Genesis without Gabriel and Hackett.

For those who are big fans, please take heed. I too, have been disappointed and bemused to find out that fave bands of mine like Gentle Giant and Ange are not held to be quite in the same class as other groups.
 
Gentle Giant is far more popular among Progheads than Uriah Heep by miles, while Ange sung in French, and that's the fate of non English singing bands, remember that PFM, Banco and Le Orme, had to translate their lyrics to reach the UK/USA market.
 
Iván 

            
Back to Top
trackstoni View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: February 23 2008
Location: Lebanon
Status: Offline
Points: 934
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 25 2008 at 01:55
     in fact i can't see any reason not to include METALLICA in PA , and if they do , we have alot to discuss in the near future ///////////  
Tracking Tracks of Rock
Back to Top
glass house View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 16 2005
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 4986
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 29 2008 at 11:03

NO.

 

Back to Top
Ricochet View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 27 2005
Location: Nauru
Status: Offline
Points: 46301
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 29 2008 at 11:08
Carefull, Tony, four Metallica Priests might question your simple "No" answer and ask you for serious arguments...Wink

But since the thread was resurfaced (again)...any news from the Admins?


Edited by Ricochet - September 29 2008 at 11:09
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 29 2008 at 13:40
Originally posted by glass house glass house wrote:

NO.

 

 
 
Excellent... another one of the same "arguments"...
 
I can feel reason will prevail.. let's wait...
Back to Top
Alberto Muńoz View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: July 26 2006
Location: Mexico
Status: Offline
Points: 3577
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 29 2008 at 13:45
Originally posted by glass house glass house wrote:

NO.

 

 
Glass House please add arguments to support your "NO"




Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 29 2008 at 14:01
Originally posted by zafreth zafreth wrote:

Originally posted by glass house glass house wrote:

NO.

 

 
Glass House please add arguments to support your "NO"
 
I think it's not necessary anymore. The Admins are voting so we might as well stop this and wait for a result.
Back to Top
Avantgardehead View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: December 29 2006
Location: Dublin, OH, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1170
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 30 2008 at 05:46
It's not like the opinions of us common-folk matter anyway.
http://www.last.fm/user/Avantgardian
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19546
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 30 2008 at 12:42
I don't understand why this poll keeps open, it was created to gain support for Metallica from the people and the percentage against hasn't changed since the start.
 
We already know the majority doesn't believe Metallica should be here, so lets close it, i's absurd to have  a 32 pages thread for a band that isn't even in PA.
 
Iván
            
Back to Top
Padraic View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 30 2008 at 12:46
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

I don't understand why this poll keeps open, it was created to gain support for Metallica from the people and the percentage against hasn't changed since the start.
 
We already know the majority doesn't believe Metallica should be here, so lets close it, i's absurd to have  a 32 pages thread for a band that isn't even in PA.
 
Iván


Amen!


Back to Top
Ricochet View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 27 2005
Location: Nauru
Status: Offline
Points: 46301
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 30 2008 at 12:53
The poll had little importance since debates heated and, more importantly, arguments were strongly requested in order to make the option count. Besides, all such polls counted even less when it came to a Team having the final word.

Let's also remember that the poll was put by the topic-opener, a person who just said "I think Metallica should Definitely be in the forum". The 32 pages were created by other members, who centered (more) on discussing.

So I think we can forget about the poll and its result (so far), but the thread can be closed after the Admin Team has decided whether or not to add Metallica in PR.


Edited by Ricochet - September 30 2008 at 12:56
Back to Top
Logan View Drop Down
Forum & Site Admin Group
Forum & Site Admin Group
Avatar
Site Admin

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Points: 36055
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 30 2008 at 13:00
In the meantime, argue away, and if one chooses not to to voice one's reasons/ argument now, or hasn't done so already, don't complain in the future whatever the outcome.
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19546
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 30 2008 at 13:14
Originally posted by Ricochet Ricochet wrote:

The poll had little importance since debates heated and, more importantly, arguments were strongly requested in order to make the option count. Besides, all such polls counted even less when it came to a Team having the final word.

 
Rico if Prog matel bythe vote of all their members want to add Metallica to their genre, we can't do a thing, but they don't want Metallica in Prog Metal, they want it in Prog Related,. the band has altready been REJECTED, there's no point for this.
 
Iván
            
Back to Top
The Doctor View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 30 2008 at 13:19
You know.  I just noticed something after weeks of seeing this thread on the recent threads.  The name of this thread is "Should Metallica be in the forum?"  Not "Should Metallica be in the archives?"  You've all been arguing the wrong point.  I for one think having James, Lars, et al. posting on the forum would be great, and could lead to ensuing hilarity.  I for one think they should be in the forum.  The question is, how do we convince them to post here?  Confused
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
Back to Top
Petrovsk Mizinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: December 24 2007
Location: Ukraine
Status: Offline
Points: 25210
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 30 2008 at 13:26
^I for one would love to ask Kirk Hammett why he abuses the wah wah pedal so muchLOL
Someone better them in the forum.
Hell, can even ask them what they think of the horrible mix and mastering of Death Magnetic:P
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 3132333435 36>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.327 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.