more or less successful?

[Bryant]

To me, Metallica's vocalist is James Hetfield, but John Bush is one hell of a vocalist. Anthrax really hasn't used his abilities to the max. If you listen to Armored Saint's "Symbol of Salvation," you can hear Bush at his best.

Bryant

 

[Greeno]

but John Bush is one hell of a vocalist. Anthrax really hasn't used his abilities to the max.
Bryant

I agree. How come Armored Saint with John Bush is mind melting but Anthrax with John Bush is only mediocre?

 

[sixxswine]

I agree. How come Armored Saint with John Bush is mind melting but Anthrax with John Bush is only mediocre?

I'll tell you why! I think John has more of investment in something that he helps create, therefore, he's "into it."
With Anthrax it's Charlie & Scott's band.

 

[Greeno]

I'll tell you why! I think John has more of investment in something that he helps create, therefore, he's "into it."
With Anthrax it's Charlie & Scott's band.

I'm sure that has a little to do with it. Do you think that his voice just works better with that classic metal sound than with the Anthrax speed/thrash sound?

 

[The saYer]

I don't think any heavy rock fan can honestly say in their heart of hearts that they hate metallica

You are all really cool people, and I hate to disagree with you here, but ted's qoute is exactly what I don't get. I admit that metallica was the first band I heard, but instead of getting me into metal, it was getting me out of it! I did liked some of the solos, very few at least, but I was ashamed to say that I liked metal because of metallica's weak sound and this didn't have anything to do with politics or whatever you said. (this was way back when I was a kid) When I heard the real bands I said, dang! what do people see in metallica when there are all these great bands! I still don't get it. Plus when I saw them on tv, it wasn't their short hair or style or whatever, they were just weird acting.

 

[The saYer]

hetfield at a stakehouse? I probably wouldn't recognize him.

 

[Bryant]

I'm sure that has a little to do with it. Do you think that his voice just works better with that classic metal sound than with the Anthrax speed/thrash sound?

To be honest, later in their career, Armored Saint got on the thrashy side and weren't that much unlike Anthrax in many ways. My view is that the problem with Anthrax is that they had Joey Belladonna for a vocalist. I don't dislike Joey in the least as he was great on stage and he "fit" the band, but he wasn't a great vocalist. He really isn't in the same league as Bush and I don't think the band knows how to write music to take advantage of Bush's prowess. Of course John isn't young anymore either. He may not have the pipes he once had, so that could be part of it as well.

Bryant

 

[Greeno]

My view is that the problem with Anthrax is that they had Joey Belladonna for a vocalist. I don't dislike Joey in the least as he was great on stage and he "fit" the band, but he wasn't a great vocalist.
Bryant

I like the Anthrax albums with Joey WAAAYY better than any of the Bush albums. And again, nothing against Bush, I like his voice, but it doesn't work well with the Anthrax sound.

 

[baldyboy]

been listening to state of euphoria today,funnily enough.that album rocks!
i'm still having trouble getting over what the saYer says about the tallica-i mean everyone slags off the new stuff,but i think he's the first person into metal i've ever encountered that hates the earlier stuff.a few people didnt rate it too highly,but never anyone with quite his vitriol on the subject.guess there had to be one.

 

[Lord of Delusions]

If you really sit down and listen, Puppets seems to be the beginning of a change for them. I personally like all their stuff from Puppets on up. I guess I have grown out of the thrash stage in my life. I also agree that Hetfield IS Metallica. It would never have been the same without him. Think about it. If someone other than Cliff had died, which member lost would have signaled the end of the band? Though I guess that the issue is if the change was from the beginning. Who knows? I can't imagine them being any more succesful then they already are.

The only band that I can think of that has changed a frontman and lived to tell about it is Black Sabbath . Anthrax has been floundering for years (sadly), Iron Maiden wised up and got Bruce back before too much damage was done, Judas Preist fell on thier face, and Van Halen had that nasty bit of time with Gary whats-his-face. Its not good to go changing things like that. The public gets very antsy when you do.

Also, don't forget that at one time Kiss put out an ill-recieved experimental album. Of course they are the worlds greatest sellout/marketing machine, and I doubt that the world hardly noticed.

 

[Greeno]

If someone other than Cliff had died, which member lost would have signaled the end of the band?

Also, don't forget that at one time Kiss put out an ill-recieved experimental album. Of course they are the worlds greatest sellout/marketing machine, and I doubt that the world hardly noticed.

Cliff's death did signal the end of the band. I kinda saw him as the guy that kept everyone grounded. Newsted was also like that, all about the music, but he could not pull it off since the other members didn't respect him.... forever the new guy.

As for Kiss, they've been followers since Dynasty came out, jumping on one bandwagon then another. Dynasty had some disco in it, The Elder (well I don't know what the hell that was about), Animalize and Asylum were hair metal, and Revenge was trying to keep up witht the late 80's heavier sound. And now they're on the reunion bandwagaon. The only bigger bandwagon jumper is David Bowie.... actually he's just more of a straight up thief who's never head an original idea. Having said all of that, I love 70's Kiss along with some of the 80's stuff, and I hope Bowie burns in hell.