Janszoon

Do they? Didn't they have to hire a mediator during the recording of St. Anger because they hate each other so much? That doesn't sound like people who enjoy what they do.

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm

TheBig3

its a tough call. I hate Adidasss and I still come here, right?

__________________
I've moved to a new address

Hesher

I just think that the Black Album was sort of the final chapter in the life of Metallica before they began to make big changes in terms of their sound, their production, their lineup, their relationships with each other and etc. I think after that it became a different band that should have been something other than Metallica, which I daresay would have been healthier for them musicially/creatively if they mixed it up with some other musicians. It's almost at the point where you have to identify yourself as an "old" fan or a "new" fan, because the demographic of people who listen to Metallica's modern music as opposed to the kind of people who would have gone to see them play songs off Kill 'Em All is radically different. I didn't expect "new groundbreaking innovative stuff", although that's how high the bar is set for other musicians... I just didn't expect albums like Load to be attributed to the Metallica of Ride The Lightning days. IMO, it sounds like Theory of a Deadman covering Venom or something ridiculous.

I fail to understand how it's greedy or short-sighted "to demand of 40-year olds, the sounds they made when they were 20, with different members"... Many bands are perfectly capable of that, and I think it's an indication of Metallica's limitations as musicians that they apparently aren't capable of that (in your estimation). I'm also kind of offended to be called "greedy". But it's irrelevant, because I don't expect them to make music like they did in their 20s - that was the problem with Death Magnetic, to me. It sounds exactly like 40-year-old Metallica covering 20-year-old Metallica, which is not what I expect from a band with 20 years experience. To use Josh Homme as an example again, he's been making music in bands for 20 years and if anything he's become a better and more creative musician than he was in Kyuss (as much as I goddamn love Kyuss and hate Era Vulgaris). I have no doubt that he will keep making amazing music until he dies, because that's who he is, and he doesn't need billions in merchandising or blanketing radio play to do it either. Another example would be Bolt Thrower... Around since 1986, releasing nine albums in that time with their final one, Those Once Loyal, released in 2005. Again, 20 years later, great music at least as good as their first album (if not better), and in this case, they are going on an indefinite recording haitus as they feel they have released "the perfect Bolt Thrower album" and don't have to keep creating in that vein. In comparison, Metallica kicked ass from 1981 to 1990 (nine years) and released only five studio albums in that time before starting to suck hard - much less improving in the areas of creativity or technical skill. I don't think artists should pander to their fans in the slightest, but there is a difference between releasing material that is a departure from previous works and releasing material that is technically less complex, less creative, rather derivative, and bland and naming it the same in the hope that the brand identity will carry a shiitty record.

Metallica died to me after 1991, and nothing made that more clear than attending their recent show at GM Place on the Death Magnetic tour. It was fun to sing along and watch the pyrotechnics, but the performance and new tunes were lacklustre (Lamb of God put them to shame), not to mention how 1 in 10 of people attending were wearing shirts they hadn't bought at the show or the day before. Real metal fans know where the good stuff is, and it wasn't there that day. No amount of discussion is going to dissuade me otherwise.

TheCunningStunt

I can see what you're saying, The Black Album was the last piece of real genius that has come out of them however I don't see why you have to identify yourself as a old fan or a new fan, I listen to ...And Justice For All, Master of Puppets and indeed their new album, so what kind of fan would I be classed as? I just class myself as a Metallica fan. I don't understand why people say they don't like the band anymore because they aren't as good as they once were. The music they produced, we can listen to that for years to come but people - due to the controversy and them "selling out" etc. people decide to not appreciate the great music they made, I think I'll always love The Black Album. I'll be more than happy if they make the next album anywhere near as good as Death Magnetic.

TheCunningStunt

Exactly, if you don't like their stuff after 1991. Listen and appreciate what they made before it rather than expecting new groundbreaking innovative stuff.

TheBig3

Metallica has better musicians in their ranks than most bands.

At this point I'm done arguing. You like Lamb of God. We're not on the same page.

__________________
I've moved to a new address

Hesher

IMO, that's a laughable assertion. Cliff was by far the most creative member, and Hetfield after that; Kirk's solos, while classic, are not especially groundbreaking, and Lars is probably the least skilled and least creative drummer in metal today (and I play drums and was strongly inspired by him). Coming together, they made some AMAZING albums, but I wouldn't go so far as to say they are particularly good musicians. You name a bunch of drummers or guitar players from the metal scene and more than likely they can play or write more complex/creative riffs than Metallica's members have/could.

We are obviously not (on the same page), so let's not argue - I'm just "expressing my opinion", to euphemise. I think experience in the metal genre is relevant to judging how innovative and skilled Metallica are, which I'm not saying you don't have... But Lamb of God is arguably the biggest metal band out there today, and for good reason. I guarantee that almost anyone in that band can outplay Metallica, and I think from a technical and creative perspective they outdo them as well. I'm not discounting Metallica's early material - it remains some of my favourite music in my entire library - but metal has evolved since, even as Metallica had a hand in leading it's evolution.

TheBig3

You know, I honestly expected you to be a douche about this. Perhaps I misjudged you friend.

I think the distinction to make here is you're arguing Metal, and I'm saying music in general. In my argument, Metallica wins. Given my overall musical influence, I'd be more inclined to the diversified band.

Metallica drew influence for their greatest album from, among other acts, Rush. For them to come that distance says to me their taking in influences and making it their own. Modern Metal bores me because its all the same concept. Only if you immerse yourself in only metal do they start to sound reasonably different. I think thats where I am, and probably the reason we're so far apart musically.

__________________
I've moved to a new address

nearlyfond

I too hated Metallica for the whole napster thing. Then last month I went to see them and man! when they played the old stuff... it gave me goosebumps. So I realized it's really all about the music... and nothing else matters.

Swink

Most of my "hate" towards Metallica comes from their absolutely retarded die-hard fans who still havent realised their band has been taking a turn into ****sville ever since Cliff died.

Oh, and Ride the Lightning was their only good album, I guess thats why I dislike them aswell.

/braces self for Metallicafans rage.