Should Metallica be in the forum?

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: 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

Prog Metal Team rejected Metallica.
I'm not sure if Prog Related Team (aka the Admin Team) rejected Metallica. In fact, that's the point, we're waiting on their vote, which is final, after which all Metallica discussions here (addition discussions, that is) should stop.



Edited by Ricochet - September 30 2008 at 13:40

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? 

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.

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!

It's not like the opinions of us common-folk matter anyway.

glass house wrote: NO.

Carefull, Tony, four Metallica Priests might question your simple "No" answer and ask you for serious arguments...

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


Edited by Ricochet - September 29 2008 at 11:09

     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 ///////////  

Metallica are NOT prog in any sense .. I am really surprised that anyone would suggest this..

Edited by narcolepticus - September 23 2008 at 08:29

zafreth wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: 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: Look at Yourself The Magician's Birthday 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 Salisbury

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.