Latest Thread Images

Lets Talk Metal
Dec 15, 2013 at 12:20 PM Post #12,497 of 29,661
Dec 15, 2013 at 1:35 PM Post #12,499 of 29,661
Here's how I see Metallica: they were a band who helped pioneer thrash metal in the '80s, and they were innovative in their time, but I haven't found their music (or crybaby rockstar attitude) since then respectable. I was 14 when Load came out, and even at that young age I knew they were sellouts (cliche term, I know, but they truly ARE sellouts... doing music for cash and fame, a part of the music megacorp machine filling wealthy exec's pockets much like pop stars).

Hey, there's nothing wrong with you liking them even though I don't. No need to be insulting just because we have different opinions about a band, right? We're both Meshuggah fans, but I know there are plenty of metal heads out there who find their music boring. Whatever, they don't have to like Meshuggah.

Take it easy bro
 
Dec 15, 2013 at 1:43 PM Post #12,500 of 29,661
Ride the Lightning and Justice are classics, but for me the Black album was the last one i could tolerate. Load and re Load were just that, a load of..
 
I honestly have no idea what St. Anger was about, i was dumbfounded when i first heard it.  They were either trolling us or giving their label the finger for making them record another album.
 
Dec 15, 2013 at 1:50 PM Post #12,501 of 29,661
Yup, Metallica has some really great songs. But nowadays? There is just nothing good coming from them anymore.
No idea why. I mean, they did not change the songwriter or anything so...what's the deal?
 
Dec 15, 2013 at 1:53 PM Post #12,503 of 29,661
damien frizzell said:
  would you like some assistance?  Metallica is a crap band, i know that, you know that and they know that but apart from the're complications as a band  they have for the most part put out alot of seriously good music and artwork  that to me is easily what i call tatt worthy 
Click to expand...


A crap band that has made good music? I prefer to see them as a band that used to make good music and then declined in quality... And I just say that because there was a definite turning point where the music went from good to bad. I think they slightly redeemed themselves with Death Magnetic, though.
 
That's pretty much exactly what I was saying about the tattoos.
 
Dec 15, 2013 at 1:54 PM Post #12,504 of 29,661
campj said:
The plagues known as 'fame' and 'fortune' is my guess.
Click to expand...


I don't even think it's that. I mean, the music isn't any more pop-y or seem to be more directed toward the mainstream, it's just genuinely bad.
 
Dec 15, 2013 at 3:52 PM Post #12,506 of 29,661
Lulu? A St. Anger tattoo?

I can't take Metallica seriously.
Click to expand...

 
Maybe i'm in the minority, but aside from the ******** snare drum and the smashed dynamic, st. anger wasn't that bad. It was my first Metallica album (it's here somewhere....) but still it wasn't THAT bad. Hell if Death Magnetic had 8db more depth it would be quite good!
 
Dec 15, 2013 at 3:54 PM Post #12,507 of 29,661
campj said:
Here's how I see Metallica: they were a band who helped pioneer thrash metal in the '80s, and they were innovative in their time, but I haven't found their music (or crybaby rockstar attitude) since then respectable. I was 14 when Load came out, and even at that young age I knew they were sellouts (cliche term, I know, but they truly ARE sellouts... doing music for cash and fame, a part of the music megacorp machine filling wealthy exec's pockets much like pop stars).

Hey, there's nothing wrong with you liking them even though I don't. No need to be insulting just because we have different opinions about a band, right? We're both Meshuggah fans, but I know there are plenty of metal heads out there who find their music boring. Whatever, they don't have to like Meshuggah.

Take it easy bro
Click to expand...


I always have to get on here and defend Metallica even though I haven't really liked anything since And Justice For All.
 
It's important to respect them historically in terms of their place in Metal history. As one of the older posters on these pages, I think it's partly generational. I don't mean to come off like your Dad or Uncle, but TBH, If you weren't alive and old enough to purchase records in the 80's then it's hard to understand. I'm of the age that was equally influenced by classic rock, alternative rock, punk and hard rock and HM.
 
I'm the same way about music that came before me was influential when I was a young kid or before I was born. If you want to be real, you need to do some research. Rock and metal have been around for a while now.
 
 Case in point-Bob Dylan. My parents generation were out of their minds crazy about Dylan. I liked him well enough, but didn't get it.
 
Recently, I've developed an interest in folk...partially inspired from bands like Agalloch. Along the way I've learned that before the 1960's, folk artists mostly recorded old music handed down generation to generation. "old timey" Appalachian music, protest songs....
 
Dylan was one of the first people in the 60's to write most of his own songs in the folk format. He changed music history forever. In a couple of albums, he pretty much single handedly originated the "singer songwriter" genre that I took for granted for always existing. Then, he went electric and arguably originated the genre of folk rock. I did not know that. A kid now that saw Dylan today would probably say, who's that crazy old dude. Of course, you could say the same thing about Ozzy.
 
Jump ahead 20 years, most of what passed for popular metal was Zeppelin (The Beatles of heavy Metal IMO), Black Sabbath (The rolling Stones), NWOBHM and hair metal (I.e., Motley Crue). It was really lame. Punk get heavier and metal and punk fused...that development is critical to understand the changes in metal in the 90's and extreme metal.
 
Metallica may not have been the first to combine punk/hardcore stylings and traditional metal-Motorhead probably was-but they certainly opened the doorways to the public. They were the most important metal band in the 80's in the U.S. IMO-maybe not the underground-but for all the kids out there that weren't that plugged in and just wanted to bang their heads to something that sounded fresh and authentic.
 
And yeah, they not that great now. But, The Rolling Stones haven't been great since the late 70's.
 
Dec 15, 2013 at 4:21 PM Post #12,510 of 29,661
markm1 said:
 
I always have to get on here and defend Metallica even though I haven't really liked anything since And Justice For All.
 
It's important to respect them historically in terms of their place in Metal history. As one of the older posters on these pages, I think it's partly generational. I don't mean to come off like your Dad or Uncle, but TBH, If you weren't alive and old enough to purchase records in the 80's then it's hard to understand. I'm of the age that was equally influenced by classic rock, alternative rock, punk and hard rock and HM.
Click to expand...

 
I totally agree, but I don't think that's what we were really talking about... Whether an album was "important" or not isn't really relevant to how much I'll like it. I might try harder but that's it. I feel the same way about most of The Beatles and Black Sabbath; I can recognize their influence and appreciate it, but I still don't like the music. 2 different ways of looking at it, one of them highly subjective.
 
damien frizzell said:
  lol i havent even bothered to listen to it
Click to expand...


If you do, you might suddenly find it much harder to defend Metallica. 
wink.gif
 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 16 (members: 0, guests: 16)
Back
Top