Metallica is back !

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
For this thread I've decided to break out the really obnoxious rockin' smiley:

:rockon:

let's hope Lars doesn't trip on his own ego and fall to his death.

looking forward to the album, most definitely.
 
let's hope it's as good as St. Anger, gang!

the levels of social commentary were what first got me hooked. they sure are angry at things!
 
Zoomerang96 said:
let's hope it's as good as St. Anger, gang!

the levels of social commentary were what first got me hooked. they sure are angry at things!

St. Anger was horrible, as most Metallica fans will also tell you.

The clips of the new stuff played earlier in the day did sound great, let's hope it is. Maybe Rick Rubin was able to work some magic.
 
Zoomerang96 said:
let's hope it's as good as St. Anger, gang!

the levels of social commentary were what first got me hooked. they sure are angry at things!

yeah! i'm also hoping that every song sounds like "give me fuel, give me fire!"

pure bliss!
 
lazarus said:
These guys haven't put out a great album since And Justice For All.

True. They were better when they were thrash metal (not trash since Black Album or Load), and it's a fact.
 
Of course everything upto Justice was exceptional but I did enjoy their 90s albums too. Nothing wrong with some variety. I enjoyed their forays into country tinged and alternative rock genres. St. Anger was a huge disappointment but maybe the next one won't be. One can only hope.
 
There are plenty of people (not me) that cannot stand their earlier work and only came to the band when they heard Enter Sandman. I enjoy their earlier work, I enjoy some of their later work, but I have to laugh hard when people make definitive statements about which piece of art is "better". That being said, I think we can all agree that St Anger was crap. :) Oh, and I get a kick out of the Blur devotee posting in here.
 
I meant to say that it's their best work for me, other people can have different opinions and I'm ok with it. Maybe it was not the best way to say it.

No spoken words said:
That being said, I think we can all agree that St Anger was crap. :)

haha, I think we can call this a fact :wink:
 
pat132 said:
I meant to say that it's their best work for me, other people can have different opinions and I'm ok with it. Maybe it was not the best way to say it.



haha, I think we can call this a fact :wink:

I admire their earlier work a lot more than their later work, so we're on the same page here.

That being said, I do not dismiss all of the later work, though, outside of St Anger. I hope the new album kicks ass, but, my hopes are not at all high.
 
lazarus said:
These guys haven't put out a great album since And Justice For All.

You are correct, sir!

But their output before and including Justice... is reason enough for me to be a fan of the band and also gives me a glimmer of hope regarding the upcoming release. Listening to Ride the Lightning will always bring the optimist out of me.
 
No spoken words said:
There are plenty of people (not me) that cannot stand their earlier work and only came to the band when they heard Enter Sandman.


...and those people are called "tools".

Metallica hired Bon Jovi's producer and whittled down their epic tracks intro radio-friendly < 5 minute songs, resulting in a complete dumbing-down of their music.

That kind of artistic compromise is selling out in the worst way, far more than using your song in a commercial to sell a product.
 
It IS a fact that St.Anger is crap.

I actually like some later stuff (some of Reload, Black, etc) as well as the Pre-Black era, what I'm excited about is that the vocal issues seem to have been resolved, and Kirk just absolutely nailed the solo on Master, although he did flub some easy intros, plus overall they just seemed to have an attitude about them that's been missing for a couple of years

The crowd doesn't come through strongly on the webcast video, but they WERE going nuts for the most part, although it was a predominantly punk typ eaudience, of course when I say punk I mean it in the Southern California-Skater sense, not the Clash sense.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=CfqA3H23JSQ
 
lazarus said:



...and those people are called "tools".

Metallica hired Bon Jovi's producer and whittled down their epic tracks intro radio-friendly < 5 minute songs, resulting in a complete dumbing-down of their music.

That kind of artistic compromise is selling out in the worst way, far more than using your song in a commercial to sell a product.

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...

:wink:

Actually, I know quite a few people who would never have known Cliff Burton from Richard Burton had it not been for Sandman.

Much as many U2 fans only got familiar with older (i.e, better) U2 after hearing the very inferior ATYCLB and HTDAAB era songs.

Oh, and just to be picky, 7 of the 12 songs on Black are >5 minutes
 
toscano said:


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...

U2 made it clear from the beginning they were down for playing by the mainstream rules, including big venues, videos, etc. And their music became more complex for over 15 years before it began to level off again.

Metallica, on the other hand, had long, complex, epic tracks right from the beginning. They were also pretty adamant about NEVER making a video, NEVER playing stadiums, etc. A band loses their defiant, anti-corporate stance over the years, fine. But hiring Bon Jovi's producer...that's pretty hard to justify as anything other than wanting to appeal to a bunch of cheese-metal loving fools.

They had already achieved a HUGE level of success from One; apparently it wasn't enough for these greedy whores.
 
I have a hard time tossing the term "sell-out" around. I do not know what specifically motivates other people, let alone artists, so it's hard for me to definitively say someone sold-out. I remember a lot of people telling me that U2 sold out with the Joshua Tree. I think they were wrong and still do, but, the bottom line is they equated mainstream radioplay/success with selling out, and poof, that's how they deemed the band from there on out. So, sure, hiring Bob Rock is/was questionable, but, maybe Metallica truly wanted to go in that direction for reasons above and beyond monetary or popularity concerns. I just don't know. Oh, and Laz, this is not directed at you at all, but I bet most of the people I've encountered that toss out the sell-out phrase would make compromises to reap greater financial rewards in a fucking heartbeat.
 
You know, prior to In Justice For All.... Metallica were selling a lot of records and had a massive following without the help of radio and MTV. The video for One was their first video they ever made.

I don't think they sold out when they made the black album. I think it was just a natural progression for them. I think that record was made for artistic purposes only. They were still pretty kick ass when that album came out. I think it only pissed off the people that wanted 900 riffs a minute and wicked fast solos in every song.
 
No love for The Black Album? I know it was a disappointment to many metal fans out there, but it still contains some amazing songs.

Still, the Ride the Lightning/Master of Puppets era was the best.
 
toscano said:


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...


:hmm:
 
david said:


I don't think they sold out when they made the black album. I think it was just a natural progression for them. I think that record was made for artistic purposes only. They were still pretty kick ass when that album came out. I think it only pissed off the people that wanted 900 riffs a minute and wicked fast solos in every song.

I agree.

I still enjoy most of their 90's material, with the exeption of 1 or 2 off Re-load and I thought the majority of the St Anger album was excellent.
That live footage does look good but I don't think i'll bother seeing em' again when they next tour the UK.
 
Uhh, if by "natural progression" we're talking about a de-evolution of their compositional and lyrical abilities, and a growing desire to make more money, then I guess that would be correct.

Natural would be if you were working with the same producer, in the same fashion, but discovering new things. What they did was actively seek out to temper and over-polish their music by hiring a "hit-maker".
 
BrownEyedBoy said:


Wasn't Jason already in the band during the Black album?

the point I was trying to make was that they got into Metallica, and subsequently discovered their earlier stuff, something which may never have happened without the Black album opening them up to a wider audience.
 
david said:
You know, prior to In Justice For All.... Metallica were selling a lot of records and had a massive following without the help of radio and MTV. The video for One was their first video they ever made.

I don't think they sold out when they made the black album. I think it was just a natural progression for them. I think that record was made for artistic purposes only. They were still pretty kick ass when that album came out. I think it only pissed off the people that wanted 900 riffs a minute and wicked fast solos in every song.

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.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom