Metallica in the archive ?

frenchie:

Re Genesis, even though it would seem that, on a strictly ratio basis, they might not "make the cut," that is why I allowed for the second criterion: that there is a "clear, broad acceptance" that a band is prog.  No one on this site would argue that Genesis is not prog, even if they ceased being truly so by Duke or Abacab: they had still put out seven or eight consecutive albums that were, without question, prog.  Indeed, even on a ratio basis they might still make the cut.

As for Radiohead, I have heard only one album thus far (Kid A), which I will be reviewing soon.  Suffice to say that, now that I have had a chance to listen to them, there is no question in my mind whatsoever that they are prog - or, at very least, that Kid A is prog.  Thus, they already qualify under Max's scheme.  I will be listening to their other albums soon to determine, to my own satisfaction, whether Kid A was a fluke, or is representative of their sound.

Thus, I still believe that the ratio system is the best one - allowing for the secondary criterion in cases where a band clearly belongs even though they might "fail" were there strict adherence to the ratio system.

Peace.

No, no and no

I METALLICA can't to stay in this site because this site is a site PROGRESSIVE!!! I Metallica are TRASH-METAL and many albums of them are very commercial. The first album commercial of metallica that it is commercial is Load!!

I am against this offert!!!!!!

NO METALLICA!!! NO METALLICA!!! THEY AREN'T THE TRUE METAL! THEY ARE VERY COMMERCIAL!!!!!!

Max:

Metallica?  Surely you jest!  At best, they were "proto" prog-metal, in the same way that The Beatles became "proto" prog.  But The Bealtes are not a "prog" group, and neither is Metallica.  Indeed, if "Sgt. Pepper" is not a prog album, then "And Justice For All" isn't either.  And if your criterion for inclusion on the site is that a band has only a single prog album - even if they put out 700 albums - then including Metallica but not The Beatles would be wrong.

This is why I have always felt that a band should not be included on the site simply because they happen to make one, or even two, albums that are (or might be considered) "prog."  A band should not be included on the site unless the majority of its output over an extended period is "prog": i.e., the "ratio" system.  Or, at very least, there is a clear, broad acceptance that a band is, in fact, prog.

You are headed down a slippery slope, Max.  I hope you know what you're doing...

Peace.

I'm a SOAD fan. They create some intense and wild songs, melodies, etc. While they are one of the best metal bands out there, they are not progressive at all. I can understand where you get this idea, on a few numbers they can sound progressive, for about a minute or so but not enough to consider them a prog band.

About Metallica: I have only heard one album by them, and it wasn't the best thing i've ever heard. I dont think i can give an accurate, unbaised opinoin about them, so i won't comment on them.