Slayer vs Metallica - Music Banter Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > The Music Forums > Rock & Metal
Register Blogging Today's Posts
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

View Poll Results: Slayer vs Metallica
Slayer 58 46.03%
Metallica 68 53.97%
Voters: 126. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-28-2013, 09:54 AM   #1 (permalink)
Melancholia Eternally
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: England
Posts: 5,018
Default

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
Mojo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2013, 10:04 AM   #2 (permalink)
Neo-Maxi-Zoom-Dweebie
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: So-Cal
Posts: 3,752
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mojopinuk View Post
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.
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.
FRED HALE SR. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2013, 11:13 AM   #3 (permalink)
Melancholia Eternally
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: England
Posts: 5,018
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FRED HALE SR. View Post
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.
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
Mojo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2013, 11:28 AM   #4 (permalink)
Neo-Maxi-Zoom-Dweebie
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: So-Cal
Posts: 3,752
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mojopinuk View Post
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.
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.
FRED HALE SR. is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Similar Threads



© 2003-2025 Advameg, Inc.