Should Metallica be in the forum?

ahhhhh someone blasting Megadeath ... yes.. that explains the post now ...  

NaturalScience wrote: Pnoom! wrote: This isn't "Anything that at any point ever vaguely resembled something in the general vicinity of the outer reaches of the outer reaches of the most liberal definition of prog rock Archives," Are you sure?

yeah.. .sort of funny to read that .. .from a fan of Rio/avant music of all things hahahhah.   Find me a place where that stuff is generally  associated with prog rock

MikeEnRegalia wrote: MoP is their most progressive album ... but there aren't too many "prog elements" on it, if you're referring to easily recognisable elements as time signature changes, tracks close to 20 minutes of length (the simplistic definition of "epics"), mellotron, theatralic singing / stage acting, ...

and keeping the discussion going...   isn't it fair to say..  that there is more to prog than that Mike?  Again..  since it has been raised indirectly.. are those elements what defines say....RIO/Avant area?

This isn't really the time to judge the progressiveness of genres such as RIO, Progressive Electronic, Krautrock, Indo/Raga or such, all "failible" in some way to what we recognize as classic prog rock, if you want my two cents.

febus wrote: I am sure someday a KISS fanboy will come up with hard facts how Kiss is prog related and ask PA to have them included here as well

MikeEnRegalia wrote: I can only hope that regardless of all the sarcasm and tongue in cheek "babbling" that goes on around here, those who care to keep track of all the decisions of the genre teams and their members will at some point recognize a pattern. Additions are not simply chosen on a random basis or based on the personal preferences of single members ... personal perferences may be motivations for selecting candidates for addition, but when it comes to actually adding them there are usually several people involved, and they often have contradictory views on the additions. In the end, looking back at all the additions of the last couple of years, I *do* recognize a pattern.

Very generally speaking here... As but two of the biggest names in chamber rock (not mentioned by Pnoom) it's hard to argue that Art Zoyd and Present doesn't have the musical merits of progressive rock.  Or latter day bands such as U Totem.  For me, I find metalish bands such as Hoyry-Kone, Estradasphere, or Secret Chiefs 3 more Prog than prog metal giants ;) such as Nightwish, Blind Guardian, Epica, and Rhapsody (of Fire).  I used to think of RiO/ Avant progressive movements as quite seperate to the Prog movement, but I don't anymore.  I'd go so far to say that RiO (while a particular movement) took Prog to the next level (evolved it), and I think that when typical Prog was waning, certain avant rock artists were the ones who were truly progressing rock -- with integrity to the art, I'd say, and real musical values.  I'd like to say saved Prog, but it wasn't popular enough.  From the late 70's on, Avant rock saved progressive rock for me.  I'd say, though I fully support such additions, that some of the avant bands are too far removed from rock, or have too little rock to be considered truly progressive rock.  Some are far more informed by academic music, than rock, for instance.  A fusion of non-rock genres with rock is one of the most important prog traits, and it's not surprising that as less rock artists get in, even less get in, and, in a way, that much progressive rock would progress farther away from rock.

Whatever others think of Metallica etc. as prog, and despite historical concerns, it's the musical qualities that are paramount.


Edited by Logan - August 10 2008 at 17:05

No

The T wrote: It's funny to read how everybody react like children when the name of band is mentioned... ...   Caml down... your boogeyman doesn't exist. If the site owner has said not AT ALL, then even the prog-metal team is powerless. My opinion on the matter, though, stands as always. And, unlike Mike, I DO think the band would go DIRECTLY in progressive-metal, not in prog-related. But it's not my site nor would I go over regulations and a need for a harmonious environment here in PA to add any band.   I will not address specific points as they are the usual ones  by the usual ones. You have your opinion, other people have another. I can live with that. In the end, it would seem that for many, the addition of said band would actually take a toll in their personal lifes. So I beg to all of you: let's call it quits. Metallica won't be added. Case closed.   In the meantime, enjoy the fantastic work of the prog-metal team which adds about 2 bands a day to this site.

well said Teo... hopefully you can convince your team mates to approve them since it appears that is  the only way a group which should be in the archives will get into the archives.  I know my position has changed 180 deg.. from being opposed originally to now support full addition.  That comes from listening to those who know the music best.  I agree.. this discussion here has run it's course.  Any future action is up to the PMT

That discussion though... is not for the general forum.. but is between the  teammates and friends on the PMT. Discussion is great. .and everyone got their say here.  Where it goes from there...  is up to you all.. you are are the experts on that sh*t .




Edited by micky - August 10 2008 at 22:49