Thread: Metallica - GAH week 2 - 11.12.22

Originally Posted by Hawgdriver

I am also surprised.

I'd like to hear what North thinks, because I know he's cynical about the "music machine" that looks to these intellectual properties as cash streams. I sorta trust his cynicism a little bit on this matter.

My thoughts havent changed when it comes to popularity vs actual greatness. But again, i think people have to decide for themselves what dictates greatness, is it popularity and sales? Talent? Longevity? Etc.

The music machine does exist and it excludes a lot of great bands in the process. You might be able to answer that question yourself Hawg, do the Pixies deserve to be more popular than they are or do they really suck compared to Metallica, Nirvana, etc?

The debate reminds me a lot of a few years back when i think Brunell from Jacksonville had a perfect game in terms of completion percentage and the world was cooing about it. Problem was all his completions were short passes so to put a lot of weight simply on sales is the weakest of it all. If companies go out and say, we are going to push Metallica's material but ignore promoting these other bands than of course Metallica's sales will go up and remain up. The companies, radio, etc are only playing what is being pushed by the labels.

Its easy to corner the market when the competition is being held back.

[QUOTE=Hawgdriver;3182276]How about some of the dogfish LSD-test factors?

or these?

Some factors to consider:

Personal (emotional?) connection with the music

In this discussion, this element should be as minimized as possible. This isn't favorite band, or band we like the most!

Inventiveness

Maybe if you need a tiebreaker, but if the music is killer, what matters if it's inventive? Whatever that means? Nothing is original anyway!

International penetration

vital in terms of popularity - UK's greatest were all-world greats

Musicianship of individual members

I don't think this is all that important.

How tight is the band (especially live)?

I don't think this is important either.

Did the band greatly influence the music to come?

Important.

Will the band be relevant in 100 years?

One of the most important!

How much did the band benefit from the music publishing machine? (vs. intrinsic value)

I don't think this is that important of a consideration.

Range of styles - was it all roots rock, or did they mix it up?

Maybe a tiebreaker distinction, but not something I care about almost at all.

Did the band put out a lot of drek? (in addition to the hits)

Depends on where it aligns with in terms of the prime of the band's career, if it affects the acclaim of the band, etc.

Can you say it with a straight face?

Can you say it with a gay one!

Originally Posted by Northman

My thoughts havent changed when it comes to popularity vs actual greatness. But again, i think people have to decide for themselves what dictates greatness, is it popularity and sales? Talent? Longevity? Etc.

The music machine does exist and it excludes a lot of great bands in the process. You might be able to answer that question yourself Hawg, do the Pixies deserve to be more popular than they are or do they really suck compared to Metallica, Nirvana, etc?

The debate reminds me a lot of a few years back when i think Brunell from Jacksonville had a perfect game in terms of completion percentage and the world was cooing about it. Problem was all his completions were short passes so to put a lot of weight simply on sales is the weakest of it all. If companies go out and say, we are going to push Metallica's material but ignore promoting these other bands than of course Metallica's sales will go up and remain up. The companies, radio, etc are only playing what is being pushed by the labels.

Its easy to corner the market when the competition is being held back.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter does it? It's not something within our level of control. We are all at the whims of the machine, always have been, The Beatles/Stones/etc benefitted from the same thing.

Originally Posted by aberdien

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter does it? It's not something within our level of control. We are all at the whims of the machine, always have been, The Beatles/Stones/etc benefitted from the same thing.

Indeed those other bands did benefit but saying it doesnt matter is like saying it doesnt matter that black people get held down by white America because its just how it is. Lol

My final thoughts after diving back into Metallica and looking at all the shit I figured sucked (turns out it sucked):

Metallica was formed in '81, same as Anthrax, Slayer, Mercyful Fate, Napalm Death, Motley Crue, Overkill, etc.

Blizzard of Ozz and Crazy Train were just hitting the radio and 7". Tygers of Pan Tang released their first album in '80.

I'm trying to put into context the "metal" scene for my own dim understanding at the time, and then evaluate how much Metallica moved the needle.

My own gut feel is that there had been a lot of "edginess" like KISS and AC/DC and Priest and heck I know I'm forgetting a ton. Stuff that would make Bible moms shit theyselves because there was a metal cassette in the house! Stuff you had to whisper about as kids. But all the nasty hot older teen girls loved. The dress and floss of metal, but not the actual sonic ******* attack.

Anyways.

My gut feel is that Metallica elevated the most metal part of metal--the baroque and prog musical aspects at technically demanding speeds--more than any other band for the most people.

I can remember my middle school stoner buddy, best friend at the time I guess, he sold my mom weed, introducing me to Metallica. He dubbed me Kill 'em all, Ride, and Master.

I remember a moment listening to Fight Fire With Fire (and not for the first time, it was on repeat) when my world sorta clicked into a different new world. Or maybe it was Battery. It's hard to explain. It felt like an altered consciousness. And not a 'ooo, catchy song' feeling. It was more wholesome somehow lol. It was like...I couldn't imagine not feeling like that going forward.

Anyways.

Hell, where am I going with this. Ok. Where do I land on Metallica.

I ended up not liking much of the post-Justice stuff even after force-feeding myself.

If St. Anger was an instrumental, it would be a solid track, albeit derivative.

The Hardwired stuff is legit, but it's another example of "band X does what band X is best at, but long after band X was hot shit." If you snuck it into a playlist with all the old stuff, you'd be like...damn! I guess I never heard this EP!

I'm super impressed with the production values of their early albums, I think Flemming Rasmussen ******* killed it.

Overall, I'm pretty sure they won't end up as "The Greatest American Band," but it was cool to revisit them and sort of wrap a bow on it.

Why?

Inventiveness - A+
International penetration - A+

And with 22.1 million tickets sold worldwide, $125 million in t-shirt and other concert memorabilia and performances in 48 countries and all seven continents – yep, they’ve even played in Antarctica – Metallica are the world’s beggest touring income earners.

Influence of those to come - A+
I could keep listing A+ marks, there are more. So I'll hit on the dings.

Ding #1: James Hetfield is a limited vocalist. Kicks ass on the stuff he kicks ass on, but this creates a massive pigeonhole problem.
Ding #2: A sort of weird mid-career reinvention that perhaps disturbed their artistic authenticity
Ding #3: They seemed to have one trick and didn't evolve or level up in terms of style--if anything, they devolved.

So. I like them over CCR. I'll leave it there.

On a side note, if you have Tubi Hawg there is a great documentary called "Murder in the Front Row" on there which specifically talks about the early to late 80's and how Metallica. Exodus, Testament, Megadeth, and so on erupted. A lot of discussion on the early Metallica stuff and influence on the thrash scene.

22.1 million tickets sold. That is a crazy number.

I **** with Metallica heavily. They are the face of metal, for better or worse. Or, they are the namebrand metal band that everyone knows about. Because of that, and because of how big Metal is, they pass the "I can say this with a straight face," test that really feels so important to me. They are bigger than their songs and albums, which is not what I could say about CCR.

I love this thread.

Originally Posted by King87

I won't lie, pound-for-pound Lamb of God runs their pockets.

Until Chris Adler left the band. I won't listen to them anymore.

Originally Posted by Northman

Selling your integrity as a band for profit does not make you the greatest anything....

This. Lots of bands I love(d) did it and I loathe them for it - Trivium, Parkway Drive (although, "Glitch" is kind of a bridge between old and new, but Winston McCall's older vocals are hard as woodpecker lips), to name a couple).

Originally Posted by Hawgdriver

The reason why I think Metallica will not end up as "the one" is because I don't think Hetfield is gifted enough of a vocalist.

Any vocalist that Jim Brewer does better than the guy he's impersonating is not a good vocalist. That was a complicated thought to try to verbalize. Sorry.

Originally Posted by aberdien

vital in terms of popularity - UK's greatest were all-world greats

I missed this post somehow. This was a response to "international penetration" as a factor of greatness.

So...more of a cultural hallmark than anything to do with actual music.

Yeah, **** that.

Beatles had great music. I don't listen to garbage on repeat that often. If their music sucked, I wouldn't waste my time.

What matters most is the music.

Speaking of Metallica, they released a new song and video. Not really feeling the whole song but Kirk's guitar playing is in top form here.

Originally Posted by Hawgdriver

I missed this post somehow. This was a response to "international penetration" as a factor of greatness.

So...more of a cultural hallmark than anything to do with actual music.

Yeah, **** that.

Beatles had great music. I don't listen to garbage on repeat that often. If their music sucked, I wouldn't waste my time.

What matters most is the music.

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.

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.

You mean they arent?