Metallica is back !

[toscano]

I agree with this. I think the black album is solid. Does it reach the heights of the previous albums? Probably not, but it's still a very good record. So they hired a producer that previously worked with Bon Jovi. Big deal. They don't sound anything like them, anyway.

the whole producer thing is such a stupid lame argument.

Are we to get all bent out of shape because Rick Rubin has produced for Shakira, Neil diamond and Andrew Dice Clay ?

 

[TheBrazilianFly]

Yes, they are back with a vengance! Both Lars and James have said that all the shit that they went through during the making of St. Anger is really paying off now! From the little that I was able to listen from the Mission Metallica site it seems like we have some great songs coming our way. I don't like the fact that they are not playing their guitars D-tuned and that Rubin wanted James to sound more like on Kill 'Em All. I personally prefer the thickness and heavyness of the D-tunning and the aggressivity of late 80's and 90's James vocals but I think their songwriting abilities is still alive and kicking and they seem still really passionate about doing records and touring so I can only hope for the best!

I think it's going to be a great record they will deliver and it's going to shut the mouths of a bunch of extremely annoying people. I want to see the bullshit they wil come up with to keep their hate for Metallica going as they pretend no to like the new stuff. Can't wait for it!

And here's the obnoxious smiley tat kicks everybody in the ass:

 

[lazarus]

the whole producer thing is such a stupid lame argument.

Are we to get all bent out of shape because Rick Rubin has produced for Shakira, Neil diamond and Andrew Dice Clay ?

Working in different genres is one thing. But Rock's poppy, cheese metal style (also present in his work with Motley Crue) is something that is NOTICEABLE on the Black Album. The little cutesy guitar fills on Enter Sandman, for example.

It amazes me that anyone could even listen to Ride the Lightning, Master of Puppets, or And Justice For All, and not realize how towering those achievements are in comparison.

 

[toscano]

It amazes me that anyone could even listen to Ride the Lightning, Master of Puppets, or And Justice For All, and not realize how towering those achievements are in comparison.

It's called an opinion. While I agree that the pre-Black stuff is a lot better, I can certainly understand that (gulp) people have different tastes than I do !!!! Shocking.

 

[lazarus]

Hey, I know there's a lot of people with shitty taste.

It still amazes me, though.

 

[U2girl]

Imagine if they'd done both, say made a radio-friendly lowest common denominator by-the-numbers radio-fodder album like, oh, HTDAAB AND used their music to sell a product like, say, an iPOD...

Meanwhile, a certain band hires a DJ to produce their album, looks like they've come straight from the nearest rave party at the height of techno and does a huge TV network TV special
and all is forgiven. Of course they were heavily milking the rise of videos and MTV along the way in the 90's too.

 

[Comfis]

did you hear tha lars thinks of giving the new album for download, following the Radiohead, NIN steps?:O

 

[Aardvark747]

did you hear tha lars thinks of giving the new album for download, following the Radiohead, NIN steps?:O

That would have a certain irony to it.

 

[toscano]

That would have a certain irony to it.

Actually they've been surprisingly adept at embracing the internet once they saw it wasn't going to go away. You're going to be able to follow new album progress, and every live show, warts and all, is available for download within 48 hrs. The U2 camp could stand to learn a thing or 2....

 

[lazarus]

Meanwhile, a certain band hires a DJ to produce their album, looks like they've come straight from the nearest rave party at the height of techno and does a huge TV network TV special
and all is forgiven. Of course they were heavily milking the rise of videos and MTV along the way in the 90's too.

Yeah, delving into a genre that a large percentage of your audience doesn't want you to explore is a sure fire way to make more money and gain popularity.

Shut up U2 Girl, you're a broken record. You've been beating this horse for how many years now?

Go back to EYKIW where people expect to read this shit over and over again.

 

[Zoots]

Laz, I disagree with you from time to time but that was post of the year material!

 

[U2girl]

Yeah, delving into a genre that a large percentage of your audience doesn't want you to explore is a sure fire way to make more money and gain popularity.

Shut up U2 Girl, you're a broken record. You've been beating this horse for how many years now?

Go back to EYKIW where people expect to read this shit over and over again.

Would that be the large percentage that ate up AB and Zoo TV tour just a few years before ? Yeah, trying out dance music totally ruined U2 and their fanbase.

I just love the double standard when it comes to U2 "selling out". The topic isn't exclusive to EYKIW, and it never was.

 

[Sicy]

Shut up U2 Girl, you're a broken record. You've been beating this horse for how many years now?

Go back to EYKIW where people expect to read this shit over and over again.

Stop being rude. Use the ignore feature if you dont want to read her posts.

 

[Zoots]

U2girl, how long will you keep defending U2 of the 00s to people who's posts don't really matter in the grand scheme of things. Why can't you just let things be as simply opinions and be satisfied with your own opinions? You really have a neverending thankless job here.

 

[lazarus]

It's not the defending of the 00's that bothers me; it's that to do so she resorts to claiming U2's choices in the 90's were a safe career move, and that it was commercially motivated.

It's almost futile arguing with anyone who uses such pretzel logic. Or someone who thinks Achtung and Zoo-TV somehow segue cleanly into "dance music".

 

[Zoots]

It's not the defending of the 00's that bothers me; it's that to do so she resorts to claiming U2's choices in the 90's were a safe career move, and that it was commercially motivated.

It's almost futile arguing with anyone who uses such pretzel logic. Or someone who thinks Achtung and Zoo-TV somehow segue cleanly into "dance music".

Tell me about it! Achtung Baby Manchester scene

 

[intedomine]

U2 have never played it "safe". Even HTDAAB was quite risky,an album that is so resistant to encapsualting a consistent musical theme is in many respects, potentially alienating to both elitist fans and the mainstream fans.

 

[lazarus]

I don't know, ATYCLB was pretty safe. What was the risk, too many catchy songs with clean production?

The riskiest thing was the awkward album title.

 

[U2girl]

It's not the defending of the 00's that bothers me; it's that to do so she resorts to claiming U2's choices in the 90's were a safe career move, and that it was commercially motivated.

It's almost futile arguing with anyone who uses such pretzel logic. Or someone who thinks Achtung and Zoo-TV somehow segue cleanly into "dance music".

The "sell out" logic used above (used all the time about 00's U2) can be applied to the 90s (and for the sake of it, you think there wasn't anyone saying "they sold out now" with JT and Rattle and Hum?) as well, and the Pop album is no exception. You just can't handle that - and you're proven it in the past already. What they did in 1997 is as if they'd ask the hottest boyband/Britney producers on board for ATYCLB or the hottest hip hop producer for HTDAAB.

You can't do a surgical cut and say the commercial aspects and "safe moves" (I think silly accusations if you're talking about a band like U2 but anyway) didn't start until 2000. The one difference is they have to work harder now.

 

[lazarus]

I did not say they "sold out" in the 00's. I just think they played it safe. Those are two different things. I don't think either of those terms could be applied to the 90's stuff, but you can live in whatever delusional hindsight reality you want to. Bottom line is that the band was still trying something different, whether or some elements had been touched upon by any other artists at the time. You can't say that about the 00's, unless you think that "four guys in a room" bullshit is new, or different. There isn't one review of that album that didn't mention a "return" of some kind. And I guarantee you, look back at any review of the 90's albums and you will read about innovation, discovery, etc. But hey, why take my word for it. Let's look at what Rolling Stone had to say:

Zooropa:

"The album is a daring, imaginative coda to Achtung Baby...",

"the chilling emotional atmosphere of Zooropa – one of grim, determined fun, a fever-dream last waltz on the deck of the Titanic"

"It is varied and vigorously experimental, but its charged mood of giddy anarchy suffused with barely suppressed dread provides a compelling, unifying thread".

"The album's true strength lies in capturing the sound of verities shattering, of things falling apart, that moment when exhilaration and fear are indistinguishable as the slide into the abyss begins."

And Pop:

"the group has pieced together a record whose rhythms, textures and visceral guitar mayhem make for a thrilling roller-coaster ride, one whose sheer inventiveness is plainly bolstered by the heavy involvement of techno/trip-hop wizard Howie B."

"U2 stray considerably deeper into the world of loops and samples – of remix culture in general – than they did on Achtung Baby."

"Even in the realm of the once-trusty electric guitar, the distortion of sound is so radical that you barely recognize the instrument."

"Those searing, sheared harmonics are still there, but they're compressed and warped and mangled into crazy new shapes."

"Alone among the giants of the '80s, they have a chance to carry their musical vision into the 21st century while still selling a ton of records. Are people still listening, or has rock & roll splintered into too many different tribes for a single band to shoulder the weight of our faith in its dream? Well, if people have stopped caring, it won't be U2's fault. With Pop, they've defied the odds and made some of the greatest music of their lives. Pretty heroic stuff, come to think of it."

Yeah, real safe.

As for the boyband/Britney producers, isn't that who they got help from on the middle-8 in Elevation? Yeah, I thought so.

Does anyone here take you seriously?

 

[Diemen]

Regardless of Metallica's studio output in the last 18 years, I don't think anyone has ever really called their live act into question. They put on a helluva show regardless of the album they happen to be peddling at the moment. I saw them a few months after St. Anger came out, and the show was probably the best rock show I've seen (not counting the 2 St. Anger songs they played). I haven't heard anything of the new music, but I hope they've learned their lesson from St. Anger. Loud and fast isn't a return to their roots if the music isn't well thought out.

 

[Zoots]

Regardless of Metallica's studio output in the last 18 years, I don't think anyone has ever really called their live act into question. They put on a helluva show regardless of the album they happen to be peddling at the moment. I saw them a few months after St. Anger came out, and the show was probably the best rock show I've seen (not counting the 2 St. Anger songs they played).

I saw them on the St. Anger tour as well and what a kick ass show it was!

 

[lazarus]

I haven't heard anything of the new music, but I hope they've learned their lesson from St. Anger. Loud and fast isn't a return to their roots if the music isn't well thought out.

This is exactly what I thought when I heard it. I thought, okay, you're not a bunch of wannabe alternative rockers anymore, but this doesn't do much for me without the great songwriting that marked the older albums.

That being said, I liked a few tracks a lot, esp. Frantic-tick-tick-tick-TOCK!

And I agree, they still bring it live. But so does Iron Maiden, and they've done anything but regress, becoming even more prog-metal as their career continues, while still sounding like themselves. And it hasn't hurt their commercial success, international at least.

 

[U2girl]

I did not say they "sold out" in the 00's. I just think they played it safe. Those are two different things. I don't think either of those terms could be applied to the 90's stuff, but you can live in whatever delusional hindsight reality you want to. Bottom line is that the band was still trying something different, whether or some elements had been touched upon by any other artists at the time. You can't say that about the 00's, unless you think that "four guys in a room" bullshit is new, or different. There isn't one review of that album that didn't mention a "return" of some kind. And I guarantee you, look back at any review of the 90's albums and you will read about innovation, discovery, etc. But hey, why take my word for it. Let's look at what Rolling Stone had to say:

Zooropa:

"The album is a daring, imaginative coda to Achtung Baby...",

"the chilling emotional atmosphere of Zooropa ? one of grim, determined fun, a fever-dream last waltz on the deck of the Titanic"

"It is varied and vigorously experimental, but its charged mood of giddy anarchy suffused with barely suppressed dread provides a compelling, unifying thread".

"The album's true strength lies in capturing the sound of verities shattering, of things falling apart, that moment when exhilaration and fear are indistinguishable as the slide into the abyss begins."

And Pop:

"the group has pieced together a record whose rhythms, textures and visceral guitar mayhem make for a thrilling roller-coaster ride, one whose sheer inventiveness is plainly bolstered by the heavy involvement of techno/trip-hop wizard Howie B."

"U2 stray considerably deeper into the world of loops and samples ? of remix culture in general ? than they did on Achtung Baby."

"Even in the realm of the once-trusty electric guitar, the distortion of sound is so radical that you barely recognize the instrument."

"Those searing, sheared harmonics are still there, but they're compressed and warped and mangled into crazy new shapes."

"Alone among the giants of the '80s, they have a chance to carry their musical vision into the 21st century while still selling a ton of records. Are people still listening, or has rock & roll splintered into too many different tribes for a single band to shoulder the weight of our faith in its dream? Well, if people have stopped caring, it won't be U2's fault. With Pop, they've defied the odds and made some of the greatest music of their lives. Pretty heroic stuff, come to think of it."

Yeah, real safe.

As for the boyband/Britney producers, isn't that who they got help from on the middle-8 in Elevation? Yeah, I thought so.

Does anyone here take you seriously?

I think All that... was something new for U2 unlike the retro classic U2 sound of Bomb - which was the whole point of that record anyway. The fact is they haven't done a pop record before.

Howie B and Flood are hardly the masters Eno is. No wonder Zooropa got good reviews, plus consider it's tucked in the big AB/Zoo TV era.
AB and Zooropa previously saw U2 crossing over rock into dance and paving the way (they're better albums IMO, and much more innovative for U2) for Pop.
Rolling Stone also said All that.. was U2's third masterpice - they always hype U2. I've seen reviews that said Bomb was the third masterpice, even U2's best work.

Believe it or not - to me both Pop and All that... were U2 trying to fit in with what was in at the moment ("competing with Britney" was the slogan of 00, Chemical brothers or Prodigy were the competition in 97). I think All that... could "fail" just as easily as Pop, hadn't it been for Beautiful day, Eno and Lanois helping or not. As for risks, let's compare the two big comebacks. Unlike entering AB, they did not have two major selling albums and a huge tour just a few years before. People's memory of JT era were still fresh, critisism of Rattle and Hum or not. Radio and MTV were treating rock much nicer in the early to mid 90's and the band members were still young. Contrast this with coming off out of Pop/mart which, regardless of your opinion, just wasn't a big era for U2. How many young people and kids would know what AB is, let alone JT, in 2000 ? Where was rock music on MTV and the radio during the rise of boybands and Britney and her clones ? What's easy about throwing a bunch of 40 year old white rockers in a (increasingly) urban sound dominated genre whose major actors are what, half U2's age ? And if that wasn't enough, there's always the pressure of the band saying they'd break up if All that... wasn't up to their standard.

I knew that Elevation bit would get dug up. Helping out on middle 8 of one song vs DJ working your entire album (after prevoius producers failed to work). Yes, much worse.

 

[intedomine]

ATYCLB was new ground for U2, that cannot be disputed.....

 

[lazarus]

How many young people and kids would know what AB is, let alone JT, in 2000 ? Where was rock music on MTV and the radio during the rise of boybands and Britney and her clones ? What's easy about throwing a bunch of 40 year old white rockers in a (increasingly) urban sound dominated genre whose major actors are what, half U2's age ? And if that wasn't enough, there's always the pressure of the band saying they'd break up if All that... wasn't up to their standard.

I knew that Elevation bit would get dug up. Helping out on middle 8 of one song vs DJ working your entire album (after prevoius producers failed to work). Yes, much worse.

So by your rationale, what could they have done in 2000 that WASN'T risky? You talk about an "urban" market, ATYCLB is probably the closest to soul music that they've gotten. Because they weren't sure how or where they would fit in, ATYCLB is still the safest move imaginable. Because the songs are simple, and for the most part catchy, and if you can't bowl people over with the production or the music you will get them with the tunes. And that's fine. But the idea that "this tank has no reverse gear" is bullshit. The band was idling, if anything.

You also claim that U2 was competing with The Chemical Bros and Prodigy in '97. Unfortunately, Pop was being made way BEFORE those bands had their breakthrough albums. U2 may have been riding the wave of a new trend, but it was VERY new, much like Madonna used to pick up on stuff in the clubs, and put her stamp on it before it became commonplace. They were blending this sound with their own style, but to think that there was an easy market for it in 1996 when they were making it is absurd. And their association with Howie B goes back to Passengers in '95, so it's not like they looked through some directory of hot DJs and called him in to save them.

 

[Salome]

You also claim that U2 was competing with The Chemical Bros and Prodigy in '97. Unfortunately, Pop was being made way BEFORE those bands had their breakthrough albums.

I could be wrong
but if my memory serves me right you're talking nonsense here

actually I looked it up
Chemical Brothers - Exit Planet Dust (June 1995)
Chemical Brothers - Dig Your Own Hole (April 1997)
Prodigy - Music for the jilted generation (April 1994)
Prodigy - Fat of the land (July 1997)

I will also throw in
Underworld - Dubnobasswithmyheadman (1993)
Underworld - Born Slippy (1995)
Underworld - Second toughest in the children (1996)

U2 - POP (march 1997)


Well, they did beat that Prodigy album by 4 months
and Chemical Brothers by 1 month
but those bands were continuing on their own sound
so to say U2 would be ahead of them of complete nonsense


it is ridiculous to deny U2 weren't trying to tap into what was happening musically back in the 90s
they just didn't look at what was most popular, they looked at what was most 'exciting' / 'cool' whatever
when that approach basically failed somewhat with POP they had to refocus again
since there was nothing else to tap into at the moment (unless they were going to make an album based on Outkast's Hey ya) they tapped into their own sound
good decision

 

[U2girl]

What wouldn't be risky ? I don't know, but since they were listening to pop music when they were making ATYCLB they were inclined to go that way. By urban I meant the increasing presense and influence of rap and hip hop in "pop" genre in that time, and since.
I guess the safe way would be a "U2 does the ghetto" album; babes, bling bling and Bono.

I don't mind simple/catchy (or even borrowing off the past) songs as long as they're good. You can only go so far in trying out new things before stumbling on something you tried before eventually.

Agreed, U2 finds inspiration from sounds that are around at the time while putting their own stamp on it but they don't invent sounds per se. I also should mention britpop as they no doubt took notice of it in 1995/6 when making Pop (SATS being a nod to Oasis). Pop was around before Chemical Brothers or Prodigy made their own breakthrough albums doesn't mean those bands were doing that particular genre before U2 did.

 

[Zoots]

I guess the safe way would be a "U2 does the ghetto" album; babes, bling bling and Bono.

Are you freaking kidding me? That would have caused a revolution! It wouldn't have just divided the fanbase, it would have nearly deleted it! How is that safe? "Safe" to me is playing tried and tested guitar riffs and songs of god and love etc. like on the Bomb.

SATS being a nod to Oasis

Where do you come up with this stuff???

 

[LemonMelon]

I guess the safe way would be a "U2 does the ghetto" album; babes, bling bling and Bono.