what do u think about Metallica? Watch

You Failed
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#41
Report 8 years ago
#41
(Original post by RabbitCFH)
RTL and Master are classic.



Uhhmmmm... but they did make them. It's like talking "If Slayer never made Reign In Blood, Hell Awaits, Show No Mercy, Seasons In The Abyss, Christ Illusion and South Of Heaven, they would be considered mediocre." It just doesn't make sense. Metallica made some of the best albums in the history of metal music, thus they're legends.
I said exactly that in my post, in fact the very line that starts where you finished quoting says "However they did..."

The thing is, while there first albums were great, they weren't consistent at all and their following albums were only average. They should definitely be given credit for those good albums but as a band overall, you can't just ignore all the average stuff they did as well.
0
reply
danadd9
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#42
Report 8 years ago
#42
I don't think they've evolved as a band, at all. Wondering why they haven't thrown in the towel yet.
0
reply
Devel
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#43
Report 8 years ago
#43
(Original post by You Failed)
Your point would be valid if they were just regarded as one of the best "Metal/Rock" bands, however they're regarded as one of the best "Thrash Metal" bands, so the fact that Load and Reload were only mediocre (if even) Thrash albums still stands. It doesn't matter if they were good Rock albums the fact is, they were mediocre thrash albums.
You are arguing that once an artist releases material in one genre then everything after that should rated in that genre? They can't be mediocre thrash albums because they are not thrash albums.
0
reply
dennisthe3rd
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#44
Report 8 years ago
#44
Over rated best band? seeeeeeeeeen
0
reply
JellyBean123
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#45
Report 8 years ago
#45
I quite like them. Im not an uber fan or anything, but Im happy to listen to them. I liked their S & M album.
0
reply
Devel
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#46
Report 8 years ago
#46
(Original post by danadd9)
I don't think they've evolved as a band, at all. Wondering why they haven't thrown in the towel yet.
Last album debuted number one pretty much everywhere and followed by a huge world tour that is still going. No reason for them to stop.
0
reply
SeventhSonOfASeventhSon
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#47
Report 8 years ago
#47
I absolutely love metallica! :headbang: They are true musical geniuses, and are brilliant live! Master of puppets is, in my opinion their best album, and death magnetic would have to be second. Best song is either One or MOP.:yep:

However, Megadeth are wayy better. :awesome:
0
reply
A Cat
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#48
Report 8 years ago
#48
Creeping Death live in Moscow on youtube is one of the sickest live performances I've seen on the net
0
reply
SanityinVanity
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#49
Report 8 years ago
#49
Any band that made Four Horsemen are pretty epic in my view, but who cant say their latest stuff isn't a huge disspointment?
0
reply
danadd9
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#50
Report 8 years ago
#50
(Original post by Devel)
Last album debuted number one pretty much everywhere and followed by a huge world tour that is still going. No reason for them to stop.
The popularity of the album doesn't make it good though. It would've sold well regardless of its quality because it's fresh MTALLICA:woo:

I'm just saying they should stop dragging out their early success while they're ahead.
0
reply
HeliWolf
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#51
Report 8 years ago
#51
I'd rather listen to Megadeth.

But I do like certain songs of theirs. One (yeah, cliche, get stuffed) is epic for example.
0
reply
Devel
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#52
Report 8 years ago
#52
(Original post by danadd9)
The popularity of the album doesn't make it good though. It would've sold well regardless of its quality because it's fresh MTALLICA

I'm just saying they should stop dragging out their early success while they're ahead.
I never said it made it good but clearly people still enjoy their music and want to see them live.
0
reply
DCH
Badges: 0
#53
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#53
there are NO album or song i don't like :yep:
0
reply
You Failed
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#54
Report 8 years ago
#54
(Original post by Devel)
You are arguing that once an artist releases material in one genre then everything after that should rated in that genre? They can't be mediocre thrash albums because they are not thrash albums.
No I'm arguing that they're considered one of the greatest thrash metal bands, when in fact, only a few of their albums were actually good thrash metal and the rest was not. Sure the good ones were good and they deserve credit there but looking at the band as a whole and looking at all of their work, most of it is very poor for a 'Great thrash metal' band. Credit where credit is due and they certainly deserve a lot of credit for their first 4 albums, they produced 9 albums in total though, so over half of their albums were average at best and I don't think this should be ignored.

So taking this into account, I would certainly say they pioneered a lot of the thrash metal genre and for this they certainly deserve a good status in the music world, however, considering over HALF their material was very sub-par thrash metal, I wouldn't give them the title of "One of the best thrash metal bands" and in this repect they're very over-rated. Which is what I was originally saying. No where am I denying that they've done a lot for the genre, I'm just saying the band as a whole is over-rated with regards to thrash metal.
0
reply
mr eko
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#55
Report 8 years ago
#55
(Original post by You Failed)
No I'm arguing that they're considered one of the greatest thrash metal bands, when in fact, only a few of their albums were actually good thrash metal and the rest was not. Sure the good ones were good and they deserve credit there but looking at the band as a whole and looking at all of their work, most of it is very poor for a 'Great thrash metal' band. Credit where credit is due and they certainly deserve a lot of credit for their first 4 albums, they produced 9 albums in total though, so over half of their albums were average at best and I don't think this should be ignored.

So taking this into account, I would certainly say they pioneered a lot of the thrash metal genre and for this they certainly deserve a good status in the music world, however, considering over HALF their material was very sub-par thrash metal, I wouldn't give them the title of "One of the best thrash metal bands" and in this repect they're very over-rated. Which is what I was originally saying. No where am I denying that they've done a lot for the genre, I'm just saying the band as a whole is over-rated with regards to thrash metal.
You still don't understand. Over half their material ISN'T very sub-par thrash metal, because it just simply isn't that genre.

If you judge how much of an impact they had on thrash metal then you ignore the albums that weren't actually thrash . Do that and Metallica rank as high as any thrash band(highest imo).
0
reply
You Failed
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#56
Report 8 years ago
#56
(Original post by mr eko)
You still don't understand. Over half their material ISN'T very sub-par thrash metal, because it just simply isn't that genre.

If you judge how much of an impact they had on thrash metal then you ignore the albums that weren't actually thrash . Do that and Metallica rank as high as any thrash band(highest imo).
You can't just ignore over half their disography...If you were to that I could argue a whole load of bands possibly the greatest of their genre, just because they made one good album out of, I dunno, 20 bad ones. That sort of logic just isn't a sensible way to look at things.

See to me, if over half their disography isn't even thrash metal how can you even call them a thrash band? As far as I see it, in order for a band to fall into a certain category the majority of their music must also fall into that category as well...That's just following a logical chain though, personally, I would catagorise them as a thrash metal band but I think it outlines a certain distinction that I possibly haven't been making very clear.

I'm making a simple distinction between their good albums and the band as a whole. I agree with you, I think those 4 albums they made were among the best in Thrash Metal but what I'm saying is, looking at the band as whole, they aren't one of the best bands in thrash simply because the MAJORITY of their albums aren't thrash (Going with what you're saying anyway, I'd tend to be of the opinion that a few were technically thrash but just not very good thrash). I think to be classified as a great band, you have to be CONSISTENTLY good and that's where Metallica fall short.

I think they've made a few of the greatest albums in Thrash but I don't think they are one of the greatest bands in thrash, which is something that is commonly cited. Bands like Slayer, Megadeth and Testament have all produced consistently good thrash albums and to me, they're the best bands in the genre, Metallica just made a few great albums and the rest...well, it's average and this pulls the band as a whole down.
0
reply
Devel
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#57
Report 8 years ago
#57
(Original post by You Failed)
No I'm arguing that they're considered one of the greatest thrash metal bands, when in fact, only a few of their albums were actually good thrash metal and the rest was not. Sure the good ones were good and they deserve credit there but looking at the band as a whole and looking at all of their work, most of it is very poor for a 'Great thrash metal' band. Credit where credit is due and they certainly deserve a lot of credit for their first 4 albums, they produced 9 albums in total though, so over half of their albums were average at best and I don't think this should be ignored.

So taking this into account, I would certainly say they pioneered a lot of the thrash metal genre and for this they certainly deserve a good status in the music world, however, considering over HALF their material was very sub-par thrash metal, I wouldn't give them the title of "One of the best thrash metal bands" and in this repect they're very over-rated. Which is what I was originally saying. No where am I denying that they've done a lot for the genre, I'm just saying the band as a whole is over-rated with regards to thrash metal.
HOW CAN IT BE SUB-PAR THRASH METAL IF IT IS NOT THRASH METAL.
0
reply
You Failed
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#58
Report 8 years ago
#58
(Original post by Devel)
HOW CAN IT BE SUB-PAR THRASH METAL IF IT IS NOT THRASH METAL.
Read my last post.
0
reply
channy
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#59
Report 8 years ago
#59
From what I've heard of them (not much) - I didn't like, but hey, tha'ts just me. I'd rather listen to:



Or maybe even:



WAIT:

0
reply
Devel
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#60
Report 8 years ago
#60
(Original post by You Failed)
Read my last post.
The first four albums helped define a genre of music that emerged to a mass audience after their fifth album. The genre was Thrash metal although numerous other sub-genres can be found in their work. This is why they are one of the most important thrash bands of all time.

They could have then gone on to have Britney Spears as their singer if they wanted, it would not have taken away from what they had done.

Also you do seem to forget that releasing music is just one part of a band. They still play thrash metal in concert so they are still a thrash metal band.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

Remain (1384)
79.54%
Leave (356)
20.46%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise