Death Magnetic is awesome!

IMO, the only good thing about DM is that it's better then St Anger.

I haven't revisited this album in over a year and a half.

stepcousin wrote:

I havent liked any original material by Metallica since the Black Album but I like Death Magnetic alot. I don't love it like the 80's stuff but it seems to be a step in the right direction for them.

+1. this is also my opinion 100%. I also think that the next album will be better.

metalinmyveins wrote:

I can't argue with that at all...The only thing that I might be able to say regarding DIO would be this: I feel like he was unceremoniously tossed in with the rest of the L.A metal scene in the 80's.

Maybe. I gather that a lot of the problem is that when his solo band failed to continue to generate hits like Rainbow in the Dark, people went back and began thinking of him as "that other Black Sabbath singer" and eventually he sort of got dismissed as the poor man's Ozzy. "Did Dio sing Paranoid? No? Alright then!"

My wife and I had some company over awhile back and one of them happened to be a musician, very mainstream in his musical tastes. He looked over at our cd collection and took note of all the metal I had and said he thought Slayer was cool, he thought the amount of Iron Maiden I had was "interesting", but when he saw the Dio albums he just started laughing. No matter how much I argued about it, the idea of someone liking Dio as anything other than ironic kitschy music was completely alien to him.

sheets wrote:

My wife and I had some company over awhile back and one of them happened to be a musician, very mainstream in his musical tastes. He looked over at our cd collection and took note of all the metal I had and said he thought Slayer was cool, he thought the amount of Iron Maiden I had was "interesting", but when he saw the Dio albums he just started laughing. No matter how much I argued about it, the idea of someone liking Dio as anything other than ironic kitschy music was completely alien to him.

I hope you broke a bottle over that guy's head.

Dio was short and didn't look "cool" and as sad as it is people mainly judge music based on superficial criteria.

sheets wrote:

metalinmyveins wrote:

I can't argue with that at all...The only thing that I might be able to say regarding DIO would be this: I feel like he was unceremoniously tossed in with the rest of the L.A metal scene in the 80's.

Maybe. I gather that a lot of the problem is that when his solo band failed to continue to generate hits like Rainbow in the Dark, people went back and began thinking of him as "that other Black Sabbath singer" and eventually he sort of got dismissed as the poor man's Ozzy. "Did Dio sing Paranoid? No? Alright then!"

My wife and I had some company over awhile back and one of them happened to be a musician, very mainstream in his musical tastes. He looked over at our cd collection and took note of all the metal I had and said he thought Slayer was cool, he thought the amount of Iron Maiden I had was "interesting", but when he saw the Dio albums he just started laughing. No matter how much I argued about it, the idea of someone liking Dio as anything other than ironic kitschy music was completely alien to him.

I hope you kicked his ass!!!!!!!!!!!

Ha, I notice you said company and not friends.

Ha! We had some friends over and some of them brought their spouses. He was one of the spouses. As much as I might have wanted to kick his ass, I kept it civil and mostly just settled for laughing just as hard at him when he started going on about what a fantastic songwriter Lady Gaga is.

sheets wrote:

Ha! We had some friends over and some of them brought their spouses. He was one of the spouses. As much as I might have wanted to kick his ass, I kept it civil and mostly just settled for laughing just as hard at him when he started going on about what a fantastic songwriter Lady Gaga is.

I have no issue with Lady Gaga, all I know is her antics not her music, but he is comparing a woman who's career is as short as her audience's attention span to an artist who's had over a 40 year career, that even those dumbass's at Rolling Stone acknowledged, who's had a series of gold and platinum albums in the 70's, 80's, 90's and 2000's, I hate musical snobs like that jerk off.

Quote :

a woman who's career is as short as her audience's attention span

People said the same thing about Madonna in the 80s...

Back to the topic at hand, like Isoar said...

DM has that "cut and paste" sound. Music should flow

The arrangements are terrible.

DEATH MAGNETIC is a good album.


It's not a great album, but it is a good one.

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Quote :

a woman who's career is as short as her audience's attention span

People said the same thing about Madonna in the 80s...

Maybe but you could tell Madonna is bright plus she has sense of humor, and she grew as an artist as her audience grew older, huge leap (artistic wise) from 'Like a Virgin' to 'Like a Prayer', maybe Lady Gaga will manage to do the same, I have no idea since I really do not know her music, but my point was a dickweed being an snob about an artist that he probably never took two seconds to listen to and comparing his career to Gaga's is pure horsesh!t.

I like it. I even like "The Unforgiven III", although it's inclusion on this particular album does seem out of place.

I've never listened to it.

skullkrusher wrote:

DEATH MAGNETIC is a good album.


It's not a great album, but it is a good one.

I sure hope the next one will be much better. A real thrash platter.

Gilbert wrote:

skullkrusher wrote:

DEATH MAGNETIC is a good album.


It's not a great album, but it is a good one.

I sure hope the next one will be much better. A real thrash platter.

Oh stop it, will you! How heavy and aggressive do they have to get before it pleases you? Maybe Death Magnetic wasn't all-out thrash, but christ it was HEAVY METAL! And it was awesome metal, if you ask me - Better than almost anything that bands like Slayer have put out, IMHO. Death Magnetic is an awesome album - It's heavy, melodic and has that awesome Metallica songwriting - it can't touch the magic of the classics maybe, but it doesn't have to - 7,5/10 from me

When the album first came out I thought and still think it was best thing the band did in 20 years, my main complaint of the album was that Guitar Hero version sounded better then the actual CD and 'Unforgiven III' is a turd fest.

I think "awesome" is probably overstating it a little bit. It's decent enough I suppose, the arrangements are terrible, which has already been mentioned. Many people complain that it sounds distorted and has a ton of odd sound artifacts left over from the recording process, which is more evidence for the cut-and-paste Pro-Tools method of recording. Doesn't seem like bands want to put the effort into getting one good solid take all the way through the song anymore. I haven't liked anything since the black album anyway so this really is nothing I'm too excited about.

manny wrote:

my main complaint of the album was that Guitar Hero version sounded better then the actual CD and 'Unforgiven III' is a turd fest.

That's pretty much all I also would have to say.

Was very impressed when it was released , maybe because the live concert radio tape from the UK that showed the new material sounded good, not just in the studio.

Mglaffas81 wrote:

Oh stop it, will you! How heavy and aggressive do they have to get before it pleases you? Maybe Death Magnetic wasn't all-out thrash, but christ it was HEAVY METAL!

Yeah, I have to say that I was never really invested in Metallica as a THRASH band. I just thought they were a really good heavy metal band. I like their music. Whether it's thrash or not makes no difference to me

bassman wrote:

Many people complain that it sounds distorted and has a ton of odd sound artifacts left over from the recording process, which is more evidence for the cut-and-paste Pro-Tools method of recording. Doesn't seem like bands want to put the effort into getting one good solid take all the way through the song anymore.

The problem was with the mastering, not the recording. They limited the mix like crazy prior to sending it to be mastered, then they compressed it again in the mastering process, pushing it into digital clipping. Tied for 1st place as the worst mastering job with Vapor Trails by Rush.

Very few bands do "complete takes" any longer, it's too expensive to record over and over again to get a perfect take, so you take the good sections and piece them together to save time and money. Of course Metallica could afford to do whatever they want, but that's become the commonplace method for many bands. Digital recording and non-linear editing basically changed the entire process...whether it was a good change or not is a matter of debate.

This is kind of a touchy subject for me so I'll try not to get too crazy. I try for one good take when I'm in the studio and I know I'm not the best musician in the world. I think that a professional musician should be able to go in and record without needing to fix a bunch of mistakes. Pro-Tools is great and makes it a lot easier to fix mistakes when they happen, I just hate it when a song is so obviously made up of bits and pieces that have been stuck together to form a finished product.

I like Death Magnetic quite a lot and it's definitely as most said the best work Metallica released since the Black Album. I don't mind the Loads as they do have some very good moments for what they are worth - they are not thrash metal albums and some may even argue they are not even metal albums but you have to hand it to them for creating something that sounds unique and different for Metallica.

Death Magnetic is definitely a return to a heavier Metallica and while the album has production flaws, the songs really shine in a live setting. Having seen Metallica twice on the Death Magnetic tour I can definitely attest to DM songs sounds heavier, faster and overall better live.

Metallica is a live band after all. If you get them on a really good night they'll play the songs, especially the newer songs, even better than the way they sound on the record. In a sense they always try to improve upon their material in the live setting. Older fans may and will complain about how the older songs sound live but I have never had a problem with it.

Unfortunately it has become very fashionable to hate on Metallica. "true metalheads" whatever they are supposed to be, love spewing their dislike for Metallica altogether or for what they perceive the band has become. I never understood it - if you only like a band up to a point then just stick with those albums, if you don't like the band at all then move on to bands you do care about rather than waste time on stuff you don't care about.

Ironically this could have happened to any other band as popular as Metallica. It just so happens that Metallica became more famous, more popular than most other bands. More power to them. Anyone who tells you they would rather be underground are either lying or they are total morons.

If you had the chance to become as big as Metallica and you didn't take it - seriously, check yourself in...

So people will hate because it's a natural expression - envying what another person has is something so primal and will happen no matter what or who is involved.

Still I really admire Metallica and their success. I wish more bands had what Metallica has and maybe some will in the future but theirs is definitely a success story that most metal bands I think would love to have under their names.