Metallica ?

JJLehto wrote: Ah yes, Metallica. Getting back on topic. 3 prog-ish albums does not a prog-related band make. Especially when they started as thrash metal, and that was their intent.

and Genesis started out as a pop band. They also had a string of "pop" albums to end their career. Gentle Giant morphed from Simon Dupree & the Big Beat. They also finished up their career with albums that some consider less than progressive. Rush was heavy Zep/Sabbath-like band on their debut. Harmonium was called a francophone America when their first album came out. Some of the prog folk acts started out with releases with little or no prog to them. And it's not that rare that some lesser known heavy prog acts initially put out basic hard rock albums to begin with, or even the reverse - a few prog albums, then down to basics.

And Master of Puppets & And Justice for All are prog. Do you remember quotes like " Metallica doesn't seem to want to stick with just one riff through a whole song. A song might have 4-5 great riffs that could be developed further".

And these two albums are full of tempo & time shifts. But they're damned because of loud guitars & mostly COMMERCIAL SUCCESS. This isn't Motorhead. This isn't AC/DC. Even Maiden & Judas Priest never put out something as complex as these two albums.  Heck, add Comus, Renaissance, Strawbs, and many others and Metallica put out more prog on just those two albums than many here.

Again, COMMERCIAL SUCCESS is the easiest & biggest reason when it comes to such groups being slammed as not prog. Because everyone thinks they know the music.

And as far as fans chiming in & agreeing with the nay-sayers ... well, now, I can mention a few of my favourites that make me wonder how close they are to true prog.

Dean wrote: Suggesting any band for Prog Related and adding a band to Prog Related are two different and wholly separate things.   Please Iván, credit the Admin team with some knowledge of the music genres and the ability to tell what is influential and what is not.

Transgressor wrote: Easy Money wrote: To answer JJ's question about what is prog related. To me it's not about putting 'cool' bands that sound sort of like prog rock on this site, it's about influence. In my opinion prog related is about getting those important artists who helped prog develope and interacted with prog as it evolved and whose exclusion from this site leaves out too much. Said artists should also have a fair amount of progggy songs too. Some easy picks to me would be: Led Zep Hendrix (fits proto too) Miles (fits JR too) Bowie Deep Purple (fits proto too) I think Metallica wins out due to timing, they were producing 'proggy' material that wasn't too retro or sentimental at a time when few others were. That makes them an important stepping stone when really original prog was almost non-exsistant. Again: and Megadeth? Are they more proggy than Metallica or not? (If your anwer is not your lying or you simply don't know who Megadeth is).When Killing is my business...and business is good! (1985- the first Megadeth record) came out  they were called a Technical Thrash Metal band. They were more technical and prog than every band in the all Thrash metal era EXCEPT WacthTower  (we are talking of 1985) prior to Voivod (there were raw at times) and other technical bands that would later come. Peace Sells...But who's buying?,same years as Master, is unquestionably more prog than Metallica's album and was a milestone for the techno metal movement.Rust in peace...it's a totally prog-thrash album and I think that is a influence for many other prog metal group.So...What're we talking about? Metallica WAS NOT the only one who "produced proggy materials" at times, but there were bands like Megadeth there were more important for technical and prog music.So I repeat the question: why Metallica and not Megadeth or Coroner (or others more proggy and more important for techincal and prog metal music than Metallica)?I don't like all the "prog related" thing! But It's and injustice introduce here Metallica and take away bands like Megadeth (to name only them).I know that I'm boring but I'm a big fan of  technical metal music and i'm  very into its historical thing...Metallica was not so important for technical metal or they were certainly less important than such bands as Megadeth and WacthTower (and others).It's a fact. Prog metal is not only Dream Theater  (that were certainly affected a lot  by Metallica....but also, a bit, by Megadeth).

I used to listen to the first 2 Megadeth albums way back when, I know what you are talking about. The best thing for you and JJ to do is go straight to the prog metal team or thread and make your case for Megadeth and see what the team says.

Most bands get on here by their own merit, comparing Megadeath's inclusion to Metallica will not help them. You must be able to discuss Megadeth's qualifications as they stand alone.

Edited by Easy Money - July 05 2009 at 10:59

Easy Money wrote: To answer JJ's question about what is prog related. To me it's not about putting 'cool' bands that sound sort of like prog rock on this site, it's about influence. In my opinion prog related is about getting those important artists who helped prog develope and interacted with prog as it evolved and whose exclusion from this site leaves out too much. Said artists should also have a fair amount of progggy songs too. Some easy picks to me would be: Led Zep Hendrix (fits proto too) Miles (fits JR too) Bowie Deep Purple (fits proto too) I think Metallica wins out due to timing, they were producing 'proggy' material that wasn't too retro or sentimental at a time when few others were. That makes them an important stepping stone when really original prog was almost non-exsistant.

Again: and Megadeth? Are they more proggy than Metallica or not? (If your anwer is not your lying or you simply don't know who Megadeth is).
When Killing is my business...and business is good! (1985- the first Megadeth record) came out  they were called a Technical Thrash Metal band. They were more technical and prog than every band in the all Thrash metal era EXCEPT WacthTower  (we are talking of 1985) prior to Voivod (there were raw at times) and other technical bands that would later come. Peace Sells...But who's buying?,same years as Master, is unquestionably more prog than Metallica's album and was a milestone for the techno metal movement.
Rust in peace...it's a totally prog-thrash album and I think that is a influence for many other prog metal group.
So...What're we talking about? Metallica WAS NOT the only one who "produced proggy materials" at times, but there were bands like Megadeth there were more important for technical and prog music.

So I repeat the question:
why Metallica and not Megadeth or Coroner (or others more proggy and more important for techincal and prog metal music than Metallica)?

I don't like all the "prog related" thing!
But It's and injustice introduce here Metallica and take away bands like Megadeth (to name only them).

I know that I'm boring but I'm a big fan of  technical metal music and i'm  very into its historical thing...
Metallica was not so important for technical metal or they were certainly less important than such bands as Megadeth and WacthTower (and others).
It's a fact.
Prog metal is not only Dream Theater  (that were certainly affected a lot  by Metallica....but also, a bit, by Megadeth). 

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: It's really not possible to discuss this topic with you when you constantly keep misunderstanding people on purpose.   I don't misunderstand you, I only say that this argument can be used to add any band, as a fact it has been used to sugest bands such as TOTO or BOSTON.   Some people ghave even daid that there is no problem adding determined non related bands because at the end Prog Related is not Prog.   Not saying it's your case, you are the one misunderstanding, you say this with good intentions (I know you are sincere in your beliefs), but this same arguments will be used by others to suggest almost anything.   Iván

I'm not familiar with all the history of Metallica discussions here - but looked up the ones in the suggest new bands section.

In 2007 the admins was handed Metallica as a case for prog related. They were unable to reach a decision in either direction - referred the matter to Max, who at that time said no. The case was closed then - the prog related team had not reached a decision but stopped the issue because the owner said no.

Several discussions then followed, and first and foremost a 36 pages long discussion where the musical merits of the bands were discussed in length, and detail. Where the ones against inclusion were specifically asked and invited to argument for their side of the case several times over. And their main argument for pages and pages where variations over the theme "I don't think they have prog elements and because I think so they shouldn't be added". While the ones for inclusion presented analytical stances and arguments both in terms of influence, musical construction and musical details. Analysis in short.

It was this discussion that made Max change his mind, and when he changed his mind the admins continued their discussion from 2007, and managed to get to a decision. Which in this case was a positive one.

If they had been rejected as a prog related case earlier I don't know. From what I understand they were rejected as a prog metal act - but even if the admins had rejected them previously they decided by themselves that the topic was worthy of a new discussion rather than upholding a past decision. One may like this or not - but it is the admins choice to do so.

When someone states that this addition was sorely due to pressure from a small group of members I do think that opinion belittles the work, ethics and moral fibre of the site owner as well as the admins - basically stating that these persons can be pressured into making wrong decisions that they themselves can't vouch for.

In my mind that is, planned or accidentally, undermining the authority of the people running this site.

It's fair to disagree with decisions, but claiming that the people running this site doesn't  know what they are doing is unfair, and uncalled for.

As for the various polls in this matter, this thread has the most votes, with just over 100 members out of 20.000 voting. The others in the past: About 50 - or less. Not really sufficent material to draw conclusions of when less than 1 percent of the members vote. It speaks volumes for that one percent, but that 1 percent is and will always be just one percent, the 99% that didn't care to vote constitues by far the majority of the members - and if one can draw assumptions from that the main one would be that 99% of the members of this site doesn't care whether or not they'll find Metallia here.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: BTW: I only joined this thread because the use of this argument to justify the inclusion of Metallica:   Mr ProgFreak wrote: Lesson #1: The bands that were added to the Prog-Related category are not considered to be prog.   Because that argument is true but flawed at the same time, being that it may imply that any non Prog band can be added to Prog Related or Proto Prog without limits.   Iván

It's really not possible to discuss this topic with you when you constantly keep misunderstanding people on purpose.

BTW: I only joined this thread because the use of this argument to justify the inclusion of Metallica:

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - July 05 2009 at 01:53

Metallica were added and some people need to move on and get over it. If I recall it required more solid substantiation and justification than most other controversial inclusions. This is a progressive thinking site and one would think that maybe we need to give certain powers that be credit where credit is due. Perhaps we need to redefine what ' Progressive" is all about and work on the word as opposed to debating ' Genre taboos" and which band/s would compromise the credibility of thisgreat site. Almost 25,000 members, I am sure the owners must be very  proud and with all collaborations and contributions regardless of slants. Metallica are a permanent fixture.......well done to those that made it happen

No, they don't.

Its a PROG site... Metallica aren't prog.

------End of discussion------