All things Metallica

DakotaRogers wrote:

I'd also like to meet the person who actually anticipates the next album to be anything close to the greatness of their first four.

I mean, we all know that is 100% impossible.

A new album doesn't have to be one of the four greatest albums ever recorded, which is what their first four are. Despite the garbage contained from Load through St. Anger, things went on a definite upswing with Death Magnetic. That record is awesome. Nowhere near Kill, Ride, Master or Justice. But what is?

And "Lords of Summer". I am still obsessed with that tune. If a new album, whenever it arrives, is anywhere like that, I will be way into it. And if a new album never arrives...well, I'll still rock Kill, Ride, Master and Justice. And 10 of the 12 songs on the Black Album. And Garage Days (and Garage Inc). And Death Magnetic. And "Lords of Summer". And their Dio tribute medley. Plenty of Metallica to go around.

Boris2008 wrote:

I don't think I've ever seen the slightest bit of criticism when Iron Maiden steamroller through their never ending cycle of fan fleecing (those picture discs sold well, bet they will lap up the back catalogue on 180grm vinyl! $$$$ )

I've got the Metallica records in a format I'm happy with (the same goes for Iron Maiden) so I won't bother with these, but they aren't doing anything that just about every other major band does so I don't get the hate other than the fact that they suck a bit these days.

People on this board have compared Iron Maiden to Kiss when it comes to merchandising. I know this because I am one of them.

thejokeriv wrote:

S.D. wrote:

Witchfinder wrote:

I can't wait to hear those Metallica classics brickwalled to hell and back.  Ugh.

 

That was my first thought too.........

Audio issues aside, I'm starting to get tired of all the re-issues in general too. It's been done to death.

As far as Metallica goes, I imagine I'll stick with what I've got. It'll have to be something extraordinary to make me re-buy these albums.

The only reissue I'd care for is a remixed version of AJFA with Jason's presence, guitars instead of buzzsaws, and a real snare. Then perhaps I could actually enjoy listening to it. But when pigs fly etc etc.

MetalGuy71 wrote:

thejokeriv wrote:

S.D. wrote:

Witchfinder wrote:

I can't wait to hear those Metallica classics brickwalled to hell and back.  Ugh.

 

That was my first thought too.........

Audio issues aside, I'm starting to get tired of all the re-issues in general too. It's been done to death.

As far as Metallica goes, I imagine I'll stick with what I've got. It'll have to be something extraordinary to make me re-buy these albums.

Ditto

corplhicks wrote:

The only reissue I'd care for is a remixed version of AJFA with Jason's presence, guitars instead of buzzsaws, and a real snare. Then perhaps I could actually enjoy listening to it. But when pigs fly etc etc.

Ditto

http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/three-years-after-release-metallicas-lulu-has-yet-to-surpass-35000-in-u-s-sales/

Required Fields wrote:

http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/three-years-after-release-metallicas-lulu-has-yet-to-surpass-35000-in-u-s-sales/

I'm surprised 35 people bought it, let alone 35,000.

Witchfinder wrote:

Required Fields wrote:

http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/three-years-after-release-metallicas-lulu-has-yet-to-surpass-35000-in-u-s-sales/

I'm surprised 35 people bought it, let alone 35,000.  

I don't mind saying, I don't really think Lulu is bad.

I definitely get why it was not a hit. I don't really know what audience there is for a cross between the two artists, and one that doesn't sound much like their actually revered stuff to begin with.

Taking the most generalized lowest common denominator Metallica fan, the dude who still jams to Load and St. Anger regularly...that's Metallica's real current audience. I can't imagine someone like that getting into this record. And Lou Reed, after he peaked, his catalog is pretty spotty, though some good moments. But again, take the most generalized version of a Reed/Velvets fan...I can see only eye rolls when thinking of the king of the pre-Art Punks making a record with those knuckledraggers that did Enter Sandman.

But I kinda think the record is fun, and it's cool they did it. I wish they did it under the pre-record internet diminutive nickname of Loutallica though. That would've been funny.

Lulu may have been Metallica's lowest selling project ever, but at the same time it was probably the biggest seller Lou Reed had had in years.

Witchfinder wrote:

Required Fields wrote:

http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/three-years-after-release-metallicas-lulu-has-yet-to-surpass-35000-in-u-s-sales/

I'm surprised 35 people bought it, let alone 35,000.  

The article fails to mention that 34,671 of those were returned, traded or tossed within 3 days of purchase.

MetalGuy71 wrote:

S.D. wrote:

If Foo Fighters can do it...so can Metallica evidently.

Metallica will be performing a week-long residency on the Craig Ferguson show starting November 17th.  The celebration is a send-off for Craig, coinciding with his final week hosting The Late Late Show.  

http://www.vh1.com/music/tuner/2014-10-29/metallica-the-late-late-show-residency/

I look forward to watching their performances the next day on YouTube and posting them here for everyone to criticize

Metallica's performance of 'Hit the Lights' on The Late, Late Show.

MetalGuy71 wrote:

MetalGuy71 wrote:

S.D. wrote:

If Foo Fighters can do it...so can Metallica evidently.

Metallica will be performing a week-long residency on the Craig Ferguson show starting November 17th.  The celebration is a send-off for Craig, coinciding with his final week hosting The Late Late Show.  

http://www.vh1.com/music/tuner/2014-10-29/metallica-the-late-late-show-residency/

I look forward to watching their performances the next day on YouTube and posting them here for everyone to criticize

Metallica's performance of 'Hit the Lights' on The Late, Late Show.

Hetfield sounds awful.

Witchfinder wrote:

MetalGuy71 wrote:

MetalGuy71 wrote:

S.D. wrote:

If Foo Fighters can do it...so can Metallica evidently.

Metallica will be performing a week-long residency on the Craig Ferguson show starting November 17th.  The celebration is a send-off for Craig, coinciding with his final week hosting The Late Late Show.  

http://www.vh1.com/music/tuner/2014-10-29/metallica-the-late-late-show-residency/

I look forward to watching their performances the next day on YouTube and posting them here for everyone to criticize

Metallica's performance of 'Hit the Lights' on The Late, Late Show.

Hetfield sounds awful.

I'll have to play it again. I was distracted by Lars' trash can snare.

This is all you'll ever need to listen to from Lulu:

I'd buy that album in a heartbeat before I'd drop a dime on Lulu.

I love Lulu...not the music, it's a terrible album, but because it caused Metallica fanboys worldwide to blow a gasket...which I found supremely entertaining.

Late Late Show performance of 'For Whom the Bell Tolls'...

I didn't like Lulu (though I want to give it another listen as if it was a Lou album, not Metallica), but I have to say, it pissed off and divided people the way Metal Machine Music did back in the day, which proved to me that Lou went out on a high note.

LuLu is a disgrace!
If Metallica wanted to get all "artistic" they could have done it under a different name. Why attach an album like that with the likes of Kill 'em All, Ride the Lightning and Master of Puppets? Never thought i'd say this, but LuLu makes the Load albums sound great. Even St Anus sounds better, but not by much... I still hate that one too!
I guess when you get rich, you don't care about integrity anymore.

Troublezone wrote:

LuLu is a disgrace!
If Metallica wanted to get all "artistic" they could have done it under a different name. Why attach an album like that with the likes of Kill 'em All, Ride the Lightning and Master of Puppets? Never though i'd say this, but LuLu makes the Load albums sound great. Even St Anus sounds better, but not by much... I still hate that one too!
I guess when you get rich, you don't care about integrity anymore.

Metallica owns the rights to their name and can do whatever the hell they want with it. If the band truly wanted to record that album with Lou Reed that WAS integrity. Mindlessly recording variations of the same album over and over again just so you don't piss off your closed-minded fanbase is the worst kind of sell-out there is.

Plus, Metallica recording LuLu doesn't have any impact on their earlier catalog. Ride The Lightning didn't suddenly become a worse album because St. Anger or Lulu existed.

S.D. wrote:

Troublezone wrote:

LuLu is a disgrace!
If Metallica wanted to get all "artistic" they could have done it under a different name. Why attach an album like that with the likes of Kill 'em All, Ride the Lightning and Master of Puppets? Never though i'd say this, but LuLu makes the Load albums sound great. Even St Anus sounds better, but not by much... I still hate that one too!
I guess when you get rich, you don't care about integrity anymore.

Metallica owns the rights to their name and can do whatever the hell they want with it.  If the band truly wanted to record that album with Lou Reed that WAS integrity.  Mindlessly recording variations of the same album over and over again just so you don't piss off your closed-minded fanbase is the worst kind of sell-out there is.  

Plus, Metallica recording LuLu doesn't have any impact on their earlier catalog.  Ride The Lightning didn't suddenly become a worse album because St. Anger or Lulu existed.  

Of coarse they own the rights to their name (and can sh*t on it as well, if they choose). But it doesn't mean it's a good decision to record an album totally polar opposite of what their fanbase was built on. Just make sure you keep your same opinion if they make a rap-metal album. Imagine a band like Iron Maiden suddenly changing their songwriting style to something like Nickelback. It won't hurt their reputation or integrity, right?
Every album they did up to the Black album sounded different than the one before it. But they made small changes without drastically going to left field. The sellout comment is bogus. Staying true to your roots is selling out? So Ac/Dc and Motorhead are sellouts... (by your definition)

Depends on the band and the situation.  If the artist WANTS to do something different but chooses not to for fear of their fanbase not getting it...that's the very definition of selling out.  Compromising your art for greater commercial potential (or continued commercial potential).  

AC/DC, Motorhead, Overkill, etc...these are groups that I doubt are sitting around wanting to branch out stylistically, they do their thing, they do it VERY well.  I would never call them sellouts (the concept is laughable), because they are doing what they want to do and have always done exactly what they want to do and didn't give a F*ck what anyone else thought. But hey, if AC/DC decided to do an album of 50s style rock & roll songs I would be first in line to buy a copy.  

Let's say Iron Maiden decided to record a "Nickleback-style" album.  I wouldn't be interested in that...but I wouldn't suddenly cease to love the rest of their discography.  If that's what they wanted to do then they should do it.  I don't have to continue following them, but it doesn't in any way degrade or impact their earlier albums.

I just get irritated whenever I hear somebody on the internet bitch about a band saying something like "...they should have changed their name!".  Bullshit.  If the fans don't like how a band is evolving...then go find another f*cking band.

S.D. wrote:

Troublezone wrote:

LuLu is a disgrace!
If Metallica wanted to get all "artistic" they could have done it under a different name. Why attach an album like that with the likes of Kill 'em All, Ride the Lightning and Master of Puppets? Never though i'd say this, but LuLu makes the Load albums sound great. Even St Anus sounds better, but not by much... I still hate that one too!
I guess when you get rich, you don't care about integrity anymore.

Metallica owns the rights to their name and can do whatever the hell they want with it.  If the band truly wanted to record that album with Lou Reed that WAS integrity.  Mindlessly recording variations of the same album over and over again just so you don't piss off your closed-minded fanbase is the worst kind of sell-out there is.  

Plus, Metallica recording LuLu doesn't have any impact on their earlier catalog.  Ride The Lightning didn't suddenly become a worse album because St. Anger or Lulu existed.  

There's truth in this, but I'd approach it from a different angle.

"Selling out," at least as I understand it, would be something like a hair metal band adopting a grunge style and sound in '93 in spite of what built their fanbase is after. This is something contrary to the nature of the band and is only (we can assume) done to "build the brand" and "shift more units." Hence the term: sell out. It's a commercial move almost 100% and we can all think of bands that did this and came back from it - most of them thoroughly apologetic. Personally, I like when bands "sell out" because most of them are so BAD at it that they create something new and interesting in spite of themselves, but that's another thread.

Now, with Metallica, you can say "What the hell was that?" but there are two things I'd point out about Lulu:

1.) Lou Reed's last big selling album was in the 70s. I think New York did ok, but it was nowhere near his heyday as far as "units sold" unless I'm dramatically mistaken. Likewise, at the time, his most recent releases were a live recording of Metal Machine Music recorded with a modern orchestral ensemble (someone correct me if the layout was different, I never heard it) and a double album of songs and spoken word pieces based around the works of Edgar Allen Poe (which was F$%#ing BRILLIANT!). Point being, he was no big money name to shack up with to grow the brand!

2.) While it's not exactly musically challenging stuff, Metallica going back to the Cliff and Dave days had weird musical influences, even if only stuff the band members were passing around on mix tapes. The idea that they'd go and do something completely balls out artsy was kind of in the cards, but very few bands actually DO it. So, while I could think Lulu was a frozen turd on a stick, you have to cop to the fact that it was a gutsy move and a pretty sweet experiment to see from such an established (and one could even say kind of stagnant at this point with credibility) band. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any other established big name act has EVER from a position of reasonable success attempted such an outlandish experiment and RELEASED the thing. You could MAYBE look at the Old Vic shows The Who did while prepping to record Who's Next, but they backpedalled from the more grandiose aspects of Pete Townshend's Lifehouse idea, so that technically never got followed through with.

It's not musically the same animal, but I think the spirit of Metallica is more "alive" with Lulu than with most of the stuff they've been putting out post-Black album. It shows there's still some fire and still some drive to experiment outside of the committee of Metallica fans who assemble their set lists and dictate the sound of future albums. Remember, these were the "Metal Up Your Ass" guys. It's supposed to be a middle finger, even potentially to the fans. Who knew better about middle fingers than old Lou?

S.D. wrote:

Depends on the band and the situation.  If the artist WANTS to do something different but chooses not to for fear of their fanbase not getting it...that's the very definition of selling out.  Compromising your art for greater commercial potential (or continued commercial potential).  

AC/DC, Motorhead, Overkill, etc...these are groups that I doubt are sitting around wanting to branch out stylistically, they do their thing, they do it VERY well.  I would never call them sellouts (the concept is laughable), because they are doing what they want to do and have always done exactly what they want to do and didn't give a F*ck what anyone else thought. But hey, if AC/DC decided to do an album of 50s style rock & roll songs I would be first in line to buy a copy.  

Let's say Iron Maiden decided to record a "Nickleback-style" album.  I wouldn't be interested in that...but I wouldn't suddenly cease to love the rest of their discography.  If that's what they wanted to do then they should do it.  I don't have to continue following them, but it doesn't in any way degrade or impact their earlier albums.

I just get irritated whenever I hear somebody on the internet bitch about a band saying something like "...they should have changed their name!".  Bullshit.  If the fans don't like how a band is evolving...then go find another f*cking band.

I don't think they would be taking these odd ball risks if they weren't so confident in their loyal fans to eat up anything they throw at them. I guess LuLu backfired.