Should Metallica be in the forum?

so let's continue the fun... since like many here... see the handwriting on the wall...  it isn't a matter of if Metallica should be added... but a question of when.. and ultimately where.  M@X has to let his experts on the music have their say. 

Throwing this out....  discuss or ignore at your leasure...  would be a perfect opportunity to kill two birds with one stone.. take care of a long overdue addition..and two...   streamline the site with a MINIMUM of time effort and energy.  Recognize that prog did not die in 1979 and new influences.. and a new prog emerged.. and the site struggles.. as it does with Metallica to find places for them.  Remove the 1969 barrier from Proto prog... redefine it to reflect influences ON prog.  Simple and easy... if Metallica had been eligible for that..we could have been spared ALL of this. Who in their right mind denies their influence on what is 'commonly' known as prog metal.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ Actually I agree that proto-prog would be best - for Iron Maiden and Metallica. But I thought that long ago a decision was made that metal bands didn't belong there ...

so was deciding Metallica wasn't to be added ... things change here...  it makes perfect sense. 

I think that both bands were influenced by prog, and influential for the prog metal bands which came after. But I agree that Metallica was more influential than Iron Maiden.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: I think that both bands were influenced by prog, and influential for the prog metal bands which came after. But I agree that Metallica was more influential than Iron Maiden.

maybe I missed this as well in projectile vomiting that was the closed threads... but if you could.. a quick summation.  Have never heard of.. or heard any particular prog influence on Metallica.. therein lays their brilliance and importance..  and in a way.. their ultimate validation as a progressive band...  they sort of cooked this up. Prog Metal.. Proto Prog Metal.. whatever you want to call it.    I sure don't remember hearing anything quite like them back in the day. 

^ the windmills again ...

M E T A L L I C A   A R E   N O T   A   P R O G   M E T A L   B A N D.

^ I said the exact opposite. Metallica for proto-prog, Iron Maiden for prog-related.

BTW: Here are my comments on MoP again, in a somewhat more permanent form:

http://progfreak.com/Metallica-Master-of-Puppets-Review-by-MikeEnRegalia-,_dbe,reviews,_auto_1073681.xhtml

The tracks marked "pa" or "psa" are truly progressive (IMO), those marked "ps" or "psa" are also prog by style. I've only just added those criteria - I'll try to make them more self explanatory.

zafreth wrote: 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??? Because there is a direct parallel - when Radiohead were added to Prog Archives there was a HUGE outburst from people who decided that they were just an indie rock band without actually listening to the music. I was one of the biggest supporters of adding Radiohead - and now virtually no-one questions them as a modern-day Prog band. The point here is that music can be Progressive even if the image the band portrays isn't.   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... I'd have thought it obvious - it isn't a case of saying "If X, why not Y", it's a case of listening to the music - the sentence makes that patently clear. Be careful of prepending "so-called" to the arguments I'm making if you're not actually following them.   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.   You've read my blog in which I attempted to define it, that virtually everyone on the site seems to agree with on the whole? http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=49384   If you don't have an elastic definition of Prog, you don't understand it very well. 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? Indeed - and it's no longer IF, it's WHEN.

micky wrote: Dean wrote: Prog Related is for those 60's bands that laid the foundations for what became the Progressive Rock movement. Yes, a re-writing of the definition would allow all the Proto subcategories that Greg has mentioned, such as Proto-Post Rock and Proto-Prog Metal, but at the present those post 1969* bands who were the fore-runners of later (1980+) subgenres are destined for Prog Related.   *1969 is not an immovable barrier and and can be stretched into the early 70s under certain rare circumstances. don't you think that stretching it into the early 80's picks up two groups..  that had MASSIVE influence on modern prog... that currently are not here.... both will be... but in order to get them here.. they will have to be mislabelled.. thus the whole reason for their inclusion.. is sort of missed.

I still think that if one is to expand the "proto-prog" umbrella (from a temporal perspective) that it should be used to incorporate proto all styles/ movements (categories) listed here as much as makes sense.

I read in another older forum (not that old) that you Mike rested your case  (about metallica being remotely enough prog to be considered to here) because another coleague put a post showing an Allmusic review from a suposedly considered more progressive album from Metallica.

Now I ask you, since when Allmusic became a sure place to determine which group is or isnt progressive by PA standards to be added here? For example in Allmusic,  Radiohead doesnt have the tag, or is considered progressive-rock, but we have them here. Should I rest my case about their inclusion here as well? I mean, if I approach some friends of mine and say to them: Metallica was/isa progressive-metal band, do you really think I wont be laughed in the face by them (even though they dont listen to much prog-rock, but sure know Metallica? I mean, even I'm quite laughin in disbelief on the simple mention of putting Metallica here, and I wont discuss the inclusion of groups like Iron Maiden, cause, lets be true, i dont understand as much of music to be able to discuss with you this, but I'm damn sure Metallica isnt prog...
but you're making me doubt my foundations of rock and progressive music.


Edited by LeInsomniac - August 25 2008 at 22:54

LeInsomniac wrote: I read in another older forum (not that old) that you Mike rested your case  (about metallica being remotely enough prog to be considered to here) because another coleague put a post showing an Allmusic review from a suposedly considered more progressive album from Metallica. Now I ask you, since when Allmusic became a sure place to determine which group is or isnt progressive by PA standards to be added here? For example in Allmusic,  Radiohead doesnt have the tag, or is considered progressive-rock, but we have them here.

They aren't progressive rock ... neither are Sigur Rós or Mogwai. They're in the Experimental/Post-Rock category.

LeInsomniac wrote: Should I rest my case about their inclusion here as well? I mean, if I approach some friends of mine and say to them: Metallica was/isa progressive-metal band, do you really think I wont be laughed in the face by them (even though they dont listen to much prog-rock, but sure know Metallica?

That's exactly why they should be added to prog-related. The category was specifically made for bands which are not prog. I don't understand why, after all those years, people still think that every band on this website is textbook progressive rock or metal.

LeInsomniac wrote: I mean, even I'm quite laughin in disbelief on the simple mention of putting Metallica here, and I wont discuss the inclusion of groups like Iron Maiden, cause, lets be true, i dont understand as much of music to be able to discuss with you this, but I'm damn sure Metallica isnt prog... but you're making me doubt my foundations of rock and progressive music.

Then please, do yourself a favor and listen to Metallica - Master of Puppets and AJFA again. Especially the first couple of tracks on AJFA are obviously prog or at least *very* close to it, and both albums were very influential on the key prog metal band (Dream Theater).