Quote:
Originally Posted by MetallicaheadFk19
holy ****, almost all of you are completly retarted. KORN... O MY FING LORD... must be none of you have heard there new cd evolution. that is prlly the weakest cd ive ever heard.. its up there with the hanson queers. metallica is the deepest and most original band ever.. PERIOD. st. anger did not suck. u have to listen and get used to it. it was not a normal metallica cd. compare it to korns new cd and you have something amazing. just wait for metallicas cd coming out with issss the 15 of this month i belive. ive read alot about it and james says that they have returned to the old style of metallica. and its heavy. james also says that there new cd is tonz better than st. anger . so for those of you who calls yourselvs fans.... and then ditched them because of one album. here you go now is your time to be a poser again. you can relate metallica to ANY aspect of your life. and you feel it rather than here it... so therefore... I VOTE FOR METALLICA 10 TIMES
|
Firstly, you can compare any two albums from any two bands and of course one is going to sound better than the other. Doesn't mean that neither of them suck or not.
Secondly, I'm not a metallica fan, but I've heard some of there old stuff and heard some songs from St. Anger. I think the reason people lost interest in metallica was because THEY released it. If it was some nu-metal band or something, it would be somewhat acceptable. But it was metallica. It'd be like if Death, one of the pioneers of death metal, were to release something like St. Anger; dumbed down, more mainstream, easy-to-swallow sound. It just shot down any expectations people had with metallica. Personally, I think Metallica suck, both old and new, but going from thrash to more of a nu-metal sound, what do you expect?
Thirdly, and this is in reference to the sentence I enhanced; we shouldn't have to get used to an album if we think it sucks. We should give it a chance, sure, but if it sucks, it sucks. "getting used to it" isn't going to make it better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MURDER JUNKIE
Excellent first post, we are all really impressed.
Banned for 1 week
If you come back bring your manners. This is particularly fun for me because you are getting banned for slagging people off in a thread that is two years old
|
This isn't in reference to your post, but I have to say, once again, awesome avatar.
Now, in reference to this thread; All four of those bands to me suck in some way;
Metallica- always hearing from fanboys "Oh, new metallica sucks, but old metallica is just straight up awesome thrash." No no no no. Kreator, Slayer, Lunatic, Venom, all better thrash bands.
Slipknot- Will admit that their third album had promise. Each member has some potential. But they don't fulfill it. They just spend their time writing out half assed repeated riffs and solos and it's just crazy to see good musicians wasting their time. The only possible conclusion that I could come to is that either they really aren't great musicians, which is kind of false after seeing some of the outside work some of them had done (Joey playing for Satyricon, Mick playing a guitar solo for Malevolent Creation, which I've yet to hear but expect something great), or they feel comfortable with the cash flow coming from the record sales.
Korn- 7 string guitars, 5 string bass, you could get rid of the higher 3 strings and you could play the same riffs. Nuff said.
Cradle of Filth- Used to LOVE them, but then discovered actual REAL black metal. I prefer Immortal. NEXT!
... nevermind, that's it.
In conclusion, they all are equals. They all have contributed to their genres in some way, they all have sucked in their genres in some way, and they all are getting... worse... every... second... even... as... you... read... this...
Edit- I know this thread is old, but why does the threat maker have a picture of Amon Amarth on here when they are totally irrelevant?
hahaha
Linear Mode
