|
Album Rating: 4.5
I did my homework. I went and got Diamon Head's Behold The Beginning and Metallica sure did base their initial sound on that band's work. In fact, 'Kill 'Em All' sounds like a continuation of the Diamond Head catalog. BUT, 'Ride The Lightning' does not. Nor does anything following. You can't deride a band for having some influences. Especially in a sub-genre like Thrash that didn't have too many pioneers to turn to when trying to learn the form. Early Metallica is Diamond Head plus Motorhead. But, once they knew what they were doing, they developed their own sound, and quickly, and proficiently.
| | | Album Rating: 4.5
You don't have to give me an explanation. I'm doing it for you.
| | | Album Rating: 2.0 | Sound Off
In fact, 'Kill 'Em All' sounds like a continuation of the Diamond Head catalog.
Hence the old joke: Why did Metallica's 90's albums suck? They ran out of Diamond Head riffs to steal.
Ah, but I kid Metallica.
You can't deride a band for having some influences.
I never said I did.
Once again, I offered you my rationale. You could ask me for it, and then you wouldn't have to keep projecting your assumptions onto me.
You don't have to give me an explanation. I'm doing it for you.
The technical term for that is projecting. Around here, we call it making shit up.This Message Edited On 07.04.08
| | | Album Rating: 5.0
Alright, you two have made your opinions. It's time to take some chill pills and melt away... quietly.
| | | Album Rating: 4.5
Shoot. Go ahead. I'm always up for learning somethin new.
| | | Album Rating: 4.5
C'mon, man. Teach a brother.
| | | Album Rating: 2.0 | Sound Off
Simply put, I always found Metallica to be the Diet Coke of thrash. From a virtuosic perspective, and in the retrospect of consistency, their contemporaries had them beat, and many were trying much more sonically interesting things. But Metallica always wanted to be a commercially successful band, and they found the winning formula for that.
Good for them, they found out how to work the system. Doesn't mean I like their music.
Personally I prefer Megadeth, mid-career Anthrax, Venom, Kreator, and Testament when it comes to thrash as they were just more musically interesting.
Now, let's look at it from the perspective of the extreme metal movement. Around the same time Metallica were first starting their huge rise to fame, black metal was being shaped and defined in its first wave by Bathory, Mercyful Fate, Celtic Frost, and Venom. These bands would not only heavily influence the Norwegian black metal scene in the late-80's/early-90's, but they would also lay the groundwork for early death metal groups such as Death and Morbid Angel.
I do like some thrash metal, but the above mentioned bands are some of my absolute favorites in the extreme metal movement.
One of several reasons I listen to metal is because it's larger than life. Musically, Metallica have never done that for me. However Bathory, Savatage, Lost Horizon, Manowar, Celtic Frost, and similar bands do.
So there you have it.
If you'll look at Riva's review of Lost Horizon's face-rocker of an album A Flame to the Ground Beneath, you'll find an old quote from yours truly that sums up why I listen to the bands that I do.This Message Edited On 07.04.08
| | | Album Rating: 5.0
*roll* Stop wasting your time.
| | | Album Rating: 4.5
Yeah, well that's all well and good, but you don't cite why Metallica has a 'credibility' problem. The way I see it is that Metallica were the only band, among about a dozen worthy contemporaries, that were able to come up with a musical formula, which enabled them to retain their integrity 100%, and still appeal to those outside of their target audience. MOST people who are into Thrash, Death, Black, Prog, would NOT be, if not for hearing Metallica's accessible brand of Heavy Metal FIRST, and had developed a militant love for their music while still in Middle/High School. Metallica and Ozzy/Sabbath are pretty much most kids entrance way into Metal. Both had a knack for writing heavy music with a lot of melodic hooks and interesting instrumental parts, coupled with the 'right' vocalist. Think of how many bands get overlooked because people are like, "Damn, don't like the vocals". Ozzy and Hetfield have voices that appeal to many of those who don't usually listen to Metal at all.....Schitt, I don't even listen to Metallica or Ozzy that much anymore. On a rare occasion I'll pull a record out from both. But, it was these two giants that have got me listening to a phuckload of Testament, Megadeth, Exodus and Overkill. That's why Metallica is so important. I would have never developed a taste for Metal without them. Nor would many others. Their the gateway drug of Heavy Metal. And, bless their blackened hearts for their gift.
This Message Edited On 07.04.08This Message Edited On 07.04.08This Message Edited On 07.04.08
| | | Album Rating: 2.0 | Sound Off
but you don't cite why Metallica has a 'credibility' problem.
I never said they did. They set out to be a commercial metal band and did just that. Case closed.
which enabled them to retain their integrity 100%,
Apparently, you and I are using different definitions of integrity.
Keep in mind that in Iron Maiden's early years, they had a lot of label pressure to change their sound but they refused. Wouldn't that be a textbook definition of integrity.
That's why Metallica is so important. I would have never developed a taste for Metal without them.
Well, that's nice for you, but it means fuck all to me. My first tastes of metal were Black Sabbath and the Scorpions. My official baptism into metal was Rhapsody of Fire and Blind Guardian.
You seem to be forgetting that I don't try to argue taste with people. I couldn't care less what your induction into metal was.
I do not like this band and my reasons are my own.
| | | Album Rating: 4.5
Why don't you two have a bloody sex already?
| | | Album Rating: 4.5
But, here's the major point of contention. And, its not just my opinion. I've read several notable music journalist point this out. THERE IS NOTHING commercial about the first four Metallica albums. Not a single note on either and all four discs was given ANY airplay in the 80's. Just like Black Sabbath wasn't given any airplay in the 70's. Metallica didn't move towards the mainstream. The mainstream moved towards Metallica. As far as I understand it, Metal was a dirty word in the 80's. No one would play it unless it was a college radio station. Certainly not the major radio stations in the major markets. It was only the fact that Metallica had bred a rabid following over the course of their first four albums that their fifth (Black) album was received so well by the media and the masses and went straight up to number one upon release.
Ok, I'll give you that the 'Black Album' was a mainstreaming of the Metallica sound. But, no matter how good, or accessible that record was, it wouldn't have mattered one bit, had not the band developed a huge following over the course of the eight-plus years preceding it. People talk schitt about the Black Album like it was some kind of sell-out. But, when you look at that recording 'relative' to most everything else that was being released during that horrible timeframe, you see the album for the masterpiece it was. You place that album in most other bands' catalouges and it, all of sudden, becomes the very best album by that other band. Metallica did not set out to be a 'commercial' band. Not at all. Their tremendous success over the course of the entire 1980's made them a very commercially succesful band. Albumwise. Never singles. This, of course, eventually went to their heads and they eventually DID sell-out, and badly. But, it sure as schitt didn't happen prior to the LOAD sessions.
This Message Edited On 07.04.08This Message Edited On 07.04.08This Message Edited On 07.04.08This Message Edited On 07.04.08
| | | Album Rating: 4.5
Why don't you two have a bloody sex already?
Is that something you like to watch? 'Cause there's a Viking in the 'Nostradamus' thread that might be right for ya.
| | | Album Rating: 4.5
Hahahahaha
I saw that, that's funny.
| | | Album Rating: 4.5
Talk about credibility. I think that any band that needs to play 'dress-up' has some fundamental credibility issues.
I guess that my friend Steerpike must agree with the points that I made because he got all hush-hush.
| | | Album Rating: 2.0 | Sound Off
Metallica didn't move towards the mainstream. The mainstream moved towards Metallica.
You'll have a hard time convincing me of that. Lars had connections in the industry, and he had a good head for business. He knew that if they rode the wave of what was popular then, they'd fade away in a couple years. So they took a gamble on what they guessed was the next big thing. It paid off.
But, when you look at that recording 'relative' to most everything else that was being released during that horrible timeframe, you see the album for the masterpiece it was.
You should stab yourself for that. There was plenty of quality music in 1991.
You place that album in most other bands' catalouges and it, all of sudden, becomes the very best album by that other band.
You have no clue what sort of bands I listen to, do you?
I think that any band that needs to play 'dress-up' has some fundamental credibility issues.
Just who the hell are you talking about this time?
I guess that my friend Steerpike must agree with the points that I made because he got all hush-hush.
Don't pat yourself on the back just yet.
If I go silent that means I've other run out of jokes, or I nipped off to do something else. In this case, I got stoned with my brother and watched Lord of the Rings.
I still think you're only defending Metallica as vehemently as you are just because you think it's the thing to do. It's Metallica, so it only makes sense to defend it.
| | |
u can never defeat steerpike!
| | | Album Rating: 4.5
You'll have a hard time convincing me of that. Lars had connections in the industry, and he had a good head for business. He knew that if they rode the wave of what was popular then, they'd fade away in a couple years. So they took a gamble on what they guessed was the next big thing. It paid off.
We're talking about two different decades. I'm drawing attention to the 'initial' success the band had in the 1980's. There was absolutely nothing commercial about it. Like I said before, Metallica (and all the other upstart Thrash bands as well) didn't receive ANY airplay on ANY radio stations during the formative years (aside from late-night college radio). The Metallica fanbase began with cassette trading at first, then LPs and CDs. Metallica's popularity in the 80's was 100% grassroots. Entirely spread by word of mouth between one friend and another. Passing on the good word of what was heard.
Each album would see a doubling of the prior fan base. By the time 'Justice' rolled around the fanbase was huge, and it was done entirely without the help of 'the media'. By the time the 'Black Album' rolled around, the fanbase was so big, and worth so much money, that 'the media' was forced to pay attention to them or lose fat stacks. So, upon the release of 'Black', radio stations starting playing 'Enter Sandman' and then 'The Unforgiven'. But, the album already DEBUTED at number one. That means that radio didn't have to sell it at all. Just like I said before, "The mainstream moved towards Metallica, and NOT the other way around". Go read a biography of the band, including newsclippings and you'll see what's up. I've done my homework.
If you're talking about the 1990's, then you're right. But, only about that decade. The band saw that the musical environment had changed around them and they sought to become a part of it. They adapted their sound around what was already popular at the time. They sold-out. In the worst of ways. The complete opposite of what they had acheived the previous decade. Instead of being trend-setters, they then became trend-followers....And, now they're just a mess.
| | | Album Rating: 2.0 | Sound Off
We're talking about two different decades. I'm drawing attention to the 'initial' success the band had in the 1980's.
No, that's exactly what I'm talking about. They took a gamble on what they thought would be the next big thing and it paid off.
By the time the 'Black Album' rolled around, the fanbase was so big, and worth so much money, that 'the media' was forced to pay attention to them or lose fat stacks.
I'm sure the label's PR department had nothing to do with it, right? Give me a break.
Go read a biography of the band, including newsclippings and you'll see what's up. I've done my homework.
I've read a lot on the history of metal, trust me. I know exactly what Metallica's past looked like. And that's how I came to the conclusion that I did.
I'm not denying the grassroots work they had to do, but I deny the idea that they were somehow solely responsible for thrash metal ever being a success.
What are you talking about? They were doing what wasn't popular. Motley Crue, Poison, Skid Row, and garbage like that is what was big. The beginning of thrash was happening, which Metallica was part of.
That's exactly what I said, Captain Obvious. Rather than being another Motley Crue clone, they played in a more underground genre gambling on the chance that it would have a mainstream breakthrough in a few years and thus grant them more longevity.
Do you people have any reading comprehension abilities at all?
Of course, none of this back and firth tit-for-tat on music history is going to change the fact that I hate this album. And the fact that none of you have yet figured this out boggles the mind.This Message Edited On 07.05.08
| | | Album Rating: 4.0
Eh but Steerpike, other people can like extreme metal and listen to what you do and respect and like this album. Not to be a cunt, but...
| | | |
|
|
