Yes-to people who weren't Metallica fans.Blasphemy! Load and Reload were epic.
Yes-to people who weren't Metallica fans.Hardcore Metallica fanboys worldwide rejected those albums violently, including myself. Load made it crystal clear that the "Metal" in Metallica was no longer relevant to the band. Let them continue to pump out FM pop radio-friendly albums that soccer moms can enjoy. The metal world has moved on.
Actually Nirvana was just ripping off The Pixies (at least that's what he said) and both bands were musically genius. When people say "all that grunge crap" they usually have no idea who The Pixies are because they were from the 80s and I don't really associate Nirvana with any bands from the 90s (not even Foo Fighters really)
I don't mind incorporating other genres-queen and thin lizzy and many others have-Metallica just declined in quality while doing it. (they also became copyright trolls, but that's another story)Here's where I disagree with you. Do you think the members of Metallica only like metal and not other types of music? They enjoy many types of music. I do too and I appreciated Load and Reload for what they were. Am I not allowed to like both Metallica and Johnny Cash? There are many perspectives to consider and to only consider one to be acceptable is just wrong.
The deification of the marginally-talented Colbain and crew was one of the primary factors that drove me to abandon modern culture. While he was selling record numbers of albums, I was listening to band after band, night after night, in the same genre but a million times more talented, that got absolutely nowhere in the music industry. Nirvana was hard, first-hand proof that the music industry isn't about music.
Here's where I disagree with you. Do you think the members of Metallica only like metal and not other types of music? They enjoy many types of music. I do too and I appreciated Load and Reload for what they were. Am I not allowed to like both Metallica and Johnny Cash? There are many perspectives to consider and to only consider one to be acceptable is just wrong.
It's a valid point. Doesn't change the fact that Metallica started to suck with the philosophy changes in their music they adopted while recording the Black album. They use to be Metallica, then they became for lack of a better term a cover band.
You must've missed their covers of tunes by Bob Seger, Queen, The Misfits, etc. If Metallica didn't want to stick to metal, why keep the name? It's become a silly irony now. I almost joined the Metallica club in the 90s. They were dedicated to metal. I didn't have the FRNs to join, which has turned out to be a good thing. I did a report on Hetfield in '96 or so. The more you dig into the history of the band, the more you see they've betrayed their roots and original intentions. Perhaps if Cliff had lived things would've turned out better.I just don't agree. Probably because I never swore an oath to be metal all my life. I doubt Metallica did either. A cover band? They covered a few songs. Whiskey in the Jar was an awesome cover btw.
Have you ever in your life liked Johnny Cash? If so did you only like one of the styles of his art?
tell me about it, brother.LOL this thread in New Posts is like the occasionally flashing reminder... 'you are old. you are old'![]()
Dylan's style wouldn't necessarily change because of a different type of guitar. He still would've sounded like himself. Jazz and blues players in the 20th century made the accoustic->electric transition with no problem. I personally know a jazz bassist who's equally at home playing jazz on electric and upright bass.Would you be one of those hipsters that booed Bob Dylan for playing an electric guitar?
Dylan's style wouldn't necessarily change because of a different type of guitar. He still would've sounded like himself. Jazz and blues players in the 20th century made the accoustic->electric transition with no problem. I personally know a jazz bassist who's equally at home playing jazz on electric and upright bass.