Should Metallica be in the forum?

Certif1ed wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: They were never considered to be part of the progressive metal scene ...   Just as Radiohead were never considered to be part of the Progressive Rock scene - although they've been widely accepted as such since (as opposed to "because") ProgArchives included them.

Fair enough. But the difference is that the albums which Radiohead's inclusion was based on were recorded in the late 90s, and they're much more obviously progressive than those Metallica albums. Also, they're not listed as "Prog Rock".

BTW: I'm becoming increasingly aware of the "self fulfilling prophecy" effect which an inclusing at PA can have. I'm working on a way to get some order into the chaos, but unfortunately there are too few people who are helping me with it. If you're interested - over at PA you can now use two different tags: progressive approach, and prog by style, I would be glad to hear your opinion!

Certif1ed wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: I agree with what you're saying about those albums, but at that time their style was very different from the early prog metal bands.   If you mean the likes of Queensryche, then I couldn't agree more - Metallica's style was actually more progressive than such so-called progressive metal bands. I still don't hear anything progressive in Queensryche's early output, much less in comparison to Metallica.

Please ... if you're going to attempt such a comparison, don't use this particular band. Queensryche was never considered to be particularly progressive ... these are the albums which I would compare:

Metallica - And Justice For All
Dream Theater - When Dream and Day Unite
Fates Warning - Perfect Symmetry

I think that the differences are apparent. Metallica's album has quite a few progressive moments, but its style is simply too different. It wasn't called Prog Metal then, it isn't called Prog Metal now. I can understand your point regarding Radiohead, but they're still not called "Prog Rock" ... they've been added to "Experimental/Post-Rock", which I think makes much sense. By that reasoning *maybe* Metallica could be added to "Tech/Extreme Prog Metal" because of AJFA, but I still think that it would be more far fetched than even Radiohead's inclusion.

Certif1ed wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: Also, even MoP and AJFA are only partially prog. Depends how you define "Prog" - if you mean full-blown Prog Rock, then yes, it's only partial. If you mean Prog Metal, then actually, there's almost no difference.

There is a striking difference. Can't you acknowledge that most of the things which you despise about prog metal are actually the things which define it? All those things you ignore and consider to be superficial ... they are there on those DT and Fates Warning albums, but not on those of Metallica.

Certif1ed wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: I think that because of all the circumstances and considerations, prog related would be more appropriate.   I don't really care where they're filed

Me neither, to be honest. The genre system which is used here is simply much too limiting to get it right ... all we can hope for is to get them included *somehow*, so that people can explain things in reviews.

But: If you *really* wanted to change something you'd support other websites too ... such as mine.


Edited by MikeEnRegalia - August 24 2008 at 06:17

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Certif1ed wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: They were never considered to be part of the progressive metal scene ...   Just as Radiohead were never considered to be part of the Progressive Rock scene - although they've been widely accepted as such since (as opposed to "because") ProgArchives included them. Fair enough. But the difference is that the albums which Radiohead's inclusion was based on were recorded in the late 90s, and they're much more obviously progressive than those Metallica albums. Also, they're not listed as "Prog Rock". BTW: I'm becoming increasingly aware of the "self fulfilling prophecy" effect which an inclusing at PA can have. I'm working on a way to get some order into the chaos, but unfortunately there are too few people who are helping me with it. If you're interested - over at PA you can now use two different tags: progressive approach, and prog by style, I would be glad to hear your opinion!

Mark is dead on here.....  this site IS the trend setter and in effect sets the standard for what is.. or isn't prog.  Look at what this site has done. Mark correctly mentions Radiohead...  it has often been noticed that when this site created Xover prog..  pop prog with a less offending name...  the term Crossover Prog began springing up all over the net.  Same thing I have noticed with Italian prog (RPI).  That is is why I am so vehemently  against using tags and labels to define addtions here.  This site is the leader of all things prog for damn good reason.. there are a lot of sharp people here.

For Metallica..  who cares if they were not  KNOWN as prog metal...  it is our place to make that call..and challenge others to redefine their way of thinking.  If Metallica is to be rejected by the PMT..  it should be because those trio of albums are not prog metal... not because someone might get their panties in a wad and get upset because they are not known as a prog group.   In that vein though.. if you say those albums are not Prog Metal... you have some explaining to do.  Mark says they are, and has explained it...  haven't seen one valid reason why they are not considered Prog Metal albums.. especially in light of other addtions to PM.

Well herein lies that problem.
I maintain my status qui with Cert on that RTL, MoP and AJFA are prog metal.
I fall somewhere in between him and Mike perhaps (although slightly more towards Cert's position), as while I believe Metallica did genuine prog metal, I don't see Metallica as ever having matched up to the progressiveness of Dream Theater of Fates Warning, although surpassed the progressiveness of Queensryche (whom are already on PA).
I guess this means, if Metallica did indeed make it onto PA in Progressive Metal, that would possibly (hell, probably might be a better word there) redefine and/or broaden what early prog metal actually is to some extent.
I guess it depends on the indivdual as to whether that is a good thing or not.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ there were, and are rejected for prog metal. If you like, you can talk to the admins to dissolve the prog metal team and instead give all the responsibility to Mark. I don't give a sh*t.

what kind of pussy answer is that Mike .   If you think those albums are not Prog Metal... then explain why you don't think so. Mark explained why he thought they were... I'd like to hear why you don't.  You dug this hole with the stupid comparison to Iron Maiden...  which made it very clear to some  that Metallica are not prog 'related' in any sense... but after really listening... you don't see influences of prog.. .you hear them MAKING prog metal.  That is a opinion I'm tossing out and is not strictly my own. either you can discuss it.. .or run away and hide. If it something you don't want to discuss or are unable to ... then just say so.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: I've explained it a dozen times ... but fine, simply decide that I didn't explain it. Hey, your word is law!

point out to me where you explained it...  you all are the experts...  I just want to know what you are thinking and probably lost it all all the threads... and pages that have been devoted to this.

HughesJB4 wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: They were never considered to be part of the progressive metal scene ... I agree with what you're saying about those albums, but at that time their style was very different from the early prog metal bands. Also, even MoP and AJFA are only partially prog. I think that because of all the circumstances and considerations, prog related would be more appropriate. While not every in depth, I have to admit Micky, I agree with some of this. Metallica were never considered part of the prog metal scene, and were more usually seen more closely related to other thrash bands likes Megadeth, Exodus etc than anything really to do with prog. Whether some of us have changed our perspective on that some 20 plus years later......hmmm.....

that may well be true... but out of curiousity... just 'who' are these people who have done this 'considering' .

does that mean everything is set in stone... and people should ignore their ears.. and just add bands that OTHERS consider prog.  Sort of a bullsh*t way for the site which is the leader in progressive rock to operate.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: micky wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: I've explained it a dozen times ... but fine, simply decide that I didn't explain it. Hey, your word is law! point out to me where you explained it...  you all are the experts...  I just want to know what you are thinking and probably lost it all all the threads... and pages that have been devoted to this. Maybe in some of the threads which were conveniently closed by the admins a few days ago.

probably so   I'll dig through them I guess... curious as to what you think.

Certif1ed wrote:  Just as Radiohead were never considered to be part of the Progressive Rock scene - although they've been widely accepted as such since (as opposed to "because") ProgArchives included them. Cert i have a question for you? why did you choose Radiohead to compare??? MikeEnRegalia wrote: I agree with what you're saying about those albums, but at that time their style was very different from the early prog metal bands.   If you mean the likes of Queensryche, then I couldn't agree more - Metallica's style was actually more progressive than such so-called progressive metal bands. I still don't hear anything progressive in Queensryche's early output, much less in comparison to Metallica. Again... i do not see well the excersise or i just do not see the point of compare another different band, your comparison is more or less like this: "If this band is ....  that other band is...  ", these things are in a very subjective manner, at least BEFORE your so called arguments are kind of  valid like these...   MikeEnRegalia wrote: Also, even MoP and AJFA are only partially prog. Depends how you define "Prog" - if you mean full-blown Prog Rock, then yes, it's only partial. If you mean Prog Metal, then actually, there's almost no difference.   Yeah here lies the MAIN difference, i see that you Cert has a very ELASTIC definition of prog. MikeEnRegalia wrote: I think that because of all the circumstances and considerations, prog related would be more appropriate.   I don't really care where they're filed No, as long they are in PA don't Cert?

This is really like fighting windmills. Screw this, I won't let this ruin my day ... I'll rather listen to some fantastic music.

^ maybe I will ... but there's so much else that I need to listen too ... for each track I listen to, two new ones get added to the queue.