Metallica?

akin wrote: Snow Dog wrote: akin wrote: So if this is the matter, the right thing is to lobby with the owners, because they are who authorize these controvertial additions to the site.   Not neccesarily so. Admin can also decide on a Prog Related addition. Of course, but to these controvertial additions they leave to the owners decide.

Iron Maiden were added by the admins ... previously the PMT had rejected the addition unanimously. Metallica were also rejected by the PMT unanimously ... due to the fact that Iron Maiden are now here I reversed my vote to "yes" which in this case means Prog-Related. But since Metallica could only be added as Prog-Related, the PMT chart is no indication of what will actually happen ... you'll have to ask the admins.

This thread and the popular argument of Metallica having a place here is, in my opinion, stretching really dangerously, moreover it was revived after a long "sleep", which is even more curios.

By me:

1. Metallica don't have a place in Prog Archives
2. Metallica don't need to be taken as the Metal gods which have done the best for Prog Metal
3. Metallica would waste both the space of PM and the space of PR.
4. We don't need an addition like Metallica to shake up the Prog Archives values.

And, let's not forget:

• We might not want to put Jethro Tull anywhere close to Metallica, especially after the Grammy Heavy Metal incident.
  

I have already a constant question, given these big bands who are added dangerously into Archives, it's bugging me deeply.

The first ever added and defined progressive Archives bands included (if not started, from the first place, with) around the most of all the best bands and the most representative values of Prog Rock/Prog Genre.

Do you think that, if Metallica would have the quintessential taste for Prog Metal, it wouldn't have been added already by now? Do you think that Metallica is really a "forgotten essential band", which wasn't added at the time of shaping up, representatively, the Prog Rock/Prog Genre values?




Edited by Ricochet - May 18 2007 at 10:19

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ to answer your question:  I think that Metallica is a band which was always overlooked by the Prog Rock fans ... and when in the 90s Prog Metal became popular the band was already on the decline. It takes some courage to forget the preconceptions and prejudices and judge a band purely by their music and not by their image ... if you do you'll have to agree that Master of Puppets belongs here. Especially in the light of which bands were already included as Prog-Related (Iron Maiden!).

Maybe not. We don't have to agree with your opinion in this matter because defining what is prog and what is not is somewhat subjective.

But by listening to their music without preconceptions, one can see that they are almost in the same level of progressiveness than Iron Maiden. So my position in relation of  Metallica's inclusion is the same as my position in relation of Iron Maiden's inclusion.

Ricochet wrote: Do you think that, if Metallica would have the quintessential taste for Prog Metal, it wouldn't have been added already by now? Do you think that Metallica is really a "forgotten essential band", which wasn't added at the time of shaping up, representatively, the Prog Rock/Prog Genre values?

Well, one of the best known and most important names in the history jazz rock/fusion, Billy Cobham, had been added to the archives not so long time ago. For the another, this time controversial example, you have Led Zeppelin...they're not really progarchives' "Senior Members". Furthermore, bands are changing, definitions are changing, perhaps even the  path that website is following is changing, I guess...if so, I hope it will be for better.

So, for Metallica's addition to the site: I say yes, but not yet. Not now. This site is got a huge credibility in the prog rock world; we need that  credibility to became monstruously spectacular, and then it will be possible (if necessary and if  anyone will be interested) to add artist less-but-still-related to prog without unovaidable controversy  harming the website itself.

Ricochet wrote: This thread and the popular argument of Metallica having a place here is, in my opinion, stretching really dangerously, moreover it was revived after a long "sleep", which is even more curios. By me: Metallica don't have a place in Prog Archives Metallica don't need to be taken as the Metal gods which have done the best for Prog Metal Metallica would waste both the space of PM and the space of PR. We don't need an addition like Metallica to shake up the Prog Archives values. And, let's not forget: We might not want to put Jethro Tull anywhere close to Metallica, especially after the Grammy Heavy Metal incident. I have already a constant question, given these big bands who are added dangerously into Archives, it's bugging me deeply. The first ever added and defined progressive Archives bands included (if not started, from the first place, with) around the most of all the best bands and the most representative values of Prog Rock/Prog Genre. Do you think that, if Metallica would have the quintessential taste for Prog Metal, it wouldn't have been added already by now? Do you think that Metallica is really a "forgotten essential band", which wasn't added at the time of shaping up, representatively, the Prog Rock/Prog Genre values?

So bands that indulge in multiple time/tempo changes, lengthy suite like songs, lyrics that are more serious that typical pop have no place in PA ??? Check out Ride the Lightning, Master of Puppets & And Justice for All. True, their entire discography is not "ultra" prog. But if we're going to tighten up our so called values, are you willing to review all the groups here to ensure that none of them became less prog or released albums that are hard to qualify as prog. Remember that one of the things that supposedly defines prog is the open-mindedness to expanding musical boundaries & going beyond the three minute boy/girl pop single.
So if you don't like Metallica, say it. But to presume your "values" reflect 100% of PA's is a bit much. Metallica was very important as an influence on the prog metal scene, and their inclusion would in no way demean the so called values you talk about.
And this little tidbit to explain the basic nature of this site - it is a COMMUNITY of like minded music fans. Not a heterogeneous mass of one track thinkers. You have a right to your opinion, just as others do. If you want to make an argument for or against, present it using points that can be debated, not "waste of space", not "shaking up PA values", not the slippery eel that is "the best and most representative" (???) of prog rock/prog genre, nor "bands added dangerously" (?????). There are additions that can be debated, but in the end, their place here was considered by admin  based upon their opinion of said act, AND the arguments advanced by our fellow members, whom I would hazard a guess, likely consider their tastes as valid as any other on this site. If you are deeply troubled, explain why. This is a fan based site, not a theoretical dissertation nor an iron-clad last word on what is to be accepted blindly as "it" whatever "it" is supposed to be.
Whew, now I'm off to tilt at the next windmill. Off we go Iago. Onward, Bernard. Yippie tie yay Ray.
P.S. If you continue, I will start a campaign to have AC/DC & Motorhead included. After all, Lemmy was in a prog band once (Hawkwind), & once a progger, always a progger. We could put them in RIO/Avant-garde as they are monstrously noisy buggers.

Ricochet wrote: debrewguy wrote: Ricochet wrote: This thread and the popular argument of Metallica having a place here is, in my opinion, stretching really dangerously, moreover it was revived after a long "sleep", which is even more curios. By me: Metallica don't have a place in Prog Archives Metallica don't need to be taken as the Metal gods which have done the best for Prog Metal Metallica would waste both the space of PM and the space of PR. We don't need an addition like Metallica to shake up the Prog Archives values. And, let's not forget: We might not want to put Jethro Tull anywhere close to Metallica, especially after the Grammy Heavy Metal incident. I have already a constant question, given these big bands who are added dangerously into Archives, it's bugging me deeply. The first ever added and defined progressive Archives bands included (if not started, from the first place, with) around the most of all the best bands and the most representative values of Prog Rock/Prog Genre. Do you think that, if Metallica would have the quintessential taste for Prog Metal, it wouldn't have been added already by now? Do you think that Metallica is really a "forgotten essential band", which wasn't added at the time of shaping up, representatively, the Prog Rock/Prog Genre values? So bands that indulge in multiple time/tempo changes, lengthy suite like songs, lyrics that are more serious that typical pop have no place in PA ??? is this the quintessence of prog/prog metal? No it's not. But maybe it is. MAybe for PROG-METAL it is.. or maybe it's just something we can't define... it all sounds wonderful, but I don't think it's even the quintessence of Metallica. It was for a short period of time...... But its influence was so important that those three-to-four albums really changed everything..... Check out Ride the Lightning, Master of Puppets & And Justice for All. True, their entire discography is not "ultra" prog. But if we're going to tighten up our so called values, are you willing to review all the groups here to ensure that none of them became less prog or released albums that are hard to qualify as prog. Remember that one of the things that supposedly defines prog is the open-mindedness to expanding musical boundaries & going beyond the three minute boy/girl pop single. wholeheartedly agree with the open-minded thing. but I also agree with a standard of prog, making a highly popular suggestion like Metallica, right in the alright complex fresca of Prog Metal, only by "light" prog fashion, a tricky, smelly, dangerous, free addiction. I could agree with Metallica being "light" prog.. Or can I? After all, most (if not all) the "hard" prog bands (DT, Fates Warning) came AFTER the release and after having heard MOP and AJFA.... Maybe Metallica are the opposite of "light" prog, as they were the ones that TRULY made some of the most RADICAL changes in the world of metal.... So if you don't like Metallica, say it. But to presume your "values" reflect 100% of PA's is a bit much. I don't like Metallica, I don't like Metal. Accuse me of what you want. But I heard something of Metallica, before not liking Metallica, and my "senses" tell me it's a free effort to use the light-heading or open-minding towards Metallica facing the PA. If you don't like Metal, then you already have something againts Metallica, whether you acknowledge it or not. The thing I don't see is the "free" effort... Why? I'd say it;s actually a move of courage to try to get a band that really deserves the inclusion to be included. It won't be a shadowed addition, it will roar the Archives. I'm sure debates would follow, no question. And maybe harsh, roaring debates at that. But the site survived the inclusion of less-prog artists (Iron MAiden, Deep Purple), it will withstand this. METALLICA IS DESIRED TO BE A PESTILENTIAL, REFERENTIAL, SOARING VALUE OF PROG/PROG METAL. Pestilential? Your dislike for the band is big! Metallica was very important as an influence on the prog metal scene, and their inclusion would in no way demean the so called values you talk about. And this little tidbit to explain the basic nature of this site - it is a COMMUNITY of like minded music fans. Not a heterogeneous mass of one track thinkers. buddy, I plainly said "my vote" among "other votes", and it's a categoric no. Except/beyond that.... You have a right to your opinion, just as others do. If you want to make an argument for or against, present it using points that can be debated, not "waste of space", not "shaking up PA values", not the slippery eel that is "the best and most representative" (???) of prog rock/prog genre, nor "bands added dangerously" (?????). There are additions that can be debated, but in the end, their place here was considered by admin  based upon their opinion of said act, AND the arguments advanced by our fellow members, whom I would hazard a guess, likely consider their tastes as valid as any other on this site. If you are deeply troubled, explain why. This is a fan based site, not a theoretical dissertation nor an iron-clad last word on what is to be accepted blindly as "it" whatever "it" is supposed to be. 50% of the debates on these sort of related popular additions are ugly, nocent, free or way to ignorant on debates, I can't really see where I myself, in the short words I've permitted myself to adress to the high debate of Metallica, have messed up. I really don't think you have.... But maybe what other members were asking was for more MUSICAL reasons... So far most of the NO reasons have been more PA-oriented ones, the arguments in favor of the NO have been more in the light of "it will hurt PA", "it will cause anger and war", "it will cause Michael Bolton to be included", whereas the arguments for the YES have been, in most cases, purely musical. read Cert1fied's posts for more about that. the additions of such popular big names remains "dangerous", because I keep reminding other such additions, from Iron Maiden to Queen and such. All these addition have led into a disturbed "debate", partially riot, partially misunderstading, partially prog "value stretching" issue. etc. Read my last paragraph. The only band that didn't receive a "comfortable" panic was Led Zepellin, everyone actually felt it good!  Not Me!!! back to my words, without being the expert nor the extreme knower, I appreciate that Metallica aren't the best and the ultimate reference for prog, in whatever angle you take it, and with all the indulged "progressive" moments that are very much indicated (I don't trust that, if someone did 1 prog album from douzen others or 1 prog moment within an album, they're, band, prog!). No they aren't the ultimate reference for prog, but then again, who Is? (outside of King Crimson, ELP and others, what bad is?) They have not indluged progressive moments. That would be if, within regular thrash or metal songs, they had included prog-sounding sections just for the sake of sounding..."proggier". No. THE WHOLE music changed for Metallica. The whole songs, the structures, the riffing.  Metallica has 8 albums:   KEA: Thrash, but not completely regular thrash at that. RTL: Prog elements, a LOT MOP: PROG-METAL AJFA: PROG-METAL M: Metal but in some ways a natural progression from the preceding albums. L: Now I can't say much...(),  but at least it still had a few long songs... R-L: The same SA: PROGRESSIVE-CRAP....It's SO crappy, the crapinees is taken to a whole different level, hence, progressive-crap.

Metallica is the most obvious band that hasn't already been included to prog metal/prog related. MoP and AJFA were prog metal albums, and the previous two had plenty of proggy elements.
But I do understand the view of all the naysayers; if you just scratch the surface of their music, it could easily seem like straight forward heavy/thrash metal, and I never really thought about Metallica as a prog-metal band until lately, but now... it's very clear to me, MoP and AJFA are compared to the other Metallica albums perhaps like Argus is to most of Wishbone Ash's discography?(I haven't heard very much Wishbone Ash, so I can't be 100% sure of this)

Certif1ed wrote: It is quite clear that there are no reasons to omit Metallica apart from blind prejudice - or are there?

Actually there are ... I think the biggest reason against their addition would be the effect it has on the less flexible members and visitors. Even if we mention that Metallica are here because of albums like RtL or MoP, most prog fans who aren't familiar with these albums will not bother to give them a listen ...

Having said that ... personally I wouldn't care much about this "side effect". It would subside quickly, just as you say too.

BTW: I like the statement you made about Metallica removing the blues from metal ... it's exactly how I would describe the difference between "classic metal" and "modern metal".

We shouldn't really care about the "uproar" Metallica's inclusion would cause. What's this "uproar"? Probably two things: