Re: St. Anger: Garbage or underrated?

by MagnusPrime Tue Feb 27, 2024 5:52 am

I think Metallica fans just get defensive from the constant barrage of hate and ridicule that their favorite band gets, when there are PLENTY of other bands out there that are way more deserving of scorn and scrutiny.

Again, with other bands they don't like, people just kinda shrug, maybe roll their eyes and go about their day. Not with Metallica. They just can't help themselves and are magically compelled to show how "impeccable" their tastes are by bashing and insulting the band and its fans.

It's quite a phenomenon actually.

It's like the people who's heads start spinning with projectile vomit spewing forth when you mention the name.... "TRUMP".

by Dustofyears Tue Feb 27, 2024 6:23 am

Again, Metallica are possibly the biggest band in the world today and without a doubt the biggest band in Metal and Rock, the very reason they get the scorn and scrutiny. So yeah, of course there's a magnifying glass on them over other bands...and when they drop a song it's huge news in the music world.

If people are talking about them that's probably all they care about in the end of the day. To be hated and loved is a good thing. To be ignored is what you don't want. I don't particular care if people like Metallica's new album and I don't hate Metallica, I just personally think their recent efforts are bland and generic, so Metallica fans can cry a river and drown in their tears frankly. Also I'll add, I'm not one of those "elitist" types that bag Mainstream stuff because it is popular, if I was I wouldn't like Nirvana or the pumpkins or GnR etc and would say they suck so I can feel like a superior underground metal douche knob that only listens to bands that have unreadable names and logos and about 5 people including myself have the elite "ears" to tell that it is masterful lolz... in fact a vast majority of the stuff I like can be considered mainstream.

As for Trump, I can tell you worship the guy just by the mere fact you bring him into the conversation... you like old narcissistic men with orange skin sweet I get it but why people worship that guy is beyond me. Why anyone worships world leaders is beyond me. They all suck. Metallica at least doesn't suck on the whole they deserve the number one spot in metal, even if I personally like other metal bands more. Have a good'n.

by MagnusPrime Tue Feb 27, 2024 8:29 am

Dustofyears wrote:Again, Metallica are possibly the biggest band in the world today and without a doubt the biggest band in Metal and Rock, the very reason they get the scorn and scrutiny. So yeah, of course there's a magnifying glass on them over other bands...and when they drop a song it's huge news in the music world.

If people are talking about them that's probably all they care about in the end of the day. To be hated and loved is a good thing. To be ignored is what you don't want. I don't particular care if people like Metallica's new album and I don't hate Metallica, I just personally think their recent efforts are bland and generic, so Metallica fans can cry a river and drown in their tears frankly. Also I'll add, I'm not one of those "elitist" types that bag Mainstream stuff because it is popular, if I was I wouldn't like Nirvana or the pumpkins or GnR etc and would say they suck so I can feel like a superior underground metal douche knob that only listens to bands that have unreadable names and logos and about 5 people including myself have the elite "ears" to tell that it is masterful lolz... in fact a vast majority of the stuff I like can be considered mainstream.

As for Trump, I can tell you worship the guy just by the mere fact you bring him into the conversation... you like old narcissistic men with orange skin sweet I get it but why people worship that guy is beyond me. Why anyone worships world leaders is beyond me. They all suck. Metallica at least doesn't suck on the whole they deserve the number one spot in metal, even if I personally like other metal bands more. Have a good'n.

No.

I do not "worship" the guy.

Rolf 1

I simply noted that the typical (yours included) overreactions from people to both topics are among the more bizarre phenomenon I've ever witnessed.

Why would you word your post the way you did, if you were not indeed triggered?

Thanks for proving my point. I can always depend on you.

Have a good'n.

by Dustofyears Tue Feb 27, 2024 9:13 am

by MagnusPrime Tue Feb 27, 2024 9:24 am

Dustofyears wrote:

by Temple of Blood Tue Feb 27, 2024 10:10 am

Metallica deserve all the criticism that they've received.

They went from being the #1 thrash band around to maybe #50, and I'm being generous here.

Pretty much every 80s thrash band has surpassed them in the quality of their original material.

A big part of the problem is that even when they attempted a comeback they were saddled with dead weight in the form of a certain Dane and a certain wah-obsessed player whose best days were well in the rear view mirror.

Let's be blunt here. If "Hardwired", "72 Seasons", and "Death Magnetic" were released by some unknown band NO ONE would care about them.

by Dustofyears Tue Feb 27, 2024 10:28 am

by MagnusPrime Tue Feb 27, 2024 10:33 am

^Nope.

by Pethead Tue Feb 27, 2024 10:39 am

St. Anger: Garbage or underrated? - Page 5 KsogZlwUzZZE7ymkfwo_6tqHx1rPl90Xr5o19lWIc6Q

(Couldn’t resist).

by MagnusPrime Tue Feb 27, 2024 10:47 am

Some people act like Metallica moving away from thrash - which was something that developed in their wake and based on their early sound (ask Slayer) - has left their lives in ruins.

Rent free.

St. Anger: Garbage or underrated? - Page 5 1f606

St. Anger: Garbage or underrated? - Page 5 1f606

by Dustofyears Tue Feb 27, 2024 11:22 am

Personally I don;t care about the thrash thing. The Black Album is fine and there is a good rock album somewhere in both the loads albums. However, If "Hardwired", "72 Seasons", and "Death Magnetic" were released by some unknown band NO ONE would care about them.<— I believe this statement to be true. And to add to that— St Anger wouldn't have sold anywhere near the amount of units it sold had it not been stamped with Metallica all over it. All those albums are nothing special just average run of the mill nothing albums.

But you know..die on that hill I suppose Metallica can do no wrong.

by Temple of Blood Tue Feb 27, 2024 11:30 am

Metallica has engendered such brand loyalty that I find it unbelievable. I mean, they were my #1 band for years when I was young, but now LOCAL BANDS are better than them.

I didn't even say anything about their non-thrash material above. I specifically talked about their 3 thrash comeback albums and how they are inferior to what most any other 80s thrash band has done since them: Exodus, Testament, Forbidden, Slayer, Megadeth, Overkill, Death Angel, Vio-lence, Artillery, etc. I never thought I'd live long enough to see Vio-lence releasing better albums than Metallica but here we are.

by MagnusPrime Tue Feb 27, 2024 11:59 am

Dustofyears wrote:

But you know..die on that hill I suppose Metallica can do no wrong.

See? I KNEW you'd come around!

by MagnusPrime Tue Feb 27, 2024 12:05 pm

Temple of Blood wrote:Metallica has engendered such brand loyalty that I find it unbelievable. I mean, they were my #1 band for years when I was young, but now LOCAL BANDS are better than them.

I didn't even say anything about their non-thrash material above. I specifically talked about their 3 thrash comeback albums and how they are inferior to what most any other 80s thrash band has done since them: Exodus, Testament, Forbidden, Slayer, Megadeth, Overkill, Death Angel, Vio-lence, Artillery, etc. I never thought I'd live long enough to see Vio-lence releasing better albums than Metallica but here we are.

The only "thrash comeback" album was Death Magnetic. And that was only mostly thrash.

Metallica were never pure thrash anyway. They were just playing what they wanted to hear and accidentally created a new genre. The bands that came after them are the ones that really started putting thrash together and cemented the sound. Metallica simply supplied the blueprints.

So I wouldn't try to compare Metallica's last couple of albums to albums made by thrash bands. It's apples and oranges. Metallica's pretty much their own thing.

by Temple of Blood Tue Feb 27, 2024 12:20 pm

I don't see how Metallica is "their own thing" and all the bands I listed aren't "their own thing" too. Nevertheless, it's still basically thrash. The comparisons I made were very fair. Metallica isn't some special snowflake that can't be compared to anyone else. Even if you want to compare them to other non-thrash metal bands the comparison isn't in their favor.

Thrash isn't just speed as some pretend that it is.

Diamond Head, Saxon, Judas Priest, and many others have made better metal albums in recent years than Metallica too, so it's not just about the amount of thrash in their sound.

by Dustofyears Tue Feb 27, 2024 12:23 pm

MagnusPrime wrote:
Temple of Blood wrote:Metallica has engendered such brand loyalty that I find it unbelievable. I mean, they were my #1 band for years when I was young, but now LOCAL BANDS are better than them.

I didn't even say anything about their non-thrash material above. I specifically talked about their 3 thrash comeback albums and how they are inferior to what most any other 80s thrash band has done since them: Exodus, Testament, Forbidden, Slayer, Megadeth, Overkill, Death Angel, Vio-lence, Artillery, etc. I never thought I'd live long enough to see Vio-lence releasing better albums than Metallica but here we are.

The only "thrash comeback" album was Death Magnetic. And that was only mostly thrash.

Metallica were never pure thrash anyway. They were just playing what they wanted to hear and accidentally created a new genre. The bands that came after them are the ones that really started putting thrash together and cemented the sound. Metallica simply supplied the blueprints.

So I wouldn't try to compare Metallica's last couple of albums to albums made by thrash bands. It's apples and oranges. Metallica's pretty much their own thing.

oh no you don't there's no weasel in my soup! Metallica have always been hailed as the best thrash and metal band in the universe, just ask all the thrash magazines and compilations and shows they have been in. They were definitely a thrash band. Stop the straw clutching. Nice try. Metallica's first four albums are thrash and have been well known as such. How many times has Puppets been crowned the king of thrash... The black album has thrash elements in it. Same with their later three albums. Again, nice try.

Metallica fans are in such denial it baffles me.

by MagnusPrime Tue Feb 27, 2024 12:29 pm

Keep swaggering, guys. You've almost got it down to a strut.

Again.

Rent. Free.

It's hilarious!

St. Anger: Garbage or underrated? - Page 5 1f602

by Dustofyears Tue Feb 27, 2024 12:35 pm

MagnusPrime wrote:Keep swaggering, guys. You've almost got it down to a strut.

Again.

Rent. Free.

It's hilarious!

well at least tell us what the special little genre Metallica is then if it's not thrash... they did have more pop and commercial elements from the start I agree with that, but they were still thrash...

Access denied...denied...denied...denial

by MagnusPrime Tue Feb 27, 2024 12:41 pm

Dustofyears wrote:

Access denied...denied...denied...denial

Somebody press "reset" on Dust, I think I broke him.

scratch

by seth Tue Feb 27, 2024 12:42 pm

Any time a band is a pioneer of a genre which later comes to be widely loved, that band will get way more attention than they would had they come along later playing the exact same style. That’s why Stryper is so well known among Christian metalheads (maybe a hot take in and of itself?) and why Metallica gets so much attention in general, positive and negative. Not necessarily because they’re actually special above other bands, but because they were the main pioneer of thrash.

by Dustofyears Tue Feb 27, 2024 12:55 pm

Maybe. But then Exodus were around before Metallica but they were more "pure" thrash, meaning there was more "PUNK" and "Venom" vibes in their music and nothing pretty or melodic and less accessible and Metallica went with more BNWHM vibes therefore had more pop and commercial sensibilities in their music and don't forget they were extreme for the time and there was no real underground, there was just metal music that the rats listened in the gutters listen to. And also blah blah blah blah blah...lolz cheers have a nice day.

by StevenCressler Tue Feb 27, 2024 1:41 pm

The main special thing about early Metallica was all the small melodic, almost neoclassic stings. "Burtonisms", I like to say. Even though my favorite Metallica album doesn't have Cliff on it, he was imo largely what made Metallica special.

And I would still like modern Metallica if it wasn't them. I don't let band bias influence my tastes. The only difference is that if they weren't from Metallica Is probably have never heard them.

by StevenCressler Tue Mar 05, 2024 12:04 am

At least you can't deny that this was the best official studio album made by Metallica during 2003 Wink

(Sorry, idk why I'm bumping this thread back up to make this lame joke)

by Black Rider Tue Mar 05, 2024 9:28 am

You're obsessed dude, try branching out and listen to other bands.

by Christian Thrash Rules Tue Mar 05, 2024 10:59 am

If you take St. Anger, fix the garbage(yes it's a joke) snare and production, it would be a pretty good album... except Purify, but that doesn't count we don't talk about that one.

by Sponsored content

Which one?