my number one rule is stay true to yourself...if people dig your music great ....if not screw them.....

[QUOTE=Photophobic]I would go there, but I fear of people eating me alive :( [/QUOTE]

HAHA... we are nice people :)


...really!


*eats a metallica fanboy*

PS: About Orion... too mellow, too little riffs.

PPS:
[QUOTE=Superpeer]Last time I checked, making good music had nothing to do with making good music, thrash or not.[/QUOTE]

Heh, type much? ;)

If you meant to say "playing fast had nothing to do with good music, thrash or not" well actually, the point of thrash was actually to play as fast, loud and aggressivly as possible. And don't question my philosifies (sp) on thrash.

So the fastest thrash song is by definition the best thrash song ever? :p

Close enough. Also, Darkness Descends is the fastest thrash album ever. Guess what, it's also the best! Ding ding, you suck at thrash! Please get on soulseek and browse my extensive thrash collection of - oh wait, I don't have that much :p

I don't know, I don't judge music by speed, After all, I like doom metal. :p

EDIT : 3,666th post. :evil:

EDIT 2 : what's your name on soulseek?

Same as here. I'm not on right now, but you're always online on MX. So tomorrow when I have a few minutes i'll post a thread alerting you to get the fuc.k on slsk.

Ps: I have you added as Superpeer, is the capitalization alright there?

Yeps, so it seems.

[QUOTE=Superpeer]I don't know, I don't judge music by speed, After all, I like doom metal. :p

EDIT : 3,666th post. :evil:

EDIT 2 : what's your name on soulseek?[/QUOTE]

Yeah same here. Speed < quality. The thrash of Metallica is great, if it's faster, it gets annoying.

no speed > quality :evil:
















'opinion' :p

I prefer speed with technicality, which is why I like Anthrax and Megadeth so much, and why South of Heaven is my favorite Slayer album.

south of heaven has no speed whatsoever... the title track is like 60 bpm or something!

I heard a good theory as to why there are no guitar solos on St.Anger:
"Kirk couldn't be bothered to work out all his scales for drop C"

I heard another one - solos aren't marketable. Fuc.k Bob Rock.

according to the german metal hammer the reason why on st anger are no solos is that they wanted that st anger sounds like a few guys that sit together and make music or something like that.. :confused:

EDIT: to lorddragon. but bob rock has produced load and reload too, hasn't he? and on load and reload are solos too :)

^^Probably because at the time they were marketable.

metallica have always been marketable. and they will always be marketable with or without solos

Not necessarily. They lost a lot of fans over Napster, then a load more over St.Anger. If thye come out with an outstanding album, and they get their fans back, [I]then[/I] they will be marketable for ever. It all kinda hangs in the balance at the moment.

why have the lost a lot of fans over napster? but i know so much pop bitches that don't listen do metal but they like st anger. i don't know why but that's true.

EDIT. and i also know more metallica fans that like st anger than metallica fans that say that album is sh.it

They lost fans over napster, because everyone accused them of being 'sell outs'.

I know one Metallica fan who like St.Anger, and none who hate it. But the prevailing opinion on these boards is that it was bad.

I know a fair number of people who got into Metallica (and their old stuff) because of St. Anger.

Since I'm listening to it right now i'll add that:
Its not that bad
It does get a bit repetitive - and the songs are too long based upon this - needs more variety (solos :p) and the lyrics are really nothing special

Only 9 more to go...

And like half of those 3000 posts are mine. :p

I'm half expecting the elusive 'Spiral to emerge at any point now...

[B]Does anybody else know anything about the new song called 'Melbourne' ? its on LiveMetallica.com and they have used it a couple of times now, sorry to ask again but i kinda got faded with the whole thrash bands argument. [/B]

MetallicA rox :wave: :thumb:

Whos better Kirk or James... Personnaly i say James. Because he is a master at palmmuted downstrokes and because he has a good metal voice at the same time. I dont really like Kirk to much anymore because most of his stuff is based on everyone's favorite five tone scale... He does occasionally throw in Phrygian or Blues maybe even Dorian now and then but sticks too closely to the minor pentatonic and reuses too many licks...What do you guys think?
Rider on the Storm

All bands go bad eventually, metallica is no exception

[quote]All bands go bad eventually, metallica is no exception[/quote]

And when they do, I'll stop listening to them.

Anyways, technically speaking Kirk is better than James (that is to say, if they were to have a guitar duel, Kirk would win). But James is a better rhythm player than Kirk is a lead player, if that makese sense.

Thats not nesasaraly true (Sp) just because James doesnt bust out like kirk does, doesnt mean he cant.

I do recall reading an interview where he said that he left all the lead stuff to Kirk because Kirk a better lead player, and his (James's) real strength lies in coming up with riffs.