Forum Home Forum Home > Progressive Music Lounges > Suggest New Bands and Artists
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Judas Priest for Prog Related!
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedJudas Priest for Prog Related!

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 456
Author
Message
rushfan4 View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 22 2007
Location: Michigan, U.S.
Status: Offline
Points: 66266
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 07 2011 at 15:49
Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:

Originally posted by rushfan4 rushfan4 wrote:

If Judas Priest were some obscure 70's band instead of Judas Priest, and they had only released Rocka Rolla and Sad Wings of Destiny, then they would probably get consideration for a category like crossover or heavy prog; maybe even enough to be added, after all they would be obscure, probably unknown by most and therefore not controversial. 
The reason a plain vanilla metal band would not be included in Crossover or Heavy Prog is because they might be considered a plain vanilla metal band (not because they're obscure or not controversial)

On the flipside, if Judas Priest were some obscure 90's metal band instead of Judas Priest and they had only released Painkiller and/or Nostradamus they would probably get consideration for prog metal, or maybe again heavy prog. If a suggestor were to select the right couple of songs to provide as samples to the evaluation team they could probably get added to the database.

It should be self evident that 'cherry picking' albums would lead to all manner of PA anomalies in support of your argument e.g. If ELP had ONLY released Love Beach what category would they fit?

 
I am aware of that, but I am also aware that there are incidences where bands have been added to the archives based on a few songs that were sampled on MySpace or some other music source, as that was all that was made available to the evaluation teams.  See recent argument in collaboration zone regarding some obscure European band that was added to Symphonic prog that Ivan tried to have moved elsewhere, but nobody else wanted them.  Their 1st album had some progginess but most of the remainder of their discography was apparently really bad Manowar type music.  If prior to their evaluation they were as well-known as Judas Priest there is no way in hell that they would have been added to PA, but because they were obscure and only the progressive music was made available for evaluation, they were added.  And of course, as you stated, the problem with cherry picking is that you do end up with anomalies.  I'm not advocating cherry picking, I am just trying to make the point that there have been more obscure bands that have been added to PA based on less than representative samples.  Just as there have been plenty of progressive bands that have probably been denied access to PA because the only samples that were made available were those that were on MySpace, which were meant for more popular consumption. 
 
It has been stated to me multiple times that it is M@x's position on additions of bands to PA that if a band has 1 full-fledged progressive album then they should be added.  This is regardless if they released 99 other albums that were purely polka. There are those that would argue that they have 4 progressive albums with the 4 mentioned in the 1st paragraph.  I can't say that any of them are full-fledged progressive albums though and that is the rub.  Sure there are songs and parts of songs on those albums that are progressive, there are a couple of really good progressive songs on those albums that it is a shame aren't somehow included on PA (their goodness being subjective, of course).  In all seriousness, one could probably argue that are many bands in PA that did not release any full-fledged "progressive rock" albums, per se, but the general drift of the album was progressive rock.  (i.e. they had a song like "I Know What I Like In Your Wardrobe" or some such thing which would probably not be considered progressive, but the majority of the songs/pieces on the album are progressive).
 
 
In conclusion, I accepted that the Admins decided not to add Judas Priest 3-years ago and I moved on, and although I don't necessarily agree with their decision, I feel that their decision was based on what they felt was their correct evaluation of Judas Priest and what they felt was best for the site.  I also won't be surprised if they get suggested another 50 times by people like me or South Side of The Sky who feel that there is reason enough for them to be included.  Such is the way of PA.
Back to Top
rushfan4 View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 22 2007
Location: Michigan, U.S.
Status: Offline
Points: 66266
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 07 2011 at 15:55
Originally posted by Bonnek Bonnek wrote:

Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:

Originally posted by rushfan4 rushfan4 wrote:

If Judas Priest were some obscure 70's band instead of Judas Priest, and they had only released Rocka Rolla and Sad Wings of Destiny, then they would probably get consideration for a category like crossover or heavy prog; maybe even enough to be added, after all they would be obscure, probably unknown by most and therefore not controversial. 
The reason a plain vanilla metal band would not be included in Crossover or Heavy Prog is because they might be considered a plain vanilla metal band (not because they're obscure or not controversial)

On the flipside, if Judas Priest were some obscure 90's metal band instead of Judas Priest and they had only released Painkiller and/or Nostradamus they would probably get consideration for prog metal, or maybe again heavy prog. If a suggestor were to select the right couple of songs to provide as samples to the evaluation team they could probably get added to the database.

It should be self evident that 'cherry picking' albums would lead to all manner of PA anomalies in support of your argument e.g. If ELP had ONLY released Love Beach what category would they fit?

 


I think that what Rushfan wants to say is that when considering Judas Priest you should ignore all their non-prog-related releases, just like we ignore all non-prog released from the bands in the regular subs (or in prog-related for that matter, or is Metallica here for Load and Unload?)



In a lot less words than my reply, that is the gist of what I was trying to say. LOL  When we had this argument 3 years ago, Micky commented to me that if the Crossover team or heavy team were to evaluate Sad Wings of Destiny on its own without considering other albums, it is quite possible that they could come to the conclusion that that album was progressive enough to be added to PA, thus requiring the entirety of the Judas Priest discography to be included.  This, of course, is another argument that has been made numerous times regarding the addition of albums that are obviously not prog such as latter period Genesis and Yes, but since it is the long-term site policy that is what would happen.  Again, this would be an argument for having a "bands that aren't prog, but albums that they released were" category.  That way, bands like Judas Priest or the Bee Gees or Kiss or even Iron Maiden or Black Sabbath would not have entire discographies included, only that one or two or four albums that cross the line into progressive rock territory. 
Back to Top
Bosh66 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: February 23 2009
Location: Bolton, Lancs
Status: Offline
Points: 528
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 08 2011 at 02:19
Or explicitly tag such albums like "Point of Entry - Not Prog"? Mind you the problem with this is we then get into auguments on which non-prog albums have significant proggy moments on them, which would be the same problem with only listing "prog" albums. We could list the first four and the last one, but even straight rock albums like British Steel, Painkiller and Angel of Retribution have proggy parts. This is a minefield!
 
Being a Priest fan, I'd say there's enough about JP that's progressive to at least have them in Prog Related, aside from their influence on the prog-metal genre. I can't see how placing them in Prog Related waters down the prog authenticity of this site one iota.
 
As an aside, there's arguments on this thread supporting JPs inclusion or exclusion that references the non-prog albums of Yes or Genesis. I've never understood this view of their later albums. They were certainly less symphonic prog and more poppy, but still very much have a prog sound and (inconsistently) a prog structure to them. Just more crossover, perhaps?
 
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 08 2011 at 02:26
Originally posted by Bosh66 Bosh66 wrote:

 
As an aside, there's arguments on this thread supporting JPs inclusion or exclusion that references the non-prog albums of Yes or Genesis. I've never understood this view of their later albums. They were certainly less symphonic prog and more poppy, but still very much have a prog sound and (inconsistently) a prog structure to them. Just more crossover, perhaps?
 
 
If 80s Genesis is proggy enough for CROSSOVER, then maybe we'd need to evaluate Police (Synchronicity/Ghosts in the machine), Prince (Purple Rain), Donald Fagen and also consider moving Kate Bush from Prog Related to Crossover (and Tori Amos from crossover to PR Wink).
Back to Top
DamoXt7942 View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar

Joined: October 15 2008
Location: Okayama, Japan
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 08 2011 at 03:32
Let me say only that; Rocka Rolla is a progenitor of Stoner Rock, and in this sense I consider this album be progressive. (But Prog-Related? Hmmmm ... )
Back to Top
Bonnek View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 01 2009
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Points: 4515
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 08 2011 at 07:07
Originally posted by Bosh66 Bosh66 wrote:

Or explicitly tag such albums like "Point of Entry - Not Prog"?
Now we can't do that unfortunately, technically i mean, it's everything or nothing

Mind you the problem with this is we then get into auguments on which non-prog albums have significant proggy moments on them, which would be the same problem with only listing "prog" albums. We could list the first four and the last one, but even straight rock albums like British Steel, Painkiller and Angel of Retribution have proggy parts. This is a minefield!
No this isn't a problem, slightly proggy parts on an album are not enough for inclusion here, an album must fully belong in its sub to warrant addition. Which, as Rushfan explained, is a significant argument for JP's rejection. Take Sad Wings for instance, side A even lists as Heavy Prog for me, it almost feels like a 'suite', but side B is just a selection of metal songs.
 
Back to Top
DavetheSlave View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 23 2007
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 492
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 08 2011 at 07:59
It has been stated to me multiple times that it is M@x's position on additions of bands to PA that if a band has 1 full-fledged progressive album then they should be added.    That was from RushFan4 post
 
I agree fully with what he said. Some people here seem to get whatever they choose included and as for the rest they stand firm. There are inclusions in PA at the moment which are severely questionable and there are inclusions being added regularly which are questionable.
However when I suggested Stratovarius I was chewed up once and I really don't understand the standpoints that were raised.
Judas Priest, to me, stands head and shoulders above Metallica as a PA addition however the Metallica fanboys got their way and I don't see the JP fans standing a chance of having something they enjoy included. When Sad Wings of Destiny was released - at that point in time - it was different and almost revolutionary - hell it was prog then.
 
I burn about the non inclusion of Stratovarius in the past and I learned just to let things pass because some things are pointless irrelevantly of their worthiness here.


Edited by DavetheSlave - November 08 2011 at 08:00
Back to Top
Icarium View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: March 21 2008
Location: Tigerstaden
Status: Offline
Points: 34055
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 08 2011 at 08:12
Originally posted by DavetheSlave DavetheSlave wrote:

It has been stated to me multiple times that it is M@x's position on additions of bands to PA that if a band has 1 full-fledged progressive album then they should be added.    That was from RushFan4 post
 
I agree fully with what he said. Some people here seem to get whatever they choose included and as for the rest they stand firm. There are inclusions in PA at the moment which are severely questionable and there are inclusions being added regularly which are questionable.
However when I suggested Stratovarius I was chewed up once and I really don't understand the standpoints that were raised.
Judas Priest, to me, stands head and shoulders above Metallica as a PA addition however the Metallica fanboys got their way and I don't see the JP fans standing a chance of having something they enjoy included. When Sad Wings of Destiny was released - at that point in time - it was different and almost revolutionary - hell it was prog then.
 
I burn about the non inclusion of Stratovarius in the past and I learned just to let things pass because some things are pointless irrelevantly of their worthiness here.
i feel the same happend with the Scorpions suggestiong couse of one or two albums which are related to Krautrock but stil did not get in couse i don't know people are anchious of what rumour PA will have if bands as Scorpions or Priest or the Police Wink, are added i think it is more important to show every facett of progressive music then be as narrow as posibel people mostly know which bands are prog (not a big seacret ) and which bands are obscure couse then  you look for it or ask after it not difficult, but i also think it facinating when bands you don't normaly assosiate with prog once or have in times played with the style or used it to their benefit, started as one or have prog leaning, to me that is atractive. but i also agree that the dams should not be wide opened....


Edited by aginor - November 08 2011 at 08:15
Back to Top
Negoba View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 08 2011 at 09:12
No.
 
Purple Rain is much more progressive than anything Judas Priest did. No Prince, no Priest.
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 08 2011 at 09:22
Originally posted by Negoba Negoba wrote:

No.
 
Purple Rain is much more progressive than anything Judas Priest did. No Prince, no Priest.


I actually agree but it would take a sea change in the mindset here if people are not to go "Purple Rain, are you crazy!!! Shocked"  
Back to Top
DavetheSlave View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 23 2007
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 492
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 08 2011 at 09:27
Originally posted by aginor aginor wrote:

Originally posted by DavetheSlave DavetheSlave wrote:

It has been stated to me multiple times that it is M@x's position on additions of bands to PA that if a band has 1 full-fledged progressive album then they should be added.    That was from RushFan4 post
 
I agree fully with what he said. Some people here seem to get whatever they choose included and as for the rest they stand firm. There are inclusions in PA at the moment which are severely questionable and there are inclusions being added regularly which are questionable.
However when I suggested Stratovarius I was chewed up once and I really don't understand the standpoints that were raised.
Judas Priest, to me, stands head and shoulders above Metallica as a PA addition however the Metallica fanboys got their way and I don't see the JP fans standing a chance of having something they enjoy included. When Sad Wings of Destiny was released - at that point in time - it was different and almost revolutionary - hell it was prog then.
 
I burn about the non inclusion of Stratovarius in the past and I learned just to let things pass because some things are pointless irrelevantly of their worthiness here.
i feel the same happend with the Scorpions suggestiong couse of one or two albums which are related to Krautrock but stil did not get in couse i don't know people are anchious of what rumour PA will have if bands as Scorpions or Priest or the Police Wink, are added i think it is more important to show every facett of progressive music then be as narrow as posibel people mostly know which bands are prog (not a big seacret ) and which bands are obscure couse then  you look for it or ask after it not difficult, but i also think it facinating when bands you don't normaly assosiate with prog once or have in times played with the style or used it to their benefit, started as one or have prog leaning, to me that is atractive. but i also agree that the dams should not be wide opened....
Scorpions should be here if only on the strength of their Lonesome Crow album
Judas Priest should be here on the strength of Sad Wings of Destiny and Nostradamus to name two albums
 
But - they won't be - there aint no growling in em


Edited by DavetheSlave - November 08 2011 at 09:31
Back to Top
Alitare View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 08 2008
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 3595
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 08 2011 at 09:28
How is When Doves Cry more progressive than The Ripper? That song is so damn progressive. It's like eight minutes long with the funky jazz fusion middle section and the apocalyptic lyrics. The Ripper, man, is the cornerstone of prog. It had those electronically processed vocals and crazy saxophone/guitar interplays.The time changes are incredible. How can you think that The Beautiful Ones is more progressive than that monolithic epic? Clearly you have no no...

Oh wait, I'm thinking of 21st Century Schizoid Man, I'm sorry. 

You know who'd be fun on here? The Ramones, just to screw with our illustrious guests.
Back to Top
Bonnek View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 01 2009
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Points: 4515
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 08 2011 at 10:50
Originally posted by aginor aginor wrote:

i feel the same happend with the Scorpions suggestiong couse of one or two albums which are related to Krautrock but stil did not get in couse i don't know people are anchious of what rumour PA will have if bands as Scorpions or Priest or the Police Wink, are added i think it is more important to show every facett of progressive music then be as narrow as posibel people mostly know which bands are prog (not a big seacret ) and which bands are obscure couse then  you look for it or ask after it not difficult, but i also think it facinating when bands you don't normaly assosiate with prog once or have in times played with the style or used it to their benefit, started as one or have prog leaning, to me that is atractive. but i also agree that the dams should not be wide opened....


Related to krautrock is not krautrock, and then krautrock isn't prog (it was meant to be the opposite) and the Scorpions' first two albums aren't even related to krautrock, just a bit Heavy Prog-ish.

Well, maybe 3 times no give a yes?

The Police, Prince and who knows what else (Madonna?) would all be fine in crossover prog; at least if you consider Amos, Björk, Talking Heads and NIN as relevant artists there. (Bites tongue in cheek)



Edited by Bonnek - November 08 2011 at 10:51
Back to Top
Marty McFly View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 23 2009
Location: Czech Republic
Status: Offline
Points: 3968
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 08 2011 at 12:17

^ There are hundreds of artists in Crossover genre. Those you named are the most controversial ones. Not just you. When some people speak about Xover, they just spell these names, but forget about hundreds of others. Doesn't sound fair to me.

Remember, Crossover doesn't equal to just these artists, but to all artists that we have.

There's a point where "avant-garde" and "experimental" becomes "terrible" and "pointless,"

   -Andyman1125 on Lulu







Even my
Back to Top
katatonia View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: July 05 2012
Location: Iran
Status: Offline
Points: 112
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 04 2013 at 14:09
in my opinion,JP can be added wherever Black Sabbath is added.if they are not prog related or proto,then sure there would be nowhere to keep black sabbath either.but sure they both do fit.I've made a prog playlist of black sabbath and judas,and they both have at least 20-30 truely prog tracks
Back to Top
Bonnek View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 01 2009
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Points: 4515
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 04 2013 at 15:20

If it was your idea remembering a dead (thread) then you're a couple of days too late.
Aren't threads closed automatically after years of respectful rest?
Back to Top
lazland View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: October 28 2008
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 13634
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 04 2013 at 15:43
Originally posted by katatonia katatonia wrote:

in my opinion,JP can be added wherever Black Sabbath is added.if they are not prog related or proto,then sure there would be nowhere to keep black sabbath either.but sure they both do fit.I've made a prog playlist of black sabbath and judas,and they both have at least 20-30 truely prog tracks

Your argument is more for Sabbath not to be on the site, than it is for Priest to be added merely because someone, or some bodies, made a mistake in the first place.

Sabbath were never a progressive rock band. Neither were they a "prog related" band (whatever that is). Sabbath were the band who broke the UK Midlands hard rock/metal boom, and damned good they were too. Wakeman even played a couple of tracks for them, but even that does not make them a prog related band.

Actually, Sabbath have less cause than a lot of artists to be added here, because they weren't even a part of that art rock movement that genuinely was related to the progressive rock of the time.

My dog's arse has more prog related genes in her than Judas Priest, who were, and remain, a heavy metal act, simple as.
Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org

Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time!
Back to Top
sukmytoe View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 18 2013
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 291
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 04 2013 at 16:35
Originally posted by lazland lazland wrote:

Originally posted by katatonia katatonia wrote:

in my opinion,JP can be added wherever Black Sabbath is added.if they are not prog related or proto,then sure there would be nowhere to keep black sabbath either.but sure they both do fit.I've made a prog playlist of black sabbath and judas,and they both have at least 20-30 truely prog tracks

Your argument is more for Sabbath not to be on the site, than it is for Priest to be added merely because someone, or some bodies, made a mistake in the first place.

Sabbath were never a progressive rock band. Neither were they a "prog related" band (whatever that is). Sabbath were the band who broke the UK Midlands hard rock/metal boom, and damned good they were too. Wakeman even played a couple of tracks for them, but even that does not make them a prog related band.

Actually, Sabbath have less cause than a lot of artists to be added here, because they weren't even a part of that art rock movement that genuinely was related to the progressive rock of the time.

My dog's arse has more prog related genes in her than Judas Priest, who were, and remain, a heavy metal act, simple as.

I disagree with the Sabbath side of your post Steve because at the time of the first 5 or so album releases Sabbath was progressive to the extreme - remember I say "at the time". I halfway agree with you relating to Priest however "Sad Wings of Destiny" gets in the way of me agreeing fully with you as does "Nostradamus". I would understand if Priest were never added here however if they were I wouldn't complain at all. An inclusion here that I will never fully understand is that of Metallica - they weren't prog in the least and they were never the best thrash metal band either. What Metallica did do was take thrash into the mainstream - they popularised it and drew a hell of an audience by doing so. 
Back to Top
charles_ryder View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 15 2014
Location: St.Petersburg
Status: Offline
Points: 173
Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 25 2014 at 10:35
I think Judas Priest are not prog-band. But their music is prog related. Listen to the early albums where the fine hard-rock with rare progressive elements is. So, like many other classic hard rock band, Judas Priest must be here as a prog related band.
om mani padme hum
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 456

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.235 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.