StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Metallica's new single can be heard here.

I'm... ambivalent about it. I want to like it, I really do, and there are parts of it I do like, but there's just something about it that makes me go, "Eh, I don't know." Maybe it'll grow on me...

I was cautiously optimistic about the new album but after seeing that the track list includes an Unforgiven 3 and having heard this I'm starting to think the optimism might have been misplaced.

I heard it on the radio last night. Huge "meh". It has the Metallica Signature Sound (tm), but none of the musical quality that made them famous back before they started to suck. Which was more or less what I expected when the announcer said "new Metallica song".

The intro sounded like something off a Joe Satriani album, then it was all downhill from there. It sounds so forced & disjointed, it's like they tried to pick & choose bits from previous albums which were good and then smooshed them together at random.

It's a mess. They start off sounding like a power-ballad combo, then seem to remember they're supposed to be a heavy metal band about halfway through and throw in some fast riffing and kewl drumbeats. Then they ramble on for another couple of minutes to no great effect. Bleh.

Sounds better than Stanger, but still garden variety "band of 15 year olds that really want to be Metallica" quality of songwriting. The new Slipknot album is far superior for aggression, moshability, production and sound.

I see what my brother was saying about the drums too, they don't seem to fit with the levels of everything else. Somehow, they sound artificial and at the wrong level, and not purposefully so (like you get with extreme and industrial metal).

Zuul wrote: I see what my brother was saying about the drums too, they don't seem to fit with the levels of everything else. Somehow, they sound artificial and at the wrong level, and not purposefully so (like you get with extreme and industrial metal).

The drums sound not only artificial, but also like a garage band. I first noticed them slip into that during "St. Anger", when the chorus used a similar drum line to "Blackened" but at much lower quality, like they got a cheapo drum set from a yard sale. There were also some points where the bass drum faded into the background against the rest of the song.

To be honest, it is, as expected, much better than their previous album, but that's not hard when their previous album literally hurt my ears to listen to. At least James is in-key this time.

It's an alt-rock song in the idiom of bands that have cropped up in the last 10 years intent on emulating their '91 album a la Puddle of Mudd, Default, Nickelback, etc, with some noodly random riffs thrown on at the end as a perfunctory and insincere response to their critics who claim they're incapable of crafting dynamic song structures or playing fast and aggressive music. It's more than I expected, but only by a hair, and these shills are still poseur weenies.

About a year ago I stood in a field and had to choose between going to see Metallica and going to see some Australian Pink Floyd tribute band.

I picked the flying pig, and hearing this tired old tripe, I picked correctly. Did they find a 1993 cassette behind a couch or something?

To rich to make good music..

Aquatain wrote:To rich to make good music..

It might be truer than you think. Scott Travis commented that once musicians get wealthy, it becomes incredibly seductive to think that "sales = success" and just fop off whatever you please onto an album. As long as the label rep is satisfied enough to let you out of the studio as fast as possible so you can get back to indulging whatever whims those dandies pursue now, who cares if it's embarrassing music to have your name on?

TithonusSyndrome wrote:

Aquatain wrote:To rich to make good music..

It might be truer than you think. Scott Travis commented that once musicians get wealthy, it becomes incredibly seductive to think that "sales = success" and just fop off whatever you please onto an album. As long as the label rep is satisfied enough to let you out of the studio as fast as possible so you can get back to indulging whatever whims those dandies pursue now, who cares if it's embarrassing music to have your name on?

Well, it must be difficult to stay angry at stuff if you wake up in your mansion with nothing to do but empty your nuts into supermodels and attend million-dollar brunches. I suppose the only way you could do that would be to hate the guys in your band, have some sort of parental issue or feel that extreme bourgeois life is too hollow to continue enjoying. It could possibly work out for a few individuals who are really smart, but there's no denying it's difficult to retain a creative spark long past your prime.

Zuul wrote:

TithonusSyndrome wrote:

Aquatain wrote:To rich to make good music..

It might be truer than you think. Scott Travis commented that once musicians get wealthy, it becomes incredibly seductive to think that "sales = success" and just fop off whatever you please onto an album. As long as the label rep is satisfied enough to let you out of the studio as fast as possible so you can get back to indulging whatever whims those dandies pursue now, who cares if it's embarrassing music to have your name on?

Well, it must be difficult to stay angry at stuff if you wake up in your mansion with nothing to do but empty your nuts into supermodels and attend million-dollar brunches. I suppose the only way you could do that would be to hate the guys in your band, have some sort of parental issue or feel that extreme bourgeois life is too hollow to continue enjoying. It could possibly work out for a few individuals who are really smart, but there's no denying it's difficult to retain a creative spark long past your prime.

I just finished watching a piece on BBC World a few days ago about a billionaire philanthropist very passionate about leading an anti-meth campaign in Montana, despite no indication of having a personal past scarred by meth. People who think that sources of musical inspiration MUST be highly personal are weenies who are bound to run out of songwriting material, and were usually writing foppish, self-centered girl-boy breakup shit in the first place. A band like Misery Index, by way of example, is never going to run out of shit to be angry about and write knockout albums over even if they could (which they never will) achieve commercial success, because they don't write songs about selfish personal miseries.

True that. I was just listening to Napalm Death and thinking something similar. There are exceptions to the "ascension to aristocracy" and becoming oblivious to genuine suffering (and losing creative flair), and they all tend to be pretty smart people.

Also my mate's band played with Misery Index a while ago, said they're all cool dudes.

I've heard it a couple more times since posting and I think the word that comes to my mind that best describes it is sloppy.

I don't necessarily mind different riffs and themes, so to speak, within a song but they have to work and fit together. These don't.

I don't mind the slow intro, in fact I thought it was kind of cool, but the verse and chorus guitars have nothing to distinguish them in such a way that I immediately think Metallica. Instead I think, generic, post-grunge, hard rock.

Then the hard "metal" part that leads into the harmonized parts and solo brings us back to that sloppy bit. It doesn't sound like a band of technically proficient musicians, it's sounds like me as a teenager trying to play the machine gun riff from One before my wrist was strong and fast enough.

I didn't mind the harmonized parts per se. In fact, I'm glad, in a way, that they decided to incorporate them again. Unfortunately, that word comes back to mind when I hear them. Sloppy.

I had heard before the release that this was supposed to be middle ground between "...And Justice for All" and the Black Album, but I don't hear it. It sounds more like a bridge between St. Anger and crap. And I kind of liked St. Anger from a song writing perspective (except the songs needed to be cut in half and have leads added) though I disliked it from a production one. (Listen to the DVD of them rehearsing that comes with the album, the sound is much better even if the songs are still too long.)

In all honesty, I think this may be the first Metallica album I don't buy. Even the two Load albums add some good stuff on them even if most of the songs were unlistenable. The fact that they picked this as the first single makes me think the rest of the album is just as bad, maybe worse. I may change my mind if I hear another single that catches my ear, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

Sloppiness isn't always a deal-killer, I doubt Venom or half of their progeny would sound as raw or attitudinal if they didn't play balls-out with some disrespect for technique in favor of ferocity. This band, however, isn't doing that. They're just half-assedly trying to retort to their critics and failing in the process.

Fortunately, 2008 is a decent year for legitimate metal - not that anyone would ever come to Metallica for it, but you know what I mean. May I recommend this year's Diamond Plate, Manilla Road or Portrait?

PS Zuul Napalm Death doesn't count because they're a cover band of themselves now seeing as how they contain no original members I'd still go see them, but I don't consider them "the band" so much as "the official cover band."

In this case, sloppiness is a deal killer.

Unfortunately, I'm not a huge metal fan in general, I just happened to be a Metallica fan. But this song is really killing that. I may go see them in concert if I get the chance since they'll still play the old stuff, but my excitement about their recorded material is limited now to the old stuff.

Also unfortunately, there's not really any bands out there that excite me right now. Most of the stuff I like is older material from bands that are past their prime if they're even still around.

I'm really not sure what to do for the time being.

It's nice to see that James' voice has repaired itself, and the reappearance of solos is welcome. And to top it off, they finally have some real bass. But yet the whole thing seems so formulaic, despite their attempts to do modal Blue Oyster Cult style runs.

The intro guitars completely turn into Fade to Black around 30 seconds. At 4 minutes, it sounds like a mashup of Ride The Lightning and Enter Sandman. From 5 minutes, it's basically a faster take on One, both the chugging rhythm and the tapping. The solo is also too long and just starts to drag after a while - which is something you'll almost never hear from me, I'm an utter shredding whore in my metal. But this was just too long.

On the whole, it's definitely a step up from St. Anger, but still has a ways to go before I'm interested in them again.

The Spartan wrote:Unfortunately, I'm not a huge metal fan in general, I just happened to be a Metallica fan. But this song is really killing that. I may go see them in concert if I get the chance since they'll still play the old stuff, but my excitement about their recorded material is limited now to the old stuff.

Prepare for unending disappointment. Their mid-heavy guitar tone is a huge part of the sloppiness because it has shitty note definition, and it gets orders of magnitude worse in a live setting. They really just don't give a shit about their sound, I have serious doubts that they do anything resembling a legitimate soundcheck before a show. Not to mention they rely heavily on their lame 90's-00's shit for their setlists because it's easier to play, and more exposed of course.

Also unfortunately, there's not really any bands out there that excite me right now. Most of the stuff I like is older material from bands that are past their prime if they're even still around.

Did you look into the links I gave? Manilla Road is older than Metallica and probably past their prime as well, but still loads better than Metallica.

I'm really not sure what to do for the time being.

Fuck recent bands, not that there's no good ones but you'd have better luck in my experience by digging up old gems from bands that never got the recognition they deserved. No clue what you're after, but Metallica has nothing on Wehrmacht, Dethrone or the inimitably jazzy and deservingly named Atheist.

What? That blows. I haven't seen them since '98 and they played all the old favorites with a couple of things from the Load albums thrown in. And I don't seem to recall their live tone sucking at that point.

Well, I'm disillusioned...

Lately I've been listening to their old albums, AC/DC, old Van Halen, some Skynyrd, ZZ Top, Hendrix and SRV. Aside from Led Zeppelin and Dave Matthews that's about the only things that really interest me.

The Spartan wrote:What? That blows. I haven't seen them since '98 and they played all the old favorites with a couple of things from the Load albums thrown in. And I don't seem to recall their live tone sucking at that point.

If that was from the same tour on the "Cunning Stunts" video, then I wouldn't call the tone the greatest, but leagues better than what happened after the introduction of the *ugh* Grynch. That guitar considers note definition a sin, and that seems to have stayed with the band.

Well, I'm disillusioned...

Lately I've been listening to their old albums, AC/DC, old Van Halen, some Skynyrd, ZZ Top, Hendrix and SRV. Aside from Led Zeppelin and Dave Matthews that's about the only things that really interest me.

Well then maybe some more older proto-metal is in order? Master's Apprentice, Flower Travellin' Band or Coven? This is what Black Sabbath fans were rotating in their turntables alongside copies of "Paranoid" back in the late 60's and early 70's.

TithonusSyndrome wrote:Well then maybe some more older proto-metal is in order? Master's Apprentice, Flower Travellin' Band or Coven? This is what Black Sabbath fans were rotating in their turntables alongside copies of "Paranoid" back in the late 60's and early 70's.

I'll look into it. I was really hoping to find something I could really latch on to that might actually have fresh material being released. That may be a pipe dream now.

That was really unimpressive.

My soul wishes they'd just retire and not ruin the memories of the good music they wrote.

The Spartan wrote:I'll look into it. I was really hoping to find something I could really latch on to that might actually have fresh material being released. That may be a pipe dream now.

Well you gotta admit, you have a sort of arbitrary and unusual checklist of qualities you're looking for in a band - they must be an older band that still puts out material as of right now and isn't at the height of their game, and the specific style is of secondary concern. Don't get me wrong, I like a challenge and all, but you gotta give me more to work with in terms of style.

If like you said, it's the style of Metallica's older albums that appeals most to you like Ride the Lightning or Master of Puppets, then without a shadow of a doubt the best place to start would be Testament, a band that was seen as the understudy to Metallica and due to surpass them anyways until the 80's ended and metal ceased to be cool for a decade or so and killed their momentum.

I would also point out that the latest Testament album is a pant-rocker.

Other than the fact that Chuck Billy has been reduced to a poor man's death metal vocalist and their tone sounds cardboard thin, yeah, it's alright. It's certainly miles ahead of Metallica's latest, though that should come as no surprise.

I definitely wasn't blown away when I saw them open for Judas Priest a month ago. They were very loud and very heavy, which is more than Metalliblah can manage live, but they suffered from the same lack of note definition and clarity that Metallica does. Thankfully, Priest sounded fucking PROFESH in a big way when they took the stage.