DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => General Music Discussion => Topic started by: Samsara on February 01, 2024, 02:18:05 PM
-
I looked around and searched for a Metallica thread, knowing that there was one, and for the life of me, can't find it. So I started a new one. Sorry mods, if I missed it. Please move this, if so.
I sat down today and finally listened to the entirety of 72 Seasons. I listened to some tracks when it first came out, and just walked away feeling like it was “okay.” After this full listen to the album (which was spurred by Mrs. Samsara and I listening to “Chasing Light” yesterday), I have to say, I understand what they are doing, but it’s still just an “okay” release to me.
The entirety of the record just plods, with the exception of some tunes like Lux AEterna that crank up the tempo. All I am really hearing is a band riffing off of shades of the Black album, Load, and Hardwired, along with some nods to Thin Lizzy and Iron Maiden. It’s like they are stuck in fourth gear, not willing to bring it to fifth and take off.
My perspective is, of course, biased, as everyone’s is. I still stand by that Metallica was at their best during their thrash period (KEA through AJFA). They clearly aren’t in that headspace. They haven’t really been except once in a great while (SOME of DM and “Spit Out the Bone”). But I think that’s just where I can’t get into this record. It would sound, to me, so much better if they kicked up the tempos and got away from this warm, tangy-sound and went to a metal crunch. I’ve seen some of the videos out there – people playing these songs in that way, with that sound, and THAT sounds like Metallica to me.
Look, I’m not trying to harsh the mellow of any fellow Metallica fans who have truly dug the band over the last 30 years. I love songs on TBA, the Loads, etc. There usually is always something I like on a Metallica record ("Bleeding Me" is one of my favorites from the band's catalog, as an example). And truth be told, I understand where they went musically in their evolution and why. They appeal more broadly, and don’t feel like they need to be the “face” of metal any longer, like they were in the 80s and early 90s. And that’s fine. I’ve moved on…somewhat. I don’t like giving up on old favorites.
But when I look at bands like Megadeth (who put out some major crap themselves over the years), Testament, Death Angel, etc. all who put out records that are arguably just as thrashy and metal as back in the day, I keep saying – why has Metallica never really gone back there? Why did the band who wanted to be the heaviest band on the planet, just stop being aggressive? They sorta did return on Death Magnetic, but that was really contrived to my ears. It was them purposefully trying to be “metal” with long songs again. I hate listening to anything off that album, because it sounds so inauthentic. It's like they made that on purpose to say they could, as oppose to actually "feeling" that way.
Which brings me back to 72 Seasons. I truly feel this album is an honest to goodness candid representation of where they are musically now. They hang back a bit, don’t push too hard, prefer letting things just groove. For me though, while that vibe has its place, I really wish there would be most instances of thrash back in the band on a regular basis.
A good analogy to me is Tesla. I loved Tesla. This bluesy hard rock/metal band with attitude. And then…I listened to their record called Simplicity, and I just…it was like it was a bunch of old dudes bitchin’ about life. And their follow up, Shock, was just awful. Again, all personal opinion, obviously. But I can’t help but listen to 72 Seasons and think Metallica sounds…old. And I really wish they didn’t sound that way. Testament doesn't sound old. Death Angel doesn't either. Hell, the latter's output over the last decade is way superior to their early stuff.
I’m thankful that Metallica are still around playing live and that folks that haven’t seen them, or still love them, get a chance to. I’m glad Metallica is still around. But 72 Seasons, while an okay record, really just tells me that what defined Metallica over their first five albums, is truly over. And it makes me sad.
-
It's here:
https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=42713.3045
In the A-Z pinned band thread.
-
I’m thankful that Metallica are still around playing live and that folks that haven’t seen them, or still love them, get a chance to. I’m glad Metallica is still around. But 72 Seasons, while an okay record, really just tells me that what defined Metallica over their first five albums, is truly over. And it makes me sad.
And it has been over for the last 30+ years.
The large majority of Metallica's career has not been as a pure thrash band, or even a mostly thrash band.
-
Sam, it's funny you made this post. I busted out 72 Seasons last week for the first time since it came out. I've wanted to comment on some of the things that I was thinking as well, but a lot of it is a mouthful and I started running in circles in my head.
The word I kept coming back to my ultimate issue with 72 Seasons is that it's...soulless.
It sounds great. James sounds great. Kirk sounds great. But there is something missing.
It's like they have made some songs and they're playing them well and all, but it just comes off as empty.
I don't find Death Magentic "contrived", but it's not without its issues.
*side thought*- try and imagine John Bush singing Broken Beat And Scarred. That song was made for his vocal.*
I actually like a lot of Hardwired too, as I do this album.
In the 80's there was an authenticness in their music. It dripped out of the speakers. I'm not calling them fake or cheap or not honest now..no way...but their music used to translate something to me.
Looking at the other thrash bands.. Megadeth has put together an amazing discography, and I think Dave Mustaine has (not so) quietly laid claim to being one of metal's greatest musicians. He hits way more than he misses, and his muic is still effective, relevant, and..translative of feeling.
Testament. they've done Metallica in reverse. I never cared for Testament. I thought of them as a second rate Metallica. Now, Metallica is a second rate Testament.
And for you it's Death Angel..for me it's Flotsam & Jetsam. Both bands making music just as authentic and as good as ever.
But going back to Metallica.. yeah, there's something missing, and I don't blame them or are labelling them anything like disingenuous. It just feels like a band without a calling resulting in music without a ..soul.
-
Tastes.
72 is my favorite of theirs followed by Hardwired and TBA.
Still spin 72 once a week. Every song kicks ass.
So glad they're still creating new and exciting music.
And I think I remember you basically saying the exact same thing in the Metallica thread after 72 was released.
-
The word I kept coming back to my ultimate issue with 72 Seasons is that it's...soulless.
It sounds great. James sounds great. Kirk sounds great. But there is something missing.
It's like they have made some songs and they're playing them well and all, but it just comes off as empty.
You know, there's something to that. It's odd though. I don't feel the music itself is soulless. But a lot of the playing does. I wonder if this is because they all wrote/recorded it seperately and not together as a band like they usually do. I wonder what it would sound like if they banged it out in the room a lot before recording it.
Also, I think the guitar tones are awful. So thin and muddy at the same time.
As far as authenticity goes, I think all of their music except for Death Magnetic was authentic. At least to me. Even St. Anger. It was authentically confused, lost, and a mess.
-
I looked around and searched for a Metallica thread, knowing that there was one, and for the life of me, can't find it. So I started a new one. Sorry mods, if I missed it. Please move this, if so.
I sat down today and finally listened to the entirety of 72 Seasons. I listened to some tracks when it first came out, and just walked away feeling like it was “okay.” After this full listen to the album (which was spurred by Mrs. Samsara and I listening to “Chasing Light” yesterday), I have to say, I understand what they are doing, but it’s still just an “okay” release to me.
The entirety of the record just plods, with the exception of some tunes like Lux AEterna that crank up the tempo. All I am really hearing is a band riffing off of shades of the Black album, Load, and Hardwired, along with some nods to Thin Lizzy and Iron Maiden. It’s like they are stuck in fourth gear, not willing to bring it to fifth and take off.
My perspective is, of course, biased, as everyone’s is. I still stand by that Metallica was at their best during their thrash period (KEA through AJFA). They clearly aren’t in that headspace. They haven’t really been except once in a great while (SOME of DM and “Spit Out the Bone”). But I think that’s just where I can’t get into this record. It would sound, to me, so much better if they kicked up the tempos and got away from this warm, tangy-sound and went to a metal crunch. I’ve seen some of the videos out there – people playing these songs in that way, with that sound, and THAT sounds like Metallica to me.
Look, I’m not trying to harsh the mellow of any fellow Metallica fans who have truly dug the band over the last 30 years. I love songs on TBA, the Loads, etc. There usually is always something I like on a Metallica record ("Bleeding Me" is one of my favorites from the band's catalog, as an example). And truth be told, I understand where they went musically in their evolution and why. They appeal more broadly, and don’t feel like they need to be the “face” of metal any longer, like they were in the 80s and early 90s. And that’s fine. I’ve moved on…somewhat. I don’t like giving up on old favorites.
But when I look at bands like Megadeth (who put out some major crap themselves over the years), Testament, Death Angel, etc. all who put out records that are arguably just as thrashy and metal as back in the day, I keep saying – why has Metallica never really gone back there? Why did the band who wanted to be the heaviest band on the planet, just stop being aggressive? They sorta did return on Death Magnetic, but that was really contrived to my ears. It was them purposefully trying to be “metal” with long songs again. I hate listening to anything off that album, because it sounds so inauthentic. It's like they made that on purpose to say they could, as oppose to actually "feeling" that way.
Which brings me back to 72 Seasons. I truly feel this album is an honest to goodness candid representation of where they are musically now. They hang back a bit, don’t push too hard, prefer letting things just groove. For me though, while that vibe has its place, I really wish there would be most instances of thrash back in the band on a regular basis.
A good analogy to me is Tesla. I loved Tesla. This bluesy hard rock/metal band with attitude. And then…I listened to their record called Simplicity, and I just…it was like it was a bunch of old dudes bitchin’ about life. And their follow up, Shock, was just awful. Again, all personal opinion, obviously. But I can’t help but listen to 72 Seasons and think Metallica sounds…old. And I really wish they didn’t sound that way. Testament doesn't sound old. Death Angel doesn't either. Hell, the latter's output over the last decade is way superior to their early stuff.
I’m thankful that Metallica are still around playing live and that folks that haven’t seen them, or still love them, get a chance to. I’m glad Metallica is still around. But 72 Seasons, while an okay record, really just tells me that what defined Metallica over their first five albums, is truly over. And it makes me sad.
I think your 1st post for your first listen is on pg 72 of the Metallica thread. Odd coincidence.
-
Wouldn't say soulless, but maybe we all have a different definition of soul as far as music is concerned.
Surely, to my ears and heart, 72 Seasons (as the two albums before it) sounds like Metallica, but it doesn't feel like Metallica. It's hard to explain.
The big 5 (yes, it took me 30 plus years to realise it but The Black album deserves to be there) obviously informed the way Metallica music sounds and feels; Load and Reload sound like Metallica searching for something and definitely feel right (and there's a lot of soul there), and St Anger may not sound but sure as heck feels like a Metallica album (in such ways maybe only Kill'Em All did).
The last 3 albums sound (and feel to me) not like a band searching for something, but trying to recapture something. Maybe that thing we're calling "soul". Or life, youth, a kind of fearless innocence.
I don't know. I love them and always have, but can't help feeling a bit like Samsara and Tim about the last couple of decades.
-
Wouldn't say soulless, but maybe we all have a different definition of soul as far as music is concerned.
Surely, to my ears and heart, 72 Seasons (as the two albums before it) sounds like Metallica, but it doesn't feel like Metallica. It's hard to explain.
Well, I explained it by lacking soul, and I don't mean that to come across negatively. I'm still enjoying their last three albums a lot, but they used to have a way of grabbing me by the guts and not they only grab me by my ears.
Still, their lack of output is my biggest problem with them. I can still find 5 or 6 songs that I really like on each of the last three albums.
-
Wouldn't say soulless, but maybe we all have a different definition of soul as far as music is concerned.
Surely, to my ears and heart, 72 Seasons (as the two albums before it) sounds like Metallica, but it doesn't feel like Metallica. It's hard to explain.
Well, I explained it by lacking soul, and I don't mean that to come across negatively. I'm still enjoying their last three albums a lot, but they used to have a way of grabbing me by the guts and not they only grab me by my ears.
Still, their lack of output is my biggest problem with them. I can still find 5 or 6 songs that I really like on each of the last three albums.
There, perfect. That was the concept I had a hard time conveying.
-
To be fair, that might just have something to do with the fact that neither you nor them are 20 year olds full of piss and vinegar. :rollin
-
To be fair, that might just have something to do with the fact that neither you nor them are 20 year olds full of piss and vinegar. :rollin
I am full of shit though. ;D
-
To be fair, that might just have something to do with the fact that neither you nor them are 20 year olds full of piss and vinegar. :rollin
I am full of shit though. ;D
Your take on hamburger vs meatloaf made that abundantly clear. :rollin
-
To be fair, that might just have something to do with the fact that neither you nor them are 20 year olds full of piss and vinegar. :rollin
I am full of shit though. ;D
This is true.
But in some ways, we always will be full of piss and vinegar - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUKEwndo8BE
-
To be fair, that might just have something to do with the fact that neither you nor them are 20 year olds full of piss and vinegar. :rollin
I am full of shit though. ;D
Your take on hamburger vs meatloaf made that abundantly clear. :rollin
:lol
To be fair, that might just have something to do with the fact that neither you nor them are 20 year olds full of piss and vinegar. :rollin
I am full of shit though. ;D
This is true.
But in some ways, we always will be full of piss and vinegar - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUKEwndo8BE.
It was a day to remember :metal
-
To be fair, that might just have something to do with the fact that neither you nor them are 20 year olds full of piss and vinegar. :rollin
I am full of shit though. ;D
Your take on hamburger vs meatloaf made that abundantly clear. :rollin
:lol
His ass is chapped.
-
Years ago, I just let it go. Metallica will be Metallica, not who I or other fans want them to be. That's just the best way to explain it - they went from being a thrash metal band to artists, creative guys that don't want to limit themselves or repeat the past. I actually admire it - the sky is the limit. I won't always like everything they do (Lulu sucks, the movie was silly), but I still enjoy their albums and they're a great live band.
I think 72 Seasons rocks, though I agree with the guitar tone not being the Metallica CRUNCH that I want to hear, and the fact that their later albums do have some slog-fest moments where the songs just kinda blur together. We still have the old albums which still knock my socks off 30 years after originally hearing them.
-
I guess I look at it differently.
No band that has been around that long and managed to thrive still makes the exact kind of stuff they did in the beginning. They aren't the same people now that they were then. They are still making what they authentically want to make, but what they authentically want to make now isn't exactly what it was then. And to me, it would be a little weird if it was.
-
I guess I look at it differently.
No band that has been around that long and managed to thrive still makes the exact kind of stuff they did in the beginning. They aren't the same people now that they were then. They are still making what they authentically want to make, but what they authentically want to make now isn't exactly what it was then. And to me, it would be a little weird if it was.
I agree. And I also look at 72 Seasons and while it's not on par with the band's early stuff, I honestly don't think it's any worse than what their contemporaries are putting out these days.
-
Maybe I've just reached a zen period of life when it comes to music. I have zero expectations when I hear a new album. The newest albums from Megadeth, Metallica and Testament have all been outstanding. I also sense in my tastes that I might be moving further away from the proggier stuff than I have in years.
-
I think some are misinterpreting what I was saying.
I'm not expecting Metallica to repeat themselves and sound exactly like they did years prior. Far from it. If you're an artist, you create art. I get it. That said, I feel like they've strayed so far from their core sound, they don't sound like themselves any longer. And when you cut your teeth and establish yourself as a certain kind of band, which they did THROUGH TBA, plus served as the poster child for METAL (both in sound AND in their name), I feel like they've abandoned what got them there.
What if, for the sake of what ifs, Pantera continued after Reinventing the Steel, the brothers were still here, etc. Would Pantera fundamentally alter their sound and become this band that sounds like their old...even if they were old? Of course not. Pantera would continue to broaden their sound, but they wouldn't leave behind the qualities that made them the statement in the 90s they were. Metallica however, DID do that. And I just keep coming back and listening to what they're doing, and while I like some of it, it just doesn't sound like them. It sounds like old guys who are bored are jamming on new tunes that sound like bands they loved from back in the day...instead of being METALLICA. There's no fire, no anger, no intensity. It's all...mid-tempo and twangy.
Again, I'm not saying it's BAD, it's not. But it doesn't sound like THEM. All the elements that made Metallica the kind of band that blew people away, are gone. The fire, the aggression, the snarl, the danger in their music. It's been gone since Load. And while the logical side of me gets why (they became rich, fat, happy, and content), how do you call yourselves METALLICA if you aren't playing the style of music that the band essentially started (thrash metal)?
It's baffling. You can still break new ground, be true to yourself, all of that. They choose not to. And that's their right. But what a disappointment. At least to this fan.
72 Seasons is an okay album. But it sounds exactly how you'd expect old guys with no fire to play. And that's so disheartening from Metallica.
-
I looked around and searched for a Metallica thread, knowing that there was one, and for the life of me, can't find it. So I started a new one. Sorry mods, if I missed it. Please move this, if so.
I sat down today and finally listened to the entirety of 72 Seasons. I listened to some tracks when it first came out, and just walked away feeling like it was “okay.” After this full listen to the album (which was spurred by Mrs. Samsara and I listening to “Chasing Light” yesterday), I have to say, I understand what they are doing, but it’s still just an “okay” release to me.
The entirety of the record just plods, with the exception of some tunes like Lux AEterna that crank up the tempo. All I am really hearing is a band riffing off of shades of the Black album, Load, and Hardwired, along with some nods to Thin Lizzy and Iron Maiden. It’s like they are stuck in fourth gear, not willing to bring it to fifth and take off.
My perspective is, of course, biased, as everyone’s is. I still stand by that Metallica was at their best during their thrash period (KEA through AJFA). They clearly aren’t in that headspace. They haven’t really been except once in a great while (SOME of DM and “Spit Out the Bone”). But I think that’s just where I can’t get into this record. It would sound, to me, so much better if they kicked up the tempos and got away from this warm, tangy-sound and went to a metal crunch. I’ve seen some of the videos out there – people playing these songs in that way, with that sound, and THAT sounds like Metallica to me.
Look, I’m not trying to harsh the mellow of any fellow Metallica fans who have truly dug the band over the last 30 years. I love songs on TBA, the Loads, etc. There usually is always something I like on a Metallica record ("Bleeding Me" is one of my favorites from the band's catalog, as an example). And truth be told, I understand where they went musically in their evolution and why. They appeal more broadly, and don’t feel like they need to be the “face” of metal any longer, like they were in the 80s and early 90s. And that’s fine. I’ve moved on…somewhat. I don’t like giving up on old favorites.
But when I look at bands like Megadeth (who put out some major crap themselves over the years), Testament, Death Angel, etc. all who put out records that are arguably just as thrashy and metal as back in the day, I keep saying – why has Metallica never really gone back there? Why did the band who wanted to be the heaviest band on the planet, just stop being aggressive? They sorta did return on Death Magnetic, but that was really contrived to my ears. It was them purposefully trying to be “metal” with long songs again. I hate listening to anything off that album, because it sounds so inauthentic. It's like they made that on purpose to say they could, as oppose to actually "feeling" that way.
Which brings me back to 72 Seasons. I truly feel this album is an honest to goodness candid representation of where they are musically now. They hang back a bit, don’t push too hard, prefer letting things just groove. For me though, while that vibe has its place, I really wish there would be most instances of thrash back in the band on a regular basis.
A good analogy to me is Tesla. I loved Tesla. This bluesy hard rock/metal band with attitude. And then…I listened to their record called Simplicity, and I just…it was like it was a bunch of old dudes bitchin’ about life. And their follow up, Shock, was just awful. Again, all personal opinion, obviously. But I can’t help but listen to 72 Seasons and think Metallica sounds…old. And I really wish they didn’t sound that way. Testament doesn't sound old. Death Angel doesn't either. Hell, the latter's output over the last decade is way superior to their early stuff.
I’m thankful that Metallica are still around playing live and that folks that haven’t seen them, or still love them, get a chance to. I’m glad Metallica is still around. But 72 Seasons, while an okay record, really just tells me that what defined Metallica over their first five albums, is truly over. And it makes me sad.
I don't offer this to be a dick, to argue, or to be a contrarian, but only to give an alternative view.
For me, that grew up on the BNWOHM, I heard Metallica back in the day, but it wasn't where my head was at. I had already watched Maiden mature from Killers to Powerslave, and for me - FOR ME - the "thrash" aspect of Metallica was lost on me. it was a gimmick that I had sort of heard already, and it was - TO ME - just one aspect of metal that was taken to an extreme, but it wasn't the most enticing aspect for me. The precursors of thrash - the faster songs from the metal bands I liked - were always the least appealing. I didn't care for the sound of James' singing; compared to Halford and Dickinson and Dio and Turner, he sounded like he was singing down a concrete pipe (and I used to install concrete pipe drainage lines, so I know what that sounds like!!!).
FOR ME, ...AJFA was the first sort of mature record, and that only progressed to The Black Album. TBA wasn't a sellout to me, because they weren't "abandoning" anything to me. They were growing. This was an advancement, a refinement. This was "Moving Pictures" or "Powerslave" or "Screaming For Vengeance". "Sgt. Pepper". I thought this was what the first three, four records was SUPPOSED to sound like but they couldn't get there. This was "there". And for me, the Loads were simply the next iteration of that growth. Their "White Album" but in pieces (I can make a case that ReLoad is my favorite Metallica album, and their most "advanced" in the sense of artistic stretch).
I won't torture you with stretching the rest of the catalogue out, but I think the last three are a band that is comfortable in their skin, have gone through the fire of personal searching that all true artists go through, and are in the "let's just have fun together as a band and see what comes up, with no preconceived notions" phase. I get they aren't hungry any more, and aren't worried about their next tour, or record deal, or whatever, but neither is Maiden. Their "reunion" albums are a source of controversy for the fan-base, some of whom haven't progressed past Killers. For me - FOR ME - I think I now prefer the reunion era over the classic era. I reserve the right to rethink that (I was even surprised myself that the highlight of one of the last shows I saw was actually "The Number Of The Beast", a song that isn't my favorite even on that album).
Because the "thrash" element doesn't mean anything to me - admittedly - I hear some of the conversations about the "first four records" and I can't help but think that it sounds like the Maiden fan that is stuck on TNOTB, or the U2 fan that says "they haven't done shit since The Joshua Tree" or the Springsteen fan that thinks Sprinsteen crossed the rubicon with "The River". And every one of those artists is who they are BECAUSE they didn't rest on those records.
-
I think the idea of "selling out" means different to different people. I agree with the idea that changing music styles by itself isn't necessarily selling out, because some bands grow. Some of my favorite examples include Anathema who started off as a doom metal band with harsh vocals but evolved into one of the finest progressive rock bands of the last 30 years IMO. Radiohead is another famous example of leaving rock overnight to go electronic, and another example is Ulver who started as black metal and became a weird experimental electronic band. Metallica similarly have also evolved. While you could debate the increase in ballads and radio friendly songs on Black Album and whether that's the band being passionate about it, wanting to appeal to more people or producers trying to push them that way, in the end they did something different that worked. Load/Reload are highly controversial albums but I love them because to me they feel like genuine albums made with passion from a band wanting to try new things.
On the flip side, if I had to pick 1 album in their discography that I would put the "sell out" stamp on, maybe surprisingly I would say Death Magnetic. I'm not saying it's bad, but it's the one time I felt they made an album with the intention of appealing to the fans again.
-
To be clear, I absolutely don't think Metallica "sold out." I applaud and agree they should stretch. But there has to be a point where a band, in my view, remembers what made them really distinct.
-
Tastes.
72 is my favorite of theirs followed by Hardwired and TBA.
Still spin 72 once a week. Every song kicks ass.
So glad they're still creating new and exciting music.
And I think I remember you basically saying the exact same thing in the Metallica thread after 72 was released.
THIS ^
-
Tastes.
72 is my favorite of theirs followed by Hardwired and TBA.
Still spin 72 once a week. Every song kicks ass.
So glad they're still creating new and exciting music.
And I think I remember you basically saying the exact same thing in the Metallica thread after 72 was released.
THIS ^
No need to pile on. I did say something similar, after listening to a couple songs. I went back and listened in-full based on hearing something my wife and I both liked, and wanted to see what I was missing. Turns out, at least for me, it was an anomaly.
-
I mean, you feel how you feel, and no one can tell you that you're wrong for what you feel. I just don't get it.
To me, the only definition of "what Metallica sounds like" is whatever Metallica produces. RTL sounds like Metallica, TBA sounds like Metallica, and 72S sounds like Metallica.
-
I mean, you feel how you feel, and no one can tell you that you're wrong for what you feel. I just don't get it.
To me, the only definition of "what Metallica sounds like" is whatever Metallica produces. RTL sounds like Metallica, TBA sounds like Metallica, and 72S sounds like Metallica.
I hear you, hef. I guess for me, and this is totally my own personal hang-up, I have a more narrow space for expansion from thrash bands, given their aggression. That's what thrash is for. For Metallica, for ME, that is doubly so, because they are synonymous with establishing the genre, and their name, Metallica, gives off an image that suits the music they used to write.
I fully admit that is all subjective (isn't all music subjective)?
But akin to the op, Metallica just sound tired and old to me on 72S.
-
The surprising thing for me, was that I enjoyed Kirk's solo EP infinitely more than the last two Metallica records.
I'm just longing for the day (and I know Stadler will back me on this one) that Metallica stop worrying about trying to be Metallica, and Hetfield releases a solo country record.
-
Tastes.
72 is my favorite of theirs followed by Hardwired and TBA.
Still spin 72 once a week. Every song kicks ass.
So glad they're still creating new and exciting music.
And I think I remember you basically saying the exact same thing in the Metallica thread after 72 was released.
THIS ^
No need to pile on. I did say something similar, after listening to a couple songs. I went back and listened in-full based on hearing something my wife and I both liked, and wanted to see what I was missing. Turns out, at least for me, it was an anomaly.
my apologies... was just trying to say that pretty much summed up my view on 72 Seasons... I wrote about in other threads. I loved it and hit all my expectations ..
-
To be clear, I absolutely don't think Metallica "sold out." I applaud and agree they should stretch. But there has to be a point where a band, in my view, remembers what made them really distinct.
In the spirit of discussion, isn't it important to know what it is that made them distinct though?
Look at the greatest bands of all time: The Beatles, Floyd, Zeppelin, the Dead, Queen, U2. If you take the first two or three records (maybe less with Zeppelin; the first two), EVERY ONE of those bands have evolutions where they left key parts of their sound behind. I'm probably the wrong guy to ask, because I just don't really follow Metallica close enough, but I think that pointing JUST to the "thrash" as what is the essence of Metallica is selling them short. Just for arguments sake, if you look at "thrash" not as a thing in itself, but rather what was the result of their artistic spin on what came before, and then sort of look at where THEY applied their artistic spin to what THEY had done before - which is what good bands do - I think it paints their catalogue in a different light. I could be wrong here, because again, I'm not enamored with the "thrash" part of things; I don't give it the epic creedence that others do. I just look at it as a technique or a variation.
-
To be clear, I absolutely don't think Metallica "sold out." I applaud and agree they should stretch. But there has to be a point where a band, in my view, remembers what made them really distinct.
In the spirit of discussion, isn't it important to know what it is that made them distinct though?
Look at the greatest bands of all time: The Beatles, Floyd, Zeppelin, the Dead, Queen, U2. If you take the first two or three records (maybe less with Zeppelin; the first two), EVERY ONE of those bands have evolutions where they left key parts of their sound behind. I'm probably the wrong guy to ask, because I just don't really follow Metallica close enough, but I think that pointing JUST to the "thrash" as what is the essence of Metallica is selling them short. Just for arguments sake, if you look at "thrash" not as a thing in itself, but rather what was the result of their artistic spin on what came before, and then sort of look at where THEY applied their artistic spin to what THEY had done before - which is what good bands do - I think it paints their catalogue in a different light. I could be wrong here, because again, I'm not enamored with the "thrash" part of things; I don't give it the epic creedence that others do. I just look at it as a technique or a variation.
Bill, this is a very thought inducing post, and it helps shape some thoughts for me on the subject. Bringing up the all time classic bands you mentioned, and how Metallica's catalog relates.
First though, you mention not following Metallica through the thrash era as opposed to Samsara touting it as their best era.
What I would say is that it doesn't necessarily have to do with the fact that it was thrash. Metallica in the 80's was boundary stretching and genre defining. Metallica had the creativity and originality that put them on a completely separate plane than pretty much every HEAVY metal band at the time. While Sam likely pines for the thrashiness, as do I, what they really achieved and built had more to do with music in general than specifically thrash. Remember, in the mid 80's some people even referred to them as Alternative, because they were so unlike what metal was at the time.
Metallica is not unlike Rush to me. To me, Rush was defined by their 75-81 output. To me, I was so inspired by their music. And like Metallica with the Load Era, Rush had their 80's synth Era.
A music direction doesn't have to resonate with me for me not to respect it. And I respect the Load Era and Rush's Synth Era.
But Rush would make albums in the second half of their career that to me, simply lack drive, or even more so, it lacks the feeling that they were challenging themselves. Not speaking for Sam, but I feel like he's feeling something like that with 72S. I feel it too, and I generally like the album.
Now I normally don't get all tied up in eras of long term bands, but Rush and Metallica both had Eras at the beginning which were essential to my music foundation. Metallica less so, but they solidified it for sure, so that leads me to be more focused on them and their continued output.
-
But Rush would make albums in the second half of their career that to me, simply lack drive, or even more so, it lacks the feeling that they were challenging themselves. Not speaking for Sam, but I feel like he's feeling something like that with 72S. I feel it too, and I generally like the album.
I think it's this thought or idea that made me write what I did. I don't see how we jump from "this era" and "that era" to intangible things like "drive" and "ambition". I don't know how we say that Rush or Metallica did or did not have "drive" when creating the latter day stuff. If you believe Some Kind of Monster, St. Anger might have been THE most challenging record they ever made. And it sucked! Haha.
It's INFINITELY harder to make an album that sells 10 million records than it is to make a "thrash" record. I didn't read Ged's book yet, but he talks of smoking weed and doing coke on tour during the 70's, and talks about having too much responsibility with singing, playing bass, playing keyboard, triggering samples, etc. in later years. I think what WE see as 'drive' or 'challenge' is subjective, and may not be what ACTUALLY 'drives' or 'challenges' the artist.
I play guitar, albeit poorly. I find that it's WAY harder now to do new things on the guitar than it was when I was 20 and EVERYTHING was new. I think we forget that by the time "Hold Your Fire" or "ReLoad" came up, those bands have been playing "Working Man" or "Hit The Lights" hundreds of times. That's at a point where they could do that in their sleep, literally. A challenge is a whole new way of writing; taking three and a half minutes to get a point across that they could have or did use a half an album side (or a WHOLE album side in the case of Rush) to do previously.
-
Yeah, and that's what makes following music both fun and frustrating. There's always a balance of expectations and acceptingess. As a fan, it's on you how you feel. Sometimes with long term bands..and I'm going to get to UFO here in a minute.. sometimes albums feel like they were just banged out.
I always felt there was effort put into the Load Era, even though I didn't care for most of it, and that's what I respect.
I mean, we're just talking about music over a few beers here.
I mention UFO, because they're about as important a band to me as there is, and they sure have some spotty output.
I remember when Vinnie Moore joined, I thought it'd give them a huge shot in the arm. It did, but not in the way I was expecting. I found the music was way more restrained, and they kind of turned into the Rolling Stones. Once I recalibrated, the shot in the arm he did give them was the ability to put out 5 more albums, and if I let the music wash over me, it's really very enjoyable. Heck, I'd put the Top 10 Vinnie songs up against the Top 10 Chapman songs.
It's INFINITELY harder to make an album that sells 10 million records than it is to make a "thrash" record.
I don't know about this. A lot of it is timing, promotion, etc.
-
re: Stads and "thrash"
To me, it is clearly a subgenre. Not a technique. Metallica, with all apologies to Motorhead, who influenced Metallica, were really the band that defined that genre, that all bands seemed to stem from. At least in how I listen to and evaluate music, when you're in that sort of position, there's an expectation. Which flows into what Tim said.
re: "expectation" vs. "acceptance."
You're right Tim, it is really how you feel. I agree that I think there was effort put into Load. I think Metallica was very influenced by what they heard. But just like any band that is around for a long time, you go from being influenced, to becoming an influencer, to being influenced again. And at some point, most bands find their own cool middle ground, where they push a bit, sound like themselves, etc. And then, perhaps it's on the listener to decide if it still works.
For Metallica, I felt like once they hit Ride the LIghtening, Puppets, and And Justice For All, they were influencers. THEY were "METAL." "thrash," per se, but the epitome of metal. Then they...rode the commercial wave. And I just feel like Metallica have never truly found their way back to what made them distinct and "influencers." Other bands have, find a middle ground, etc. But Metallica...at least to my ears, have never quite "made it back."
Again, it's all taste and subjectiveness, but it's incredibly frustrating if you're a fan that doesn't just "accept" what a band does because the band does it.
-
And I just feel like Metallica have never truly found their way back to what made them distinct and "influencers." Other bands have, find a middle ground, etc. But Metallica...at least to my ears, have never quite "made it back."
Again, it's all taste and subjectiveness, but it's incredibly frustrating if you're a fan that doesn't just "accept" what a band does because the band does it.
I hear you, but I am generally happy enough with DM, HW, and 72S, and I accept that they have "made it back" as much as they're going to. It's 75% the same lineup, and I still enjoy hearing them play.
You're really going to have to let it wash over you.
If not, they go in the bucket of Metallica albums you don't care for, and you still have the bucket of the ones you like.
It's funny, but I also get overly critical of bands too, and it's so frustrating that I sound so negative when discussing certain albums. :lol
But it's really borne out of my extreme love for their other output. It's hard to be a dispassionate fan sometimes.
-
They are not the same since Justice. Whether we like it or not as individuals, that was the end of that initial METALlica blueprint. Then TBA and Load. I still love Load rather than TBA but both come across as intensively creative albums.
Everything from then on feels forced to a greater or lesser extent to my ears.
72S is the most natural they've sounded in a while to me. It's much too long, too samey, too mid-paced, the rhythm guitars sound sadly weak and scratchy within the mix. Man, these things are so obvious, and so commonly pointed out that's it's amazing it came out in that form, tbh. I still ENJOY it, though. I cut a couple of tracks out and it's pretty tasty.
Bring on a short, fast, Garage-feeling, recorded live in the studio album next, please!
-
IMO everything through Load/ReLoad was Metallica of their purest creative expression. They worked thrash all the way to the top of the mountain, then went even further with rock sensibilities. The actual view from the top of the world, timeless really.
I appreciate St Anger but feel is was over-influenced by nu-metal of the day, and most everything afterward was trying too hard to be something it wasn’t. That was too bad because I feel we missed out on more from the band that was last at Load/ReLoad creatively. I would’ve loved to hear more of that (not trash, but what they were growing into), but with the exception of a few songs we didn’t get much notable the last 20 years because there was too much “trying to find a previous sound”
-
IMO everything through Load/ReLoad was Metallica of their purest creative expression. They worked thrash all the way to the top of the mountain, then went even further with rock sensibilities. The actual view from the top of the world, timeless really.
I appreciate St Anger but feel is was over-influenced by nu-metal of the day, and most everything afterward was trying too hard to be something it wasn’t. That was too bad because I feel we missed out on more from the band that was last at Load/ReLoad creatively. I would’ve loved to hear more of that (not trash, but what they were growing into), but with the exception of a few songs we didn’t get much notable the last 20 years because there was too much “trying to find a previous sound”
I totally agree with this. The combination of the lukewarm reception (generally) to Load/Reload, followed by the hatred St. Anger received totally shook the band. They always had a tall order trying to follow The Black Album, but I don't think they ever expected to be in the position they were in 20 years ago.
Their live shows never suffered but I feel (I get the impression that James the most) they became too fearful of taking a risk again, so they just played it safe the last 20 years. I kinda get it, bit I wish they'd take a risk, I honestly do. I'd rather something as stylistically different as St. Anger, over another 72 Seasons.
-
Yeah, I generally agree with this, Luke...
Incidentally, I will say, I always see Load/ReLoad paired up (rightly so, in a way, since they were quite literally the product of the same sessions) but, honestly, the difference in quality in the first vs. the second is pretty staggering, imo. I don't love all of Load, but there's some great songs on it. I wouldn't overstate how "original" it was - I mean, it was pretty shocking for Metallica at the time, but it's not like the style hadn't been explored before, by a bunch of other bands. Regardless, at least half of that record, taken for what it is, is really good. ReLoad, on the other hand, might well be my least favorite Metallica album. A LOT of it is just unbearably plodding and unmemorable, to my ears at least.
Back to the risk-taking...Death Magnetic was obviously a conscious effort to go back to a more thrashy sound and, as many have observed, it inevitably sounds a bit contrived. There's definitely some good material in there, and overall I enjoy it. I do think, though, that the band at that point had lost the "tightness" that's kinda required for that type of sound. They were never the most technical band, of course, but while James is always James, the, um, "looseness" of Lars' playing, to me, is quite detrimental there. I said it before, so it's clear - 80s Lars is a BIG favorite of mine, so this has nothing do with being super-technical or anything like that. It's just his current approach, even in the studio, that doesn't do it for me.
Hardwired...however, for me, was Metallica being more comfortable in their own (modern) skin. It seemed to me many of the songs felt unburdened from having anything to prove. Moth Into Flame and Atlas, Rise!, in particular, are two of my favorite of theirs from all the way back to the Black Album. Riffy, punchy, dynamic songs, that could be both hooky and aggressive, the same (but different, of course!) way Metallica always was, even when they were a thrash band. Spit Out the Bone is another one - sure, it's faster and "thrashy", but in a way that feels "Metallica" without truly sounding like old Metallica. As usual, it's a very imperfect album...if it was just the songs from Hardwired to, say, Confusion, and then skip to Spit Out the Bone, it would be a borderline great album...but the stuff in-between does bring it down a bit...
...which brings me to 72 Seasons...I think, as Tim and others pointed out, this is another album where Metallica feels pretty comfortable where they are. But, for me, the songs are not quite there this time. A lot of it does sound like the plodding second half of Hardwired. There's some decent stuff, and James sounds pretty great, but overall I was quite disappointed. Case in point, after giving it many chances (as I always do with Metallica) when it came out, I have rarely revisited it since.
-
Incidentally, I will say, I always see Load/ReLoad paired up (rightly so, in a way, since they were quite literally the product of the same sessions) but, honestly, the difference in quality in the first vs. the second is pretty staggering, imo. I don't love all of Load, but there's some great songs on it. I wouldn't overstate how "original" it was - I mean, it was pretty shocking for Metallica at the time, but it's not like the style hadn't been explored before, by a bunch of other bands. Regardless, at least half of that record, taken for what it is, is really good. ReLoad, on the other hand, might well be my least favorite Metallica album. A LOT of it is just unbearably plodding and unmemorable, to my ears at least.
Amen, brother!
-
Incidentally, I will say, I always see Load/ReLoad paired up (rightly so, in a way, since they were quite literally the product of the same sessions) but, honestly, the difference in quality in the first vs. the second is pretty staggering, imo. I don't love all of Load, but there's some great songs on it. I wouldn't overstate how "original" it was - I mean, it was pretty shocking for Metallica at the time, but it's not like the style hadn't been explored before, by a bunch of other bands. Regardless, at least half of that record, taken for what it is, is really good. ReLoad, on the other hand, might well be my least favorite Metallica album. A LOT of it is just unbearably plodding and unmemorable, to my ears at least.
Amen, brother!
ReLoad’s highs are equal to Load, and its experimental reach is much much further. I guess I can see how Load has the more conventional tracks on its first side. But overall any best of from the two has equal representation in my book.
-
Sure Reload has Fuel, which is indeed equal to Load, but...highs, as in plural? :lol
And if you define suckage as experimental reach..that is quite creative. You must write press releases for a living.
-
^ missed my true calling I guess haha
-
Sure Reload has Fuel, which is indeed equal to Load, but...highs, as in plural? :lol
And if you define suckage as experimental reach..that is quite creative. You must write press releases for a living.
The highs are pretty equal for me, and Reload has Fuel, The Memory Remains (I do hate the outro on the studio version, but fuck me, the S&M version is good), The Unforgiven II and Low Man's Lyric. Might listen to those 4 now actually.
-
Sure Reload has Fuel, which is indeed equal to Load, but...highs, as in plural? :lol
And if you define suckage as experimental reach..that is quite creative. You must write press releases for a living.
The highs are pretty equal for me, and Reload has Fuel, The Memory Remains (I do hate the outro on the studio version, but fuck me, the S&M version is good), The Unforgiven II and Low Man's Lyric. Might listen to those 4 now actually.
All great songs, but don't sleep on Where the Wild Things Are and Fixxxer.
-
I don't necessarily sleep on any tracks on the album. I never hated it, and would take Load/Reload over the last two albums any day. The 4 I mentioned are just my faves.
-
Congrats to 72 Seasons on nabbing a Grammy tonight. While not nearly as amazing as their landmark masterpiece, ReLoad (/s), the first and last tracks on 72S are killer.
-
re: Stads and "thrash"
To me, it is clearly a subgenre. Not a technique. Metallica, with all apologies to Motorhead, who influenced Metallica, were really the band that defined that genre, that all bands seemed to stem from. At least in how I listen to and evaluate music, when you're in that sort of position, there's an expectation. Which flows into what Tim said.
re: "expectation" vs. "acceptance."
You're right Tim, it is really how you feel. I agree that I think there was effort put into Load. I think Metallica was very influenced by what they heard. But just like any band that is around for a long time, you go from being influenced, to becoming an influencer, to being influenced again. And at some point, most bands find their own cool middle ground, where they push a bit, sound like themselves, etc. And then, perhaps it's on the listener to decide if it still works.
For Metallica, I felt like once they hit Ride the LIghtening, Puppets, and And Justice For All, they were influencers. THEY were "METAL." "thrash," per se, but the epitome of metal. Then they...rode the commercial wave. And I just feel like Metallica have never truly found their way back to what made them distinct and "influencers." Other bands have, find a middle ground, etc. But Metallica...at least to my ears, have never quite "made it back."
Again, it's all taste and subjectiveness, but it's incredibly frustrating if you're a fan that doesn't just "accept" what a band does because the band does it.
But isn't that all you can ever do? I mean, name a transcendent artist. I don't mean "your favorite band", because let's be honest, many of people's favorites just don't move the needle from an "influence" point of view.
But.. The Beatles. If you got on board with "Beatlemania", which is a phenomenon like very very few have ever seen, you cannot be thrilled with the relative "nonsense" that Lennon in particular was pushing with his pot-fueled drivel of 1966 or his anti-war peace frank bullshit of 1969. (I'm using those words to make a point, not pretend that my judgement is fact).
I think any meaningful band with more than 10 albums is no different than Metallica here, and I don't quite get why - other than Genesis - they seem to take so much shit for growing as artists, as humans, as musicians.
Again, I think it depends on what you think is the impetus for the "influence" versus what ACTUALLY IS the impetus for the "influence" and we can't know that.
-
I think any meaningful band with more than 10 albums is no different than Metallica here, and I don't quite get why - other than Genesis - they seem to take so much shit for growing as artists, as humans, as musicians.
I thought Genesis got all kinds of shit, no?
-
I think any meaningful band with more than 10 albums is no different than Metallica here, and I don't quite get why - other than Genesis - they seem to take so much shit for growing as artists, as humans, as musicians.
I thought Genesis got all kinds of shit, no?
Yes, they're the one band that has taken MORE shit for supposedly selling out from "real prog" to "pop crap". That's what I was trying to say. Metallica takes more shit for somehow "selling out" and "abandoning their fans" than any other band except Genesis, even though Metallica is closer now to their first three or four records than a TON of bands (Springsteen, Fleetwood Mac, U2, Pink Floyd, Beatles, the Dead, etc.)
-
Appreciate all the excellent posts by Tim, Stads, Samsara. As another guy who was there from the beginning, yes initially I was always looking for the fastest, heaviest thing but it became apparent VERY QUICKLY that Metallica (Hetfield mainly) were the best SONGWRITERS in the genre and that's really what brought them to the top. I mean, a band of 20-yr-old thrashers writing "Fade to Black" and "The Call of Ktulu"? Game over. Checkmate.
So yes I still want to hear some aggression and speed from them, but most of the time the riffs, lyrics, vocals, and songwriting are enough. Lars was never talented enough (or precise enough) to keep pushing the speed angle anyway and they are in their 60s now so I cut them some slack.
-
IMO everything through Load/ReLoad was Metallica of their purest creative expression. They worked thrash all the way to the top of the mountain, then went even further with rock sensibilities. The actual view from the top of the world, timeless really.
I appreciate St Anger but feel is was over-influenced by nu-metal of the day, and most everything afterward was trying too hard to be something it wasn’t. That was too bad because I feel we missed out on more from the band that was last at Load/ReLoad creatively. I would’ve loved to hear more of that (not trash, but what they were growing into), but with the exception of a few songs we didn’t get much notable the last 20 years because there was too much “trying to find a previous sound”
I totally agree with this. The combination of the lukewarm reception (generally) to Load/Reload, followed by the hatred St. Anger received totally shook the band. They always had a tall order trying to follow The Black Album, but I don't think they ever expected to be in the position they were in 20 years ago.
Their live shows never suffered but I feel (I get the impression that James the most) they became too fearful of taking a risk again, so they just played it safe the last 20 years. I kinda get it, bit I wish they'd take a risk, I honestly do. I'd rather something as stylistically different as St. Anger, over another 72 Seasons.
Luke, buddy, you're my friend and I respect the shit out of what you say even when I disagree, but... I disagree VEHEMENTLY with this.
"Playing it safe" would be to rehash Master of Puppets. The one thing that Metallica has NOT done is "played it safe", even with the new past couple of records.
I know for me, who has every album except for Kill 'Em All, these last two are like an amalgamation of all the best parts. To me I sort of view these as the crystallization of all that came before but in a new package.
The took tremendous risks with TBA, and half their core audience shit on them for it (though they gained twice as many with new fans, I guess). They took even more risks with the Loads, and half their audience shit on them for it. They took still more risks with St. Anger, and the handful of fans that were left (I kid, I kid) shit on them for it. Now that they've sort of moved in yet another direction - I call it the "Maiden direction", it seems like their fans are shitting on them for it.
I'm so sorry for being blunt here, but it seems that many of you want them to "take a risk" by... remaking the album you liked best.
-
You need Kill 'Em All!!
-
IMO everything through Load/ReLoad was Metallica of their purest creative expression. They worked thrash all the way to the top of the mountain, then went even further with rock sensibilities. The actual view from the top of the world, timeless really.
I appreciate St Anger but feel is was over-influenced by nu-metal of the day, and most everything afterward was trying too hard to be something it wasn’t. That was too bad because I feel we missed out on more from the band that was last at Load/ReLoad creatively. I would’ve loved to hear more of that (not trash, but what they were growing into), but with the exception of a few songs we didn’t get much notable the last 20 years because there was too much “trying to find a previous sound”
I agree with this line of thought as well, and would go slightly further to say S&M was their last release of that long run of greatness. Which would also inclue Garage Inc release, which while being covers, was actually really good and quite popular at the time. S&M also had the new song No Leaf Clover which is a Metallica classic if you ask me. Since then, yeah, it's been a tough adjustment to try and recaputre the greatness. There's lots of good music since then, but the band just hasn't been consistent about making good music the last 25 years.
-
IMO everything through Load/ReLoad was Metallica of their purest creative expression. They worked thrash all the way to the top of the mountain, then went even further with rock sensibilities. The actual view from the top of the world, timeless really.
I appreciate St Anger but feel is was over-influenced by nu-metal of the day, and most everything afterward was trying too hard to be something it wasn’t. That was too bad because I feel we missed out on more from the band that was last at Load/ReLoad creatively. I would’ve loved to hear more of that (not trash, but what they were growing into), but with the exception of a few songs we didn’t get much notable the last 20 years because there was too much “trying to find a previous sound”
I totally agree with this. The combination of the lukewarm reception (generally) to Load/Reload, followed by the hatred St. Anger received totally shook the band. They always had a tall order trying to follow The Black Album, but I don't think they ever expected to be in the position they were in 20 years ago.
Their live shows never suffered but I feel (I get the impression that James the most) they became too fearful of taking a risk again, so they just played it safe the last 20 years. I kinda get it, bit I wish they'd take a risk, I honestly do. I'd rather something as stylistically different as St. Anger, over another 72 Seasons.
Luke, buddy, you're my friend and I respect the shit out of what you say even when I disagree, but... I disagree VEHEMENTLY with this.
"Playing it safe" would be to rehash Master of Puppets. The one thing that Metallica has NOT done is "played it safe", even with the new past couple of records.
I know for me, who has every album except for Kill 'Em All, these last two are like an amalgamation of all the best parts. To me I sort of view these as the crystallization of all that came before but in a new package.
The took tremendous risks with TBA, and half their core audience shit on them for it (though they gained twice as many with new fans, I guess). They took even more risks with the Loads, and half their audience shit on them for it. They took still more risks with St. Anger, and the handful of fans that were left (I kid, I kid) shit on them for it. Now that they've sort of moved in yet another direction - I call it the "Maiden direction", it seems like their fans are shitting on them for it.
I'm so sorry for being blunt here, but it seems that many of you want them to "take a risk" by... remaking the album you liked best.
Stadler, I think you misunderstood my post. I fully agree that the band took a risk with TBA, Load/Reload and St. Anger. Those are the sort of risks I want to see them take again. Throw in a bluesy/country number, make a record that sounds nothing like what came before, play what is in their hearts. Maybe this current music is exactly what is in their hearts, but it just doesn't feel like it to me personally. I suppose you could say (understatement) that Lulu was a risk they've taken in recent years, and that didn't pan out. I personally don't want them to remake the albums I like the best, I want something that's like none of these.
To be clear, I do think the last three albums were "playing it safe" though, and although I don't shit on them for it, I am disappointed. Actually, I'm not disappointed with DM, just the last two.
If Kirk's EP is anything to go by, I'd rather let him take more of a lead with songwriting (although I don't know how much of it he had help with). As I also said above, I want to see James put out a solo record, and in my head it'd be like Turn the Page the album. Maybe that's not what he'd want to release at all, but the risky side is putting something out there, knowing the whole Metallica fanbase will weigh in on it, and it may be too much pressure.
You need Kill 'Em All!!
Yep, no Metallica collection is complete without it. I know how highly you rate it Tim so I know you will advocate for it even more than I would!
IMO everything through Load/ReLoad was Metallica of their purest creative expression. They worked thrash all the way to the top of the mountain, then went even further with rock sensibilities. The actual view from the top of the world, timeless really.
I appreciate St Anger but feel is was over-influenced by nu-metal of the day, and most everything afterward was trying too hard to be something it wasn’t. That was too bad because I feel we missed out on more from the band that was last at Load/ReLoad creatively. I would’ve loved to hear more of that (not trash, but what they were growing into), but with the exception of a few songs we didn’t get much notable the last 20 years because there was too much “trying to find a previous sound”
I agree with this line of thought as well, and would go slightly further to say S&M was their last release of that long run of greatness. Which would also inclue Garage Inc release, which while being covers, was actually really good and quite popular at the time. S&M also had the new song No Leaf Clover which is a Metallica classic if you ask me. Since then, yeah, it's been a tough adjustment to try and recaputre the greatness. There's lots of good music since then, but the band just hasn't been consistent about making good music the last 25 years.
Cram, I am 100% with you. It's a tough call, but in many ways I like their 90s output more than their 80s. Yes, I think Load/Reload are weaker than any of their 80s albums (and I say that as a fan of the albums), but TBA is basically flawless and the combo of Garage Inc and S&M are two of my all time favourite records (and home to my favourite ever cover songs and live performances, respectively). Also the sound and production of their 90s output is just top notch.
-
You can’t have ‘em all without Kill ‘em All!
-
I'm tired of agreeing with Stadler's posts in this thread. It's unnatural. :biggrin:
And you do need Kill Em All. I still have my copy, with my parent's phone number written in the white space on the cover...from when I lent it out to a friend in 1993.
-
Add me on to the list saying that KEM is a MUST.
Just pure fire. Not the most refined thing, but man, Mustaine and Hetfield writing, and pure youth and adrenaline? Yeah... :metal
-
I don't know, man. Maybe it works better if you were in on it from the beginning, but to me, Kill 'Em All sounds like trash. I don't like it one bit.
-
I don't know, man. Maybe it works better if you were in on it from the beginning, but to me, Kill 'Em All sounds like trash. I don't like it one bit.
I assume 100% that is why Tim has it as his favourite, he was there from ground zero. I can't imagine what it must've been like to hear a record like Kill 'em All when there was very little like it at the time. It IS thrash. Plain and simple.
-
I was *NOT* there from the beginning (I started listening to Metallica with Puppets). KEM is my least favorite of the first five Metallica records, but it is absolutely one of the most influential records in the metal genre. Particularly the Bay Area thrash scene.
-
I was *NOT* there from the beginning (I started listening to Metallica with Puppets). KEM is my least favorite of the first five Metallica records, but it is absolutely one of the most influential records in the metal genre. Particularly the Bay Area thrash scene.
Oh, I know about its place in history, and that's fine. But it's not essential to me NOW, because I don't like it one bit.
Kind of like the Rolling Stones.
-
I was *NOT* there from the beginning (I started listening to Metallica with Puppets). KEM is my least favorite of the first five Metallica records, but it is absolutely one of the most influential records in the metal genre. Particularly the Bay Area thrash scene.
Oh, I know about its place in history, and that's fine. But it's not essential to me NOW, because I don't like it one bit.
Kind of like the Rolling Stones.
Gotcha. I agree with that then. I may listen to KEA...once every few years. Whereas RTL-AJFA, are regular rotation albums for me.
-
If Kirk's EP is anything to go by, I'd rather let him take more of a lead with songwriting (although I don't know how much of it he had help with). As I also said above, I want to see James put out a solo record, and in my head it'd be like Turn the Page the album. Maybe that's not what he'd want to release at all, but the risky side is putting something out there, knowing the whole Metallica fanbase will weigh in on it, and it may be too much pressure.
I don't know if we've talked about it before, but you and I are in total agreement on the James solo album, even down to the music in your head. Also, I just got Kirk's EP and was blown away by it. I LOVED it (and I'm not a Kirk fan, frankly).
-
I just put on Kirk's EP for the first time...
-
I don't know, man. Maybe it works better if you were in on it from the beginning, but to me, Kill 'Em All sounds like trash. I don't like it one bit.
So, I listened to those songs when I was putting together my Met Top 50. These were my BOTTOM 25:
86 Don't Tread On Me TBA
87 Phantom Lord KEA
88 The Four Horseman KEA
89 Cure L
90 Motorbreath KEA
91 Jump in the Fire KEA
92 My Friend of Misery TBA
93 Eye of the Beholder …AJFA
94 Some Kind of Monster SA
95 Disposable Heroes MOP
96 Metal Militia KEA
97 Whiplash KEA
98 The Unnamed Feeling SA
99 Leper Messiah MOP
100 My Apocalypse DM
101 (Anesthesia) - Pulling Teeth KEA
102 Sweet Amber SA
103 St. Anger SA
104 Shoot Me Again SA
105 My World SA
106 All Within My Hands SA
107 Invisible Kid SA
108 Frantic SA
109 Dirty Window SA
110 Purify SA
-
KEA didn't click with me until I got older and enjoyed some more of the heavier types of metal. As a 90s kid who discovered Metallica through the black album to reload times, when I would listen to KEA I just didn't like it then. It may have been the production or the pure thrashness of it. But if you ask me today, I think it's necessary listening material. The band still plays a few of those songs regularly as well. It's not like it's a forgotten first album like many bands. But it does kind of stand alone in their catalog which makes me understand if some don't like it or others praise it.
-
7 KEA songs in the bottom 25?
DISPOSABLE HEROES?
:facepalm:
Disposable Heroes is such a riff-fest.
KEA didn't click with me until I got older and enjoyed some more of the heavier types of metal. As a 90s kid who discovered Metallica through the black album to reload times, when I would listen to KEA I just didn't like it then. It may have been the production or the pure thrashness of it. But if you ask me today, I think it's necessary listening material. The band still plays a few of those songs regularly as well. It's not like it's a forgotten first album like many bands. But it does kind of stand alone in their catalog which makes me understand if some don't like it or others praise it.
The one thing that stands out to me now is how young James sounds on KEA. His voice is really high compared to that ferocious bark that he developed in the later 80's. But the album itself is full of Metallica classics.
-
7 KEA songs in the bottom 25?
DISPOSABLE HEROES?
:facepalm:
Disposable Heroes is such a riff-fest.
Right?!
So, I listened to those songs when I was putting together my Met Top 50. These were my BOTTOM 25:
86 Don't Tread On Me TBA
88 The Four Horseman KEA
90 Motorbreath KEA
92 My Friend of Misery TBA
93 Eye of the Beholder …AJFA
95 Disposable Heroes MOP
97 Whiplash KEA
100 My Apocalypse DM
None of these songs should be anywhere near anyone's bottom 25 in my opinion!
-
Contributing zero to this thread I know but while I completely understand and agree in part with Samsara's OP, in that would I prefer Metallica lift the energy more often, add a little more old-school thrash? Yeah sure but do I dislike 72 Seasons and Hardwired? No, in fact I like them both. A lot!
And that is all :lol
-
7 KEA songs in the bottom 25?
DISPOSABLE HEROES?
:facepalm:
Disposable Heroes is such a riff-fest.
It's sort of the paradigm of all that I don't like. What's the technique called that Lars is doing at the 2:00 mark, where he's hitting the snare on every beat? I don't like that technique, and I don't like the gang chant vocals ("Back to the front!"). There's no doubt that from a guitar technique - especially James' right hand - that's a fucking CLINIC. No question.
KEA didn't click with me until I got older and enjoyed some more of the heavier types of metal. As a 90s kid who discovered Metallica through the black album to reload times, when I would listen to KEA I just didn't like it then. It may have been the production or the pure thrashness of it. But if you ask me today, I think it's necessary listening material. The band still plays a few of those songs regularly as well. It's not like it's a forgotten first album like many bands. But it does kind of stand alone in their catalog which makes me understand if some don't like it or others praise it.
The one thing that stands out to me now is how young James sounds on KEA. His voice is really high compared to that ferocious bark that he developed in the later 80's. But the album itself is full of Metallica classics.
So that's a large part of it. I LOVE LOVE LOVE James' voice WHEN HE SINGS (that's primarily why "Hero Of The Day" is my favorite Metallica song). When he sounds like he's singing down a concrete pipe, not so much.
-
So, which album was new/most recent when you first got into Metallica?
For me, it was AJFA. Picked up RTL and MOP shortly thereafter.
-
So, which album was new/most recent when you first got into Metallica?
For me, it was AJFA. Picked up RTL and MOP shortly thereafter.
Reload. I remember seeing Memory Remains on TV and it being my real intro to rock/metal. I have no idea what albums I got in what order though.
And count me as a weirdo who got into Alternica and loves Kill em All. Though I think it would’ve been cool to re-record that album during AJFA or MOP days since they were better at playing and recording then.
-
So, which album was new/most recent when you first got into Metallica?
For me, it was AJFA. Picked up RTL and MOP shortly thereafter.
The Black Album.
I think I got into the band in late 91 or early 92. I do know that I listened to only a tape of TBA until May 1993, when I got my first CD player. Then I got the first 4 records.
-
So, which album was new/most recent when you first got into Metallica?
For me, it was AJFA. Picked up RTL and MOP shortly thereafter.
The black album's hits were on the radio and I was familiar with them (I don't really remember much of Load though as a kid), but I didn't get my first album until Reload was released as Adami pointed out, The Memory Remains was on TV and the radio. I remember it being such a huge song and like everyone in my grade school were listening to it.
-
So, which album was new/most recent when you first got into Metallica?
For me, it was AJFA. Picked up RTL and MOP shortly thereafter.
AJFA, but it sat on the same shelf with the whole (at the time) discography in my brother's room, so I took everything in all at once.
-
I heard ...AJFA in real time. But I was at college and I was getting into prog heavy at that time, so all the sort of "emotions" around it were lost on me. I was living my best life at that point, and it was hard to relate to "Harvester Of Sorrow", for example.
The first album I liked was "The Black Album". That was a revelation. That was "wow, these guys are well-rounded musicians. This isn't a fad or a niche." I loved "Enter Sandman", "Sad but True", "The Unforgiven", "Wherever I May Roam", "Nothing Else Matters"... I later got into some - not all - of the deeper cuts, but that was where I got a respect for them and my long-distance love affair with James Hetfield started.
Load is the first one I really embraced, and to this day the Loads have a special place in the catalogue for me.
-
I was a fan since KEA, saw and met them back then and partied up with Lars who is and was a great guy and a ton of fun.
my fav is RTL as I wore it out , to me 72 Seasons is super
-
As someone who got in at Ride The Lightning, I've always had mixed feelings about the direction Metallica took, beginning with Load. Looking back on it now, it's an incredibly strong album. Reload, not so much.
When DM and HW came out... again... mixed feelings, but overall I think these 2 albums have aged quite well. Very good albums that are well-executed, but as many have pointed out, they don't have that transcendent quality that one might've experienced with KEA or Puppets. One thing I do get the sense of is that Metallica somehow feels trapped by the whole idea of being a "thrash" band, like an actor who has spent most of his career playing one superhero character and then has a devil of a time getting accepted when he tries to take on a new role. They're caught in a web of their own making.
I also think there's a certain stigma, for lack of a better word, that metal as genre carries with it that makes it much harder for a band to break out of, as opposed to a band in any other genre. If it's not Metal Up Your Ass 24/7, then you're not tru-metal anymore.
-
As someone who got in at Ride The Lightning, I've always had mixed feelings about the direction Metallica took, beginning with Load. Looking back on it now, it's an incredibly strong album. Reload, not so much.
When DM and HW came out... again... mixed feelings, but overall I think these 2 albums have aged quite well. Very good albums that are well-executed, but as many have pointed out, they don't have that transcendent quality that one might've experienced with KEA or Puppets. One thing I do get the sense of is that Metallica somehow feels trapped by the whole idea of being a "thrash" band, like an actor who has spent most of his career playing one superhero character and then has a devil of a time getting accepted when he tries to take on a new role. They're caught in a web of their own making.
I also think there's a certain stigma, for lack of a better word, that metal as genre carries with it that makes it much harder for a band to break out of, as opposed to a band in any other genre. If it's not Metal Up Your Ass 24/7, then you're not tru-metal anymore.
As I'm used to with you my friend - wonderful post. Hit the nail on the head. I agree, Load IS a strong record. It's not a metal record, but it's a really good album. I have it on as I type this. Regarding DM and HW -- right on, that transcendent quality is absolutely missing to my ears. They just sound like an older Metallica trying to be something they used to be...sorta, but kind of not sure how to do it authentically, again, to my ears. One thing I WILL give 72 Seasons, is that I do believe it truly is an authentic snapshot of where Metallica is these days, what they truly are and want to be. I hear a lot of their old influences in their music, but done in a way that is more in-line with those influences, instead of trying to be the heaviest and fastest bands on the planet.
Totally spot on about being "trapped" (under ice?) by being a "thrash" band. Absolutely. You can tell they wanted to be something else after AJFA. But I also think, when you're the originator (more or less) of a subgenre of music, and your band name was supposed to bring a certain vibe or feeling, there comes with that, an expectation to live up to that. Yes, it's a stigma, for sure. I just feel Metallica went away from what made them powerful and distinct. And to me, they've never quite found their way back for my tastes. Some good moments, but not enough.
B
-
As someone who got in at Ride The Lightning, I've always had mixed feelings about the direction Metallica took, beginning with Load. Looking back on it now, it's an incredibly strong album. Reload, not so much.
When DM and HW came out... again... mixed feelings, but overall I think these 2 albums have aged quite well. Very good albums that are well-executed, but as many have pointed out, they don't have that transcendent quality that one might've experienced with KEA or Puppets. One thing I do get the sense of is that Metallica somehow feels trapped by the whole idea of being a "thrash" band, like an actor who has spent most of his career playing one superhero character and then has a devil of a time getting accepted when he tries to take on a new role. They're caught in a web of their own making.
I also think there's a certain stigma, for lack of a better word, that metal as genre carries with it that makes it much harder for a band to break out of, as opposed to a band in any other genre. If it's not Metal Up Your Ass 24/7, then you're not tru-metal anymore.
As I'm used to with you my friend - wonderful post. Hit the nail on the head. I agree, Load IS a strong record. It's not a metal record, but it's a really good album. I have it on as I type this. Regarding DM and HW -- right on, that transcendent quality is absolutely missing to my ears. They just sound like an older Metallica trying to be something they used to be...sorta, but kind of not sure how to do it authentically, again, to my ears. One thing I WILL give 72 Seasons, is that I do believe it truly is an authentic snapshot of where Metallica is these days, what they truly are and want to be. I hear a lot of their old influences in their music, but done in a way that is more in-line with those influences, instead of trying to be the heaviest and fastest bands on the planet.
Totally spot on about being "trapped" (under ice?) by being a "thrash" band. Absolutely. You can tell they wanted to be something else after AJFA. But I also think, when you're the originator (more or less) of a subgenre of music, and your band name was supposed to bring a certain vibe or feeling, there comes with that, an expectation to live up to that. Yes, it's a stigma, for sure. I just feel Metallica went away from what made them powerful and distinct. And to me, they've never quite found their way back for my tastes. Some good moments, but not enough.
B
To the bolds:
- it's a metal record, it's just not a THRASH record;
- I think that may be your take, or more bluntly, your expectation, but Metallica isn't the first band that blazed new ground and sort of went their own way without having to carry a "mantle":
- King Crimson
- Duran Duran
- Elvis
- Ramones
- David Bowie
- The Beatles
- The Dead
I'm sure there are others.
-
The difference IMO, is that Metallica were innovators of an entirely new genre of metal. They were the trend setters.
With TBA and beyond, it began to feel more like they were taking their “sound” and following those who had come before them, or as with the Loads, their contemporaries.
They went from trend setters to trend followers.
-
The difference IMO, is that Metallica were innovators of an entirely new genre of metal. They were the trend setters.
With TBA and beyond, it began to feel more like they were taking their “sound” and following those who had come before them, or as with the Loads, their contemporaries.
They went from trend setters to trend followers.
I don't think it's necessary to accuse them of being trend followers.
The kind of music they were interested in making changed. No more, no less. Not unlike Opeth over the last several years.
-
The difference IMO, is that Metallica were innovators of an entirely new genre of metal. They were the trend setters.
With TBA and beyond, it began to feel more like they were taking their “sound” and following those who had come before them, or as with the Loads, their contemporaries.
They went from trend setters to trend followers.
I don't think it's necessary to accuse them of being trend followers.
The kind of music they were interested in making changed. No more, no less. Not unlike Opeth over the last several years.
I agree with JD. But, I also feel like it can be a little bit of both. They DID follow trends. And did starting with TBA, and then onto Load. But I think it's also true that they wanted to go someplace else with their music.
So, all of that.
As artists, Metallica felt they had nowhere else to go or explore in the thrash metal area after AJFA. They couldn't play faster, or more technical than that album. They've said that numerous times. Instead, they went elsewhere. But by doing so, they also started following trends of what others were doing, and naturally exploring other areas of their music abilities.
I think that's pretty clear. I think after the Loads, they tried their own thing with St. Anger, it bombed, and then they went back to try and replicate the more thrash/prog-thrash side of themselves with DM (which to my ears, is the most contrived record I've ever heard), and then since then, they've sort of settled into a groove with HW, and now 72 Seasons of just writing songs inspired by what they love, almost old school like, but without the need to be the heaviest band on the planet.
It suits them. But to THIS fan's ears, it sounds like old guys who are past their prime, and just playing tunes. And there's nothing wrong with that. It doesn't inspire *me* as a listener, but I am sure, as has been proven here, they still sound great to others. And that's cool. But to me, Metallica has become what Tesla sounds like, sadly, today. Music that sounds like a bunch of old dudes just jamming on stuff they like, but lacking fire. For some that works. For this old school Metallica fan, it doesn't. And that's okay. Obviously, I'm in the minority, and I'm okay with that.
-
The irony of all of this is Metallica didn't create the genre. They POPULARIZED it. Venom, Motorhead, Diamond Head, Raven, and Accept are at ground zero as much if not moreso than Metallica (and I'd guess even they'd tell you that, if they weren't in "sell" mode).
Most things, if you think about it, are popularized not by the true progenitors, but by the fast followers. Apple/Microsoft. Beta Max/VHS. One estimate says that first movers only capture about 7% of the market long term (https://hbr.org/2012/06/first-mover-or-fast-follower), so most of the successful companies we hear about are likely fast followers.
But I'd be curious; what trends were they following when they veered away from thrash? "Selling 10 million copies" isn't a trend. They STILL didn't sound like anyone else out there, they just weren't "thrash".
-
That's a good point. Just like Nirvana didn't invent the grunge sound, but were the poster children for it.
Going with a huge emphasis on slick, warm production, and really making sure the songs had memorable chorus melodies, and good mainstream appeal. Almost EVERY band did it. Queensryche did it with Empire. Megadeth did it with Countdown, etc.
Then Metallica followed the more loose sounding, grunge-ish fashions with the Load records. Again, not bad at all, but totally trend followers.
-
That's a good point. Just like Nirvana didn't invent the grunge sound, but were the poster children for it.
Going with a huge emphasis on slick, warm production, and really making sure the songs had memorable chorus melodies, and good mainstream appeal. Almost EVERY band did it. Queensryche did it with Empire. Megadeth did it with Countdown, etc.
Then Metallica followed the more loose sounding, grunge-ish fashions with the Load records. Again, not bad at all, but totally trend followers.
Sorry, I'm not seeing all that much different between Metallica's interpretation of Pearl Jam on Load as I do Metallica's interpretation of Motörhead, back in '83. I don't get how wanting better production or wanting people to hear your music is "trend following". I think some of those adjectives, like "slick" and "mainstream" are yours (collective), not Metallica's. Bruce Springsteen seemingly took a similar tack on Born In The USA and we're not calling him a sellout. Fair play, though, in that this is opinion; most of the industry holds Kurt Cobain in high regard and I think he sold out grunge myself. It's no coincidence that the Seattle scene is like one big family... except for Nirvana. I know they were technically from Aberdeen, not Seattle, but that doesn't explain why there's this community and cameraderie and Nirvana wasn't part of it.
-
Different topic, but Nirvana's location had much to do with not being a bigger part of that whole family of bands. We can discuss off line if you want. DM me.
As for Metallica, again, good point. I think Venom, Motorhead, etc., started it. But it was Metallica that sort of took those sounds and made something uniquely different that inspired generations. Sure, I see the argument you're making. And we could go round and round about it. Honestly though Stads? I'm not in the mood. :lol
-
Different topic, but Nirvana's location had much to do with not being a bigger part of that whole family of bands. We can discuss off line if you want. DM me.
As for Metallica, again, good point. I think Venom, Motorhead, etc., started it. But it was Metallica that sort of took those sounds and made something uniquely different that inspired generations. Sure, I see the argument you're making. And we could go round and round about it. Honestly though Stads? I'm not in the mood. :lol
That's fine. I respect that.
Case anyone cares, I'm ripping S&M2 to my harddrive as we speak. It is EXCELLENT.
-
I couldn't get through the first one...
Different topic, but Nirvana's location had much to do with not being a bigger part of that whole family of bands. We can discuss off line if you want. DM me.
No passing notes! Discuss in public! It's interesting.
-
S&M 2 was fine but a huge missed opportunity for me. I really didn’t love most of it.
-
S&M 2 was fine but a huge missed opportunity for me. I really didn’t love most of it.
I feel like they missed the mark with the song choices for it. They should have done no repeats IMO and even without the classics that appear on S&M1 there's enough to make a great setlist for 2.
-
S&M 2 was fine but a huge missed opportunity for me. I really didn’t love most of it.
I feel like they missed the mark with the song choices for it. They should have done no repeats IMO and even without the classics that appear on S&M1 there's enough to make a great setlist for 2.
I'd been fine with a repeat or two, but I think close to 70% or something of the set was just songs from the first one.
I also wasn't thrilled with the mix, or the orchestrations to the songs that were added. Felt a bit lazy. Like they did a typical Metallica show and added in some strings for some basic support at times.
-
There are multiple bands that I would love to see and hear with a symphony, but Metallica was never one of them.
-
There are multiple bands that I would love to see and hear with a symphony, but Metallica was never one of them.
How do you feel about S&M1? I would say it's one of those "I did not know I wanted this but it's kinda cool"
-
There are multiple bands that I would love to see and hear with a symphony, but Metallica was never one of them.
How do you feel about S&M1? I would say it's one of those "I did not know I wanted this but it's kinda cool"
I listened to it once. I don't feel anything about it.
-
I think there are bands that sound great as is, and bands whose natural sound could be enhanced by an orchestra doing their thing.
I think Metallica was the first band, but the amazing arrangements (mostly) by Kamen, created something new. As opposed to just doing the normal symphony thing of adding some texture and doubling keys/guitar riffs. I've seen a lot of bands (at least on video) with an added symphony that added virtually nothing. Metallica did something interesting and new with it, and I loved it. S&M 2 felt like the more typical approach, so I didn't connect much.
-
There are multiple bands that I would love to see and hear with a symphony, but Metallica was never one of them.
How do you feel about S&M1? I would say it's one of those "I did not know I wanted this but it's kinda cool"
By 'kinda cool', you mean 'best live album of all time', right?
-
There are multiple bands that I would love to see and hear with a symphony, but Metallica was never one of them.
How do you feel about S&M1? I would say it's one of those "I did not know I wanted this but it's kinda cool"
By 'kinda cool', you mean 'best live album of all time', right?
That's my take...I would def put S&M1 in my top 3 fav live albums. It was (and is) so much cooler than I'd thought it'd be, and many of the above posts explain why.
I'll go so far as to say S&M1 has my definitive versions of at least half a dozen classics–"One," "Wherever I May Roam," "Hero of the Day," "Call of Ktulu," and "Outlaw Torn" immediately come to mind.
-
S&M 2 was fine but a huge missed opportunity for me. I really didn’t love most of it.
I feel like they missed the mark with the song choices for it. They should have done no repeats IMO and even without the classics that appear on S&M1 there's enough to make a great setlist for 2.
I'd been fine with a repeat or two, but I think close to 70% or something of the set was just songs from the first one.
I also wasn't thrilled with the mix, or the orchestrations to the songs that were added. Felt a bit lazy. Like they did a typical Metallica show and added in some strings for some basic support at times.
Massive agree. The only repeats should have been The Ecstasy of Gold, No Leaf Clover, and -Human (which didn't even get resurrected)... but to have Ktulu, Bells, Memory, Outlaw, Roam, One, Master, NEM, and Sandman all repeated was kind of lazy. And I agree that the new orchestrations were also lazy as hell. The whole reason that S&M was such a classic IMO is Michael Kamen's charts. And to remove them from Master and Sandman and replace them with what they did was criminal.
I will say that the choices of new songs was pretty incredible. The Day That Never Comes and Halo On Fire are highlights on disc one, and All Within My Hands is one of my favorite Metallica recordings. The Pulling Teeth performance is really cool too, as is Unforgiven III.
The second disc, though, is so uneven it bothers me so much. Lars and the SFS director talking for five minutes to open the disc is intolerable, only to have only the orchestra play a non-Metallica song no one has ever heard of after... then more talking... into a full band performance of a pretty mediocre classical song no one has ever heard of... into just orchestra again and James doing Unforgiven III... into an acoustic full band performance... into a cello solo... It takes until track 8 to get the whole band back out to play Metallica songs the way you know them.
So overall, a missed opportunity to make something really special and unique. There's a bit of it in there, but mostly it's a rehash of what they did 20 years ago, and less good. Doesn't take away from the first one though, which is still one of my favorite Metallica releases.
-
I really like S&M1, and overall the set is pretty solid. I think a few of the songs don't work that well, and I'll always wonder why a song like Fade to Black was not included.
S&M2 is not that great. Part of it for me is that it is right before James went back to rehab, and he looks pretty rough. The setlist is just not great either.
-
There are multiple bands that I would love to see and hear with a symphony, but Metallica was never one of them.
How do you feel about S&M1? I would say it's one of those "I did not know I wanted this but it's kinda cool"
By 'kinda cool', you mean 'best live album of all time', right?
I don't think it's even the best Metallica live album but I do like it a lot. But more than liking the album I like what it represents - a band doing something different with their music and capturing it on a live album that will forever exist. I always felt like more bands could do something similar, not necessarily with a symphony but I think a band like Iron Maiden (for example) could do some special one off night and release as a live album where they do like 90% deep cuts.
-
I think there are bands that sound great as is, and bands whose natural sound could be enhanced by an orchestra doing their thing.
I think Metallica was the first band, but the amazing arrangements (mostly) by Kamen, created something new. As opposed to just doing the normal symphony thing of adding some texture and doubling keys/guitar riffs. I've seen a lot of bands (at least on video) with an added symphony that added virtually nothing. Metallica did something interesting and new with it, and I loved it. S&M 2 felt like the more typical approach, so I didn't connect much.
I get this take, and don't disagree, but there are moments in S&M2 that are just... the two minutes at the end of The Memory Remains is, in and of itself, my entire argument about the idea of "thrash" and "selling out". That's a song from ReLoad, and it had 18,000 people suspend the moment for TWO FULL MINUTES singing the outro to that song. I can't imagine a better affirmation for an artist that what they are doing is resonating. If I ever get the chance to interview any of the members of Metallica, one of my questions would be: "Was that sort of a validation of all the changes and twists and turns your band's career have taken? That was sort of a communal moment; a little bit antithetical to the idea of "thrash"; how does that fit with the idea that you have some obligation to maintain the "mantle" of thrash?" I'm always the one to say "don't speculate", and I won't here, but I have my suspicions as to what the general nature of the answer would be.
As for the "repetition" and what not; maybe it should have been called something different to avoid the comparisons. The first one WAS something different (smaller venue for one). I think this was intended to be more of a spectacle and celebration than what S&M1 was.
I don't think it's even the best Metallica live album but I do like it a lot. But more than liking the album I like what it represents - a band doing something different with their music and capturing it on a live album that will forever exist. I always felt like more bands could do something similar, not necessarily with a symphony but I think a band like Iron Maiden (for example) could do some special one off night and release as a live album where they do like 90% deep cuts.
This is kind of where I am. I can imagine it's a massive undertaking to do something like that (and for all the stick that Lars takes for being a crap drummer live, he acquits himself rather well in that show. I suppose that opens up another argument against him; he CAN do it, so why doesn't he more regularly? HAHA).
-
I think there are bands that sound great as is, and bands whose natural sound could be enhanced by an orchestra doing their thing.
I think Metallica was the first band, but the amazing arrangements (mostly) by Kamen, created something new. As opposed to just doing the normal symphony thing of adding some texture and doubling keys/guitar riffs. I've seen a lot of bands (at least on video) with an added symphony that added virtually nothing. Metallica did something interesting and new with it, and I loved it. S&M 2 felt like the more typical approach, so I didn't connect much.
I get this take, and don't disagree, but there are moments in S&M2 that are just... the two minutes at the end of The Memory Remains is, in and of itself, my entire argument about the idea of "thrash" and "selling out". That's a song from ReLoad, and it had 18,000 people suspend the moment for TWO FULL MINUTES singing the outro to that song. I can't imagine a better affirmation for an artist that what they are doing is resonating. If I ever get the chance to interview any of the members of Metallica, one of my questions would be: "Was that sort of a validation of all the changes and twists and turns your band's career have taken? That was sort of a communal moment; a little bit antithetical to the idea of "thrash"; how does that fit with the idea that you have some obligation to maintain the "mantle" of thrash?" I'm always the one to say "don't speculate", and I won't here, but I have my suspicions as to what the general nature of the answer would be.
Hard to disagree, but don't the audiences normally do that for that song? It was really cool, but nothing I haven't seen before, and had little to do with the rest of the show. Was just a great Metallica live moment, like 10's of thousands of people screaming DIE together for Creeping Death. Not show specific, just a general live awesome thing.
-
I think there are bands that sound great as is, and bands whose natural sound could be enhanced by an orchestra doing their thing.
I think Metallica was the first band, but the amazing arrangements (mostly) by Kamen, created something new. As opposed to just doing the normal symphony thing of adding some texture and doubling keys/guitar riffs. I've seen a lot of bands (at least on video) with an added symphony that added virtually nothing. Metallica did something interesting and new with it, and I loved it. S&M 2 felt like the more typical approach, so I didn't connect much.
I get this take, and don't disagree, but there are moments in S&M2 that are just... the two minutes at the end of The Memory Remains is, in and of itself, my entire argument about the idea of "thrash" and "selling out". That's a song from ReLoad, and it had 18,000 people suspend the moment for TWO FULL MINUTES singing the outro to that song. I can't imagine a better affirmation for an artist that what they are doing is resonating. If I ever get the chance to interview any of the members of Metallica, one of my questions would be: "Was that sort of a validation of all the changes and twists and turns your band's career have taken? That was sort of a communal moment; a little bit antithetical to the idea of "thrash"; how does that fit with the idea that you have some obligation to maintain the "mantle" of thrash?" I'm always the one to say "don't speculate", and I won't here, but I have my suspicions as to what the general nature of the answer would be.
Hard to disagree, but don't the audiences normally do that for that song? It was really cool, but nothing I haven't seen before, and had little to do with the rest of the show. Was just a great Metallica live moment, like 10's of thousands of people screaming DIE together for Creeping Death. Not show specific, just a general live awesome thing.
I've never seen Metallica live (except on video) so I don't know about other shows. I did change my post above a bit to add my thoughts on S&M2 versus S&M1, and maybe that's where that comes in.
-
There are multiple bands that I would love to see and hear with a symphony, but Metallica was never one of them.
How do you feel about S&M1? I would say it's one of those "I did not know I wanted this but it's kinda cool"
By 'kinda cool', you mean 'best live album of all time', right?
Hi there, did you forget about me?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e8/Metallica_-_Live_Shit-Binge_%26_Purge_cover.jpg/220px-Metallica_-_Live_Shit-Binge_%26_Purge_cover.jpg)
-
I really like S&M1, and overall the set is pretty solid. I think a few of the songs don't work that well, and I'll always wonder why a song like Fade to Black was not included.
S&M2 is not that great. Part of it for me is that it is right before James went back to rehab, and he looks pretty rough. The setlist is just not great either.
The setlist is the ultimate problem for S&M2 for me. I have it on blu ray and it's a good watch because it's well made, but not something to come back to because the setlist just wasn't great. S&M1 is still worth watching.
-
There are multiple bands that I would love to see and hear with a symphony, but Metallica was never one of them.
How do you feel about S&M1? I would say it's one of those "I did not know I wanted this but it's kinda cool"
By 'kinda cool', you mean 'best live album of all time', right?
Hi there, did you forget about me?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e8/Metallica_-_Live_Shit-Binge_%26_Purge_cover.jpg/220px-Metallica_-_Live_Shit-Binge_%26_Purge_cover.jpg)
I was a huge fan of the Mexico City show. Played the first two discs over and over throughout the '90s. Then S&M came out and that was the live album I went to from then on pretty much.
-
Binge and Purge is great, don't get me wrong, but for my tastes and preferences S&M is literal perfection.
It has the peak 90s production the band had. The setlist was near perfect. I personally love orchestral soundtracks, so to have my absolute favourite band (at the time I heard it) have such epic accompaniment was mindblowing. James' voice is arguably the best it ever was. Jason was still in the band. Lars and Kirk held it down.
The only thing I could ever fault it for, was leaving out Orion. But, I honestly think the original S&M version run of The Ecstasy of Gold > Call of Ktulu > Master of Puppets is the best 20 minutes of music the band EVER recorded. The start of the album just gives me goosebumps the size of golf balls.
I actually heard S&M before Load/Reload, so for me those S&M versions are the definitive versions of the song. I would say there are a couple of songs where Michael Kamen's score didn't elevate the original, but for me that's like 2 or 3 songs max, everything else was just wondrous.
Yea, I adore everything about this album.
-
There are multiple bands that I would love to see and hear with a symphony, but Metallica was never one of them.
How do you feel about S&M1? I would say it's one of those "I did not know I wanted this but it's kinda cool"
By 'kinda cool', you mean 'best live album of all time', right?
Hi there, did you forget about me?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e8/Metallica_-_Live_Shit-Binge_%26_Purge_cover.jpg/220px-Metallica_-_Live_Shit-Binge_%26_Purge_cover.jpg)
EXACTLY, Grapp. Definitive Metallica.
On another point, Stads' remark about 18,000 "'Tallica" (God, I hate that) fans singing the outro of "The Memory Remains" is interesting to me. Isn't it funny how so many bands are way more popular NOW, than they were at their arguably commercial/artistic peak? Think about it. Metallica played stadiums on TBA tour. Today, they play stadiums, including the biggest on the planet, but every single fan in attendance knows almost every song, no matter how obscure. The same can be said for Iron Maiden. Priest. It goes on and on.
So many factors to consider.
1. How "entertainment" has become a much more widespread acceptable expense by people.
2. Kids of the 70s and 80s now having way more money to spend on said entertainment, particularly growing up with heavy rock and metal bands.
3. The internet and streaming of music has enabled so many more people to absorb music.
And that's just the three off the top of my head. I mean, you walk into a Metallica show, and some random currently 12-year-old kid will know every note, every lyric from "Sweet Amber." (I know the song is on St. Anger, and have heard it, but hell, I don't recall how it goes and wouldn't know it if they started playing it.) It's just uncanny.
I get why Metallica and so many of these bands (Slayer now), just keep going. Because they keep getting bigger and bigger. As much as bands that haven't reached those statuses yet complain about streaming, for the ones who have become huge, streaming has enabled them to keep inflating their audience. Crazy times...
-
Been listening to a lot of Priest since Invincible Shield came out so I haven't spun this in a while. I think it holds up. One thing for sure, amid all the "it's not thrash" arguments, it's still heavier than what any of the other legacy bands are releasing like Priest, Maiden, Saxon, Accept. People forget that when the thrash tagged first started getting applied it was also about heaviness, not just speed. Metallica still has that in spades.