Should Metallica be in the forum?

Disscusion ends for me here,  and for sure i won't read the 21 pages, sorry, i have better things to do, maybe i was not convincing here, but i won't change my mind about addition,

Oh. So M@X is now open for it...

...

...

...

...oh well, here ends my entry.

b_olariu wrote: Disscusion ends for me here,  and for sure i won't read the 21 pages, sorry, i have better things to do, maybe i was not convincing here, but i won't change my mind about addition, .P.S. - And i'm not offended, it's your opinion after all.

I'm very interested in your opinion, but about musical details and not general opinions.

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

(so that you don't have to look for my opinion in 21 pages)

Although positive to adding Metallica to related, I still miss some of the more than valid arguments against adding the band in here.

Oh no... he we goo again.. the endless discussion of Metallica in PA...

Zafreth: Your decision to make of course.

What I think is lacking in this debate is a real debate with arguments more concise than variations of "I don't like it" and "it's not prog". Only then can a real debate be held - as it is know the opponents of the possible addition have in most cases succumbed to knee jerk reactions with lots of pathos and little actual content; which I think is sad when discussing a possible addition that will be controversial if it happens.

zafreth wrote: Besides  that i learn somethin about this whole thread: I never going to suggest a related related band with this logic: "Ooh man this band has 22 albums, ohhh thay have three or four that match my criteria of what is Prog, so i will suggest to PA and use whatever arguments have in my pocket to force the addition."   With this kind of thinking: Maybe ABBA and the Patrigde Family will find his way to PA  .   Other conclusion that i have learn and much positive is: this is my first debate in english hahahah, and of course relisten to Metallica albums again...

Actually it has always been the policy of M@x and most of the others here to accept bands if they at least recorded one album which is prog. It makes a lot of sense too, considering that you review albums here ... not bands. Think about it: If this website is really to become the most complete database of prog albums, we cannot refuse such bands. Of course on the other hand what sucks is that we still have genre per artist ... so if we add such a band we have no way to give users some hints as to which albums of the discographies are prog and which aren't.

BTW: What I said applies to albums, but not tracks ... so if an album contains half prog, half non prog it is not a case for inclusion in one of the prog genres ... but it might suffice for prog-related, and this is what I would recommend for Metallica. Or at least I used to think that based on their 80s albums. Now that Death Magnetic is out they might very well be added as Prog Metal ... let's conclude with a variation of one of their track titles:

"Odd But True"

Certif1ed wrote: ... The main problem here might lie in the definition of Prog Metal, which Metallica match (albeit without keyboards) with their first 4 outings. There are no musical arguments against Metallica's addition, hence none have ever been posted in any of the discussion threads on this topic....

It depends if we're talking about Metallica as Prog-Related, the possibility of it being in Proto-Prog Metal in the future, or as  Progressive Metal band.

That it's progressive and infleunced prog-metal is not in doubt for me, but as I've said, in terms of being Prog-Related, or Proto-Prog Metal, my concern was that the classic progressive rock influence is what brought "the Prog" into metal more than the Metallica influence (bands such as DT were influenced by Progressive Rock bands, as well as metal bands such as Metallica).  I just thought that was sort of a musical argument that while not necessarily against the addition, did raise questions.

This quote mentioned again from wikipedia:

Bands such as Fates Warning, Queensrÿche and Dream Theater took elements of these progressive rock groups – primarily the instrumentation and compositional structure of songs – and merged them with heavy metal styles associated with early Metallica and Megadeth. The result could be described as a progressive rock mentality with heavy metal sounds.

I wonder if by redefining Prog Metal, this may, in a way, lead to defining Metallica into existence as a Prog Metal band (yes, I am being glib).

Certif1ed wrote: Logan wrote:   my concern was that the classic progressive rock influence is what brought "the Prog" into metal more than the Metallica influence (bands such as DT were influenced by Progressive Rock bands, as well as metal bands such as Metallica).      There's a whole other thread on this topic.... I believe it's valid for this thread. You said, "There are no musical arguments against Metallica's addition, hence none have ever been posted in any of the discussion threads on this topic."  So you mean there are none in that other thread too?  I believe I raised this before the thread you're thinking of, anyway. I find it curious that the PM team rejected it if there's never been a musical argument against Metallica's worthiness for the archives (and curious that it was deemed totally unsuitable for the archives at one time by M@X).  Are you certain that there's never been a  musical argument against Metallica's addition in any of the discussion thread concerning Metallica? Logan wrote:   Bands such as Fates Warning, Queensrÿche and Dream Theater took elements of these progressive rock groups – primarily the instrumentation and compositional structure of songs – and merged them with heavy metal styles associated with early Metallica and Megadeth. The result could be described as a progressive rock mentality with heavy metal sounds I wonder if by redefining Prog Metal, this may, in a way, lead to defining Metallica into existence as a Prog Metal band (yes, I am being glib).   Never trust Wikipedia - especially one of the weakest rated articles... But as I thought I mentioned before, I came up with the thought independently.  I raised this point based on my own perception even before reading the wikipedia article; ergo it merely validated a concern I already had.

What would be helpful, since there are so many threads, and one can't expect people to read through all of the threads, is to list the pros and cons here (not that I expect anyone to do it).  Once before when I raised a question, instead of answering it, you said it's been discussed in other threads.  It's hard enough with one thread this long to keep up with discussion.


Edited by Logan - September 12 2008 at 14:19

Logan wrote: Certif1ed wrote: Logan wrote:   my concern was that the classic progressive rock influence is what brought "the Prog" into metal more than the Metallica influence (bands such as DT were influenced by Progressive Rock bands, as well as metal bands such as Metallica).      There's a whole other thread on this topic.... I believe it's valid for this thread.     In that thread, it's generally agreed that Prog Rock and Prog Metal are different things, and that the elements of Prog Metal are essentially long metal songs, often in unusual time signatures, with extended (I'll avoid use of the word "complex") arrangements.   Logan wrote: You said, "There are no musical arguments against Metallica's addition, hence none have ever been posted in any of the discussion threads on this topic."  So you mean there are none in that other thread too?  I believe I raised this before the thread you're thinking of, anyway.   I mean none have appeared in any thread that I've taken part in. Logan wrote: Logan wrote:   Bands such as Fates Warning, Queensrÿche and Dream Theater took elements of these progressive rock groups – primarily the instrumentation and compositional structure of songs – and merged them with heavy metal styles associated with early Metallica and Megadeth. The result could be described as a progressive rock mentality with heavy metal sounds I wonder if by redefining Prog Metal, this may, in a way, lead to defining Metallica into existence as a Prog Metal band (yes, I am being glib).   Never trust Wikipedia - especially one of the weakest rated articles... But as I thought I mentioned before, I came up with the thought independently.  I raised this point based on my own perception even before reading the wikipedia article; ergo it merely validated a concern I already had.   "could be described".   I've reviewed the music of those bands, and I emphatically DO NOT describe it that way, or understand how anyone else does - this looks like lip service to me.   elements of these progressive rock groups – primarily the instrumentation and compositional structure of songs   The primary elements are in fact long songs and unusual time signatures, so this sentence is a lie.   Instrumentation is of a metal band with keyboards, so that's a lie.   Compositional structure is standard rock song, elongated - precisely what Metallica did. It in no way matches Progressive Rock compositional structure, so this is also a lie.   Logan wrote: What would be helpful, since there are so many threads, and one can't expect people to read through all of the threads, is to list the pros and cons here (not that I expect anyone to do it).  Once before when I raised a question, instead of answering it, you said it's been discussed in other threads.  It's hard enough with one thread this long to keep up with discussion.