The Metal Thread

[Senator Clay Davis]

Depends on how you want to view impressive. It's technically extremely fast drumming, but the drumming pattern itself isn't overly complex. Dave Lombardo for instance says drumming for Fantomas is more difficult than drumming for Slayer, not because it's more phsycially demanding (it's not) but because he has to drum more with feel and touch and not just balls to the wall speed metal. Lars drumming style is indeed based more on physical challenge than technical challenge.

[3 Justin 3]

For those defending Metallica, which I'm fine with, can you list me other bands that you find good. Just to get a grasp as to why so many people think Metallica is such a good band.

Lars may have been a good drummer at one point, but that point was over two decades ago; and I'm not saying Hammett is a bad guitarist, he just isn't the god like being many people think he is. There are a LOT better guitarists in the world that people haven't heard of. Jari Maenpaa is much better, but I doubt anyone has heard of him.

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Metallica has no business being in a Metal thread in this day and age. They have not been Metal since And Justice For All.

Just because they haven't been able to top Justice and made the Loads doesn't mean they haven't done anything Metal since. Death Magnetic turned alot of fans who stopped liking them after the 80s back into fans so they must have done something right.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by 3 Justin 3

For those defending Metallica, which I'm fine with, can you list me other bands that you find good. Just to get a grasp as to why so many people think Metallica is such a good band.

Lars may have been a good drummer at one point, but that point was over two decades ago; and I'm not saying Hammett is a bad guitarist, he just isn't the god like being many people think he is. There are a LOT better guitarists in the world that people haven't heard of. Jari Maenpaa is much better, but I doubt anyone has heard of him.

i'm not saying they are good, i'm saying they were good and to attribute their success solely to Hetfield is wrong. they pretty much invented thrash metal in the early 80's, and their first 4 albums are among the best metal albums of all time. ya they sold out and commercialized their sound, but that doesn't mean you can write off how influential they were and say that they rode the coattails of one guy

[Itse]

I actually very recently heard Metallica live at Sonisphere in Helsinki.

First time for me to see Metallica and generally a bit of a disappointment, although I get that they're old by now. (That said, a lot of metal bands are ancient and most of them are just fine.)

Hetfield was even surprisingly charismatic and can actually put some emotion into his playing, but the rest of the guys, meh. However, I'll give them some slack because Ulrich was really bad at times and it's really hard to keep a good groove if the drummer can't keep up.

Maybe he needs to train harder physically or to hone his technique to be more efficient, but in any case he just simply couldn't do the tough parts, especially if there was a need for a longer steady beat. He just didn't seem very fit for a drummer, especially a metal drummer.

I would guess that he's simply not working hard enough considering his age. The other option is that he's pretty much gone deaf.

In any case certainly he certainly couldn't do their classic albums anymore.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by 3 Justin 3

I'm not saying Hammett is a bad guitarist, he just isn't the god like being many people think he is.

I'm just sticking up for the good ole pentatonic scale. I could care less what hyperbole a writer uses to describe Hammett.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

The greatest thing Metallica ever accomplished as a band was to cut loose Dave Mustaine which gave us the awesome gift of Megadeth.

In some ways though I of course wonder what Metallica would have sounded like with Dave and not Kirk. Or maybe James playing rhythm for Megadeth? Any combo not involving Lars or Kirk works.

[Nage Waza]

Kirk did great for Metallica, I would have loved to have heard a better drummer.

[vektor]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Depends on how you want to view impressive. It's technically extremely fast drumming, but the drumming pattern itself isn't overly complex. Dave Lombardo for instance says drumming for Fantomas is more difficult than drumming for Slayer, not because it's more phsycially demanding (it's not) but because he has to drum more with feel and touch and not just balls to the wall speed metal. Lars drumming style is indeed based more on physical challenge than technical challenge.

As someone who has played drums and guitar for more than a decade, metallica is not physically demanding. Lars is always sweaty because he's out of shape and or an alcoholic depending on what time you are viewing one of his performances. Metallica used to write good songs when they had Cliff Burton. Good songs that just so happened to be metal, now they don't have Cliff Burton so they kind of suck. That being said, the drumming was never hard, it is what you'd give a beginner to learn because it's so easy. I love early Metallica, some groundbreaking and memorable stuff, but not hard to play unless you are trying to play the fight fire with fire guitar solo or anything similar.

As for the Kirk vs. Dave debate, consider that the night Cliff Burton died he drew against Kirk for the top bunk and lost when he drew the ace of spades. Could've been Kirk who died and Metallica would have remained the powerhouse they were. People always forget that it was Cliff who wrote the backbone of the songs, he came up with the structure and general idea for a song and the rest just played along with him. He practiced 6 hours a day and the first 3 albums are really Cliff and friends (that begged Cliff to be in their band because without him they were nobodies).

[3 Justin 3]

Originally Posted by vektor

As someone who has played drums and guitar for more than a decade, metallica is not physically demanding. Lars is always sweaty because he's out of shape and or an alcoholic depending on what time you are viewing one of his performances. Metallica used to write good songs when they had Cliff Burton. Good songs that just so happened to be metal, now they don't have Cliff Burton so they kind of suck. That being said, the drumming was never hard, it is what you'd give a beginner to learn because it's so easy. I love early Metallica, some groundbreaking and memorable stuff, but not hard to play unless you are trying to play the fight fire with fire guitar solo or anything similar.

As for the Kirk vs. Dave debate, consider that the night Cliff Burton died he drew against Kirk for the top bunk and lost when he drew the ace of spades. Could've been Kirk who died and Metallica would have remained the powerhouse they were. People always forget that it was Cliff who wrote the backbone of the songs, he came up with the structure and general idea for a song and the rest just played along with him. He practiced 6 hours a day and the first 3 albums are really Cliff and friends (that begged Cliff to be in their band because without him they were nobodies).

Metallica has some hardish songs to play on the guitar. Damage, Inc. took me a day to learn the picking technique. Battery is tough for a beginner. Some of the parts on ..and Justice for All album are tough. Overall though, the guitar work really isn't that difficult. Also, Metallica can be physically demanding if you play it like Hetfield does (all downstrokes), gets tiring after a while if you were to play a 1-2 hour show like they would.

People who want tough guitar work should go play Opeth. Mikael is insane.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Inferno

Just because they haven't been able to top Justice and made the Loads doesn't mean they haven't done anything Metal since. Death Magnetic turned alot of fans who stopped liking them after the 80s back into fans so they must have done something right.

Death Magnetic was a joke, it was still weak as hell compared to their earlier stuff. You can't go back and find that sound once you have become so mainstream hard rock. Same with Korn, they released Remember Who You Are stating they were going back to their roots too and it was a big fail.

[Regular_John]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Death Magnetic was a joke, it was still weak as hell compared to their earlier stuff. You can't go back and find that sound once you have become so mainstream hard rock. Same with Korn, they released Remember Who You Are stating they were going back to their roots too and it was a big fail.

In all fairness Korn says "We're going back to our roots with this one" before every release.

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Death Magnetic was a joke, it was still weak as hell compared to their earlier stuff. You can't go back and find that sound once you have become so mainstream hard rock. Same with Korn, they released Remember Who You Are stating they were going back to their roots too and it was a big fail.

Like I said, they must have did something right if people who stopped liking them after the 80s liked it. Just because it's not MOP 2 doesn't make it a joke and anyone who expected it to be MOP 2 had their expectations set too high or just used it as an excuse to bash them. Think about any big named band out there in any genre who have been around just as long or longer than them. Their best stuff is from the first ten years.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Inferno

Like I said, they must have did something right if people who stopped liking them after the 80s liked it. Just because it's not MOP 2 doesn't make it a joke and anyone who expected it to be MOP 2 had their expectations set too high or just used it as an excuse to bash them. Think about any big named band out there in any genre who have been around just as long or longer than them. Their best stuff is from the first ten years.

Rush says hi.

[Puppet Guy]

just out of curiosity, for the fans who came back to Metallica after Death Magnetic, how did you feel about them after listening to Lulu?

[Puppet Guy]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Rush says hi.

Iron Maiden and Motorhead are at this party, too.

[Regular_John]

Originally Posted by Puppet Guy

just out of curiosity, for the fans who came back to Metallica after Death Magnetic, how did you feel about them after listening to Lulu?

Personally I didn't get what the big stink about LuLu was, it's not like it had a huge Metallica logo on the cover and then they opted to tour for 2 years behind it. Yes it was unlistenable tripe for the most part, but I don't recall the Metallica marketing machine pushing it as anything but a pet project and a chance to work with some one they respected.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Death Magnetic is in the eye of the beholder. If you listened to the awfulness of Load, Reload and St. Anger (and the eponymous album to a lesser extent), obviously you'd think Death Magnetic is a very good album. In the context of the entire bands career though, its simply a mediocre album that is saved by songs like All Nightmare Long and Cyanide. The last great piece of music from Metallica is Garage Inc. Disc 2 (1998), and of course thats mostly songs recorded in the 80s anyways.

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by Puppet Guy

Iron Maiden and Motorhead are at this party, too.

They were at their best when they were younger though. That's my point.

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by jaydorn

Personally I didn't get what the big stink about LuLu was, it's not like it had a huge Metallica logo on the cover and then they opted to tour for 2 years behind it. Yes it was unlistenable tripe for the most part, but I don't recall the Metallica marketing machine pushing it as anything but a pet project and a chance to work with some one they respected.

Yep, Lulu is a Lou Reed album with them being a supporting act. It's terrible because Lou sounds like a babbling drunk.