EPT2 things people should know about Metallica - Page 2
| Blogs > Manit0u |
|
FragKrag
United States11566 Posts
| ||
|
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
| ||
|
miseiler
United States1389 Posts
On August 08 2010 11:28 Foreplay wrote: 2. People praise S&M? Why the S&M hate? I found it a refreshing change of pace. The new songs were decent and for a live album there was great sound and terrific energy. It's a bit awkward to see them perform No Leaf Clover in concert, though. | ||
|
WniO
United States2706 Posts
| ||
|
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
On August 08 2010 12:11 OneFierceZealot wrote: i heard this one song this one time and it was ok. i changed stations and listened to two songs in a row. i came back to first station and the one song was still playing. it was by metallica. im assuming half of their songs could be a good minute to two minutes shorter. there is no reason for a band to have 6+ minute long songs. Do you really believe that is inappropriate in any context? You should take a look at some of progressive rock's epics. Rush's 2112, Yes' Close to the Edge, Jethro Tull's Thick as a Brick, etc. Plenty of songs have a lot to get across and 5 or less minutes just doesn't cut it. Especially for music as complex as progressive. Regardless of what I think of Metallica personally, they were a talented group that made fairly complex music for their genre and I don't think they dragged those songs out. I couldn't imagine what a 4 minute Close to the Edge would sound like. What a limited way of seeing music. | ||
|
mykyoyo
United States33 Posts
And a big laugh at Lars' drumming.  On August 08 2010 12:01 DoctorHelvetica wrote: I think AC/DC are probably one of the worst bands of all time. That's pretty interesting. Any particular reason why? | ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
On August 08 2010 12:11 OneFierceZealot wrote: i heard this one song this one time and it was ok. i changed stations and listened to two songs in a row. i came back to first station and the one song was still playing. it was by metallica. im assuming half of their songs could be a good minute to two minutes shorter. there is no reason for a band to have 6+ minute long songs. Early on, Metallica was not typical pop music at all, DrH is right, they were trying to do something closer to Rush. Also, a surprising amount of their songs are leftist politically with their lyrics. I tend to skip the anti-soldier ones such as "One". | ||
|
FragKrag
United States11566 Posts
what are you talking about | ||
|
Pufftrees
2449 Posts
| ||
|
Revolt
United States288 Posts
i don't even like enter the sandman. | ||
|
WniO
United States2706 Posts
On August 08 2010 12:13 DoctorHelvetica wrote: Do you really believe that is inappropriate in any context? You should take a look at some of progressive rock's epics. Rush's 2112, Yes' Close to the Edge, Jethro Tull's Thick as a Brick, etc. Plenty of songs have a lot to get across and 5 or less minutes just doesn't cut it. Especially for music as complex as progressive. Regardless of what I think of Metallica personally, they were a talented group that made fairly complex music for their genre and I don't think they dragged those songs out. I couldn't imagine what a 4 minute Close to the Edge would sound like. What a limited way of seeing music. nope. just listened to the start of 2112. that first fucking minute could be scrapped. i know they had fun with some synthesizers... then when the actual music starts it takes another thirty seconds to get somewhere. the song shoulda started at 1:30. there is no point to have that first bullshit. most of the problems songs have that last longer than 6 minutes is that they are very repetitive and stop and start waaaay to often. 2112 seems like backstage rehearsal or something. what they shoulda did is just take the best parts and build off that. because as it stands there is just too much bullshit to listen to. | ||
|
news
892 Posts
| ||
|
blabber
United States4448 Posts
On August 08 2010 12:28 Revolt wrote: ac/dc and metallica are bland. i don't even like enter the sandman. I think most people don't like Enter Sandman. I have no idea why it gets the most attention though | ||
|
Revolt
United States288 Posts
On August 08 2010 12:13 DoctorHelvetica wrote: Do you really believe that is inappropriate in any context? You should take a look at some of progressive rock's epics. Rush's 2112, Yes' Close to the Edge, Jethro Tull's Thick as a Brick, etc. Plenty of songs have a lot to get across and 5 or less minutes just doesn't cut it. Especially for music as complex as progressive. Regardless of what I think of Metallica personally, they were a talented group that made fairly complex music for their genre and I don't think they dragged those songs out. I couldn't imagine what a 4 minute Close to the Edge would sound like. What a limited way of seeing music. http://www.cracked.com/article_18500_the-5-most-famous-musicians-who-are-thieving-bastards.html talented is far reaching from what they really are. in my opinion, a concrete one in which i tried my best to like metallica, is that they are too banal, nothing new from any other heavy metal band. each song sounds like the last, doesn't go with anything. music**** give a kind of sentiment that makes you think of said song at a familiar time, metallica doesn't have this, in which chase they're nothing special. they shouldve died out so long ago. | ||
|
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
On August 08 2010 12:30 OneFierceZealot wrote: nope. just listened to the start of 2112. that first fucking minute could be scrapped. i know they had fun with some synthesizers... then when the actual music starts it takes another thirty seconds to get somewhere. the song shoulda started at 1:30. there is no point to have that first bullshit. most of the problems songs have that last longer than 6 minutes is that they are very repetitive and stop and start waaaay to often. 2112 seems like backstage rehearsal or something. what they shoulda did is just take the best parts and build off that. because as it stands there is just too much bullshit to listen to. : / I can't get anywhere near seeing music the same way you do. Music doesn't have a point, it's point is to express whatever the artist intends it to express whether it's concise or not. You seem to be putting it in pretty objective terms though. | ||
|
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
On August 08 2010 12:23 jalstar wrote: Early on, Metallica was not typical pop music at all, DrH is right, they were trying to do something closer to Rush. Also, a surprising amount of their songs are leftist politically with their lyrics. I tend to skip the anti-soldier ones such as "One". One isn't an anti-soldier song. One is about a movie in which a soldier is completely comatose without limbs and can only communicate through eye blinks. Disposable Heroes isn't an anti-solider song either although it is anti-war, the song seems to reference the vietnam war specifically. Metallica isn't anywhere near the talent level of Rush. Rush's material from 1980 onward is "poppier" than anything Metallica has ever done, discounting albums made from 1975-1978. | ||
|
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
On August 08 2010 12:23 mykyoyo wrote: These days, I feel like too many Metallica songs drag on and on. There's only so much palm muted fifths that I really want to listen to in between actual guitar riffs. And a big laugh at Lars' drumming. That's pretty interesting. Any particular reason why? Boring and generic. I can see why people liked them but they're the epitome of derivative blues rock. Shallow meaningless lyrics with a dime a dozen blues riffs played with zero intensity and what comes across as devoid of emotion or "heart" (whatever that means) doesn't make for a musical experience that I enjoy. To each their own, I should have said something along the lines of "I really dislike AC/DC" since this is all subjective anyway. | ||
|
Divinek
Canada4045 Posts
however i dont agree with the rest of it, especially the if not for ac/cd comment lol they're not very good by many standards | ||
|
deth
Australia1757 Posts
On August 08 2010 12:11 OneFierceZealot wrote: i heard this one song this one time and it was ok. i changed stations and listened to two songs in a row. i came back to first station and the one song was still playing. it was by metallica. im assuming half of their songs could be a good minute to two minutes shorter. there is no reason for a band to have 6+ minute long songs. ever heard of progressive metal/rock? I dare you to listen to Dream Theater's "Octavarium", Redemption's "Black and White World", or Devin Townsend's "The Death of Music" and make this argument again. Your view on music is clearly uninformed. | ||
|
mmp
United States2130 Posts
And folks who think an 8 minute song is too long need to pop some Ritalin and s l o w d o w n. Get this kid some Justin Timberlake and CRY ME A FUCKIN RIVER. Fade to Black may be one of best metal songs ever... | ||
| ||
