more or less successful?

baldyboy

Member
Sep 2, 2003
1,211
3
38
planet thanet.uk.
www.paniccell.com
its been bugging me for years.what does everyone think?
would metallica have been a bigger and better band if they had recruited a vocalist when they first started out,rather than sticking with hetfield?
it really bothers me,and i just dont know why. o_O :loco:
 
I think Jame's voice is a VERY important part of their sound and that with another singer they may not have done so well. Can you imagine Metallica with John Bush singing?!! Glad he decided to stay with A Saint. That would be like if he sang for Anthrax or something....... just imagine that! :)
 
ha ha ha! :p .very droll greeno.
i see what you mean,but in the beginning,he wasnt a really good singer.
would they have done better with someone else?
could you imagine if say,chris cornell or phil anselmo turned up to an audition.i mean,what would have happened.i know its all hypothetical bull,it just bothers me thats all. :confused: :confused: :confused:
 
Psychonaut said:
I think James' voice is an important part of the Metalica sound. I can't really imagine anyone else doing them. I do wish, however, that they had never crossed paths with Bob Rock.
I for "one," am a fan of the Black Record. Loved eveything about it as a "rock" record. I would have liked to have heard a few more "heavy" records before they tried something experimental after that. Does that make sense?
 
James Hetfield IS metallica. Love him or hate him he's the real reason behind all the change in sound over the years. Bob Rock may be a producer but HETFIELD is writing lyrics and music. It's just like blaming a coach for a team that sucks....yeah it has something to do with it, but ultimately the coach doesn't shoot the ball or score the touchdown, know what I mean?
 
sixxswine said:
I for "one," am a fan of the Black Record. Loved eveything about it as a "rock" record. I would have liked to have heard a few more "heavy" records before they tried something experimental after that. Does that make sense?
NO!!! :p

I was tight with the Black album when it first came out but got bored with it. Now, years later, I can llisten to the songs from it if they come on the radio or something but I still prefer everything prior to it.
 
Psychonaut said:
NO!!! :p

I was tight with the Black album when it first came out but got bored with it. Now, years later, I can llisten to the songs from it if they come on the radio or something but I still prefer everything prior to it.
Let me explain.
1) Loved the Black disc.
2) It would have been great for the band to get back into some heavier stuff, before they did their load & reload stuff(the more experimental stuff).
3) I feel, that they had followed this formula, they probably woudln't be in the "dog house" with their fans...
 
tedvanfrehley said:
James Hetfield IS metallica. Love him or hate him he's the real reason behind all the change in sound over the years. Bob Rock may be a producer but HETFIELD is writing lyrics and music. It's just like blaming a coach for a team that sucks....yeah it has something to do with it, but ultimately the coach doesn't shoot the ball or score the touchdown, know what I mean?
I get what you mean TVF.:worship: I think Rock is an "influence" but the band being, who & what they are, have the final say. A band of their status can't be lead somewhere & told what to do. They have the last word & they went with it. I think it's kinda funny that people have turned on the band & now it seems like they have turned on the producer. I do hope Metallica looks for a new porducer next time around. Just to keep it fresh.:D
 
we can all dream of that sixx.i understand what you are saying about the black album and post black,and i agree.i must admit to not having your liking for the black album though(although the production is superb).i actually preferred some of the songs off load and reload to the black album.
and ted,you and sixx are right about the whole bob rock thing.in my mind i understand it.but my heart says bobrockmustdie.
 
Unlike Load or Reload I actually liked the black album a lot when it came out and I still do. I also believe that if Bush had taken over in 84 or so Metallica’s success would have gone downhill as Die Hard Thrashers would have considered this as an allowance to commercialism. Instead Metallica chose to stick with Hetfield, gathered a strong following, became really big within the Metal scene and by that were able to build their mainstream success on that foundation.
 
sixxswine said:
Let me explain.
1) Loved the Black disc.


YUCK!!!
That album so turned me off that I never heard another release until St Anger. And to be honest I would take St Anger over the black album any day of the week. Not that it's that good of an album but at least St Anger has a little energy to it, where as the black album is way to slick and boring to me. I'm sure no one will agree with me on this.. so screw all of you :) just kidding. Just my opinion anyways. I tried to listen to the black album again not long ago, to see if maybe I was wrong, and I just could not do it. After all these years it still sucks. :)

Is Load and Re-Load really that band? Like I said I've never heard them.... only once a video for a song called either Fire or Fuel or something like that. I've been tempted to pick them up when I find them used but then I think about all of the bad shit I've heard and I pass on them.
 
guess i'm 0ne of the few that quite likes some of load and reload.they are not what i wanted from metallica,but then again,who am i to want anything from them.i should just be glad of what they gave me with the first four albums.they do have some v.good tracks between them.the last track on one of them-the outlaw torn is the song,is one of my fave metallica tracks of all
 
another chance to trash metallica!

man, have you seen them, they look weird and they probably act like real dicks.

I never liked the voice, bass, guitars, whatever.
and st anger is as bad as their early stuff.
 
I don't think any heavy rock fan can honestly say in their heart of hearts that they hate metallica. Come on...anybody who claims to like rock n roll or metal or classic rock or whatever is gonna like 'em. If they put up that "metallica sucks" wall then it is purely for political reasons. (i.e. they cut their hair, they sound country, james is a redneck, etc. etc. etc) I don't think ANYBODY can honestly say they like hard rock or metal and yet hate metallica based on music alone....and I'd bet my front row seat in hell that if any one of us in here saw James Hetfield eating at the local Steak N Shake we would 1. shit our pants and 2. fall all over ourselves trying to figure out the best way to kiss his ass for an autograph. "Not me man..." what the fuck ever! And I'm including myself here in the role of stargazer!
 
tedvanfrehley said:
I don't think any heavy rock fan can honestly say in their heart of hearts that they hate metallica.

I very much like the first 4 albums, with Masters being in my top 10 of all time. But as for the black album I can without a doubt use the word hate.... hate it..... hate it..... hate it! It's not that I hate Metallica, it's that I dislike the path their career has taken. No big deal. Just because I like the old stuff doesn't mean I have to like the new stuff. Put it this way, I saw them on the Masters tour and it's one of my fondest memories of my young metalhead days, but now you could not pay me to go see them... no interest at all. But then again I can't really think of any old 80's metal band that I would want to see today.