Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › Would Metallica have been a better band with John Bush as a lead singer?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Would Metallica have been a better band with John Bush as a lead singer? - Page 2

post #16 of 24
9/2/09 at 2:04pm
The only thing I ever hear is "he thinks hes playing the guitar with his drums", which is exactly what set Metallica aside from the rest of the pack imo

EDIT: "the pack" being 80's thrash bands
Reply
post #17 of 24
9/2/09 at 6:40pm
I fail to see any lack of musicianship or song writing skills on anything between Kill em All and Reload. Maybe its just me..

That being said, i think theyve all gone down hill with their last two albums in terms of musicianship and songwriting.

With regards to what people may say about their performances live, Metallica to me has never been about precision in live settings. Theyve always been about the energy.
Reply
post #18 of 24
9/2/09 at 9:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adab View Post
Someone tell me what is wrong with Lars' drumming?
Someone tell me what's good with Lars' drumming. You can cherry pick any of the respectable Thrash metal bands, be it Testament, Slayer, Megadeth, Overkill, Dark Angel, Nevermore, etc, and they all have some of the best drummers in the music industry. Lars wasn't that bad in the first 2 albums, but got progressively worse and worse, accumulating to what IMHO is the worst drum performance ever in St Anger.
Reply
post #19 of 24
9/2/09 at 10:33pm
To my ears, Metallica brought on some major suck after Dave Mustaine left the band.
Reply
post #20 of 24
9/2/09 at 10:46pm
To answer the question, "No". They have been around long enough where the world only knows the front man as Hetfield. Doesn't make sense to bring up a "what ifs". It's kind of pointless.
Reply
post #21 of 24
9/3/09 at 3:58pm
Thread Starter 

John Bush rejected Metallica's offer to join the band!

Quote:
Yet after release of their debut, Metallica remained unsure of Hetfield as a singer.
....
he [Hetfield] was singing, only because no one else wanted the job.
The band still considered enlisting a conventional lead vocalist and front man
and confining Hetfield to rhythm guitar.

As late as 1984 there was still one likely candidate.

[Lars Ulrich said:]
"Thre's only been one guy that we have really been keen on getting for the band,
and that's the front man for Armored Saint, John Bush.
... He's got the f.... best voice.
... in like five years, he's only 19 now, he's gonna be
one of the biggest singers and frontmen.
He's gonna be up there with Dio."
(From 'Sound of the Beast', 2003, page 91.)

As some of us know, John Bush rejected Metallica's offer. He turned them down!

I've added the above quote and a fragment of an 'Interview with John Bush' to my original post.


P.S.
Now, I've got some business to take care of.

Quote:
Originally Posted by alphaphoenix View Post
To answer the question, "No". They have been around long enough where the world only knows the front man as Hetfield. Doesn't make sense to bring up a "what ifs". It's kind of pointless.
No, thanks Head-fi'ers, I can handle him myself.

That you are alphaphoenix, "you are not the alpha and the omega", period.

What was I about to say? Oh, come a little closer, thanx:


Sorry Administrators, Moderators, and Head-fi'ers I lost my cool again,
but as you all saw I was provoked.

Reply
post #22 of 24
9/8/09 at 3:42am
I don't see how anyone could seriously argue that Metallica would have been better if Bush had taken the job. One can speculate on what directions they would have taken and if they would have been as popular, certainly they would have sounded and developed differently, but it's that more militaristic bark of Hetfield that kept their sound from the rather cookie cutter Bay Area thrash sound that sunk their peers.
Reply
post #23 of 24
10/6/09 at 9:53pm

Bush in Metallica?

I'd have to say Metallica ruled the world up until the black album and, while they may have kicked tail bone with John Bush, I cant definitively say for sure. Since James Hetfield has been the only lead singer since day 1, they'd have changed the course of events if Bush were hired because James would've had a much bigger impact on their sound and the music would've been written to fit the vocal styling of John Bush. What I'm getting to is that they'd never have written the music they did and may not have had the impact on metal that they did.
Reply
post #24 of 24
10/6/09 at 10:39pm
I'm of the opinion (and it's probably not a popular one) that Metallica would be a better band if they got themselves an 'editor' and cut between 1 and 2min out per song, after a while their songs just get repetitious and it seems they have at least a minute or so of pointless wankery at the end of every song. Just my opinion.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Music
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › Would Metallica have been a better band with John Bush as a lead singer?