Should Metallica be in the forum?

^Those videos say that Dream Theater worked with Steve Howe, nothing more.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Certif1ed wrote: Logan wrote:  (...) in regards to proto-prog metal, I'd rather the bands be mentioned that influenced the Prog part of the equation (such as Yes) be there than those which influenced the "metal" (got into that in one of the closed topics).   Can you point me to specific examples of where a Prog Metal band has been influenced by Yes?   Dream Theater - Surrounded (on Images & Words). BTW: Being influenced does not necessarily mean copying the style.

^OK, how about Opeth or Death?

Edited by Certif1ed - August 21 2008 at 08:46

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Influences are a very tricky subject indeed. Sometimes they're apparent ... for example, any Pink Floyd fan will instantly recognize the similarities in their Octavarium epic. But they can also be very faint, or a band can be influenced as far as the guitar sound is concerned, but play a very different style of music. Or it applies to vocal arrangements only ... anything is possible.

Certif1ed wrote: I edited my post above, BTW, and having now listened to Enslaved, I think that Metallica should have been here a long time ago.   The videos are on YouTube for anyone to check out - Metallica were way ahead of those guys only 20 years earlier.

I just can't hear what you're hearing. Having played (on guitar, bass, drums) the music of Metallica (mostly from Puppets) for years, as well as some Enslaved lately, I can't see how you can compare them. The occasional bar of five does not a prog band make. (And man, am I sick of people calling Orion prog... wow, some harmony in thirds, tierce de Picardi, and a pentatonic bass solo! amazing!)

No one ever replied about my earlier discussion of "prior art" for Metallica's progressiveness, and I want to add to it one word: Voivod.

tokenrove wrote: I just can't hear what you're hearing.

I wonder if anyone else hears Yes influences in Enslaved - here are the tracks I found on YouTube

Logan wrote: That Metallica was "progressive" (but not Prog) and influential was not in doubt for me.  That it influenced bands like DT I was aware of.  A concern of mine has been that the Prog part of the equation in those Prog Metal bands comes from classic Prog bands such as Yes, whereas Metallica influenced the heavy metal sounds part.  Those heavy metal sounds being fused with progressive rock elements.  If talking influence, did Metallica progress metal more, generally-speaking, or Prog generally-speaking?  Metallica influenced a whole slew of metal bands, some prog, some not. Not that we can consider Metallica for Proto-Prog anyway.

Here's how I'm seeing it:

1. we need to expand the proto prog category. As long as it only lists bands prior to 1969, I feel the subgenres arrived after a prog's heyday are a bit trivialized. It's fine to have proto-symphonic and psyche bands, but there are bands that were prototypes for post-1979 prog rock; for example, Pavlov's Dog for neo prog, Iron Maiden for prog metal. I'm sure there are bands that could be described as proto-post-rock too, but I'm not familiar with the genre. (Of course, Genesis influenced neo prog, but they're Symphonic band at first place.)

With that move, we could decrease the number of artists listed in controversial prog-related category and place them in more accurate place:

Black Sabbath to proto prog,
Iron Maiden to proto prog
Deep Purple's inclusion in proto prog would be twice as justified.

2.
The only band I disagree with its presence on ProgArchives is Black Sabbath.(the band I love to death). In my opinion, they influenced METAL side of prog metal, not the PROG side. Unlike Iron Maiden who influenced both.

It's like adding Bob Dylan because he influenced prog folk. He did, but he influenced FOLK side of prog folk, not PROG.

Where's Metallica in that story? Again, IMO, for their influences to PROG metal (they influenced all metal, that's for sure) they are somewhere in between Black Sabbath and Iron Maiden, being a borderline acceptable material for prog related entry. If we take into account they recorded two albums that could be defined as progressive metal (IM too, BS none), at least very progressive-like; that's moving the scales a bit towards YES for inclusion. Hence, yes; the site as it is now should open its doors for Metallica.

tokenrove wrote: I

Bigger picture though, since but a piece of my post is being quoted there, if one looks back at my post, since I said "such as Yes" (one would include Rush, Genesis etc...), my concern was that the classic progressive rock influence is what brought "the Prog" into metal more than the Metallica influence (Metallica progressed metal, but without the influence of Progressive Rock bands, would Progressive Metal be a viable category here at PA)?  Now this has been addressed somewhat subsequently.

clarke2001 wrote: Logan wrote:   That Metallica was "progressive" (but not Prog) and influential was not in doubt for me.  That it influenced bands like DT I was aware of.  A concern of mine has been that the Prog part of the equation in those Prog Metal bands comes from classic Prog bands such as Yes, whereas Metallica influenced the heavy metal sounds part.  Those heavy metal sounds being fused with progressive rock elements.  If talking influence, did Metallica progress metal more, generally-speaking, or Prog generally-speaking?  Metallica influenced a whole slew of metal bands, some prog, some not. Not that we can consider Metallica for Proto-Prog anyway. Here's how I'm seeing it: 1. we need to expand the proto prog category. As long as it only lists bands prior to 1969, I feel the subgenres arrived after a prog's heyday are a bit trivialized. It's fine to have proto-symphonic and psyche bands, but there are bands that were prototypes for post-1979 prog rock; for example, Pavlov's Dog for neo prog, Iron Maiden for prog metal. I'm sure there are bands that could be described as proto-post-rock too, but I'm not familiar with the genre. (Of course, Genesis influenced neo prog, but they're Symphonic band at first place.) With that move, we could decrease the number of artists listed in controversial prog-related category and place them in more accurate place: Black Sabbath to proto prog, Iron Maiden to proto prog Deep Purple's inclusion in proto prog would be twice as justified. 2. The only band I disagree with its presence on ProgArchives is Black Sabbath.(the band I love to death). In my opinion, they influenced METAL side of prog metal, not the PROG side. Unlike Iron Maiden who influenced both. It's like adding Bob Dylan because he influenced prog folk. He did, but he influenced FOLK side of prog folk, not PROG. Where's Metallica in that story? Again, IMO, for their influences to PROG metal (they influenced all metal, that's for sure) they are somewhere in between Black Sabbath and Iron Maiden, being a borderline acceptable material for prog related entry. If we take into account they recorded two albums that could be defined as progressive metal (IM too, BS none), at least very progressive-like; that's moving the scales a bit towards YES for inclusion. Hence, yes; the site as it is now should open its doors for Metallica.

Yes, I have expressed an interest in expanding both the prog-related as well as the proto-prog category into subcategories that show clear relations (multi-tagging would be good too).  I have wanted proto-folk etc. (though I'd change the term from proto to something else), I have considered that the case of Bob Dylan as a proto-prog folk artist as being rather like the case of Metallica.  He influenced a great deal of folk, progressive folk, and otherwise, and Metallica influenced a great deal of metal, Progressive Metal and otherwise.

SIDE note: I'd like to open the doors to non-rock/metal artists that influenced music from the various categories here (new categories).  Coltrane, as an example (who, yes, I'd love to see here one day).  But where does it end, or put another way, and importantly, where does one begin?  Does one limit oneself to 20th Century composers (e.g. Stravinsky, Orff, Stockhausen)?  Sorry, that's a digression , but is an idea I've been bouncing around since I got here, but understandably has received little to no support (or even response).

I tried to do a fun little topic on the idea of proto-prog and prog-related subcategories, but wasn't a very successful topic: Proto [insert Prog genre] and Related bands


Edited by Logan - August 21 2008 at 13:55

The more I check back on this thread the more it looks like everybody's throwing up all over it