Should Metallica be in the forum?

I think Metallica should Definitely be in the forum, I was just wondering what others thought.

Hey if Miles Davis (who I've been saying should be on the site for a few years now) is coming, I dont see why not Metallica. Especially if Iron Maiden are here.

I'm not saying we should allow more "straight" metal bands if Metallica get in, but the band has a lot of credibility to be here.

Okay, my fellow Metal droogies aren't here to back me up *cues MikeEnregalia, Cert, maybe The T and Jody*
Like many prog bands themselves, not many of their albums are prog, but based on their progressive material, they have a strong basis for being proto prog metal.

Should Metallica be in the forum? Yes. Why not?

micky wrote: HughesJB4 wrote: Okay, my fellow Metal droogies aren't here to back me up *cues MikeEnregalia, Cert, maybe The T and Jody* Like many prog bands themselves, not many of their albums are prog, but based on their progressive material, they have a strong basis for being proto prog metal. they don't fit the idiotic category of Proto Prog... which should be redefined to something like 'influences on prog' which would be a great place for them.  The category is useless for modern prog because of the stricly classic slant to it because of the 1969 parameter put on it.  They were rejected for PR by the owner so that puts that to an end. Maybe the PMT can take my upcoming Miles Davis addition to heart that you don't have to be a 'prog artist' (whatever the hell that is hahah)  to make prog music.. and the categories are for one thing.. and one thing only.. .to help group like sounding groups.  If Metallica did prog metal.. and their influence on it is beyond quesation.  just like Davis.  They could.. and probably should add them.  That is their  call though.

I didn't say they are proto prog, but they are proto prog metal, of which there is obviously no category.
Metallica obviously never sounded like "prog"  (for those of us on PA that believe the "prog sound ended in the 70s) as MikeEnRegalia has pointed out before, but much of their early work was done with prog ideals. Arguably much of Metallica's early is indeed more progressive in nature than Queensryche (who are known as one of the early Prog Metal pioneering bands), and hell, Metallica were more prog in the 80s than many 80s prog bands, no question.


Kill 'Em All: Not prog as such, but helped to push the heavy metal envelope and also encouraged other competing bands to step up their compositions

Ride The Lightning: I believe Cert argued even this ablum was pretty much prog. I'm not on the same level, not entirely progressive in nature, but again, pushed heavy metal compositional boundaries to greater heights and hence a degree of prog ideals

Master Of Puppets: Prog. Not a doubt. Extended  and a lot of the time far from straight forward compositons, odd time signatures, very thematic album and just more complex than most anything ever really done in the heavy metal field

..And Justice For All: Prog. Not a doubt. The music had become pretty challenging compositionally and I could think of whole "prog" albums less compex than AJFA. Hell, even some of Rush's proggier moments were still less proggy than AJFA could be.

These 4 albums were absolutely seminal in shaping heavy metal to come, and no doubt prog metal, with the latter 2 being obviously prog themselves IMO.


EDIT: Did some thinking and some listening.
I'm gonna have to say RTL is the real deal too, so change my position to Metallica having released 3 full prog albums.


Edited by HughesJB4 - August 10 2008 at 02:59

darkshade wrote: Hey if Miles Davis (who I've been saying should be on the site for a few years now) is coming, I dont see why not Metallica. Especially if Iron Maiden are here.

Again the "if X is here, why isn't Y" argument?!

Or is it this time a more evolved form: "if X is here, I don't see why no Y (X and Y have damn well nothing in common). Especially is Z is here"?

^ well said, and I've never believed in the slippery slope idea anyway, it's based on fear and alarmist tendencies..  my position on Metallica has softened and I believe the case for inclusion in a full prog category is warranted, even strong

 

HughesJB4 wrote: Genesis pretty much released 6 or so albums that aren't prog by any stretch of the imagination, yet they are  prog band and Metallica aren't?

1. Trespass
2. NC
3. Foxtrot
4. SEBTP
5. The Lamb
6. ATOTT
7. Wind & Wuthering

This makes 10 Prog or Prog related albums against 4 non Prog....This means 71.50% of their production.

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - August 10 2008 at 12:44

HughesJB4 wrote: You've missed the point by a long shot, no offense. Go back and read my posts and Ts.

HughesJB4 wrote: Logan wrote: Yes, depending on which forum.  This would be a reasonable one, General Music Discussions, though I must admit that I'd prefer Metallica in this one, Just for Fun. ;) I don't know about it a Prog one, though Prog Related might make sense. I don't know Metallica that well, but I've never heard them called a prog band, though they may have proggy albums.  Bias: I'd rather not see Lars Ulrich in (has come across as more industry than art to me).  How much does Metallica fuse genres and turn music inside and out? For someone to really know their place in music, you've gotta really know the history of heavy metal as well. Not sure how well versed you are in that area, but it's something I know a fair bit about. You've just gotta listen to anything prior to the albums I've mentioned to understand why Metallica was a band with prog notions and ideals. I've listened to Metallica's first 4 albums inside out, backwards inside out (you get my point). MoP and AJFA and arguably even RTL are so far removed from the earliest heavy metal (like Sabbath etc) and so much more complex and challenging (in ways a non metal fan perhaps might not understand, but I can imagine Cert and MikeEnRegalia knowing what I mean by this) it's not even funny.

I know enough about the history of metal to know that Metallica was innovative/ progressive, I also know that it has been a very influential band (not just to Prog Metal, but to metal generally), what I don't know is if it's Prog (as one can be progressive without being considered Prog here), or what musical qualities make it Prog (because it is far more complex and challenging than non-progressive rock and metal?).  Historical understanding is good, but I also think that the compositions should speak for themselves.