Should Metallica be in the forum?

The T wrote: Megadeth, on the other hand, is technical thrash. Even in "Rust in peace" (their strongest "case" for prog-related) what we have is a multi-sectioned thrash album with the typical riff-after-riff-after-riff in dazzling speeds, nothing too progressive (if very good indeed).

*If* you add Metallica as Prog Metal then you significantly lower the bar for those other Thrash bands. And *yes*, Metallica were a Thrash band back then. There was more to their music than Thrash, but listen to any key song from the early albums ... the Thrash element is always there. If you add Metallica as fully fledged prog it will be *very* hard to rationalize why bands like Slayer or Megadeth aren't at least prog related.

The T wrote:   Slayer is the epitome of great thrash in "Reign in Blood" and they were always true to the cause. Later on they developed with slower songs and a more "epic" style from time to time (as in "seasons in the abyss") but they never did any actual progressive metal in their music. Forms are rather regular in Slayer, everything is pretty straightforward. Even though, as metal albums go, "reign in Blood" could be one of those groundbreaking efforts that some very stretchy people could fit in somewhere... But not reaklly...   Anthrax? Please....   I actually think the case for Mercyful Fate is stronger than all these.... But that's another story...

I'll support the addition of Mercyful Fate as prog related. Not that you need my support anyway ...

 

Which particular sound is this?

 

I think that they not only have the sound, but that the sound originates with Metallica.

 

burritounit wrote: Thirdly, Metallica's influence on prog metal is more than crystal clear, but comes from a metal direction rather than coming from prog, so it would not make any sense at all, adding Metallica just because they were a mere influence on prog metal.

 

I would like to hear a Prog Metal band that comes from a Prog direction rather than a Metal direction - I haven't yet, and I've listened to quite a lot.

 

 

burritounit wrote: In the end Metallica is NOT progressive metal and never will be and my answer will always be no just for the reasons above. Metallica’s sound sounds nothing like prog metal and even prog rock. Prog metal bands have influences of Metallica, nothing more.

 

I don't follow your reasoning - and I don't hear much difference in sound between Metallica and most Prog Metal. Keyboards and vocals, in most cases, are the only differences - yet these are not compulsory options.

 

 

 

burritounit wrote: Just cause your innovative doesn't make you prog and the only connection I see in it would have to be there influence on this genre and if that is the case or the reason as to why they should be added then please don’t put them in progressive metal but instead in prog related. To do so would be very misleading. I might have missed something.

 

 

Yes - I made a musical case earlier.

 

 

Atavachron wrote: well I certainly think that there are some artists that were so important to what became ProgMetal that they would always merit some fair and balanced consideration, such as Michael Schenker, Uli Roth, Ozzy's first two albums, U.F.O., Rising Force

 

Uli Jon Roth, certainly.

 

The others are doubtless Prog Metal Related - but there's no such category. Prog Related is the wrong category for Metallica.

 

 

Dean wrote: and Celtic Frost

 

Celtic Frost have come up for discussion before, and are very worthy of consideration - I wonder what the decision was.

 

 

...as for Slayer and Anthrax, I think someone's been at the dried frog pills again...