All things Metallica

Witchfinder wrote:

Painkiller wrote:

James B. wrote:

Sorry you took my comments about age as an insult to your knowledge. Don't get how you even think I was  underestimating anything ?  Just said that being there and seeing things as they happened holds more merit than reading about it. Pretty simple concept.   Which leads to saying that I am very passionate about things I took the time and effort to experience on a first hand basis, who wouldn't be.

The way you worded your posts gave me the impression that you were trying to talk down on me, as if you somehow held the key to "infinite wisdom". That's why I said whether you were around at the time or not is totally irrelevant. I've noticed a common theme with most older metalheads I've spoken to: they're stuck on a handful of mainstream bands that used to be pretty underground, and that's usually what they ever care to talk about. Unless they were also part of their local scene, the bands still left in the underground usually don't get much attention (except for mostly die-hard fans).

I still maintain that Metallica and Slayer were simply lucky to have been the ones to influence a new era. There were many other bands at the time that could have also fit the bill. Had Exodus not been so late to the party, they'd have been included as part of the Big Four, by far. You also had the likes of Sodom already making their mark circa 1982; had they somehow relocated themselves to the United States by 1983 or 1984, as well as being backed by a proper major label, I'm certainly positive they would have wiped out most of their peers in thrash metal. I'm a firm believer that there are so many possibilities that would and could have occurred, and that the music we know it today could have easily been turned around to another source of inspiration, thus creating new branches.

I normally try to stay out of these pissing matches, but this is dumb.  The facts are what the facts are.  Exodus couldn't get their shit together and didn't have a full length out until 1985.  Metallica sounded like no one else at the time and were revolutionary.  Their combination of speed, melody and accessibility propelled them to the top.  German thrash was essentially unknown in the States until the mid-80s and has never sold worth a damn here.  It was't going to change the world.  I know this because it didn't.

You chide older metalheads for being close-minded, yet you present yourself as some type of troo-steel warrior that is going to set us straight. Talk about close minded - check the mirror.  With all due respect, you need to understand the guys like myself, James B and others were listening to this stuff a decade before you were born.  We understand the context this music was born in.  Does that make us wiser than you? - no, but it is a different perspective than what you have.   In short - get over yourself.  This is a very respectful board and discussion is encouraged here, but try and respect the opinions of others. Frankly, your taste in music and mine are very similar, but I don't shit all over those who's tastes don't match mine.  Play nice.

Nailed it!

I agree with James and Witchfinder (neither of which are blind Metallica worshipers). As a kid in 1984, no one sounded like Metallica, not Raven, not Venom, not any of the other heavier bands of that time period.

They were able to combine, speed and aggression with some songwriting finesse. That is why the major labels chased after them and not Sodom, because Sodom, would not have broken out of the metal ghetto.

Love 'em, hate 'em or however you may feel, Metallica impact was felt then, and still felt today. Metallica was the heaviest band on a major label at the time, and their success paved the way for labels to throw the dice and gamble on heavier music.

German thrash is never as accsessible and melodic as its US variant. No way it could get bigger then, and also nowadays.

Witchfinder wrote:

You chide older metalheads for being close-minded, yet you present yourself as some type of troo-steel warrior that is going to set us straight. Talk about close minded - check the mirror.

Yes, just like all the "more-open-minded-than thou" warriors here.

Quote :

This is a very respectful board

False.

But yeah about the larger point here, Sodom would've never in a million years been as big as any of the top thrash bands because they simply didn't have the talent. Comparing them to METALLICA is cray-cray IMHO. Now if you had said ARTILLERY, you might've had a point although they openly admit they were influenced a lot by EXODUS and METALLICA.

Temple of Blood wrote:

Witchfinder wrote:

You chide older metalheads for being close-minded, yet you present yourself as some type of troo-steel warrior that is going to set us straight. Talk about close minded - check the mirror.

Yes, just like all the "more-open-minded-than thou" warriors here.

Quote :

This is a very respectful board

False.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't think we ever run afoul of each other and I try not to crap all over threads. I do agree that their are people on this board that claim to be open-minded, but are anything but.

The only major thrash act that i have known not to cite Metallica as an influence is Megadeth.

I'm not a blind Metallica nut either, I think that their last great album was 28 years ago, but to downplay their influence, and compare them with shitty neo thrash bands who play without any originality or conviction is ridiculous.

Btw, those who 'claim' to be open minded, or even have to really think about it usually aren't. I do know some genuinely open minded people, but not many.

Witchfinder wrote:

Temple of Blood wrote:

Witchfinder wrote:

You chide older metalheads for being close-minded, yet you present yourself as some type of troo-steel warrior that is going to set us straight. Talk about close minded - check the mirror.

Yes, just like all the "more-open-minded-than thou" warriors here.

Quote :

This is a very respectful board

False.

I'm sorry you feel that way.  I don't think we ever run afoul of each other and I try not to crap all over threads.  I do agree that their are people on this board that claim to be open-minded, but are anything but.  

This is an open-minded forum with a lot of respectful people. The problem is, ToB tends to take the negative approach to things, posting more about things he dislikes than things he likes, and that rubs people the wrong way. Unfortunately, that then manifests in attacks against him.

So while for most people this is a very positive forum, it certainly isn't for ToB.

.

So basically what you're saying is, you LOVE the music you listen to, but criticize others for loving the music they do? Got it...  

.

Painkiller wrote:

MetalRob331 wrote:

So basically what you're saying is, you LOVE the music you listen to, but criticize others for loving the music they do?  Got it...  

No, I focus on criticizing the music.

 
Congrats you were post 1000   

Painkiller wrote:

Witchfinder wrote:

Metallica sounded like no one else at the time and were revolutionary.  Their combination of speed, melody and accessibility propelled them to the top.  German thrash was essentially unknown in the States until the mid-80s and has never sold worth a damn here.  It was't going to change the world.  I know this because it didn't.

Metallica only got famous because they were one of the first bands to play this style, but like I said, the argument that a band is entitled to be "respected" -- simply for being one of the first -- is silly. There were many other bands that could have fit the bill.

Metallica never was an original band; they lifted their style heavily from Diamond Head and other NWOBHM bands. James Hetfield never could sing, Lars Ulrich never could drum, and Kirk Hammett's leads never did much for me -- too many "whaam-whaam" effects.

Witchfinder wrote:

You chide older metalheads for being close-minded, yet you present yourself as some type of troo-steel warrior that is going to set us straight. Talk about close minded - check the mirror.  With all due respect, you need to understand the guys like myself, James B and others were listening to this stuff a decade before you were born.

I just think a lot of older metalheads are stuck on these big bands, when there's presently so much better music out there for them to listen to. I know from experience that some older people I've talked to are obsessed with the Slayer concert they went to in 1986; times have changed, and Slayer's glory days are far behind them.

Witchfinder wrote:

In short - get over yourself.  This is a very respectful board and discussion is encouraged here, but try and respect the opinions of others. Frankly, your taste in music and mine are very similar, but I don't shit all over those whose tastes don't match mine.  Play nice.

I don't care what you like, but you need to understand that I'm also being civil in most of my posts. Some other people here tend to get pissed off over an indirect opinion, and then throw personal attacks (see: Eyesore).

I may post some heated opinions, but I only do it because of my huge passion for metal. I just don't like to settle for less.

Define "less." Does that mean something you don't like?

Your knowledge of older metalheads seems lacking.

Painkiller wrote:

MetalRob331 wrote:

So basically what you're saying is, you LOVE the music you listen to, but criticize others for loving the music they do?  Got it...  

No, I focus on criticizing the music.

really ?

Say James B. states "I love Hirax "

Then you say "nah they suck"  That is criticizing the music. No big deal. 

In reality you will say "Nay they suck" and then give a paragraph as how this is this, that is that, what older metal heads think, what older metal heads say, and what if's up the butt.  That changes semantics and the dynamic of what is being criticized.

In other words, when you elaborate to expound your position it takes the connotation from generalization to specifics, So when you state your opinion in this manner, your criticism also applies to those with a varied or opposite viewpoint.

The concept isn't always what you have to say but the way that you say it.

Painkiller wrote:

Some other people here tend to get pissed off over an indirect opinion, and then throw personal attacks

 The issue most have is your indirect opinions are given as if they are fact with  condescending blanket statements.

.

.

Painkiller wrote:

I don't care what you like, but you need to understand that I'm also being civil in most of my posts. Some other people here tend to get pissed off over an indirect opinion, and then throw personal attacks (see: Eyesore).

FYI: Pointing out your bullshit is not a personal attack.

Painkiller wrote:

Metallica only got famous because they were one of the first bands to play this style, but like I said, the argument that a band is entitled to be "respected" -- simply for being one of the first -- is silly. There were many other bands that could have fit the bill.

So, essentially, they got famous because they were pioneers of an entire new genre of music. If that doesn't deserve respect, then I can't think what does. It's one thing to master the execution of a style of music, but it's a whole other thing to be able to innovate.

Painkiller wrote:

Metallica never was an original band; they lifted their style heavily from Diamond Head and other NWOBHM bands. James Hetfield never could sing, Lars Ulrich never could drum, and Kirk Hammett's leads never did much for me -- too many "whaam-whaam" effects.

Again, I think this misses the point. By that token, Black Sabbath and Zeppelin were never original either - which is true to an extent, both bands were essentially extreme takes on the blues. But the difference is that they reapproriated what had come before them and synthesised it with a wealth of other influences. In the process, they made something new from elements of old.

There's nothing new under the sun, that's how any cultural art form works. Everything is a resequencing or what comes before it - originality comes from finding new ways to rearrange artistic elements, which Metallica definitely did.

Painkiller wrote:

James B. wrote:

Yeah Deathhammer helped define a new style of music 30 something years ago   
Without Metallica doing what they did, you'd have no Hellhammer today to be so  over.

I really hate this argument. If Metallica didn't "define" anything back then, someone else likely would have.

Hypothetically, yes, credit would have gone elsewhere. We could easily be paying homage to a "Big Four" consisting of Overkill, Dark Angel, Testament, and Exodus if things hadn't gone down like they did. They were all there in the early 80's, though Testament under a different name...

I haven't enjoyed anything from Metallica really since Justice, but definitely give them their due for being one of the pioneers of the style I can't get enough of. For me, they were a springboard really. When I was getting into metal, and thrash specifically, obviously me and my mates started with Metallica, Megadeth, etc in the late 80's. Most of the guys stayed with the more well-known bands, but I started digging deeper. I'd look through the "Metal" section at the record shops, and if it had a cool cover, and crazy sounding song titles, I bought it. I would then browse through the "thank you's" in the liner notes and look for bands I saw listed there. I found a lot of cool shit I still listen to that way. Of course, I ran across my fair share of duds too....

Painkiller wrote:

I love how I made some Metallica fans angry, all over a very vague post.

"Wah, Deathhammer is just a retro band!"

Maybe they are a bit recent, but this shits all over even Metallica's "best":

You haven't made me angry, your ignorance is funny!   

Sooo, Deathhammer, erm well, they are okayish, sort of, but there isn't a millisecond of music on either  of those two tracks that I hadn't heard done a lot better by Sodom, Kreator, Slayer or Bathory by the time I was 15. So yes, they are just a retro band.

Smindas wrote:

Painkiller wrote:

Metallica only got famous because they were one of the first bands to play this style, but like I said, the argument that a band is entitled to be "respected" -- simply for being one of the first -- is silly. There were many other bands that could have fit the bill.

So, essentially, they got famous because they were pioneers of an entire new genre of music. If that doesn't deserve respect, then I can't think what does. It's one thing to master the execution of a style of music, but it's a whole other thing to be able to innovate.

It's an inability to separate your personal taste from it all. I don't like the Beatles at all, but I can respect what they did. I don't have to tear them down just to justify my dislike of their music.

My brother has a learning disability. He is unable to differentiate between beauty and attractiveness. If he doesn't find a woman attractive, she is ugly. He doesn't understand that though he may not find someone physically attractive, he can still see beauty. But no, he just continuously tells you she is ugly.

What's the difference?  

Smindas wrote:

Painkiller wrote:

Metallica never was an original band; they lifted their style heavily from Diamond Head and other NWOBHM bands. James Hetfield never could sing, Lars Ulrich never could drum, and Kirk Hammett's leads never did much for me -- too many "whaam-whaam" effects.

Again, I think this misses the point. By that token, Black Sabbath and Zeppelin were never original either - which is true to an extent, both bands were essentially extreme takes on the blues. But the difference is that they reapproriated what had come before them and synthesised it with a wealth of other influences. In the process, they made something new from elements of old.

There's nothing new under the sun, that's how any cultural art form works. Everything is a resequencing or what comes before it - originality comes from finding new ways to rearrange artistic elements, which Metallica definitely did.

Being influenced by something and "lifting" a style (i.e. stealing) are two entirely different things. Metallica might have been influenced by Diamond Head and NWOBHM, but they certainly never sounded like those bands.

.

.

Painkiller wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

Metallica might have been influenced by Diamond Head and NWOBHM, but they certainly never sounded like those bands.

They don't sound the same because Sean Harris is actually a real singer.

I win.

.