Should Metallica be in the forum?

Certif1ed wrote:   King Crimson, of course, were not the first Progressive Rock band, and ITCOTCK is a landmark, rather than the first Prog album - but an important and significant landmark it remains. Bands such as Spooky Tooth don't currently get the credit they deserve (except on Wikipedia, where they're rightly listed as a Progressive Rock band), but they were all over the original Progressive (rock) Music scene - and so it goes on.

Certif1ed wrote: I've found an article that gives the strongest possible argument for Metallica as not only Prog-Related, but Prog Metal (and gives the same argument for Iron Maiden, interestingly!); http://headbangersblog.mtv.com/2008/02/18/guest-blog-dream-theater-drummer-mike-portnoy-pledges-allegiance-to-one-nation-under-prog/ The paragraph in question is a little way down and reads;   "For just a little while there, in the early ’90s, Dream Theater seemed to be the posterboys for a whole new wave of PROG. But shhh… I’ll let you in on a little secret: we weren’t the first post-metal band to perform this hybrid of styles!! As much as I love taking the credit for combining prog and metal (like the man who first decided to put peanut butter and jelly together), if you look closely at metal circa 1985, Iron Maiden were playing 13 minute epic songs like “Rime Of The Ancient Mariner” and covering Jethro Tull, Metallica were playing long songs with odd time signatures and abrupt meter changes — and so were bands like Helloween, Mercyful Fate, King Diamond and Fates Warning. Then, there were bands like Queensryche, which was combining the power of Judas Priest with the theatrics of Queen."     ...although maybe we don't want to consider Helloween too seriously...

Wow ... one minute, please. I'm currently at work and I hate to see how discussion proceeds and I don't have the time to participate. So here are a few short comments from the office:

About the pink bits you highlighted:

a) I basically agree with what he's saying there. However, we should keep in mind that the songs which he's talking about are scattered over these artists' albums, which means that even if those songs can be called "prog" (which I agree to and am doing on my website which allows to rate/tag in such detail) ... even if that is the case then the full albums show a different picture, as they also contain many "regular" songs.

b) Notice that he mentions "odd time signatures" and "abrupt meter changes" as one of the signature elements.

I'm quite pleased with the bands he lists ... most of them are strong candidates for prog-related metal, even Fates Warning if you only consider their pre-Perfect Symmetry phase. I know that you would rather see some of those bands as fully fledged prog, but I simply think that they had too many non-prog tracks on their albums.


Edited by MikeEnRegalia - September 08 2008 at 11:32

^ wow, that was fast!

Certif1ed wrote: I quite like LoG, but I think they wear their influences a bit strongly ontheir sleeves.   Nevermore are quite cool - pity they nicked their album title from the Magic Mushroom Band http://www.discogs.com/release/448626      The debate has shifted - it's no longer IF, it's WHERE - and personally, I could care a lot more about labels, so no real debate from me - just discussion now.

I think that maybe both named their album after the book by Timothy Leary:

http://www.amazon.com/Politics-Ecstasy-Leary-Timothy/dp/1579510310




Edited by MikeEnRegalia - September 08 2008 at 09:00

In this case, consensus is probably the strongest argument;

Edited by Certif1ed - September 08 2008 at 09:10

Certif1ed wrote: I've found an article that gives the strongest possible argument for Metallica as not only Prog-Related, but Prog Metal (and gives the same argument for Iron Maiden, interestingly!); http://headbangersblog.mtv.com/2008/02/18/guest-blog-dream-theater-drummer-mike-portnoy-pledges-allegiance-to-one-nation-under-prog/ The paragraph in question is a little way down and reads;   "For just a little while there, in the early ’90s, Dream Theater seemed to be the posterboys for a whole new wave of PROG. But shhh… I’ll let you in on a little secret: we weren’t the first post-metal band to perform this hybrid of styles!! As much as I love taking the credit for combining prog and metal (like the man who first decided to put peanut butter and jelly together), if you look closely at metal circa 1985, Iron Maiden were playing 13 minute epic songs like “Rime Of The Ancient Mariner” and covering Jethro Tull, Metallica were playing long songs with odd time signatures and abrupt meter changes — and so were bands like Helloween, Mercyful Fate, King Diamond and Fates Warning. Then, there were bands like Queensryche, which was combining the power of Judas Priest with the theatrics of Queen."     ...although maybe we don't want to consider Helloween too seriously...

What the hell? "Post metal? And Helloween? Yeah, let's not take them too seriously in this context either, things will get confusing if we do

Anyway....

Well I wont argue with Metallica being a major influence on Metallica... but is it really an argument for Metallica being prog metal (which I believe they were) ? I musn't be reading the interview the same way you did.
Do we have a piece of the definition of prog metal here with this paragraph? Hmmmm....

MikeEnRegalia wrote: I love Lamb of God ... but currently I'd prefer  Nevermorefor the title of "best metal band".

(Off topic content warning).

Same for me, my absolute favorite metal band right now, a band that has pushed boundaries without ever being a full on prog metal band, has to be pretty awesome.

I also like Lamb Of God and, but I can understand why some people don't like it.... although I don't understand the bashing of LoG in that post. People are free to like it, and even if you don't like LoG, it's undeniable they are band that were different enough to stand out from the crowd.

Ah yes, Mike Portnoy. The guy who thinks Lamb of God is the best metal band out there (besides Dream Theater, of course)... 

I've found an article that gives the strongest possible argument for Metallica as not only Prog-Related, but Prog Metal (and gives the same argument for Iron Maiden, interestingly!); http://headbangersblog.mtv.com/2008/02/18/guest-blog-dream-theater-drummer-mike-portnoy-pledges-allegiance-to-one-nation-under-prog/

I think the greater problem is letting to many bands enter. With this kind of situations and the Prog Related section it can happen something like this: hm that band has a bit of something to do with prog lets ad it, but then the other band is quite similar lets ad it to, oh why not create a genre. And if someone finds out that most music in the world has a tiny bit to do with prog, they'll all be on PA archives.

Edited by fil karada - September 07 2008 at 06:21

Yeah, you're right, I read as well T's post, and he made absolute sence; and Mike is right, maybe people here are too much attached to that idea that only "textbook-prog" may be added here, and so was I. Not anymore; I heard AJFA and I had forgotten my rule number one in music: REALLY hear what Im listening. Sure its not full out fledged prog-metal, but I can hear those characteristics that I didn'thad noticed before, and I even don't know why, but for now on, you won't see me against the idea of Metallica being added to PA Hope you can get what you want!