Metallica

[MalaCloudy Black]

I fucking love their earlier thrash stuff, but I listen to modern day Metallica and I can't get into it at all.

That's how I feel. I listen to something like Master of Puppets and then try to listen to Load or St. Anger and there are very few songs I can get into on those albums. I think Phil Anselmo said it best:

When Metallica turned into that lackadaisical rock'n'roll band, there's no way they should have still called themselves Metallica. It should have been a sideproject or something.

Not an exact quote, as I can't find the issue of Terrorizer where he says it. (Do you see the irony in the statement? )

Still, I prefer MoP, RTL, AJFA, etc. over Load, Re-Load, St. Anger, etc.

[fineintent]

Ok...First and foremost let me first ask why you would make a feeble attempt to stop flaming in these discuss posts after flaming Metallica in the beginning of yours? Sure, an opinionated forum is fine with a vote at the top (which right now you're opinion is clearly in the minority by the way) but you make claims like

they come across as self riteous pricks.

←

[Skummy]

1. Kenny G's music appeals to WAAAAY more people than heavy metal.

That's your opinion. Personally, I believe that you can go into the street and grab any random person and just as many, if not more, will have heard of Metallica than Kenny G. Regardless of the outcome, though, that's irrelevant.

2. Trying something new is losing your balls? It takes balls to try something new. Whether you like Load and ReLoad or not, you have to respect them for trying something new. I personally like Load a lot, and like ReLoad a little bit, but neither would crack the top 25 albums I own.

Don't shoot the messenger, kid, if you'd actually bothered to read my post, you'd have seen that I was quoting Kirk Hammett.

3. I watched their documentary Some Kind Of Monster. Yeah I know...they lied in it right.    They just said that so sheep like me would believe it. 

Or maybe it's the fact that Some Kind Of Monster is an official Metallica release and therefore they aren't exactly going to slag themselves off and cast themselves in a negative light? It's hardly a non-biased source. It takes marginal marketing knowledge or, heck, even common sense to work that one out.

[Evil Chase K]

Have you watched Some Kind Of Monster? They DEFINATELY come out in a negative light throughout the whole first half of the film.

And Metallica used their power over the movie very little, they wanted it to be real, and it was. I suggest you watch the movie before you say they don't look bad in it.

Yes, it COULD have been all pro-Metallica, but Lars and James come off as ignorant constantly pissed off assholes throughout the first half and some of the second half of the film.

It isn't until the therapy sessions start opening up their ways of communication with each other that they are shown in a completely positive life.

[Skummy]

Have you watched Some Kind Of Monster? They DEFINATELY come out in a negative light throughout the whole first half of the film.

And Metallica used their power over the movie very little, they wanted it to be real, and it was. I suggest you watch the movie before you say they don't look bad in it.

Yes, it COULD have been all pro-Metallica, but Lars and James come off as ignorant constantly pissed off assholes throughout the first half and some of the second half of the film.

It isn't until the therapy sessions start opening up their ways of communication with each other that they are shown in a completely positive life.

←

I have seen the film, and OVERALL it casts the band in a positive light. It shows them negatively at the beginning, but overcoming their difficulties by the end, because that's what the average man in the street WANTS TO SEE. People overcoming adversity.

The fact is, it was released by the band, and they're not going to release something that makes them look like they're just in it for the money. It's basic marketing, you set up a public face, tell the world that's who you are for long enough and they begin to believe it.

[Evil Chase K]

Yes, it's basic marketing, but they also wanted it to be truthful. The movie doesn't end up with them overcoming adversity because they wanted to make a good movie. It happens because that's what happened in real life.

I read Joe Berlinger's book and he comments on things like the solo issue and things like that.

I still believe what the movie shows is true and not just done to make the band look good.

[livid]

Okay, personally, I like Metallica. Their old stuff is great, but their new stuff is shitty. I liked St. Anger for like a week until I realized how stupid it sounds together. Nothing as of late by Metallica has impressed me. Live, I'm sure, they're great, but to call them legends? Ehhhh, I don't know. I'm sure you can make a statement about the influence they have had on many of the bands around today, but most "legends" are consistently good, and face it, Metallica hasn't been. And don't even list them as heavy metal now.

Back in the 80's and stuff they could easily be classified as heavy metal, but to say that they are now is a travesty to those who are heavy metal. Metallica is nothing more than a commercial machine now. Why? Becuase they're all about the money now. Lars is a dumbass who sues people just because he thinks he has the right to when in all actuaity, he probably doesn't in certain cases. And not to mention that they sued a band in Canada for using some chord right after a different chord on the guitar, claiming that they invented it. And the Napster issue is pretty much hypocrtical, because like Bluesman or somebody pointed out earlier, they got known off of shit that you would call "Pirating". The overall attitude of the band just doesn't seem like something I would really want to support.

And I've seen Godsmack live, but I haven't seen Metallica. And to say that Metallica "blew them out of the water" isn't right. I'm sure Metallica might have been for you, but to say that they blew them out of the water, when Godsmack's probably one of the best live bands in the last 10 years, isn't right.

So you can defend Metallica all you want, because you like them and I'm glad you do, but the fact is their attitudes are that of ignorant and arrogant assholes, and they haven't put out a decent record since The Black Album.

[cthemason]

And not to mention that they sued a band in Canada for using some chord right after a different chord on the guitar, claiming that they invented it.

←

[EWFan2004]

When it all comes to is great Heavy music owns all. Not Rap or Punk. I always loved Metallica playing live or not.

[Evil Chase K]

Why isn't it right to say they blew them out of the water when in my opinion they did?

Godsmack was awesome. I'm not saying they sucked, because they blew me away. Godsmack was outstanding. But Metallica blew them out of the water. Plain and simple.

[RPS]

I don't loath them, but I far from like them.

Metallica don't connect with their audience. They play music.

[zero]

Metallica don't connect with their audience.

←

What the fuck are you talking about? Go to a Metallica show and tell me they don't connect with their audience. When they played Cincinnati last May with Godsmack, they could have stopped playing after an hour and forty five minutes. They played for almost three. They went on stage at 9:15pm, Cincinnati curfew for big arena shows is 11pm (some venues in Cincinnati fine an artist $1000 for every minute they go over curfew), they played till 12:20am (not quite 3 hours because of some lull time in between songs and the two encores). Why? Because the crowd was going fucking nuts and Metallica just kept playing. There last song on the Encore was "Enter Sandman." Boom, show should be finished, but no one leaves. They come back out on stage to thank everyone and no one leaves. So they ask if we want one more, crowd goes nuts and they play "Am I Evil." Crowd still won't leave, they get back on the mic and tell us they appreciate it and are about to go off stage when you see James tap Lars on the back and says "one more." So they get their instruments back and play "Metal Militia," the first time the song had been played live since 1985. Crowd goes insane and they take another bow and thanks the audience for coming again and the arena forces the lights on while they're still on stage. And that was just the last half hour of the show, imagine what the whole show was like. And not to mention the meet and greets with fans before the show from the two major rock radio stations in town. Yeah, they don't connect with their audience at all.

[livid]

Why isn't it right to say they blew them out of the water when in my opinion they did?

Godsmack was awesome. I'm not saying they sucked, because they blew me away. Godsmack was outstanding. But Metallica blew them out of the water. Plain and simple.

←

Edited February 10, 2005 by Livid

[RPS]

Zero...

You took what I said the completely wrong way. Any band can go onstage and get the fans involved in what they do. That isn't connecting with their audience, that is playing a convincing live show.

I am saying Metallica do not transcend the notion of music, which instantly doesn't make them legends.

You want to look at legends, think of the figureheads in music who went above and beyond playing music and entertaining and altered pop-culture, fashion, politics, the way people think and feel and other social, political, religious outlets. Sure, Metallica can throw as many guitar solo's at me as they want, but so can any band in the world. It takes a dime and a dozen to create a sub-culture of people from a genre of music, and I don't think Metallica has done anything to transcend the idea of JUST being a rock and roll band.

[zero]

Zero...

You took what I said the completely wrong way. Any band can go onstage and get the fans involved in what they do. That isn't connecting with their audience, that is playing a convincing live show.

I am saying Metallica do not transcend the notion of music, which instantly doesn't make them legends.

You want to look at legends, think of the figureheads in music who went above and beyond playing music and entertaining and altered pop-culture, fashion, politics, the way people think and feel and other social, political, religious outlets. Sure, Metallica can throw as many guitar solo's at me as they want, but so can any band in the world. It takes a dime and a dozen to create a sub-culture of people from a genre of music, and I don't think Metallica has done anything to transcend the idea of JUST being a rock and roll band.

←

What does that have to do with what you originally said? You said they do not connect with their audience... how is getting the fans involved in everything they do live not connecting? How is "transcending the notion of music" connecting with the audience? To me that sounds like elitist music talk being tossed around. Metallica is a bare bones rock and roll band, always have been if you ask me, but that doesn't mean they cannot connect with their audience. And to say Metallica didn't impact pop culture is just plain ridiculous. Whether you like it or not, Metallica brought "metal" into the mainstream. Were they or are they the best metal act ever? Debatable, and me as a Metallica fan, will lean towards doubtful. Metallica did impact pop culture immensely and even rocked the political and social boat a bit as well. Not as much as many bands before them and many bands after them, but they had an impact nonetheless. Most of the things you say I'll give you and let you roll with cause it's an opinion. But to say they do not connect with their audience, I simply cannot agree with. Look at diehard Metallica fans (or fanboys) and tell them Metallica didn't change their life. Metallica is a band that lives for their fans, they've always been there for their audience. As for the legend argument, I'm not saying that one way or another because it's more pointless bullshit to argue in my eyes. Legends, heroes, all that shit is just a matter of opinion. "Elvis was a hero to most but he never meant shit to me, fuck him and John Wayne."

[RPS]

Okay, I'll take the bait.

How does Metallica change someone's life?... and we aren't talking about some dilluted sense of change that wears off within a few months?

All I was trying to establish was that they are commonly referred to as "Icons" and "Legends", but I don't really see how they really earn that title. Metallica just seems like a band who caught a lucky break, to me.

As for Metallica bringing heavy metal to the mainstream, I ain't sold on that idea. How many metal acts sell really well nowadays? Can "heavy-metal" even be mainstream? I'd argue more that Metallica was a heavy-metal band that made it famous, not a band that made heavy-metal famous.

Edited February 11, 2005 by PunkRockPete

[Guest Bluesman]

I'd argue more that Metallica was a heavy-metal band that made it famous, not a band that made heavy-metal famous.

[livid]

Okay, I'll take the bait.

How does Metallica change someone's life?... and we aren't talking about some dilluted sense of change that wears off within a few months?

All I was trying to establish was that they are commonly referred to as "Icons" and "Legends", but I don't really see how they really earn that title. Metallica just seems like a band who caught a lucky break, to me.

As for Metallica bringing heavy metal to the mainstream, I ain't sold on that idea. How many metal acts sell really well nowadays? Can "heavy-metal" even be mainstream? I'd argue more that Metallica was a heavy-metal band that made it famous, not a band that made heavy-metal famous.

←

[RPS]

But hold on, Britney Spears sells her CD's, she sells out concerts, she influences a lot of the girl bands out nowadays. Does that suddenly make her some kind of Icon.

When I think of an Icon, I think of someone like Elvis. Elvis was one of the first "offensive" acts ever in music. Elvis not only played music, but he managed to alter the world and pop culture. Sure you can say he doesn't mean jack shit to you, but just like you draw the comparison that Metallica had an immense effect on pop music in the 90's [which I think is a crock of shit, a decade that Metal wasn't prominent in the mainstream nor was any shades of Metallica], Elvis has had immense effect not only on music, but the entertainment, social, and business sides of music. Metallica may get political on their records, but that doesn't mean that jack shit. Any band can get political, but it takes a true genius to change politics as opposed to singing about it.

Green Day wrote songs about George Bush. But at the end of the day, he won. Heck, they were good songs, but really, that is all they were. Songs.

[zero]

Just to throw out a little personal experience... Metallica changed my life. I was a young kid, six years old when I saw the video for "One" and it took me from listening to little kids stuff to this sound I probably wasn't ready for. Metallica didn't just change the way I listened to music, Metallica created the image in my brain of what music is. So yes, Metallica changed my life.