New Metallica Song -- new album/tour in 2023

Such a polarizing band. I'm sure I'll pick this one up at some point. I haven't bought a Metallica release brand new in a long time.

nevermore wrote:

Troublezone wrote:

Out of the songs released thus far, I like this title track the best.

Same here.

Same here as well. Good track .

I’ve been hearing the songs on the satellite radio channels and these songs are starting to sound better every time I hear them!

At least Kirk is putting more effort into his playing compared to most of his post Black album output.

Yep, just heard another song. I officially think I will like this album. The vocals and riffs are better than the last two albums. I may end up ranking this after Justice. Or at least tied with the Black Album.

*edit*

I’ve changed my opinion. I rank Death Magnetic slightly above 72 Seasons, but it’s almost a tie. The new album is surprisingly good for very wealthy old guys that are not in their prime with an unstoppable drive to succeed. Maybe Hetfield’s divorce sparked some emotions…

I listened to the entire album. It may not be their magnum opus, but for a bunch of guys in their late 50s/early 60s, this is really damn good.

I saw it at Target today for $14.99 but couldn't pull the trigger on it. I'll get it eventually

A friend told me (and I agree) that 72 Seasons is better than Hardwired, but not as good as Death Magnetic. The reason being for me is that DM has some speedy riffs and an overall darker feel. The new album is a close second.

007 wrote:

I saw it at Target today for $14.99 but couldn't pull the trigger on it. I'll get it eventually

I’m about to head out tonight and see if any copies are on the shelf.

It’s just $12.97 on Amazon. I decided to buy it there and added GNR’s Use Your Illusion II (Remastered) to qualify for free shipping.

I figure that Amazon has the best return policy if something is wrong with the disc. Target has it advertised for $9.99 (if you purchase online for in store pickup). Unfortunately they tack on a “bag fee” and after taxes, it’s almost as much as the Amazon price.

OK, so I did the predictable thing on Friday after work - I took a drive out to Target and picked up 72 Seasons. Once a fanboy, always a fan boy.

...I've spun it four or five times since then and honestly, aside from "Lux Eterna" (or however you spell it), nothin' has really stuck with me. It sounds fine while it's playing, it just goes in one ear and out the other.

I have a feeling that once the "newness" wears off in a week or two, I'm gonna put the CD on the shelf and I'll forget that it exists.

Instead of stopping at Target, I should've driven the few extra miles to the local "cool" record store and gotten the new Overkill instead...

I saw it today on a pawn shop shelve next to the other cd's they sling for a buck a pop. Still did not buy it.

James B. wrote:

I saw it today on a pawn shop shelve next to the other cd's they sling for a buck a pop. Still did not buy it.

How about 72 cents?

No biggie… they’ll get over it.

If someone is already on the fence about any new Metallica… why buy it? Almost everyone has internet access and can hear the whole thing beforehand. To think some bonehead shelled out the cash and then immediately sold it to a pawn shop for a loss is stupid. They just put money in Metallica’s bank accounts.

Also people are very knee jerk reactionaries. If it doesn’t connect right away or after 5 spins, it’s gone. I’ve learned that it’s better to hold on to something because some years down the road you might change your mind and end re-buying it again. I’ve done that in the past. But at least I’ve learned. With that said… there is a few times you come across an album that is hopeless/unredeemable aka “pure shit”.

The problem Metallica created for themselves is that they raised the bar really high early in the career. They basically peaked in 1986. Everything they’ve done since then will be compared to the unrealistic hope they can somehow recapture some of that magic.

I think what they’re doing now is good. At least Hetfield’s riffs are pretty solid. His voice is shot and Lars has the worst taste in drum tones, but overall I think they’ve improved a lot since St Anger. To be fair… even Megadeth’s last album barely had any kind of memorable hooks (especially the vocals). It was impressive technically, but not memorable.

Troublezone wrote:

To think some bonehead shelled out the cash and then immediately sold it to a pawn shop for a loss is stupid. They just put money in Metallica’s bank accounts.  

Reality is more along the lines that some bonehead stole the CD and some other shit, sold it to the Pawn Shop, and hit the dealer or the beer store?

Hey TZ...

You moonlighting in Metallica's Message Board PR Dept.?

(IMHDO) When a band is riding the coattails of their past mega-success and continue to flounder in attempts to put that lightning back in the bottle musically, it shows.

Hypothetically, say a band that was not Metallica put out this "72 Seasons" album. Would it get the same exposure, the same love, or the same hate that Metallica is currently getting?  Afterall, the band name (regardless) should always be secondary to the music.

My

James B. wrote:

Troublezone wrote:

To think some bonehead shelled out the cash and then immediately sold it to a pawn shop for a loss is stupid. They just put money in Metallica’s bank accounts.  

Reality is more along the lines that some bonehead stole the CD and some other shit, sold it to the Pawn Shop, and hit the dealer or the beer store?

You’d be surprised. Nice theory though…

James B. wrote:

Hey TZ...

You moonlighting in Metallica's Message Board PR Dept.?

Not really… but I wouldn’t mind getting some of that Metallica payroll.

I was actually leaning negative about this album early on. I changed my mind.

James B. wrote:

(IMHDO) When a band is riding the coattails of their past mega-success and continue to flounder in attempts to put that lightning back in the bottle musically, it shows.

Hypothetically, say a band that was not Metallica put out this "72 Seasons" album. Would it get the same exposure, the same love, or the same hate that Metallica is currently getting?  Afterall, the band name (regardless) should always be secondary to the music.

My

That’s why I said they raised the bar too high early in. They’ll never recapture that early magic. But the haters don’t cut the geezers any slack. Buy it, or don’t… whatever.

I might be in the minority but I really enjoy 72 Seasons. There are probably two or three songs too many, but most of it is solid.

Troublezone wrote:

That’s why I said they raised the bar too high early in. They’ll never recapture that early magic. But the haters don’t cut the geezers any slack. Buy it, or don’t… whatever.

Interestingly enough... My comment was about "mega-success" and again you bring up their "creative apex" or whatever. They rarely coincide  together due to the subjective nature of what is good or bad. Not to mention, most bands that do become big sellers, usually go downhill afterwards. The pace of it being slow or fast depends on factors that have little to do with the quality of the music being good or bad. Shitty albums can sell zillions & the best music ever written, recorded and/or played can remain in the dark, lonely garage where it was created.

Calling others "haters" cause they do not care to pursue listening to a band that has been putting out music they think "sucks @$$" since the late 80's early 90's (whichever applies) is so millennial of you

Guess what? I did buy something once and ended up "hating on it" way back in the latter months of 1988. The irony of it being Metallica is so delicious.

James B. wrote:

Troublezone wrote:

That’s why I said they raised the bar too high early in. They’ll never recapture that early magic. But the haters don’t cut the geezers any slack. Buy it, or don’t… whatever.

Interestingly enough... My comment was about "mega-success" and again you bring up their "creative apex" or whatever. They rarely coincide  together due to the subjective nature of what is good or bad. Not to mention, most bands that do become big sellers, usually go downhill afterwards. The pace of it being slow or fast depends on factors that have little to do with the quality of the music being good or bad. Shitty albums can sell zillions & the best music ever written, recorded and/or played can remain in the dark, lonely garage where it was created.

Calling others "haters" cause they do not care to pursue listening to a band that has been putting out music they think "sucks @$$" since the late 80's early 90's (whichever applies) is so millennial of you

Guess what? I did buy something once and ended up "hating on it" way back in the latter months of 1988. The irony of it being Metallica is so delicious.

So what is the correct terminology to use? I don’t want to offend you (in this day and age).

Any “old timey” jargon you can approve for me? I’m not sure you’d qualify as a “constructive critic” when your words are: ”they suck ass”…

I was using "sucks ass" in the 70's. It was yelled very loudly at an Aerosmith gig in 1978. Will not here be say anything bad about early Aerosmith records, but that concert sucked some serious @$$. They should have changed the stadium name to Salad Bowl.

Let’s talk about the color scheme choice and packaging. Are Metallica closet Stryper fans?