Archived

#24984 by the fluke
Wed May 26, 2004 4:40 am
wierd, i thought people would have given metallica just a little bit of respect for doing something diferent, no matter how crap it was. on the other hand, caught the metallica show in sydney earlier this year and it blew my testies into knots (yes, this is a good thing), but that was due to the high content of old shit and low content of st anger. imho.

#25213 by Sinkharmony
Wed May 26, 2004 2:59 pm
the fluke wrote: it blew my testies into knots (yes, this is a good thing).


:shock: We have different opinions on what constitutes a good thing apparently! :lol:

#32417 by Black Materia
Wed Jun 23, 2004 1:42 pm
I´ve seen Metallica in Bremen last week and it was really cool, good show, good sound, good setlist (all good well known songs, only frantic and st.anger from the new cd).

Against that, Slipknot was really bad. Only stupid newmetal. I like a few songs from threm, but only from their first one. The new songs....no words for that...

#32955 by Bloody_Rust
Fri Jun 25, 2004 11:19 am
Don't get me wrong, I like Metallica. I think though, having heard the songs they've released from St. Anger (and this is all I'm judging on at the moment :wink: ), it would have to grow on me if the rest of the album is like that.

I really did NOT like Frantic though....... :shock:

#33742 by nikclark
Tue Jun 29, 2004 5:32 am
to me it just seems that james is trying something just absolutely teribble so that he could release something ten times as cool.... wait, everything after the black album sucked... nevermind then.

Nik

p.s. this ayreon cd rocks!

#33752 by Black Materia
Tue Jun 29, 2004 6:05 am
I hate this discussions about "Uh, Metallica cut their hair short, they aren´t true anymore..."...and "since their black album they aren´t metal.."....

like tiny babies crying when you take their toys from them...*argh*

I think THIS is not metal! metal is to stand to the band your like through bad and through good times.

And if someone don´t like the new shit, okay, go ahead and look for another cool band but don´t blame on the other Metallica-fans and you can still be a Metallica-Fan (only hearing the old-shit)....that´s my thought...

Ok let´s stop this here and go back to the topic...

#48220 by The Devourer
Mon Sep 27, 2004 10:57 pm
21st Century Jesus wrote:Metallica is a blues band. This is a metal forum.

nuff said :)
fuck that! pssshhh....metallica started it all fool. metal is not and would not be what it is today without metallica. so you can eat my freaking stuff :lol: but for reals metallica started some major movements in music. like ff did :D

#48234 by Woocifer
Tue Sep 28, 2004 2:16 am
danra wrote:
if they released an album in the old style surely everyone would then slag them off for having progressed absolutely nowhere over a 20 year period? fair play to them for releasing something that sounds like nothing they've released before, and i might add sounds very little like anyone else at the moment. let's see Korn and Limp Bizkit try that. Metallica have re-invented themselves a couple of times now, and i think they deserve credit for a) releasing some genre-defining albums and b) not cashing in on their popularity by releasing what their fans want. can you see todays current chart-topping 'metal' bands releasing an album that was going to kill their album sales?


You're kidding me right? That is such a bogus statement... that's like Heinz saying hey guys, fuck it man...we've been doin this whole ketchup thing for way too damn long. Let's change the ingredients....instead of tomatoes, lets put Mustard seeds in it, YEAH and make it yellow, YEAH!!! and put it in a YELLOW squeeze bottle, YEAH!!!!! But still call it Ketchup.

To me, saying good for them for expanding their ideas in context with the shit they pulled and produced and pushed on us, I'd just as soon give my dad a high five for trying gay man sex and or sex with my pet cat. Way to try it different dad! No...I don't think so.

And if you think differently...how would you feel if Strapping Young Lad did a song about Noisy Pink Bubbles? You'd stop and think wow...that's kinda queer. Imagine an album having a song about being absolutely disgusted with social horseshit going 1000 miles per hour, spit, blood, teeth, anger all over the place, and then just slid right into a ballad about pissing off my girlfriend while sitting in a field of daisys eating lemon tarts... it doesn't really mesh with the idea. This is why we don't celebrate Halloween on Easter, or Christmas on Thanksgiving. Things come to be known as what they define themselves as. And after familiarity develops...you can't define it again without looking like a psycho or an idiot, let alone pissing people off.

When people defend what post 'And Justice For All' Metallica did and is doing then I find it's almost like a foot doctor telling you how to invest in off shore high risk ventures. It doesn't make sense and it's territory that they are TOTALLY unfamiliar with in terms of experience and knowledge. Metallica fell apart, plain and simple...it happens. Stop patting them on the back just because they peaked the interest of the ever strong common emotionless musical try hards of the world. Look at the things that are mass-popular, they usually are supported by lazy, non-committal, short sighted, bored, opinion lacking, needy ambiguous people who would just as soon forget about a band as quickly as the radio station is changed. I don't forget, I give a shit, and know every single note, and appreciate it.

Are those the kind of people you want to defend? The ones that think they are fans just because they wear a shirt and pay 100 bucks to watch the band play? There is something deeper, something more visceral and passionate and personal inside a true fan...and Metallica failed to nourish that in every sense when they turned their backs on a style and quality all their own.

I say give me 7,000 Master of Puppet variations from one band, rather than the top 40 countdown on one CD. In other words, when I want ketchup, I don't reach for the fucking Mustard.

#48311 by danra
Tue Sep 28, 2004 7:07 pm
well, naturally if your dad was gay that would be an evil thing and make him a bad person.

:roll:

and you're right, people should write about the same thing all the time. a metal band doing a non-metal song? that's just stupid, right? every band should be pigeonholed and not be allowed to escape. Devin Townsend should have stuck to his Grey Skies stuff, Bob Dylan should have stuck with writing folk protest songs, and the Beatles should never have released all that sgt. peppers shit - they should have stayed in Hamburg writing black-american rock'n'roll rip-off pop songs.

hmm.

#48314 by Sinkharmony
Tue Sep 28, 2004 7:42 pm
danra wrote:well, naturally if your dad was gay that would be an evil thing and make him a bad person.

:roll:

and you're right, people should write about the same thing all the time. a metal band doing a non-metal song? that's just stupid, right? every band should be pigeonholed and not be allowed to escape. Devin Townsend should have stuck to his Grey Skies stuff, Bob Dylan should have stuck with writing folk protest songs, and the Beatles should never have released all that sgt. peppers shit - they should have stayed in Hamburg writing black-american rock'n'roll rip-off pop songs.

hmm.


Well, I can see what you were talking about in your previous post but Woocifer did make some good points in his own unique way...

You mentioned that Metallica have not been "cashing in on their popularity by releasing what their fans want. can you see todays current chart-topping 'metal' bands releasing an album that was going to kill their album sales?" Well, I think that's an inaccurate statement that paints Metallica in the picture of being visionaries that reinvent the mold.

That may have been true with their earlier releases, but not so much with their latter ones. What people have gotten so pissed off about isn't that they aren't writing thrash metal songs anymore, it's that they aren't pushing the boundries the way they used to. They haven't purposefully written albums that didn't give fans what they want or with the intention of killing their album sales at all. In fact, they did pretty much the opposite.

They starting making music that appealled to a more general music listening audience. They started writing music to try to get more fans and try to give the fans what they thought they liked. The Black Album was by FAR their most successful album and they basically tried to copy that with Load and Reload. Then once they started to get a backlash from that, they tried to play up St. Anger like it was a return to roots. Of course, it's sort of hard to find your roots when you've buried them under millions of dollars. You can even see their marketing swing in their image. First they cut their hair, wore fur coats and painted their nails. Then all of a sudden they started to grow their hair back and put on a grittier image. That's a great thing if you are trying to make money and put food on the table, but don't try to act like they were breaking away from the curve by doing so. They did what they thought they had to do to keep up their success and remain popular.

What made albums like Ride the Lightning and Puppets so good was their disregard for what people wanted to hear. They had a vision and went with it and did it in a such a way that it was intense, catchy and unique. What they do now isn't really bad, but you can flip around the radio station and find 10 bands doing similar things. The voice may not be the same and you wouldn't have those wah-drenched leads, but in terms of song construction and invention...it's just not up to par with what they have done in the past.

Anyways, doing things different is good if it's done for the right reason. What the Beatles did and what Devin did are create music that is challenging and unique. What Metallica did was create music that was less challenging and more generic.

#48991 by Vergil
Mon Oct 04, 2004 6:39 pm
while I tend to agree somewhat that St. Anger isn't Metallica's best album by far, it's not the complete piece of shite it's been portrayed to be either.

It's hypocritical to say that there can be only one opinion on, ie. Devin Townsend's music, that being that it's godly, and then following by saying that there can be only one opinion on St.Anger, that being that it's a piece of crap. Don't get me wrong, I love Devin's work like no other, but saying there's some universal correct opinion about any kind of music is not just a little bit f*cked up.

Nice of you all to share your opinions though, just don't try to impose them.

#50520 by Zippy Van Gough
Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:29 am
Ahh. . . the old Metallica debate. . .

Here's my 2 cents on it:

A band can progress, in fact, they should progress. If you don't, you're just AC/DC or Scorpions. Same ol shit, different album name.

That being said though, what pisses me off about Metallica the most is that for the past 10 years or so, they've gone out of their way to express how much they HAVEN'T changed. Its obvious. Hell, even Dave Mustaine said that he took a chance with Risk and admitted it was a sub par album. Metallica says that Load and those other 2 are just as good as Master. They aren't. They're a different band than they were. They went commerical and it worked for them. It cost them their core audience, but gained millions of new fans worldwide. Good for their wallets, bad for their metal reputaions.

Do I like them still? No. I go back and listen to my old Metallica albums, and I now hear them as stagnant and boring. In my opinion, they didn't hold up. I changed musically, and so did my tastes in bands.

St. Anger:

I haven't listened to it and have absoultely no desire to ever hear it. My brother-in-law (and the other half of my band) loves it and thinks I'm small minded for not even giving it a chance. That's fine. I haven't been interested in what Metallica puts out since 1992. I got the black album the day it came out (hell, my first band even covered Enter Sandman), but I never got into the album. It was boring for me to listen to even back then. Hell, I even thought AJFA was a bit weak.

Are Metallica a bad band?

In my opinion, no. Lots of people like them, so that's cool. Give me Megadeth any day of the week over Metallica. They are a pop band, much like Aerosmith became (only heavier). I wish they would just have the balls to admit it. They're rich and famous and Lars needs to never speak pubically again.

Ok, so that was maybe more than 2 cents worth of opinions. . . bill me.

#52449 by Iron Maiden
Wed Oct 27, 2004 4:45 am
Hey all, new to the board! Forums look cool as hell \m/ Just wanted to say, I saw Metallica about a month ago. All I know is that hearing Disposable Heros, Leper Messiah, and Damage Inc. live still sounds like fucking metal. Thank God. Yeah, James definately takes his rehab to the stage, but, at the same time, he looks a shitload happier. That, and when he's not playing the new stuff, the old stuff still sounds fresh.

Rock on \m/


P.S. Its funny, I'm only on one other board (the Down board) and my name there is Strapping Young Lad (after our Lads of course). I had to change it considering I knew I wouldn't be the only one with that name here, lol.

#54058 by Rico Suave
Sat Nov 06, 2004 11:36 pm
St. Anger is a pretty horrible album indeed. I remember when I first bought it, I tried as much as I could to like it. I kept telling myself they were getting back to the heavy shit, but I couldn't keep lieing to myself. It's just not good music. I know Metallica is capable of much more than that. It really confuses me that they could have possibly finished the album and then said to eachother "this is good". Oh well. At least I have their first 5 albums to remember Metallica in a better time.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest