!!SAVE METALLICA!!

In order to be a published artist you'll have to sell out. thats that. selling out is the act of making money for their music. All artists... be it cartoonists, musicians, writers, cooks, sculptors, teachers in any form of the previosly stated are selling out, whether you like it or not. i'd rather sell out then starve, myself.

arjen you once again make a good point.

True a band has to change, but their old stuff was soooo much more talented in terms of sophistication of the composing. I wouldnt have a problem (well not much) with their new sound if it wasnt all so basic, theres nothing at all which makes me wanna play it. Oh and I cant stand his singing now lol.

You could say that any band that makes money has sold out but I thin the type of selling out that we're talking about is the giving up of integrity for the sake of a better price point. "Concert hall echos with the sound of sales men. " and at the same time "all this machinery making modern music can still be open hearted. Not so coldly charted. It's just a question of you're honesty." (Rush-The Spirit of The Radio). It's just a question of your honesty. If they can honestly be satisfied that what they are producing is the best they can do, I could live with that. Somehow I don't think that's the case since they've done so much better in the past. They must know in thier own minds that what they've been producing is crap lately.

When Radiohead went from poprock to synth music, did they throw away their talents on regular instruments? Is good music measured by it's complexity? Does the fact that you think something else is 'better' make the new stuff objectively 'worse'?

Yes, the new metallica album was more basic and simply, and I don't like it myself either. But that doesn't make it a worse album, it just makes it a album I like less. Just because Kirk can play darn fast is no reason to fill every song with a 1 minute tapping solo drowned out in his wah. He could do it, but by no reason should do it. The best they could do? What is that for a question anyway? This was what they wanted to do, and you can't rate musical quality anyway.

We go through this same arguement every time Arjen. The proof will always be in the pudding. As a one time Metallica fan I know their music well. I understand that Metallica no longer have anything to prove to the public. It's coming out as laxiness or a lack of desire to produce anything that requires their full attention. Same thing with U2. They seem to have hit wall of "We're so good it doesn't matter what we write. It's all gold.". If they would have chosen to write intense polka and it had all the thought and integrity that they put into their first albums, I would likely still be a fan. But, they've chosen instead to produce music that's exactly what people expect from them right now. Their fan base is sucking it up like milk. I can't accept that. I won't be a sheep for the sake of being a sheep. But, I relent. No matter what my arguement I'm sure you'll find a way to contradict me.

Is good music measured by it's complexity?
Certainly not.
Does the fact that you think something else is 'better' make the new stuff objectively 'worse'?
Music is, for the listener, a subjective medium, so "yes" the new stuff can be "worse" than the old stuff.
Just because Kirk can play darn fast is no reason to fill every song with a 1 minute tapping solo drowned out in his wah. He could do it, but by no reason should do it.
Correct,
The best they could do? What is that for a question anyway?
They have a duty to their loyal fans, to produce the very best quality music that they can - otherwise it becomes fraudulent and deceitful - they are taking money under false pretences "This is our best album, since we invented sliced bread,blah, blah", knowing full well that it was a filler simply to keep the money rolling in.
What kind of question is it? The kind every fan should ask himself before shelling out the money for the album.
This was what they wanted to do, and you can't rate musical quality anyway.
Great. "We're so great, we can turn out dross and the foo.....fans still keep buying the stuff".
Of course, you can rate musical quality - as a listener you can very easily do it subjectively. By saying "I like it less" you are making a statement on the quality - as far as you are concerned.
I understand that Metallica no longer have anything to prove to the public. It's coming out as laxiness or a lack of desire to produce anything that requires their full attention. Same thing with U2. They seem to have hit wall of "We're so good it doesn't matter what we write. It's all gold.".
See, hueseph agrees with me :lol:
If they would have chosen to write intense polka.........
Hmmmmmm. I don't think so. :shock:

Over the years peoples tastes do change, even if only subtly. It may be that people are looking, nostalgically, back at the old stuff, but looking at the new releases with fresh eyes and finding the music less to their current taste. Musicians also develop and their tastes also change. Perhaps they are simply developing away from the kind of music that the fans expect.

Having said that, I still think that complacency and even arrogance are major factors.

this topic is generating allot of heat that I think needs to end... call me a tree-huggin hippy if you want to

Metallica made an album they liked and dont cut Rob because he had absolutly nothing to do with it, he signed on the play live and thats what he did.

These guys have enough money to not care about what thier fans think, they know that they like it, and atleast one person in the galaxy will too, thats all that matters... They have been around for soo long and seen so much sucess that maybe they even wanted thier album to bomb(never did, has, or will happen) do you think they honestly care anymore? They are making music that comes from the soul, and nobody can ever take that away from them....

This post started as a "Save metallica" BS online petition, leave it at that :x :x :evil:

Greybeard: you are not hearing what I'm saying. I'm not saying you should just buy whatever one's favourite group produces. I'm not saying you shouldn't dislike St. Anger. I am saying that there is no better or worse in music, or any other form of artistic expression. You may like Led Zep better then a local garage punk band. You may believe they are better, they may appear better to you, but they *aren't* better. The albums you liked aren't objectively of a bettr quality, they are just nearer to your personal taste. Does Metallica have to proof anything? No. Does that matter? No. As if Radiohead, the Stones, the Beatles, Pink Floyd and whatnot had to prove anything after the very beginning. They are in a position to do what they want to do, and they did this. Which many don't like, and many do like.

On another note: Kinda weird to call people who buy St. Anger sheeps who blindly purchase anything. As if having all or many Metallica albums makes one the premier Metallica reviewer able to decide who has a good and who has a bad taste.

All I can say is it's 4:30 am I've spent the last 3 hours not recording anything I could be satisfied with. I should probably sleep. What does that have to do with Metallica? Nothing. I'm just complaining for the sake of complaining. I will shut up now before I start eating my own socks. Feet attached.

I am saying that there is no better or worse in music, or any other form of artistic expression.
To contradict yourself:
You may like Led Zep better then a local garage punk band.
The word is comparative and music , as I said in my previous post, is a SUBjective medium. Therefore, it is quite proper to use a term like better or worse, you must, though, make it clear in what context. You have every right to consider Led Zep "better" than Metallica - it is your SUBjective opiniion.

There are people who still believee the Earth to be flat - that's OK, they have every right to their subjective opinion.

The fact is, that there is no empirical measurement by which music can be objectively categorised - it's irrelevant, anyway, music is all about personal taste. There is, however, empirical proof that the Earth is not flat - it's pear shaped, but the Flat Earth Society will still ignore the fact.
The albums you liked aren't objectively of a bettr quality,...
Never claimed they were - in fact, I stated the opposite, that music is subjective.
....they are just nearer to your personal taste.
That's what I said.

Guess that means we agree here. Just took me some time to see it. :D

metallica, to me, have lost much integrity. I have no reason to beleive that the new music comes from their soul... although the lyrics sure do.
Thaey are getting musically lazy.. but i have to admit it was a creative turn. I wasn't expecting it at all!

it's pretty complex rythmically at times, but melodically its disgustingly lazy. I like the concept of using brutal driving riffs for some songs.. but they really werent using them tastefully.

can anyone honestly say they LIKED the change very much?

i personally hope their rumored next album wont be like st. anger.

Honestly, I like the change... call me crazy...

However this in no way says I don't like the older stuff, I like it just as much, and if they do come out with another that is something new to us all then I'll probably like that change too... Even if they make the same style of music that they did... In a way thats another change going back and I'd still love it...

Maybe Im just a diehard but I've never stopped loving there music