Should Metallica be in the forum?

Edited by Certif1ed - September 09 2008 at 05:44

Certif1ed wrote: Avantgardehead wrote: It's because posts against adding a band are never considered, so all these non-prog bands will make it in anyway while the supporters will rationalize anything and everything while completely ignoring the counterpoints.   But it's good, solid rationalisation, isn't it?   What's wrong with the rationalisation?   In this case, the posts against adding Metallica have so little weight that they are not worthy of consideration, and that's the simple truth. Avantgardehead wrote: Personally, I see Metallica has having nothing to do with prog but having minor progressive elements (not near enough to matter, I think). Sure, they have long songs, rhythmic complexity, and little "progressive" guitar bits and crap, but so do plenty of other metal bands who aren't prog.   So where is the line drawn?   To my ears, there are plenty of bands who don't fit this criteria who are in the archives.   At the risk of opening the floodgates, NIGHTWISH are a prime example. Avantgardehead wrote: To me, the rationalisation that Metallica should be here is very suspect.     It all looks good to me (I suppose it would, as I put much of it forward) - which part(s) of the rationalization look suspect?

The T wrote: Logan wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ just one thing: A few years ago (in 2006) we decided not to use the prog related symbol on the prog metal team chart anymore ... so given the choice of yes or no, and that Metallica were added, I voted yes to indicate that I would accept them as prog-related. Ah, I see, so then from the team votes for Metal thus far, all I can say is "And Then There Was T" (assuming his vote was not for related since he has offered support for it as a Prog Metal band). Anyway, at the least it seems that the battle for related rages on.... EDIT: Incidentally, why did you do that?  That could lead to confusion, and I think it may explain why certain "related" bands were added to Prog Metal. lolz   That's correct. And Then There were Three is a majestic album, and And Then There was T was in effect a vote pro-PROG-METAL addition of Metallica, as I've clearly expressed my opinion on the subject both in this thread and in the prog-metal one in the lounge. Right now, as it looks, I'd be the only one supporting the addition in said genre. Burritounit wouldn't support it I'm pretty sure. That's why I've also decided to support their addition in prog-related. In my view, the advantages of this would be less havoc and clothes-tearing by the "prog purists" and less of a shock for external viewers who have the classical narrow definition of prog-metal. Even though the usual suspects would of course cry and speak about the impending apocalypse of PA, in prog-related probably it would harm less than in Prog-Metal. But my opinion remains: for three albums, Metallica were prog-metaller than many bands we have and accept here as 100% prog metal.

Thanks for the response Teo.  While your reasoning is sound, perhaps one thing that Prog Related should not be used for much is as a compromise category (of course we all have to make concessions now and then). 

I'd be wary about supporting something as non-prog (as the category is often described, but I find odd as I think there are bands with prog albums in there) that I think sufficiently  Prog (as I'm sure you are), at least when it comes to certain albums.  Hey, at least the Metallica albums you don't consider Progressive Metal might fit Prog Related (related to Metallica's progressive metal albums). ;)  But as Micky is fond of saying, the important thing is getting a band in, or at least choosing a path where it becomes more likely (if accepted can rethink categories later -- though much harder movng something from PR to, say, prog Metal than, say, moving a band from Neo to Crossover).  And that would create less of a stir, though I like to see the pot stirred up now and then.  It helps to keep this place vibrant.

From what I've read, I've found the arguments for it being a kind of progressive metal more convincing than it being a good addition for Related.

One of my mosted trusted reviews sites is Ground and Sky.  They only have this album in so far: Metallica - S&M

Hehe, point was that the topic of Metallica as a progressive act is discussed by others. One line of argument in this debate has been that the world at large does not see Metallica as progressive - this little example of a debate kinda nullifies that line of reasoning - even if the level of knowledge as such among the people debating may be so and so.

I have come across other places with similar discussions too - this doesn't prove anything in the general debate here as I pointed out - but it leaves the argument about the rest of the world not seeing Metallica as a progressive act void.

Logan wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ just one thing: A few years ago (in 2006) we decided not to use the prog related symbol on the prog metal team chart anymore ... so given the choice of yes or no, and that Metallica were added, I voted yes to indicate that I would accept them as prog-related. Ah, I see, so then from the team votes for Metal thus far, all I can say is "And Then There Was T" (assuming his vote was not for related since he has offered support for it as a Prog Metal band). Anyway, at the least it seems that the battle for related rages on.... EDIT: Incidentally, why did you do that?  That could lead to confusion, and I think it may explain why certain "related" bands were added to Prog Metal. lolz

Windhawk wrote: I have to say, Metallica was more of a prog-metal band with a side of thrash. Really, the only thrash songs they did were "Hit the Lights", "Fight Fire with Fire", "Battery", "Damage Inc.", "Dyers Eve", "Blackened", and one other song from Kill 'Em All that I can't think of at the moment. I think it was "Motorbreath". So that's seven songs out of 32. I just feel like they were mislabeled all those years ago. But hell, what do I know. Maybe I'm the one misdefining thrash.

Maybe you're simply the "Slayer-Type" when it comes to Thrash. I think that Metallica (and Megadeth, for that matter) represent something which I would call "Melodic Thrash", except for those songs which you mentioned.

Interesting - a snippet of a discussion between metal fans at a forum called rockband.com

----

I have to say, Metallica was more of a prog-metal band with a side of thrash. Really, the only thrash songs they did were "Hit the Lights", "Fight Fire with Fire", "Battery", "Damage Inc.", "Dyers Eve", "Blackened", and one other song from Kill 'Em All that I can't think of at the moment. I think it was "Motorbreath". So that's seven songs out of 32. I just feel like they were mislabeled all those years ago. But hell, what do I know. Maybe I'm the one misdefining thrash.

---

Entire discussion thread - if link works out ok - http://tinyurl.com/6zu57v

This does not prove anything in the debate here; but I do find it interesting that people outside of the prog community also discuss Metallica in terms of prog metal....or not. If not for anything else, it might indicate that this current debate isn't as farfetched as some have believed.

zafreth wrote: That's right Mike, worst but... adding Metallica to PA, are we going to face with this kind of reviews????

I sincerely doubt it. A few single reviews maybe, but there won't be a decline in general quality. As long as only a selected list of non-prog metal bands are added, the typical non-prog metal fans won't find this website very interesting ... unless they discover prog this way.

Sorry, .

That's right Mike, worst but... adding Metallica to PA, are we going to face with this kind of reviews????