|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 11:05 am
MarsSerpent I think a lot of what you guys aren't taking into consideration is that music changes with time. (weather unintentional or intentional) Everytime a mainstream band signs a contract they in fact become a sell-out. Hense
"All you know about me is what I've sold you,
Dumb ******** sold out long before you ever heard my name
I sold my soul to make a record,
Dip s**t,
And you bought one" -Tool "Hooker With A p***s"
Metallica St.Anger was the album that got me into metal....I have no regrets I love that album. If any other band would have sold the s**t nobody would have cared. Just because they come out of they're basic realm of music isn't a bad thing. Psstttttt look at Korn's new album that's a band that's changed over time and most people think it's an improvement. (but I don't) Almost every album Metallica has put out has been different. Look at Kill 'em All vs the Black Album. I don't care that Metallica changed i care that they changed for the worst. Look at other bands that have changed like Iron Maiden, In Flames, System Of A Down, Otep, Megadeth, Children of Bodom, and Blind Guardian. Just to name a few. Those are all bands that i like which have changed their sound for the better. Or at least thats what i think. But my point is that no matter which band might have released Load and/or Reload they still would have sucked. Maybe St. Anger would have done better, but not much. Metallicas new music is just not up to par with their old stuff.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 2:36 pm
DiabloDiabolic Im tired of everyone trashin on "some kind of monster" and "St. Anger"! if any other band produced that same sound in the new albums everyone would like it! but you all expected their classic styles. RAAARRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!! they werent that bad! they are returning to the good way they perform a new song in japan and it sounded like the first albums they also put solos again not like in st a**s...searchin ultimate guitar for merallica
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 6:40 pm
B.Breeg MarsSerpent I think a lot of what you guys aren't taking into consideration is that music changes with time. (weather unintentional or intentional) Everytime a mainstream band signs a contract they in fact become a sell-out. Hense
"All you know about me is what I've sold you,
Dumb ******** sold out long before you ever heard my name
I sold my soul to make a record,
Dip s**t,
And you bought one" -Tool "Hooker With A p***s"
Metallica St.Anger was the album that got me into metal....I have no regrets I love that album. If any other band would have sold the s**t nobody would have cared. Just because they come out of they're basic realm of music isn't a bad thing. Psstttttt look at Korn's new album that's a band that's changed over time and most people think it's an improvement. (but I don't) Almost every album Metallica has put out has been different. Look at Kill 'em All vs the Black Album. I don't care that Metallica changed i care that they changed for the worst. Look at other bands that have changed like Iron Maiden, In Flames, System Of A Down, Otep, Megadeth, Children of Bodom, and Blind Guardian. Just to name a few. Those are all bands that i like which have changed their sound for the better. Or at least thats what i think. But my point is that no matter which band might have released Load and/or Reload they still would have sucked. Maybe St. Anger would have done better, but not much. Metallicas new music is just not up to par with their old stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 8:18 pm
I think St. Anger was a terrible cd. Kirk Hammet is one of the best guitarists of all time. Old Metallica used to show that with crazy good solos and such. but where have the solos gone now?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 8:31 pm
puppetmaster847 I think St. Anger was a terrible cd. Kirk Hammet is one of the best guitarists of all time. Old Metallica used to show that with crazy good solos and such. but where have the solos gone now? into a box xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 3:19 pm
Well....a lot of people I know think they sold out the most with the black album....
I personally like their older stuff better, but I listen to all of it. Metallica ******** rocks, plain and simple mad
I just think they don't have as much to be angry about anymore, and that was reflected in St. Anger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 8:27 pm
Never liked Metallica, never will. I have lost ALL respect for them when they said they WANTED to sound like AVENGED SEVENFOLD because THAT'S WHAT ******** them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 12:03 am
Shade in the Shadow Never liked Metallica, never will. I have lost ALL respect for them when they said they WANTED to sound like AVENGED SEVENFOLD because THAT'S WHAT ******** them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 1:49 am
To my mind, the reaction within the metal community towards Metallica's recent material is more motivated by the change of style than by any perceivable change in musical quality (which is something I don't believe in anyway).
Even the people who claim Metallica have become objectively worse are still comparing their new material to their old albums, or other metal albums. New Metallica are, to my mind, not metal anymore, they are no longer part of the genre. Their albums of late have had far more in common with modern heavy rock and grunge, considering the sludgy (almost grunge-esque) guitar distortion, diminished and eventually abandoned solos, rigid verse-chorus-verse-chorus song structure and a host of othe minor changes.
If you had to choose between listening to the new Metallica albums (Reload or St Anger) or The White Stripes (for example), who are you going to pick? In my opinion, Metallica are now merely a good rock band rather than a great metal band.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 7:44 am
I do hate post black album Metallica....but I don't hate them for being sell outs, I hate them because their music sucks. 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 4:42 pm
What I don't get is we can talk about Metallica on the main forum, but we can't talk about bands like Slipknot.
I'm sorry. Back in the day, they were thrash to the core. But in my opinion, in their old age, they've lost their metal status.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 4:55 pm
I see your point. Metallica is pretty much Nu-Metal with their sound right now. Also, Slipknot was metal on the MFKR cd. But that was before Corey. But, I guess since Metallica is one of the most popular metal bands around....we can talk about them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 5:01 pm
Kitana Saito I see your point. Metallica is pretty much Nu-Metal with their sound right now. Also, Slipknot was metal on the MFKR cd. But that was before Corey. But, I guess since Metallica is one of the most popular metal bands around....we can talk about them. But, what about Iowa. That was total death metal. Their self-titled was complete thrash. Compare Vol 3 to earlier metal bands. The parallels are completely there. So they use a DJ. Why can't we just say they're pushing the boundaries of metal as a whole? Why do we need to put them in a separate set of boundaries? Its music. & anyway you break it down, its metal. It might not be metal you appreciate, but why does that mean you have to invent a slanderous term like "nu-metal" for them? Furthermore, I didn't say metallica was "nu-metal". You did. I'm just saying, I wouldn't consider them metal at all. Top 40 Hard Rock, yes. Metal, no.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 5:15 pm
fearsKLOWNs Kitana Saito I see your point. Metallica is pretty much Nu-Metal with their sound right now. Also, Slipknot was metal on the MFKR cd. But that was before Corey. But, I guess since Metallica is one of the most popular metal bands around....we can talk about them. But, what about Iowa. That was total death metal. Their self-titled was complete thrash. Compare Vol 3 to earlier metal bands. The parallels are completely there. So they use a DJ. Why can't we just say they're pushing the boundaries of metal as a whole? Why do we need to put them in a separate set of boundaries? Its music. & anyway you break it down, its metal. It might not be metal you appreciate, but why does that mean you have to invent a slanderous term like "nu-metal" for them? Furthermore, I didn't say metallica was "nu-metal". You did. I'm just saying, I wouldn't consider them metal at all. Top 40 Hard Rock, yes. Metal, no. The fact that Metallica had such a great impact on the metal community is probably why we can talk about them and their newer albums whether you like them or not. Slipknot only had one Album that is thought of as metal and it hardly had the impact that Metallica has had. Also the Metallica thread is hardly the place to be discussing this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 5:19 pm
fearsKLOWNs Kitana Saito I see your point. Metallica is pretty much Nu-Metal with their sound right now. Also, Slipknot was metal on the MFKR cd. But that was before Corey. But, I guess since Metallica is one of the most popular metal bands around....we can talk about them. But, what about Iowa. That was total death metal. Their self-titled was complete thrash. Compare Vol 3 to earlier metal bands. The parallels are completely there. So they use a DJ. Why can't we just say they're pushing the boundaries of metal as a whole? Why do we need to put them in a separate set of boundaries? Its music. & anyway you break it down, its metal. It might not be metal you appreciate, but why does that mean you have to invent a slanderous term like "nu-metal" for them? Furthermore, I didn't say metallica was "nu-metal". You did. I'm just saying, I wouldn't consider them metal at all. Top 40 Hard Rock, yes. Metal, no. I didn't say that you called them Nu-Metal. Don't get so defensive. Iowa was Nu-Metal, the self-titled was Nu-Metal and finally, Subliminal Verses was also Nu-Metal. Nu-Metal wasn't an invented slanderous term. It is a real genre. look it up. Go to Metal Archives...type in Slipknot and it will tell you...No results found. Metal archives has thousands of bands under each genre. And even if Slipknot WAS metal...I don't think every cd would be a different genre. sorry. It doesn't work that way and Slipknot is not talented enough to do that anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
