Metallica Thread

[TAC]

I think its such an interesting insight into the headspace that ultimately churned out the album - even though it's pretty sub-par by Metallica standards.  Being able to see firsthand the stories behind the actual songs on the album just makes it all the more fascinating for me, it kinda excuses the fact that the album blows goats compared to their earlier output.

No it doesn't. I get that bands put out a weak album from time to time, but St. Anger, and the Some Kind Of Monster film are embarrassing.

[Zantera]

I disagree. I think Some Kind of Monster is probably one of the more fascinating music documentaries I've seen. Considering all the amount of problems the band had and all the different struggles, I'm not surprised St. Anger came out the way it did. I also can't help but wonder if the bad experiences surrounding St. Anger is one of the major reasons why the band has only put out 2 albums in the last 15 years. Death Magnetic took them 5 years, and it has been 7 years since DM came out, with no signs of a new album on the horizon.

Also, while St. Anger is pretty bad, I would probably rather listen to it than Death Magnetic tbh. If I had a gun to my head.

[TAC]

That's fine. But I feel that Some Kind Of Monster paints the band in such a bad light, it "almost" undermines the credibility of their classic albums.
It just simply cannot be the same band.  Sometime in the early 90's the band lost all creativity and credibility IMO.

[bl5150]

That's fine. But I feel that Some Kind Of Monster paints the band in such a bad light, it "almost" undermines the credibility of their classic albums.

That's why I never watched the movie , lest it have that effect on me.

[TAC]

That's fine. But I feel that Some Kind Of Monster paints the band in such a bad light, it "almost" undermines the credibility of their classic albums.

That's why I never watched the movie , lest it have that effect on me.

I'd like to give them high marks for courage for exposing themselves, but they come off as such babbling idiots, they seem so clueless about how weak they look.

[Fluffy Lothario]

They come across in the movie as self-centred, out-of-touch millionaire rock stars.

It didn't affect my opinion of their music though, even St. Anger, because I think I always pictured them that way to at least some degree anyway.

And it's really interesting to see the band disintegrating before your eyes and then have to try to put the pieces together again. It's probably the most intimately documented collapse of a band of their stature in history.

[TAC]

It's probably the most intimately documented collapse of a band of their stature in history.

It's unprecedented.

[Zook]

This was actually the first time I ever listened to this album in full. I've heard a song or two and bits and pieces of others, but it sounded so bad I never bothered listening to the whole thing. Aside from the ridiculously stupid lyrics, this was rather enjoyable. The music moreso than anything else. It's a shame it took another band covering this album to make it listenable. I probably wont listen again, but if it's made available, I'll archive it incase I change my mind.

[Kotowboy]

That link tricked me. I thought they meant the band METALLICA re-recorded St Anger. What should anyone care if someone else re-records it?

Coz this is the closest you'll ever get to a decent recording ever ?

[sneakyblueberry]

That's fine. But I feel that Some Kind Of Monster paints the band in such a bad light, it "almost" undermines the credibility of their classic albums.

That's why I never watched the movie , lest it have that effect on me.

I'd like to give them high marks for courage for exposing themselves, but they come off as such babbling idiots, they seem so clueless about how weak they look.

I don't get how it could undermine the credibility of their earlier albums - I would not expect the guys to be in the same space they were when they were young men.  That they look 'weak' is a positive thing, I think.  I wouldn't want to watch a documentary about a bunch of chest-beating assholes - besides, being able to admit their weaknesses is the whole reason James was able to turn his life around, so how could that weakness ever be considered a bad thing? 

[bl5150]

It's like when David Beckham opens his mouth - ruins the image 

[ariich]

I'm rather enjoying the cover version of the St Anger album. It's pretty nicely done, and the singer does a great job of replicating James. This is definitely making the music much more enjoyable to listen to. Doesn't fix the issues I have with the song writing, but it's already a lot better!

[TAC]

That's fine. But I feel that Some Kind Of Monster paints the band in such a bad light, it "almost" undermines the credibility of their classic albums.

That's why I never watched the movie , lest it have that effect on me.

I'd like to give them high marks for courage for exposing themselves, but they come off as such babbling idiots, they seem so clueless about how weak they look.

I don't get how it could undermine the credibility of their earlier albums - I would not expect the guys to be in the same space they were when they were young men.  That they look 'weak' is a positive thing, I think.  I wouldn't want to watch a documentary about a bunch of chest-beating assholes - besides, being able to admit their weaknesses is the whole reason James was able to turn his life around, so how could that weakness ever be considered a bad thing?

Well I quoted almost. I mean, such a statement should be ridiculous, but I'll say that since 1991, or when The Black Album came out, we've gone 24 years with absolutely nothing to show for it, other than four sub par albums and now they are relegated to Greatest Hits tours. They've spent 2/3 of their career absolutely sucking. So while you can never take their first 4 or 5 albums away from them, their career ends up being completely watered down.
I actually do admire them for being so brutally honest with SKOM, but I also feel that it is so down right embarrassing, to this listener, I'm flabbergasted with them.

To do a Top 10 Band list, I could never put Metallica on it, unless I quantified it as Pre TBA Metallica. I have the same issue with Rush.

[BlobVanDam]

That link tricked me. I thought they meant the band METALLICA re-recorded St Anger. What should anyone care if someone else re-records it?

Coz this is the closest you'll ever get to a decent recording ever ?

You can't polish a turd. As long as it's St Anger, I'm not listening to it.

[El Barto]

I finally listened to the Ronnie Rising Medley. I was actually disappointed with it. I'd rather hear them cover a whole song. They were out of Light In The Black way too early, plus Tarot Woman is one of my least favorite Rainbow tracks. The performance was just OK IMO.
What they did with Stargazer pales in comparison to Dream Theater's version.

And what DT did pales in comparison. Some things are just better left alone.

Still, I've got no problem with the Metallica Medley. I think Met. is a fantastic cover band and this is all just fine. Part of me does agree that LitB should have been the bulk of it rather than just the intro, though. When DT did Stargazer I was happy they took a different approach to the ending rather than trampling all over the original. I've kind of got the same feeling about Lars Ulrich defiling Cozy Powell in Light in the Black. There's a real precision to what Cozy was doing there that I'd just as soon not hear shit upon.


As for StAnger15 I think it's an improvement. It's interesting to actually hear some of what they were up to where you couldn't before. I never really thought the songs were that bad; just the CD. The accompanying DVD of them playing it in the rehearsal space was actually really cool.

[King Postwhore]

I'm not listening to any of their albums for the reason you said.

Eat it Metallica fans!


I just never liked them.  Single songs are ok but I just can't do a full album.

[TAC]

There's a real precision to what Cozy was doing there

Yes there was.

The accompanying DVD of them playing it in the rehearsal space was actually really cool.

I agree.

[TheOutlawXanadu]

To do a Top 10 Band list, I could never put Metallica on it, unless I quantified it as Pre TBA Metallica. I have the same issue with Rush.

I think the difference with Rush is that, even if you think the quality of their work dropped at some point, you have to at least give them credit for continuing to produce new music at an acceptable rate and being enthusiastic about that music. Since 1990 they have done six albums to Metallica's five despite taking that long hiatus in the middle, they play the crap out their new songs live, and a lot of their newer songs are now concert staples. Metallica seem almost ashamed of their post-1991 work (and some would say they should be ).

[TAC]

Yes, all true, especially about their live choices. But still, they only have ONE more album than Metallica??

[OpenYourEyes311]

Yes, all true, especially about their live choices. But still, they only have ONE more album than Metallica??

They're also a decade older than Metallica. So really it should be comparing Metallica's 1990-Present, to Rush's 1980-2005, which was much more impressive (11 albums and an EP).

[Kotowboy]

Metallica seem almost ashamed of their post-1991 work (and some would say they should be ).

Nope. The only reason people disregard Reload, Load and sometimes Metallica is that the band didn't put out And Justice For All over and over.

[TheOutlawXanadu]

Metallica seem almost ashamed of their post-1991 work (and some would say they should be ).

Nope. The only reason people disregard Reload, Load and sometimes Metallica is that the band didn't put out And Justice For All over and over.

In fairness, there are people who don't like those albums for legitimate reasons. I really enjoy Load, but I also think it's a little long. I think that if it was trimmed by three or four tracks it would be as good as anything they've done.

[Kotowboy]

I've said it before and will say it again - people just lump Load & Reload in with St. Anger as being the "shit' albums whereas Load and Reload are

both pretty good ROCK albums. People act like they're virtually unlistenable but they have some of the band's best work on them like :

• Bleeding Me
• Outlaw Torn
• Hero Of The Day
• King Nothing
• Carpe Diem baby
• Where the Wild Things Are
• F.i.x.x.x.e.r

And the lyrics on Load are amongst Hetfield's best.

[sneakyblueberry]

I haven't seen anyone lump in Load as being one of the shit albums in a long time, I think its aged incredibly well and most people appreciate them as being good - just nowhere near as good as the old stuff.  Re-Load I cant do tho, besides Fuel and Memory Remains. 

I do think they fumbled it by making two albums, it would be an awesome single album if they'd just trimmed some of the fat. 

[Kotowboy]

Agreed. i even think it would have made a brilliant " ballady " album with this track list :




That comes to a smidge under 70 minutes.

[ariich]

King Nothing is such a bloody amazing song. One of my favourites.

[Kotowboy]

King Nothing is such a bloody amazing song. One of my favourites.

Yep it's really great. Such a groove.

*Listens*

[Zantera]

Load and Reload should not be involved in any discussions about the worst Metallica album, whereas St. Anger and Death Magnetic should.

[Kotowboy]

Load and Reload should not be involved in any discussions about the worst Metallica album, whereas St. Anger and Death Magnetic should.

Quite.

[Mosh]

I'm glad Metallica didn't try doing AJFA over and over again. Despite being a good album, you can tell that they weren't going to be able to take that sound much further. With that said, the direction thy went in just doesn't appeal to me. I respect what they did, but it wasn't for me. I enjoy Death Magnetic but the songs are way too bloated. It's a strange album; there are fragments of songs that I like but there isn't one song on there I enjoy all the way through. If they can trim the fat and have a well produced album I think I'll be happy.

[sneakyblueberry]

trim the fat

Clearly something the band is unable to do...

[Art]

I really like Load and Reload, but i agree, if they trimmed it a bit into a single album it would be much better.

[LCArenas]

Enjoying the cover re-recording of St.Anger. Some songs like Purify and the title track are still crap but songs like Some Kind of Monster or Dirty Window really improve a lot and become a lot more enjoyable.

Load has aged well for me, Reload not so much. As years pass by Reload seems more and more pointless to me. Should've been released as a double album/or released some of the songs into an EP. But no, they had to fill the gaps on the albums with songs like "Better than You"

[Zook]

So I'm listening to Load for the first time ever (besides the singles) and it's not bad I guess. Not sure it's going to have very much replay value, but I'm trying to create a playlist featuring songs from both Load and Reload. I shall call it............................. Loaded.... Because they had to have been loaded to make these albums am I right?

I remember my older brother being so disappointed when Load came out. He was calling them country and complaining that they cut their hair. Those were simpler times.

[KevShmev]

Load has a handful of really good tunes, but it just pales in comparison to the albums that came before it (giving the benefit of the doubt to KEA, which I am not overly fond of, except for a few songs).  One problem with Load, too, is this was right around the time period where bands really tried packing as much music as they could on to a single CD, and Metallica did that here.  Chuck 4-5 of the below average tunes from Load and make it only 9-10 songs total and it'd be a lot better overall.