Well it's what you said about me. :p:


I still say they're far too similar for me, but ehh. I think St. Anger could have become a decent album if they would've taken most of the music they had written for the album and then... y'know, actually did some producing and polishing on it. I suppose thrown in a few solos for the fans, but that part makes no real difference to me.

Either way, I think we can agree that what too many fans have come to expect from Metallica is clones of the old albums, leading to the creation of Death Magnetic. I was disappointed that they completely caved in. Sure, I wouldn't want second St. Anger, but even you seem to agree that that one's a clone (and not even a good one :mad:).

And...I say at this point we can probably do nothing more than go in circles with "They're clones!" "No they're not!" and maybe hurl some insults in for good measure. So unless I see some reason to post later on a different subject, I think now will be a good time for me to leave this thread and agree to disagree.

Good day to you sir.

You're taking this as if I personally insulted you. Which I didn't, I wasn't even addressing you, at all.

Metalheads are generally stupid assh*les, and everything I said very much applies to them. You're being very hyper defensive over one guy's opinion.

It's how you define underground, you're talking about labels, I'm talking about music with very little commercial appeal and no attempt at radio play or making the charts.

Like I said, it's crappy music because it's not what you're used to listening to, by putting out records you liked, they signed a contract that says they must never change their sound lest they piss you off because people outside of your little clique likes them now.

This is straight out of stupid metalhead rants 101, right here.

They started to embrace more classic rock influences, covering Bob Seger and what not, there's no alt rock influences that I can think of, and you clearly don't know what alternative rock is.

Adding a keyboardist that's barely in the mix or throwing in a few solos with exotic scales doesn't equal radical change.

If you can actually tell two death metal bands apart from each other, you spend why too much free time trying to pinpoint the minor technical differences that no normal person would actually notice. But that pretty much describes most metalheads perfectly.

I'm wondering where all this rage is coming from, I didn't diss metal, just it's elitist fans who lose their sh*t everytime people don't call a band by whatever "proper" genre they just pulled out of their ass.

You're not doing a very good job of changing my perspective.

Radically changing your sound no matter what that sound is, when you risk pissing off your purist fans, that alone is an experiment.

My problem with metalheads is basically what you're doing right now. Mainstream appeal and accessible music doesn't discredit an artist, at all. It's not selling out. Every band sells out the day they sign on to a label of any kind and sell their music for profit.

I don't care how awful a drummer Lars is, his band has made great music. And most metal virtuosos make the most horrible, ear grating noise imaginable. Skill is a great thing to have, but virtuoso musicianship isn't a bare necessity.

Now you're just contradicting yourself. You don't want metal to expand? You want every band to conform to a specific style? And to break away from that is heresy?

Great job at disproving my perceptions of metalheads there buddy.

Well maybe I am but...

Nah, I'm right.

Every time you try to prove me wrong, you give me just another example of why I'm anything but. Thanks a lot.

Why is it a terrible album? Because YOU don't like it?

The only way an artist can make sure that their fans love EVERY album is if they never try to explore new things, ever.

That's why metalheads prefer Megadeth. Because they can count on them to put out the same dervivative crap for another 20 years.

That's exactly what Metalica did with The Black Album.

C'mon, that's the basis for 95% of every Metallica rant metalheads make. "They sold out", "they started making commercial stuff", "they pissed on their fans", "At least Megadeth and Slayer never sold out", etc.

In heavy metal?? Why, that's just unforgivable.

Endless wanking at fast tempos =/= creativity.

Glad to see that your views are so progressive.

It's Adidasss, what do you expect? :laughing:

Boo, first of all, before I tackle this post, I must say that in posting it you have essentially undermined everything you said in it and reinforced the obvious fact that you simply do not understand this genre and have no business commenting on it.

If I ran around screaming that prog heads refuse to listen to albums that don't have jangling rickenbackers and 15-minute LSD inspired keyboard solos and that every time they changed their sound prog heads got pissed off then it's very likely you would take offense, especially seeing as how I understand prog much less than you do.

They often are, yes. But what you said doesn't apply to them, because this isn't a case of a band changing their sound and being reviled for it, this is a case of a band releasing several overall terrible albums that nobody with a set of decent headphones would be caught dead with charting on their last.fm. As I've explained three times.

No, in fact, I wasn't talking about labels. Metallica is on the radio here every day. In fact, they play a song at 10:00 pm every night. Do you think Cannibal Corpse or even Pantera get played on the radio or will be at any point in the next 10-15 years? I didn't think so. In the context of the 80s metal scene, and specifically in the thrash genre, there was noone more radio-friendly than Metallica. That's not to say they were bad, but they definitely had commercial appeal, radio play, and made the charts.

This is exactly what I'm refuting and you're ignoring while putting my opinion into my own mouth for me. Crappy music, to an extent, is crappy music. After releasing albums that filled stadiums and drew people like flies to record stores because of their quality in songwriting and (at the time) originality, Metallica had the gall to go out and release something (or several things) that were boring, poorly written, lacking in inspiration, pathetic, and derivative. Again, that is not the same thing as changing their style. To use QOTSA as an example again, Lullabies is quite a bit different than Songs for the Deaf, but they are still both excellent. Sigur Ros' ( ) and Takk are much different than Von and Бgжtis byrjun. Many bands change their sound, sometimes radically, and as long as they are still creating good music there is no reason to get frustrated or disappointed. It's when new releases are consistently poorer than previous material, recorded before the band had several years of experience with their instruments, that any music fan becomes pissed off. For the record, fans of the first couple albums are not a little clique. We are just too bitter to show up to nu-Metallica concerts and pay to stand among fat meatheads with 5950 hats that showed up because it's what everyone else was doing.

If I'm using "stupid metalhead rants 101" then you must definitely be referring to "ignorant anti-metal diatribes volume 4".

Ignoring the fact that alt rock is basically anything nowadays, I will again repeat that if Metallica had done something original, creative, and as technically complex as their previous material with the new influences they were taking on then far fewer people would have been disappointed. Sadly they apparently believed they could release whatever tripe they wanted and rest easy knowing that their legions of fans would accept it however low-quality it was.

Yeah, because that's really what I recommended they do. Why don't you read that sentence again and realize how fucking stupid it was.

Honestly, this just showcases the pigheadedness it takes to come into a thread like this and attack people who love the genre and have a lot of experience and knowledge with/about it. There are a lot of differences between death metal bands, but I'm not even going to bother explaining them because the actual facts are apparently irrelevant to you. "Normal people" don't listen to death metal and they don't listen to prog, either. I think that's the way we both like it. Finally, I would ignore the final comment except that it's hypocritical to suggest that metalheads are stupid *******s but that they also overanalyze "minor technical differences". UR DUMB

I'm frustrated that people continue to perpetuate this stereotype that metal is a genre for lunkheads who have no appreciation for music in general and that we are for some reason overly eager to dump bands because they have become "mainstream". Listening to a band specifically because they are "underground" is something hipsters do, something that has more to do with your personal image than your appreciation of music. Also, I never mentioned or got pissed off over a genre definition in this thread, so I don't know where that came from. I could give two shits about nu-metal or what-have-you as long as I can ignore it.

I'm sorry, what perspective is that? First of all, I don't think you have any perspective in this context, and second of all, if you do have an opinion, it seems to be that metalheads are idiots and can't tell the difference between a poor album and a new musical direction, which I resent. It also doesn't look like you're very willing or likely to change your opinion anyway seeing as how I have explained my opinion several times and you persist in passing it off as an excuse for me and other metalheads to stop listening to Metallica because they sound different.

Yes, it is an experiment. Many bands experiment and radically alter their sound from album to album, and that is indeed to be commended. But when you are a world-renowned musician with a multi-million dollar recording contract and a legacy of amazing albums, it isn't a license to release whatever two-bit cover songs you thought up while taking your kids to ballet and shopping at Prada with your newfound riches. It's a responsibility to keep producing quality music, in fact, whatever genre it is.

I'm not doing that at all, and neither do the majority of metalheads in my opinion. Let me bold this so it is clearer for you. Metallica had already had mainstream appeal and accessible music before the Black Album. Nobody is saying that as soon as they became popular they started to suck. Ride The Lightning sold 5 million copies. At the time, MoP had no radio play or single but managed to sell 6 million copies and go gold in the US. It is now six times platinum. Popularity does not ruin a band in my eyes and does not discredit them in any way. Making a shitty album does. That is the difference.

I didn't say they didn't make great music, and I hate "virtuosos" like Steve Vai or what have you. Skill doesn't make a band. I already said that Metallica's songwriting and lyrics were their greatest strength and made them deservingly popular. You continue to put words in my mouth and then attack me for being a hypocrite. Metalheads appreciate skill and technical talent is something that is usually looked for in a band. That is part of the genre. The problem with Metallica was that their later material lacked the complexity (or depth) and creativity of their older material when they had already set the bar high for themselves.

Metal sounds good. It is usually well produced in order to bring out and showcase the complexity, creativity, depth, technical skill, lyrics and songwriting abilities of the band. St. Anger took millions of dollars of top-of-the-line equipment and made it all sound totally awful in an attempt to emulate a classic old-school essence that was the result of limited resources and rushed recording, and then combined it with ridiculous lyrics ("I'M MADLY IN ANGER WITH YOU!") and poor overall songwriting. If you translated those things into any other genre, the resulting album would be a poor representative of the genre and the band that created it. Do you agree? That was my point. I did not say that I didn't want metal to expand or that I wanted it to conform to a specific style OR that breaking away from it is heresy. You wrote your own copy to satisfy your image of the stupid metalhead. There are lots of bands that I would consider metal that sound absolutely nothing like Metallica, Slayer, Death, Obituary, blah blah or anything created in before 2009 and I like some of them too.

Obviously nobody is going to dissuade you from your self-perpetuated illusions.

How ironic, seeing as how that's exactly what you are doing.

No, it's a terrible album because it's a terrible album. I already listed the reasons twice. I am not the only person who thinks so, and we are not some kind of tiny cabal. I think it's important for bands to change their sound or at least quit and start a new band if they want to explore other sounds. To again use QOTSA as an example, I hate Era Vulgaris, but it is still a well-written and produced album in my and many others opinions, and if they had only made clones of Songs for the Deaf like many lunkheaded fans wanted, they would have stagnated and sounded awful. Ok? For the record, I fucking hate Megadeth.

I like the Black Album. You can't even get your facts straight.

Is that what I said? No, it's not. As I've said several times now, they were already popular, and producing the albums they did after the Black Album wasn't "selling out". It was making bad albums. I dare you to find me a quorum of Metallica fans who think Load and Reload are their favourites or even merely up to the creative and quality standard of the earlier material. Once more I repeat that there is a difference between exploring new sounds and writing good music. They are not mutually exclusive but neither are they both automatically true.

You continue to display your lack of experience and respect for the genre. This makes your argument look pretty ridiculous.

Again, I never said that. That is a stereotype that you are perpetuating to match the image of me and other metalheads in your own mind. I don't like endless wanking either and I don't think it, of all things, implies creativity. Metallica never did endless wanking at fast tempos and they didn't need to. The whole concept of endless wanking is something metal bands never do, and if they do, they are attacked for it by metalheads because it's boring to listen to and creatively dead.

If you threw out your preconceived notions of what I'm supposed to say and how I'm supposed to think and actually gave me the benefit of the doubt and READ what I ACTUALLY WROTE I think we might actually agree on some things.

Since the mods refuse to close this piece of shit, I've edited the opening post. Hopefully, that will stop retarded newbies responding to a (yes, very retarded) post made 4...fucking...years...ago...If you wanna argue about a crappy band, there's a very nice thread (sans my involvement) made by Jackhammer...

Don't know why you hate Metallica....but I think they're great.

well i like metallica and not every band gets a ps3 game made after them!

Adidasss. I have been wanting to clost this for a while but wanted to be diplomatic and not a douche but now with your blessing I am closing this. Thank fuck.