Thread: Metallica - GAH week 2 - 11.12.22

Originally Posted by Northman

You mean they arent?

they were maybe a little gay

Kissing pickles can help you be great. Look at The Beatles, Prince, and Tom Brady. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Originally Posted by aberdien

It goes beyond music in an existential way that necessitates a level of cultural significance.

Being a cultural hallmark requires good music.

There are people who thought (and still think) The Beatles were just a gay BTS boyband.

I guess where I'm going with my train of thought is here:

Coca-Cola and Rolls Royce were ridiculously coveted artifacts in early 1900's Saudi Arabia. It wasn't the actual automobile, it wasn't the actual beverage. It was the notion attached to them.

I mean, they were these mythical symbols that were sexy beyond understanding.

A cultural analog to bitcoin or tulips.

It could be that there is some part of, e.g., Nirvana that does the same thing among a broad social group. Or Metallica.

That is, that it's not the music itself, it's these notions associated with the band.

I know that notions will persist through time in the same way that Art-Deco and disco have persisted. Part of the fabric of the tapestry of our global culture and identity.

Because there's a band somewhere out there that made better music than Nirvana, but no one ever heard them, and they died a silent death in the dark forest where falling trees make no sound.

But Nirvana did get hyped--and you better believe they were juiced and 'roided by the 'machine' of publishers and tastemakers and investors. Aside: yes, this media machine is a sort of sea-level equalizer that applies to all bands; semicolon, however, there is a sort of lottery-like arbitrary aspect to it that keen minds will notice. But ultimately, because they were hyped--and a big part of that hype was bc the quality and timing and badassery were in place--they have a possibility of being "great" whereas the silent falling tree band never will.

DESTINATION (lol)

The cultural impact of the band's "branding" is not nothing. But it should be evaluated on a separate axis from the music. It should also be looked at in the most skeptical light possible, because passing fancies like Nirvana and Coca-Cola must, in the final analysis, stand on their own merits for the Abes and Hawgs and Norths, etc., 100 years in the future. But just as Art Deco made an impact, and no one actually needs to like Art Deco today to acknowledge that it was a powerful thing, so too have bands like Metallica and Nirvana made a memorable impact that shapes their overall "greatness".

Originally Posted by Hawgdriver

I guess where I'm going with my train of thought is here:

Coca-Cola and Rolls Royce were ridiculously coveted artifacts in early 1900's Saudi Arabia. It wasn't the actual automobile, it wasn't the actual beverage. It was the notion attached to them.

I mean, they were these mythical symbols that were sexy beyond understanding.

A cultural analog to bitcoin or tulips.

It could be that there is some part of, e.g., Nirvana that does the same thing among a broad social group. Or Metallica.

That is, that it's not the music itself, it's these notions associated with the band.

I know that notions will persist through time in the same way that Art-Deco and disco have persisted. Part of the fabric of the tapestry of our global culture and identity.

Because there's a band somewhere out there that made better music than Nirvana, but no one ever heard them, and they died a silent death in the dark forest where falling trees make no sound.

But Nirvana did get hyped--and you better believe they were juiced and 'roided by the 'machine' of publishers and tastemakers and investors. Aside: yes, this media machine is a sort of sea-level equalizer that applies to all bands; semicolon, however, there is a sort of lottery-like arbitrary aspect to it that keen minds will notice. But ultimately, because they were hyped--and a big part of that hype was bc the quality and timing and badassery were in place--they have a possibility of being "great" whereas the silent falling tree band never will.

DESTINATION (lol)

The cultural impact of the band's "branding" is not nothing. But it should be evaluated on a separate axis from the music. It should also be looked at in the most skeptical light possible, because passing fancies like Nirvana and Coca-Cola must, in the final analysis, stand on their own merits for the Abes and Hawgs and Norths, etc., 100 years in the future. But just as Art Deco made an impact, and no one actually needs to like Art Deco today to acknowledge that it was a powerful thing, so too have bands like Metallica and Nirvana made a memorable impact that shapes their overall "greatness".

I am skeptical that Nirvana and Coca Cola are merely passing fancies.

My belief is that the greatest UK bands previously mentioned wouldn't be considered the greatest band if not for them being a sexy mythical symbol on top of producing great music. In a discussion of greatest band, the branding is a vital component inseparable from the music. An unidentifiable band cannot be the greatest even if the music is out of this world.

I would say that there is a difference between best band ever/greatest band ever and best music ever. I agree with Hawg that there are sign values assigned to certain bands.

Will this be controversial?


https://uproxx.com/indie/metallica-best-songs-ranked/

Before we continue, I should state something plainly: James Hetfield is the most interesting part of Metallica to me. He is unquestionably one of the greatest metal frontmen ever, even though he does none of the things that metal frontmen traditionally do. He is not a natural-born showman and outlandish character (like Ozzy Osbourne). He does not have an operatic vocal range (like Ronnie James Dio). He does not have an athletic stage presence or a license to pilot Boeing 747s (like Bruce Dickinson). He did not smuggle leather gear associated with gay subcultures of the 1980s into one of the most overtly macho genres of music ever (like Rob Halford). James Hetfield is surly. He is growly. But he is also vulnerable and fragile. He appears to be simultaneously indestructible and irreparably damaged. He is a sweet man who pretends to be scary. James Hetfield is his audience.

I have a theory about superstar musical acts, and it goes like this: Everyone has what I call a “fulcrum album” in their catalog. This is a record that explains the particular act’s entire career, in the sense that 1) all of the albums that precede it feel like a journey to this culmination point and 2) all of the records after feel like a reaction to the fulcrum album’s commercial success and/or artistic breakthroughs. I once wrote a book suggesting that Kid A is that album for Radiohead. I am currently writing a book arguing that argues Born In The U.S.A. is that album for Bruce Springsteen. But you can do this for other superstars. For The Beatles, it was Sgt. Pepper. For Prince, it was Purple Rain. For U2, it’s The Joshua Tree. For Taylor Swift, it’s 1989. And for Metallica, it’s 1991’s Metallica, a.k.a. “The Black Album.”

Metallica has been so big for so long that people forget that for the first decade or so of their career, they were the world’s most popular underground band. I don’t mean “underground” to suggest they were merely edgy or countercultural. Their whole M.O. was to be the antithesis of what mainstream media and radio cared about. They were willfully repellent. That was the identity of Metallica, and it was the identity of people who liked Metallica.

That all changed with “The Black Album,” which was immediately apparent to anyone who was paying attention at the time except the members of Metallica. “This whole thing was done our way.” Ulrich insisted to Rolling Stone at the time. “There is an inner satisfaction about that, to give a major ‘**** you’ to the business itself and the way you’re supposed to play the game and the way we dealt with all that shit up through the mid-’80s.”

Is creating the best-selling rock album of the Soundscan era really a “**** you” to the music business? It’s kind of like arguing that Avatar was a “**** you” to the CGI business.

What is Soundscan?

I had to look it up

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._SoundScan_era
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminate_(company)

Luminate (formerly Nielsen SoundScan, Nielsen Music Products, and MRC Data) is a provider of music sales data. Established by Mike Fine and Mike Shalett in 1991, data is collected weekly and made available every Sunday (for albums sales) and every Monday (for songs sales) to subscribers, which include record companies, publishing firms, music retailers, independent promoters, film and TV companies, and artist managers. It is the source of sales information for the Billboard music charts. It is owned by PMRC, a joint venture between Eldridge Industries (publisher of Billboard) and Penske Media Corporation.

The company operates the analytics platform Music Connect, Broadcast Data Systems (which tracks airplay of music), and Music 360.[1]

The incorporation of SoundScan tracking by the Billboard charting system was cited by the industry as a possible cause of the early '90s popularization of alternative music in the United States. An explanation floated was that the previous call system under-represented marginal genres. Under SoundScan, more accurate data on alternative music sales allowed these acts to appear higher in the Billboard charts than before, and their chart success helped increase the genre's popularity. In addition, SoundScan sales data quickly found use in the promotion departments at major record labels, to persuade radio station music directors to play tracks by high-selling alternative artists such as Nirvana.[7][18]

Fascinating (no sarc)

I recently introduced my wife to all of the older Metallica albums/songs. She had never heard anything PRE Enter Sandman, she was not exposed to much Metallica at all. I don't remember how it came up but we were discussing Metal from my youth so I explained the story behind One and Sanitarium and then played both, she was floored. She absolutely loved it and it put us down a rabbit hole of going through all their older music, she definitely felt cheated not hearing any earlier Metallica. Such a great band before they became a fake grunge band.

They were quite harsh on St. Anger.

"Every song was like a teenage diary entry. It was so, so embarrassing."

Originally Posted by Davii

I recently introduced my wife to all of the older Metallica albums/songs. She had never heard anything PRE Enter Sandman, she was not exposed to much Metallica at all. I don't remember how it came up but we were discussing Metal from my youth so I explained the story behind One and Sanitarium and then played both, she was floored. She absolutely loved it and it put us down a rabbit hole of going through all their older music, she definitely felt cheated not hearing any earlier Metallica. Such a great band before they became a fake grunge band.

You and your wife have great taste, this is why i love you. Lol