Metallica ?

Yep, truth be told, as much as the Beatles deserve to be in here, so do Metallica. Neither are prog, but both are halfway over the threshold into these sorts of realms. I'm glad both are here. And besides, if they aren't very progressive, they'll get rated kind of poorly, I hope. Then we'll have a context to compare, say, Dream Theater with more popular metal. I don't know. I'm all for expanding the database, except it means I have a few more reviews on my plate then in the future.

   Why not  to include Metallica , they have progressive tendency in the first couples of albums , and the main issue in here is that  i believe that votes will be similar at the end , //////  keep on the good work PA , members  , nothing is easy !!!

^^  its mostly the Metallica influences Dream Theater use that I detest and keep Dream Theater from being in my top ten bands   ..  had they chosen better mentors Dream Theaters skills could have flourished and Labrie's vocals would have actually suited the music believe it or not that man has one of the greatest natural singing voices but no good for singing thrash metal at all , do you honestly believe at age 41 mike portnoy with all his skills and superior abilities in every way to the Metallica  really gets off listening to Metallica? its just a means to an end it draws Metallica fans to Dream Theater its a buisness ploy   Mike said a long time ago "Chunk and Balls is where its at"  well he was slightly wrong "Originality" is also a key ingredient  .  Its off the subject a little but this is my own point of view


Edited by Yorkie X - October 14 2008 at 01:15

HughesJB4 wrote: You guys have actually heard Metallica before right? As in, actually listened to them, rather than just hearing about half of one of their songs before making up your mind? Actually sifted through the compositional developments that occur throughout many of their songs? You've also heard of a band called Dream Theater right? Whom also happen to use so many of the same compositional devices as Metallica used (particularly evident on Images and Words). It seems everything has to be "prog" in a traditional sense otherwise people get angry. What about progressive ideals? The fact the band progressed the whole genre of metal. Sure enough, it might not be prog in itself, but it was "progressive" in another sense. Some people not might get it, fair enough, but read enough books about the history of metal, study music like I have and it doesn't seem so ridiculous.

Hope you don't mind Harry.

^Lol wut?

Atavachron wrote: another bold, well-thought and correct addition, just like the Beatles, just like Maiden..  bravo !

My thoughts exactly.

Metallica overall might not have been prog in itself, but they demonstrated what MikeEnRegalia refers to as "prog ideals/approach", in that it really progressed a genre and perhaps music overall without really being prog itself. And of course, the same can be said for Iron Maiden, The Beatles, Steve Vai et al.

Drew wrote: Where do we draw the line?     LAST CHOICE

Same here. I have a relatively open definition of prog but Metallica is just way too far. They have no place here.

Where do we draw the line?

Question is when we have collaborators turning away true prog metal bands like Elegy to be on this site it makes little sense that a band like Metallica is accepted ...  all but for one reason   (a draw card)  

Yorkie X wrote: ^^    we prog fans must have twisted senses of humor sometimes

I think that's the only logical explanation.