Author
|
Topic: Metallica have lost it??
|
|
|
|
pppaaaüüülll
VoivodFan
Member # 13
|
posted May 07, 2008 12:12
quote: Originally posted by Auntie Luna: hahaAt least we still have Testament and Death Angel!
Oh yeah and Exodus, Cavalera Consperacy and Celine Dion (listening to Ac/Dc)!! By the way, 2 weeks ago I saw this Metallica coverband (The Unforgiven) and they realy sounded like Metallica in their old days. They where so sight you couldn't believe it. Even the singer looked a lot like James. Metallica in this shape stinks like a rotten fish. Well maybe their new songs will explode? Dontthinkso.... -------------------- trrrrr ta trrrrr ta trrrrr ta trrrrr ta trrrrr ta trrrrr trrrrr ta trrrrr ta trrrrr ta trrrrr ta trrrrr ta trrrrr
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
schroeder
VoivodFan
Member # 5
|
posted May 08, 2008 17:33
Metallica seem to be one of the only bands still around from back in the day that lost whatever thrash and heaviness they had and have been trying for years to find the edge they once had all those years ago. I'm curious to hear what Anthrax is like with the new singer, since I've been a huge fan of theirs since day one. Even with all their singer and guitar changes they still put out some damn cool tunes and had that Anthrax vibe. All these other bands from the early days of thrash: Testament, Slayer, Death Angel, Kreator, Megadeth (give or take a few bad spots), Exodus, Agent Steel (remeber them? Alienation fuckin shreds), Overkill, Voivod, and more, can still thrash out and tear it up like they did in the past. And they're still better than almost every thrash metal band that has come out since they started. -------------------- yawn
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Slaytanic
VoivodFan
Member # 28
|
posted May 10, 2008 00:59
Is Metallica still important? If the number of posts on this very thread is some kind of evidence, the answer must be yes.Oh, and no, I don't see anything wrong about this video. They're on a rehearsal room, James is not even singing... Any other band could do a shitty version of their own song and no one would even care. Any other band, but it's Metallica we're talking. Skul even bought an old album after seeing this thread. Is Metallica still important? Yes. -------------------- "Forty-five moments of perfection translated through a cautionary escape into the perils of the mundane, the inherent entropy in ultimate order, and the potential threats of eternal, unchecked apathy in civilization; all cloaked in musical expression so thoughtful, creative and forward thinking that almost a quarter-century later, few can even comprehend it, much less match it." (autothrall)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
BlackCloud
VoivodFan
Member # 122
|
posted May 11, 2008 04:05
The band is "always" as good as its rhythm-section. Case in point: LARS FUCKING SUCKS BIG-FUCKING ASS!!! He "always" had a free meal-ticket with Metallica, and of course after 1988: BEAToffTallica!!! He just really fucking sucks. James had to "literally" work overtime with that fag! Cliff "held-in" the glue when he was alive only because he was so f'n awesome!Lars just completely sucks! SO... In order for the next Metallica album to even be considered somewhat "good", James needs to start drinking again...which in turn will drastically reduce those ad-libs of "Whoa-oh", and "Yeah, yeah" ten-fold among the lyrics. Next and most importantly: Lars quits. (or at least he stops hitting cymbals with his snare vs. hitting cymbals with his kick like a fucking normal drummer would!!!) ..and that "sonar-ping" of a snare is finally "KILLED" as well!!! Then...maybe, "MAYBE" it might sound halfway decent! Nope. (probably not) -------------------- http://www.reverbnation.com/paulenglish
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|