[QUOTE=BlinDecsent]ya and about 50 of those minutes arent worth a whole lot either. There are SOME good points to that cd. But over all not worth it.[/QUOTE]
If "good points" equals content, then you could also say that there is SOME content on every Slimp Blizkit cd. If I'm supposed to enjoy 70 minutes of music, I expect more than 3 minutes of content.

They already set the new world record of repetitiveness, so why couldn't they have been even MORE repetitive, and extended it into a double-disc containing 300 minutes of that monotonous noise? Because I bet their cocksucking-imbecile fans would have been even happier about getting MORE.

[QUOTE=Niklas]the metallica albums now days tend have to many songs
i mean 75 min!!! way to much
what? should i buy the album that is great but only has 40 min
or the album thats not so good but has 75 min of music
Quantity or quality[/QUOTE]
quality

i'd rather have 40 minutes of wonder ful music than sitting there for a torturesome 70 minutes or whatever listening to some bull****

[QUOTE=FrailandBedazzled1979]Talent wise (comming from a bassiest of close to a decade) hes far more creative and well rounded than Cliff whom was never in his wildest dreams gods gift to bass guitar.[/QUOTE]
rob is probably a good bassist, but id have to disagree with that.
show me any song that rob composed that is as impressive as anesthesia or the bass solo in orion or the lead bass in ktulu, etc. ....and then i might agree.

Metallicas, older stuff is soo much better than their new stuff, i was dissapointed when i got st. anger. stuff like the black album and load and reload isnt that bad but Kill 'em All and Ride the Lightening are amazing!!!
The call of the ktulu is an amazing instrumental song. Ride the lightening is my favorite overall cd.

[QUOTE=chuckles the silly piggy]The songs on Load That everybody seems to never mention are the best on the album:
Bleeding Me
Outlaw Torn[/QUOTE]

Those songs are both ****ing awesome. I always forget that's the cd they're on.

[/QUOTE]They already set the new world record of repetitiveness, so why couldn't they have been even MORE repetitive, and extended it into a double-disc containing 300 minutes of that monotonous noise? Because I bet their cocksucking-imbecile fans would have been even happier about getting MORE.[/QUOTE]


Set the record for repetitiveness? What the hell kind of comment is that. I beleive Load and Reload should have been a two disk set. Other then that what repetitiveness have they done? Kill em All was a 100% thrash cd. Very raw and heavy. Not the kind of heavy they would produce with RTL and MOP, but a very heavy feel none the less.

In Ride the Lightening they expanded upon that thrashy feel and added alot more diversity with songs such as Fade to Black and Call of the Ktulu. Master of Puppets was similar to Ride the Lightening but lost almost all the pure and raw elements of thrash. After only two cds they went from a thrash style garage band to a more mature and complex tradtional sounding heavy metal band. There are alot of subtle things on MOP but they are noticable. Such as the drumming on the bridge of Master of Puupets the song, The Thing that Should not be is very different from any thing they had previously put out or anything they would in the future. The dominant bass in orion was never seen before and wouldn't be seen again until my friend of misery. Over all these subtleties add up and produce a differnt feel.

AJFA was the album where the band really put their oponions into song writing about issues they felt strongly about (or James did anyways). Songs like Blackened, And Justice for All, One and Dyers Eve all dealt with things in a more upfront nature than previous songs did. Also AJFA is no where near the sound they had with Kill em All. Heavy but no longer thrash

Black Ambum is where the band decides to go for a mainstream sound and ditches much of their metal roots. Same idea with the next two albums Load and Reload. Like i said, should have been a two disk set. They have now gone from the un radio friendly sounds of the Four Horsemen and Whiplash, to the catchy and groovy King Nothing. They even did a cover album and played with a freakin' symphony orchestra! Now how different of a sound do you want? This era of Metallica may not be the best music wise but they are trying new things. More so in the last ten-fifteen years than ever. St. Anger was not a good cd. But as I said it had some good points. And NO I don't mean it had CONTENT. Everything in the world has content! Have you heard the whole cd? Frantic, St. Anger, Some Kind of Monster and Invisible Kid are good songs I feel. The drums may be tuned a little differently and there may be no solos but so what? Music is music even though you probably wouldn't agree. Oh and The Unnamed Feeling I think is some of Metallica's best work.

The thing with St. Anger is that people seem to dislike because it is new. Not just this cd but alot of things in general. If Metallica released a cd they wrote back in 85 and just preformed all the songs today for recording, I seriously wonder how people would react to it. I think it would find the same reception St. Anger did because "they will never be as good as they were with cliff and back in the eighties blah blah blah".

And as for the "cocksucking imbecile fans" remark, I'm not gonna try and change your views on that. If thats the outlook you choose to have on the topic than whatever. It just seems that you didn't put alot of thought into that statement. This is hardly the place to be insulting Metallica fans, and most fans are only fans of the band still because they hang on to that faint memory of the first time they heard the opening accoustic riff to Fight Fire with Fire. And how it all went from there. Or maybe they are like me; saw them live recently and were blown completely away. After hearing live versions of St.Anger songs I have a new respect for them. They are heavy and catchy and just very appealing IMO.

But like I said, just remember where you posted "cocksucknig imbecile fans". I'm sure not too many people are going to agree with you on several of your points but what ever.

BlinDecsent.....That was beautiful. Very well put. I agree 100%

[url]http://www.geocities.com/rokmet/metallicamusic[/url]

for metallica bootlegs

^^ good site

[QUOTE=BlinDecsent]Set the record for repetitiveness? What the hell kind of comment is that. I beleive Load and Reload should have been a two disk set. Other then that what repetitiveness have they done? Kill em All was a 100% thrash cd. Very raw and heavy. Not the kind of heavy they would produce with RTL and MOP, but a very heavy feel none the less.

In Ride the Lightening they expanded upon that thrashy feel and added alot more diversity with songs such as Fade to Black and Call of the Ktulu. Master of Puppets was similar to Ride the Lightening but lost almost all the pure and raw elements of thrash. After only two cds they went from a thrash style garage band to a more mature and complex tradtional sounding heavy metal band. There are alot of subtle things on MOP but they are noticable. Such as the drumming on the bridge of Master of Puupets the song, The Thing that Should not be is very different from any thing they had previously put out or anything they would in the future. The dominant bass in orion was never seen before and wouldn't be seen again until my friend of misery. Over all these subtleties add up and produce a differnt feel.

AJFA was the album where the band really put their oponions into song writing about issues they felt strongly about (or James did anyways). Songs like Blackened, And Justice for All, One and Dyers Eve all dealt with things in a more upfront nature than previous songs did. Also AJFA is no where near the sound they had with Kill em All. Heavy but no longer thrash

Black Ambum is where the band decides to go for a mainstream sound and ditches much of their metal roots. Same idea with the next two albums Load and Reload. Like i said, should have been a two disk set. They have now gone from the un radio friendly sounds of the Four Horsemen and Whiplash, to the catchy and groovy King Nothing. They even did a cover album and played with a freakin' symphony orchestra! Now how different of a sound do you want? This era of Metallica may not be the best music wise but they are trying new things. More so in the last ten-fifteen years than ever. St. Anger was not a good cd. But as I said it had some good points. And NO I don't mean it had CONTENT. Everything in the world has content! Have you heard the whole cd? Frantic, St. Anger, Some Kind of Monster and Invisible Kid are good songs I feel. The drums may be tuned a little differently and there may be no solos but so what? Music is music even though you probably wouldn't agree. Oh and The Unnamed Feeling I think is some of Metallica's best work.

The thing with St. Anger is that people seem to dislike because it is new. Not just this cd but alot of things in general. If Metallica released a cd they wrote back in 85 and just preformed all the songs today for recording, I seriously wonder how people would react to it. I think it would find the same reception St. Anger did because "they will never be as good as they were with cliff and back in the eighties blah blah blah".

And as for the "cocksucking imbecile fans" remark, I'm not gonna try and change your views on that. If thats the outlook you choose to have on the topic than whatever. It just seems that you didn't put alot of thought into that statement. This is hardly the place to be insulting Metallica fans, and most fans are only fans of the band still because they hang on to that faint memory of the first time they heard the opening accoustic riff to Fight Fire with Fire. And how it all went from there. Or maybe they are like me; saw them live recently and were blown completely away. After hearing live versions of St.Anger songs I have a new respect for them. They are heavy and catchy and just very appealing IMO.

But like I said, just remember where you posted "cocksucknig imbecile fans". I'm sure not too many people are going to agree with you on several of your points but what ever.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the history lesson, but I don't remember having criticized any of the pre-Load era albums. I was obviously talking about a specific album, so I apoligize for the useless effort you made to write all that.

Music is just music? And at least so far, music with substance has been music with substance. See what the dictionary has to say about this ->

[i]tau·tol·o·gy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tô-tl-j)
n. pl. tau·tol·o·gies
1. a. Needless repetition of the same sense in different words; redundancy[/i]

^^^Well, close, anyway. You're just as repetitive as the album you're defending. Playing all music you have written twice IS repeating yourself. You can make a 10 minute song with 5 minutes of actual content, but why is listening to it worthwhile? Also, what's worthwhile about 70 minutes of monotonous drumming and other instruments mostly containing simple and distorted noises?

I think BlinDescent is a ****ing genious, man, and speaks for all metallica fans

I think BlinDescent didnt say anything new.

well thats your opinion.

No, Ive seen a million responses like that. So it isnt an opnion, it's an observation. gg

[QUOTE=KingofDudes]No, Ive seen a million responses like that. So it isnt an opnion, it's an observation. gg[/QUOTE]

it was a good post, but didnt' need to be done. It seems like he likes rating cds though. It was too much, yeah.

metallica rules...end of thread.

you arent allowed to reproduce...end of thread.

[QUOTE=schweinhunt]

^^^Well, close, anyway. You're just as repetitive as the album you're defending. Playing all music you have written twice IS repeating yourself. [/QUOTE]
well, i don't know if you've noticed, but repetition is common in pretty much all music (i.e. the chorus). not to bore you with another history lesson, but a lot of bands have done similar things; the beatles (that Hello song, which may not be a good example to defend my point, cuz that song drives me crazy); a lot of punk rock is just the same 3 or 4 chord combination being repeated over and over; classical composers could even be accused of this (beethoven's Fur Elise repeats the same part a fair number of times).

and he wasn't really repetitve in his post, he was just setting a broad foundation for his argument. true, it seemed more like an argumentative essay written for an english class, but maybe he's seen how quickly people get flamed on here for not defending their statement's well enough, which is something you definitely can't accuse him of this time.

does anyone know the part kirk plays during the chorus of sad but true? it's not on the tabs here or even in the music book. it sounds like just some simple single note stuff with some pick trills but i'm having trouble figuring it out. i need to get some new strings though, the ones i got don't hold tuning very well when i tune down that far, which makes it hard to tell if i'm playing the right frets or not.

Kreator posted it in here ages ago.

It involves the open high e ( d in this case ) played with 5/6 etc frets on the b ( a ).

Meh, you work it out, something like that.

[QUOTE=ForTheMusic22]well, i don't know if you've noticed, but repetition is common in pretty much all music (i.e. the chorus). not to bore you with another history lesson, but a lot of bands have done similar things; the beatles (that Hello song, which may not be a good example to defend my point, cuz that song drives me crazy); a lot of punk rock is just the same 3 or 4 chord combination being repeated over and over; classical composers could even be accused of this (beethoven's Fur Elise repeats the same part a fair number of times).

and he wasn't really repetitve in his post, he was just setting a broad foundation for his argument. true, it seemed more like an argumentative essay written for an english class, but maybe he's seen how quickly people get flamed on here for not defending their statement's well enough, which is something you definitely can't accuse him of this time.[/QUOTE]

AC/DC also made the same song over and over, but they were still a great band.

[QUOTE=ForTheMusic22]does anyone know the part kirk plays during the chorus of sad but true? it's not on the tabs here or even in the music book. it sounds like just some simple single note stuff with some pick trills but i'm having trouble figuring it out. i need to get some new strings though, the ones i got don't hold tuning very well when i tune down that far, which makes it hard to tell if i'm playing the right frets or not.[/QUOTE]

Isnt that song tuned down a whole step? You should get some .12 strings then.

12 gauge for D standard ?! ?! :lol:

... :lol:

[QUOTE=Squirrel_h4x]12 gauge for D standard ?! ?! :lol:

... :lol:[/QUOTE]

Hey, it works. Pikachu.

Wow, nice comeback fuc[color=white]kwad[/color].

.12s for D standard is a retarded idea.

Suuuuure. And that wasn't a comeback. I've always used .12s for tuning down to D (or C) So nuts to you. And what the **** is a ****wad?

A wad of fvck, obviously.

Adding "wad" to any cuss makes it better.

Shytwad, a$swad, dickwad, etc.

Just playing down a whole step (or more) with standard .09's and .10's makes the strings feel too floppy(for me). Especially when playing with Super-Slinkies.

[QUOTE=Paranoidd]A wad of fvck, obviously.

Adding "wad" to any cuss makes it better.

Shytwad, a$swad, dickwad, etc.[/QUOTE]

But they make no sense!

And do you have to have a certain number of posts before you can say "****" without it being censored?

BlinDecsent........

i love you lol

well said bro i saved it on my comp so i can send it to or have them read it if anyone tries to talk **** about MetallicA.. (it says Originally Posted by BlinDecsent so dont worry lol)

[QUOTE]A wad of fvck, obviously.

Adding "wad" to any cuss makes it better.

Shytwad, a$swad, dickwad, etc.[/QUOTE]

Speaker of truth.

Here we are in an "Official Metallica Thread" talking about fvckwads, dickwads, and asswads...

Yes, good analysis.

[QUOTE=InColdBlood]Here we are in an "Official Metallica Thread" talking about fvckwads, dickwads, and asswads...[/QUOTE]

Well, the thread is full of them...

lol

yeah, i need to get heavier strings, i was only thinking about .10s though. i got 9's on right now because before i came to korea guitar center had a sale on some GHS Fatties, 10 packs for $15. and they sound pretty sweet on my schecter with standard tuning, and actually aren't too bad down a half step with a few quick adjustments, but a whole step down and they just feel and sound sloppy. i can't even adjust my bridge high enough to get rid of all the fret buzz when they're like that.

[QUOTE=Ramsey]^^ You too?

To iliketoplaydrums: sanitarium, seek and destroy, ride the lightining, the unforgiven 2 (the best metallica song IMHO!!)[/QUOTE]

dude Ramsey you've posted like 100 post's in this thread, go to another thread dude, and yes metallica rocks.

Angus, i have the most posts in this thread :)

Ramsey hasnt posted here in like 13 years.

[QUOTE=ForTheMusic22]well, i don't know if you've noticed, but repetition is common in pretty much all music (i.e. the chorus). not to bore you with another history lesson, but a lot of bands have done similar things; the beatles (that Hello song, which may not be a good example to defend my point, cuz that song drives me crazy); a lot of punk rock is just the same 3 or 4 chord combination being repeated over and over; classical composers could even be accused of this (beethoven's Fur Elise repeats the same part a fair number of times).[/QUOTE]
Classical composers didn't come up with leitmotifs so they could be used to replace songwriting effort. Fight Fire With Fire doesn't have a verse-chorus combo for the sake of being repetitive and monotonous; that's the theme of the song, which gives the songwriting a sense of coherence - they don't repeat EVERY other section twice on RTL. (Dream Theater's Images and Words is an album which isn't concerned of coherence, and I consider that to be monotonous wankery unlike RTL.)

And a lot of punk songs don't last for EIGHT ****ING MINUTES. The Ramones mostly wrote 2 minute songs. They didn't make a brainless eight minute songs out of them, and didn't dilute their quality by repeating everything over again. Even if they would have, the drumming isn't anywhere near as monotonous and the riffs aren't nearly that similar.

Although even The Ramones had some solos (Metallica defenders tend to think SHRED when someone mentions 'solo' - probably because they when they think 'solo', they think Hammet - but I don't hear much shred in "Somebody to Love"), the real problem with the lack of solos is that St. Anger has LONG songs, and longer songs tend to have solos to keep themselves interesting - or if not solos, at least plenty of variation in the riffage. But I find nothing on St. Anger which can hold my attention past the middle of the songs. Because there aren't many intense metal riffs found there like the well-developed riffs of RTL, and more importantly all the riffs sound extremely similar. Chunk-chunk. Not a slightest bit of variation in the drumming either, what's there which is worthwhile for me to listen to it entirely through - for the fifth time?

Since you're the smart one, explain.

[QUOTE=schweinhunt]Classical composers didn't come up with leitmotifs so they could be used to replace songwriting effort. Fight Fire With Fire doesn't have a verse-chorus combo for the sake of being repetitive and monotonous; that's the theme of the song, which gives the songwriting a sense of coherence - they don't repeat EVERY other section twice on RTL. (Dream Theater's Images and Words is an album which isn't concerned of coherence, and I consider that to be monotonous wankery unlike RTL.)

And a lot of punk songs don't last for EIGHT ****ING MINUTES. The Ramones mostly wrote 2 minute songs. They didn't make a brainless eight minute songs out of them, and didn't dilute their quality by repeating everything over again. Even if they would have, the drumming isn't anywhere near as monotonous and the riffs aren't nearly that similar.

Although even The Ramones had some solos (Metallica defenders tend to think SHRED when someone mentions 'solo' - probably because they when they think 'solo', they think Hammet - but I don't hear much shred in "Somebody to Love"), the real problem with the lack of solos is that St. Anger has LONG songs, and longer songs tend to have solos to keep themselves interesting - or if not solos, at least plenty of variation in the riffage. But I find nothing on St. Anger which can hold my attention past the middle of the songs. Because there aren't many intense metal riffs found there like the well-developed riffs of RTL, and more importantly all the riffs sound extremely similar. Chunk-chunk. Not a slightest bit of variation in the drumming either, what's there which is worthwhile for me to listen to it entirely through - for the fifth time?

Since you're the smart one, explain.[/QUOTE]



My theory on St. Anger: Metallica made a album that appeals to all the current nu-metal kids, who have no idea what real music is. And then their next album will be pure thrash, and all the nu-metal kids will go holy ****!!!

Or maybe it's just my dream :upset: