|
|
Post by Metallicanatic on Nov 19, 2016 21:02:31 GMT
In light of recent content on this board, I thought it might be interesting to discuss some of the ways that the current incarnation of Metallica is superior to past incarnations of the band. Obviously I'm not stating that, as a whole, the current version is superior to past versions, however, there are aspects of the band, as it is today, that I do think are superior to the Metallica of "the good ol' days".
For example, I'm a big fan of musical experimentation, and the current incarnation of the band seems much more willing to experiment with their sound than they were in the eighties.
Also, I feel that James has a superior knack for coming up with great vocal melodies as well.
Any other thoughts? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2016 21:06:01 GMT
tl;dr
|
|
|
|
Post by Zalman on Nov 19, 2016 21:07:03 GMT
I think James sounds better than ever.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2016 21:08:41 GMT
I think James sounds better than ever. Same. |
|
|
|
Post by suddendeth1320 on Nov 19, 2016 21:11:26 GMT
They have more guitars now
|
|
|
|
Post by ModerusPrime on Nov 19, 2016 21:13:15 GMT
I think dicks go in holes.
Would be silly if they didn't.
amirite?
I still have fond memories of 89-93 Metallica. I'm more into them now then ever, but those teen years, saving money months to get Live Shit, buying stuff for the first of many times, loved it.
|
|
|
|
Post by waunakonor on Nov 19, 2016 21:20:44 GMT
I think James sounds better than ever. He doesn't even sound better than he did in 2013... |
|
|
|
Post by ModerusPrime on Nov 19, 2016 21:25:28 GMT
He sounds better than 2013.
|
|
|
|
Post by waunakonor on Nov 19, 2016 21:55:02 GMT
Live? Or just in the studio?
|
|
|
|
Post by ModerusPrime on Nov 19, 2016 21:58:03 GMT
Both.
|
|
tribeleader
Members
Half Dead
Posts: 524
Location: Islamic Republic of China
|
Post by tribeleader on Nov 19, 2016 22:12:43 GMT
There is something missing in current metallica which could be seen in old metallica (I'm talking about before 2003).
Compare :
1) Vocals - He was screaming all the time , if not at least trying get the same melody , nowadays because of James' age , he cannot do clean vocals like he used to do in late 90s or fear of blowing his voice out again , he can't do full screaming either (except 4 or 5 songs maybe)
2) Live sound - They used tube amps in 90s and due to that , sound was powerful. Current live sound is digital and doesn't do justice.
3) Kirk and Lars - I know Kirk has always been like that but in recent years , it got worse. Lars' technique is based on stamina, that's why he is lazy (if you can use that word) , he shouldn't tire himself or else he won't be able to play more than 4 or 5 songs on their live shows. In the 1990s , Lars was doing coke and it gave him extra energy also he was young and practising all day , he did knew he would've been fired if he didn't.
4) I know this is on purpose but their guitar tone is weak since 2003 because James is trying to get a rock band tone and sometimes it doesn't suit with Metallica's music style (at least before 90s , DM and Hardwired) .
5) Since 2003 (again) , overthought is what has been killing Metallica's writing process. Some songs' parts are way too repetitive , cut and paste.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2016 22:35:48 GMT
There is something missing in current metallica which could be seen in old metallica (I'm talking about before 2003). Compare : 1) Vocals - He was screaming all the time , if not at least trying get the same melody , nowadays because of James' age , he cannot do clean vocals like he used to do in late 90s or fear of blowing his voice out again , he can't do full screaming either (except 4 or 5 songs maybe) 2) Live sound - They used tube amps in 90s and due to that , sound was powerful. Current live sound is digital and doesn't do justice. 3) Kirk and Lars - I know Kirk has always been like that but in recent years , it got worse. Lars' technique is based on stamina, that's why he is lazy (if you can use that word) , he shouldn't tire himself or else he won't be able to play more than 4 or 5 songs on their live shows. In the 1990s , Lars was doing coke and it gave him extra energy also he was young and practising all day , he did knew he would've been fired if he didn't. 4) I know this is on purpose but their guitar tone is weak since 2003 because James is trying to get a rock band tone and sometimes it doesn't suit with Metallica's music style (at least before 90s , DM and Hardwired) . 5) Since 2003 (again) , overthought is what has been killing Metallica's writing process. Some songs' parts are way too repetitive , cut and paste. It doesn't help that Lars uses the heaviest sticks ever. I remember when I first started playing drums I bought some because I was a fan of him. It's like trying to play with a tree trunk... After using those and going back to wooden sticks it's night and day. |
|
|
|
Post by SicJes on Nov 19, 2016 23:44:24 GMT
I think they are all a bit deaf now, and they hear their sound differently then most others, unfortunately everyone working for them just goes along with what their boss says and demands.
I would kill to hear Metallica walk out onto another "metal" bands stage, pick up their gear and just start playing.
I've seen Metallica live so many times, and yes they crush it live when you are there. But I think that's due to the sheer volume they play at, and being there caught up in the moment.
On record, like Hardwired, they sound great, but they are still lacking that classic crunch we all love and miss. It just sounds muddy and twangy rather then that godly metal sound.
|
|
|
|
Post by spartanmcdoodle on Nov 20, 2016 0:17:31 GMT
There is something missing in current metallica which could be seen in old metallica (I'm talking about before 2003). Compare : 1) Vocals - He was screaming all the time , if not at least trying get the same melody , nowadays because of James' age , he cannot do clean vocals like he used to do in late 90s or fear of blowing his voice out again , he can't do full screaming either (except 4 or 5 songs maybe) 2) Live sound - They used tube amps in 90s and due to that , sound was powerful. Current live sound is digital and doesn't do justice. 3) Kirk and Lars - I know Kirk has always been like that but in recent years , it got worse. Lars' technique is based on stamina, that's why he is lazy (if you can use that word) , he shouldn't tire himself or else he won't be able to play more than 4 or 5 songs on their live shows. In the 1990s , Lars was doing coke and it gave him extra energy also he was young and practising all day , he did knew he would've been fired if he didn't. 4) I know this is on purpose but their guitar tone is weak since 2003 because James is trying to get a rock band tone and sometimes it doesn't suit with Metallica's music style (at least before 90s , DM and Hardwired) . 5) Since 2003 (again) , overthought is what has been killing Metallica's writing process. Some songs' parts are way too repetitive , cut and paste. It doesn't help that Lars uses the heaviest sticks ever. I remember when I first started playing drums I bought some because I was a fan of him. It's like trying to play with a tree trunk... After using those and going back to wooden sticks it's night and day. If you've used those sticks you would know why he doesn't use a ride either... They sound like shit, like a baseball bat clanging on a frypan... They look good up in my bar though! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2016 0:20:03 GMT
It doesn't help that Lars uses the heaviest sticks ever. I remember when I first started playing drums I bought some because I was a fan of him. It's like trying to play with a tree trunk... After using those and going back to wooden sticks it's night and day. If you've used those sticks you would know why he doesn't use a ride either... They sound like shit, like a baseball bat clanging on a frypan... They look good up in my bar though! Yeah they are terrible. |
|
|
|
Post by Hero for an hour on Nov 20, 2016 0:32:36 GMT
It doesn't help that Lars uses the heaviest sticks ever. I remember when I first started playing drums I bought some because I was a fan of him. It's like trying to play with a tree trunk... After using those and going back to wooden sticks it's night and day. If you've used those sticks you would know why he doesn't use a ride either... They sound like shit, like a baseball bat clanging on a frypan... They look good up in my bar though! When he used a ride and the Ahead sticks live back then there was nothing wrong with that imo. They sounded fine. |
|
|
|
Post by Metallicanatic on Nov 20, 2016 1:24:59 GMT
Seems as though a few of you missed the point of the thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by suddendeth1320 on Nov 20, 2016 4:49:03 GMT
Heres the answer. They're better now because they have more songs than they did before!
|
|
|
|
Post by Harvester Of Magnets on Nov 20, 2016 5:10:58 GMT
Live, they don't hold a candle to the 80's. I saw them several times in the 80's; my first show had Cliff when they opened for Ozzy on the Puppets tour. They had an intensity back then that doesn't exist now. They peaked during the Damaged Justice tour (I'm sure my ears are still ringing from that Norfolk show in '89 LOL), and they're just not what they were in the 80s. Not that I wouldn't see them now (you're damn right I'm getting tickets whenever they come to Seattle!!); but they're a different live band these days.
|
|
|
|
Post by suddendeth1320 on Nov 20, 2016 6:04:54 GMT
Live, they don't hold a candle to the 80's. I saw them several times in the 80's; my first show had Cliff when they opened for Ozzy on the Puppets tour. They had an intensity back then that doesn't exist now. They peaked during the Damaged Justice tour (I'm sure my ears are still ringing from that Norfolk show in '89 LOL), and they're just not what they were in the 80s. Not that I wouldn't see them now (you're damn right I'm getting tickets whenever they come to Seattle!!); but they're a different live band these days. about those ozzy shows in the 80s. They HAD to give it their all because that was their big break. The only other time they had played a stadium show up to that point was when they played a day on the green. They wanted to outshine ozzy very badly. They only had about 40 minutes to show what they had and that was the tour that made them superstars. Everyone who walked out of one of those shows became a metallica fan. If you guys haven't read the back to the front book i highly recommend it. There is so many little tidbits revealed about the band and what was going on at the time that i never knew. Its very in depth. It even says what part of the bus hit cliff when it toppled over and theres a whole long story about that. Sorry i got off track. I just wanted to say why they went apeshit on that ozzy tour. My personal favorite concert they ever did was seattle 89 from live shit. Besides that my 3 favorites that i have personally seen was 98 in hartford with jerry cantrell, woodstock 99 and 2009 in NYC on the death magnetic tour. They played soo many good songs on the dm tour like dyers eve and the shortest straw. All i can really say is that regardless what year you've seen them in, when you're actually there and your adrenaline is pumping and everyone is into it this band amazingly still very much has it. So in my eyes, if you love the band there is no point in caring about WHEN they were the best you should be figuring out when the soonest time is you can get your ass as close as possible to them and watch them live so you can break your neck! |
|
|
|
Post by Harvester Of Magnets on Nov 20, 2016 6:18:33 GMT
Live, they don't hold a candle to the 80's. I saw them several times in the 80's; my first show had Cliff when they opened for Ozzy on the Puppets tour. They had an intensity back then that doesn't exist now. They peaked during the Damaged Justice tour (I'm sure my ears are still ringing from that Norfolk show in '89 LOL), and they're just not what they were in the 80s. Not that I wouldn't see them now (you're damn right I'm getting tickets whenever they come to Seattle!!); but they're a different live band these days. about those ozzy shows in the 80s. They HAD to give it their all because that was their big break. The only other time they had played a stadium show up to that point was when they played a day on the green. They wanted to outshine ozzy very badly. They only had about 40 minutes to show what they had and that was the tour that made them superstars. Everyone who walked out of one of those shows became a metallica fan. If you guys haven't read the back to the front book i highly recommend it. There is so many little tidbits revealed about the band and what was going on at the time that i never knew. Its very in depth. It even says what part of the bus hit cliff when it toppled over and theres a whole long story about that. Sorry i got off track. I just wanted to say why they went apeshit on that ozzy tour. My personal favorite concert they ever did was seattle 89 from live shit. Besides that my 3 favorites that i have personally seen was 98 in hartford with jerry cantrell, woodstock 99 and 2009 in NYC on the death magnetic tour. They played soo many good songs on the dm tour like dyers eve and the shortest straw. All i can really say is that regardless what year you've seen them in, when you're actually there and your adrenaline is pumping and everyone is into it this band amazingly still very much has it. So in my eyes, if you love the band there is no point in caring about WHEN they were the best you should be figuring out when the soonest time is you can get your ass as close as possible to them and watch them live so you can break your neck!
I don't dispute anything you're saying here. They DID have to prove themselves back then. And even on the Damaged Justice tour, playing sold-out arenas all over the place, they were still proving themselves. And where Metallica is at these days is much like other well-established bands with longevity like the Stones, U2, The Who, etc. And so being established, I can see where maybe they're not having to prove themselves; they're already there. That said, they've released a kick ass album in Hardwired and I'm pretty stoked to see them when they hit Seattle (whenever that may be).
I haven't read Back To The Front, but I will definitely check that one out!
|
|
|
|
Post by suddendeth1320 on Nov 20, 2016 7:04:27 GMT
about those ozzy shows in the 80s. They HAD to give it their all because that was their big break. The only other time they had played a stadium show up to that point was when they played a day on the green. They wanted to outshine ozzy very badly. They only had about 40 minutes to show what they had and that was the tour that made them superstars. Everyone who walked out of one of those shows became a metallica fan. If you guys haven't read the back to the front book i highly recommend it. There is so many little tidbits revealed about the band and what was going on at the time that i never knew. Its very in depth. It even says what part of the bus hit cliff when it toppled over and theres a whole long story about that. Sorry i got off track. I just wanted to say why they went apeshit on that ozzy tour. My personal favorite concert they ever did was seattle 89 from live shit. Besides that my 3 favorites that i have personally seen was 98 in hartford with jerry cantrell, woodstock 99 and 2009 in NYC on the death magnetic tour. They played soo many good songs on the dm tour like dyers eve and the shortest straw. All i can really say is that regardless what year you've seen them in, when you're actually there and your adrenaline is pumping and everyone is into it this band amazingly still very much has it. So in my eyes, if you love the band there is no point in caring about WHEN they were the best you should be figuring out when the soonest time is you can get your ass as close as possible to them and watch them live so you can break your neck!
I don't dispute anything you're saying here. They DID have to prove themselves back then. And even on the Damaged Justice tour, playing sold-out arenas all over the place, they were still proving themselves. And where Metallica is at these days is much like other well-established bands with longevity like the Stones, U2, The Who, etc. And so being established, I can see where maybe they're not having to prove themselves; they're already there. That said, they've released a kick ass album in Hardwired and I'm pretty stoked to see them when they hit Seattle (whenever that may be).
I haven't read Back To The Front, but I will definitely check that one out!
the book is better than i expected it to be. I wanna say it took me 10 minutes to turn each page because of how interesting each page was between the pictures, the picture captions, and the the fact that it made me wanna read each sentance 3 times. People always praise the some kind of monster movie, and thats good, no doubt, but this book had me in ectasy. I fucking loved it. |
|
|
|
Post by suddendeth1320 on Nov 20, 2016 7:16:34 GMT
They are still fucking awesome for being in their mid 50's. I know that some people like to bitch that certain members aren't as good as they used to be but why fucking complain? They don't need to do anything at this point. They have about 500 million dollars between the four of them and they still leave their families to come sweat their asses off just for US! they are doing what they love regardless of their physical limitations that age brings. Then some people wanna bitch. I have infinite respect for these men. Just the fact that they can still go in the studio and sound like they could be 30 years old is mind boggling
|
|
|
|
Post by jetpacksam on Nov 20, 2016 7:36:04 GMT
They have been more popular since Metallica was released in 1991, however more is not always better.
With the exception of Zeppelin and Sabbath, no other rock bands 1st 4 albums are in Metallica's class. Old>New Musically.
Seattle - 29 August 1989. I was there. They have never been nor ever will be better live. It isn't even close.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jayzon on Nov 20, 2016 8:27:55 GMT
Obviously they peaked live-performance-wise in the late 80s and early 90s. But song-writing-wise I'd say they've been pretty consistent throughout, with a bit of a dip in quality during the 00s. Kirk obviously is not the soloist he was earlier. Lars's drumming has obviously deteriorated. James's vocal delivery has changed throughout the years, and I've always liked it. He sounded pretty rough live for a while, but has gotten better. The three bassists have very distinct styles, both in-studio and on-stage, and they're all good.
If I had to choose an era of Metallica I absolutely like the most, it'd have to be the "Live Shit" era. Maybe even the Load era, which I guess is kinda unpopular opinion, but that's when I got into the band, so there's a sort of emotional connection.
|
|
tribeleader
Members
Half Dead
Posts: 524
Location: Islamic Republic of China
|
Post by tribeleader on Nov 20, 2016 10:17:44 GMT
They are still fucking awesome for being in their mid 50's. I know that some people like to bitch that certain members aren't as good as they used to be but why fucking complain? They don't need to do anything at this point. They have about 500 million dollars between the four of them and they still leave their families to come sweat their asses off just for US! they are doing what they love regardless of their physical limitations that age brings. Then some people wanna bitch. I have infinite respect for these men. Just the fact that they can still go in the studio and sound like they could be 30 years old is mind boggling I don't get this point. If they don't need to do anything , why they are still doing? Sure , they need to do to feed their family. |
|
|
|
Post by suddendeth1320 on Nov 20, 2016 10:30:59 GMT
They are still fucking awesome for being in their mid 50's. I know that some people like to bitch that certain members aren't as good as they used to be but why fucking complain? They don't need to do anything at this point. They have about 500 million dollars between the four of them and they still leave their families to come sweat their asses off just for US! they are doing what they love regardless of their physical limitations that age brings. Then some people wanna bitch. I have infinite respect for these men. Just the fact that they can still go in the studio and sound like they could be 30 years old is mind boggling I don't get this point. If they don't need to do anything , why they are still doing? Sure , they need to do to feed their family. i dont think you realize how rich they are even though i just said it |
|
|
|
Post by suddendeth1320 on Nov 20, 2016 10:32:39 GMT
They do it cuz they love it
|
|
|
|
Post by spartanmcdoodle on Nov 20, 2016 10:51:19 GMT
Seems as though a few of you missed the point of the thread. Hey man, where discussing Lars original wooden sticks compared to his metal ones. The wooden sticks are better therefore original Metallica is supreme |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2016 11:27:00 GMT
I'd take 83-95 Metallica everytime, you just can't argue with how good the first 5 albums are. They changed as a band after Load, the music was still good but the aggression had gone.
|
|
