TheBig3

Yeah, we're not saying the same thing. I'll be less eloquent.

I think you rant about Metallica because you have emotional insecurities and attacking them makes you feel more "metal."

Metallica, as a band, can out perform most bands going. If you don't like their music, that's irrelevant, but as 4 people getting together and playing, they're one of the best. If you think any old band can tour for 31 years, remain as tight, and pull off arena sized shows, you're disillusional.

You need to catalog, chops, and fan base to pull something like that off. Metallica, a long time ago, became a band instead of a metal band. They moved beyond genre and just became 4 people who make music very well. Comparing them to Slayer, at this point, is like comparing Slayer to James Brown, U2, The Rolling Stones, or Springsteen.

Slayer is a metal band and that's all they'll ever be. Maybe thats a plus to you, but to me it makes them a one-trick pony in the circus that is music. Nothing against them, I don't have a problem with Slayer, but as forward moving as they might be in that genre, its almost like they've become template'ed.

And for the record, I recognize that I'm not going to get a lot of support here, but I think the facts are facts. The Clash ended their career and a pretty terrible punk band, same with The Offspring. Pearl Jam is a miserable grunge band, Red Hot Chili Peppers stopped making anything that resembled Funk years ago. I think you take my meaning.

__________________
I've moved to a new address

FRED HALE SR.

You lost me at The Clash ending their career as a terrible punk band. I think the only template-ed band would be Metallica honestly. They have a perfect template for boring cock rock that resembles anything generic in basic 4/4 structuring. RHCP had their most commercially successful album since Blood Sugar just over a year ago. I think you meant to say Metallica has become the boring/stale band that has given up on creating anything musically pioneering. Slayer is a metal band you got that right, and a far better one then Metallica. Metallica gave up on their roots and the initial reason for their success and became a band with no technical prowess.

Mojo

Commercial success aside though, I think Big 3 was suggesting that bands like RHCP and The Clash changed their sound and experimented more than Slayer have.

I couldn't care less about that personally and I don't particularly wish that Slayer had experimented any more than they have but that seems to be his point, and so the success of RHCPs last album is kind irrelevant.

I also don't see how Metallica can be summed up so easily. Considering they have recorded old school thrash metal, radio-friendly alternative metal, blues-rock, country and one shameful attempt at nu-metal. It hasn't all worked, it hasn't all been good (in my opinion) but I don't think any of it has been cock-rock and I don't think they can be "templated" in that way, like Slayer arguably can.

__________________

Last.FM | Echoes and Dust

FRED HALE SR.

Actually if you read the quote, he said that The Clash ended their career as a terrible punk band. He also said RHCP Hasn't recorded anything funk in years, when in fact thats all they basically record is funk and ballad type songs.

I think we need to dig a bit deeper on Slayer then to call them a one trick pony. They actually changed a great deal of their sound, especially when Dave Lombardo was on hiatus, because nobody can drum like Davre Lombardo.

We must listen to two entirely different bands when we listen to Metallica. I find their Old School thrash as you call it far more diverse then their attempts at radio friendly country nu metal rock.

Janszoon

For me this debate comes down to a simple thing: I enjoy Slayer's best material more than I enjoy Metallica's best material. Not only that, but as the two bands get older, Slayer is the only one who has continued releasing music that I want to listen to. This is not a knock on Metallica branching out and changing their sound, a lot of great bands do that and evolve in interesting directions and I would have loved to see Metallica do that. The problem is that Metallica didn't change in ways that I find appealing or interesting.

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm

Janszoon

This is a great point.

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm

matthewaeldridge

tipping the scales

The Batlord

Really? I found it to be completely dull. It sounded more like Slayer tried to rerecord Christ Illusion and just flubbed the whole thing.

__________________

Mojo

I may have misunderstood Big3s meaning behind his Clash comment. They are obviously his words, not mine. Upon reading what he said again I feel I probably have.

I also wouldn't personally call Slayer a one-trick pony but I can understand Big3s point within the context of his post. Slayer make thrash metal, branching out into broader heavy metal, but really what do they do beyond that? Theres nothing wrong with not branching out any further, it's just an observation. In comparison Metallica have branched out further into more genres of music than Slayer have.

I also think RHCP changed their sound more drastically than Slayer did. I don't believe that they make funk music anymore. They were a funk band that became a more radio-friendly alternative stadium-rock band. Again, theres nothing wrong with that either, and on records such as 'Californication' they retained some funk but maybe a track or two in total. That album wasn't funk and the albums following havent been either.

Keep in mind that none of what I say refers to quality of output. I'm not comparing the standard of music that Slayer and Metallica have released, nor am I comparing the standard in early and latter Metallica. Simply the only point I am making is that in my opinion Slayer have made a career out of playing heavy metal and that it's not quite so easy to define Metallicas career in the same way. Both bands started playing thrash metal and Metallica have dipped into the more commercial end of metal and alternative rock, blues, country and nu-metal as well as recording an album with the San Francisco symphony orchestra. Whether they have done so well is subjective, and I never said I didn't find diversity in their 80s material, but I believe that makes Metallica a more musically diverse band than Slayer.

__________________

Last.FM | Echoes and Dust

FRED HALE SR.

I can understand his point to a degree also, But I found over time that Slayers sound does change also. I can't see Tom Araya ever wanting to do country or blues rock. I find Metallicas attempts at doing blues and/or Country kind of being a novelty rather then a step musically. It comes across contrived to me. Sure they did it, but its not enhancing their music in a way that is desirable like Janzs said, which leads me to believe they never should have done it.

I would say RHCP held true to their funk sound, I think Stadium Arcadium had a few good funk laced tracks on it. I do agree they went with a more radio friendly stadium sound, but they haven't done away with the big bass and funk guitar chords that made them so successful.

All of your points were taken and I always dig your input.