New Metallica Material?

merlinsmerryman

Check out http://www.allmetallica.com/news.php?id=320. Not sure myself that if they are working on new material would they really play it during a sound-check?

Whiskeyjack

That's the biggest pile of horse**** I've ever heard.They were just jamming.Loads of band do that during soundcheck.

However I have heard news of them going back to the studio soon enough.

senordingdong

Can't wait(!)

Arucard

whiskeyjack make sense

merlinsmerryman

Before I get slated any more I apologise was only tryin to be a little funny, sorry(I know they were only jammin). Lot of rumours going around that Rick Rubin will produce the new album.

senordingdong

Instead of Bum Buddie Bob Rock?
Not likely.

Doctor J

Eazzy earns a holiday. PM me in two weeks to lift the ban.

Let's keep it civil, please folks.

dimerocks

apparently bob rock is busy next year with motley crué and cant do the metallica album so go the rumours.

SouperComputer

apparently bob rock is busy next year with motley crué and cant do the metallica album so go the rumours.

Thats the best news ive heard in 15 years!

[edit] I hope none if what's in the video is put on al album. Sounds like crap! [/edit]

mickymg2003

Are they not in the middle of recording the album already. They Took a Break before xmas. Are they back recording yet?

projectmayhem

tbh i'm surprised at people's optimism about this band now. they've released utter muck for a decade or so and everyone's waiting for ride the lightning pt.II

the band isn't even a band anymore. they're employee's of metallica inc. i lost all hope in them after watching some kind of monster. all they're good for is a live show where they play 2 new songs at maximum and focus on the old stuff for 2 hours

It wasn't me!

Wouldn't mind hearing the old stuff if they still had their chops about them to be honest.

merlinsmerryman

mickymg2003 wrote:

Are they not in the middle of recording the album already. They Took a Break before xmas. Are they back recording yet?

Only details released are that they are in the studio Rehearsing in preparation for the new album. No details if anything has been recorded yet.

Whiskeyjack

merlinsmerryman wrote:

Only details released are that they are in the studio Rehearsing in preparation for the new album. No details if anything has been recorded yet.

It'll either be the best album since the black album or another pile of **** like St. Anger.

gizmo

projectmayhem wrote:

tbh i'm surprised at people's optimism about this band now. they've released utter muck for a decade or so and everyone's waiting for ride the lightning pt.II

Wouldnt we be waiting for Master Of Puppets Pt. II more?

senordingdong

projectmayhem wrote:

tbh i'm surprised at people's optimism about this band now. they've released utter muck for a decade or so and everyone's waiting for ride the lightning pt.II

Wise men learn from their mistakes.
Let's hope they take the fans criticism well and and not make the same mistakes aghain.

mayordenis

its their last chance to salvage their career in my opinion,
as a fan of pretty old metal (mostly power metal and the likes, but a little trash) i think the majority of metallica fans know that st. Anger was a piece of ****,
but alot will give them the benefit of the doubt and hope that with a decent producer and maybe some effort and standard tuning and maybe even a real drum set they might be able to recreate something close to their brilliance of old.

pbsuxok1znja4r

senordingdong wrote:

Wise men learn from their mistakes.
Let's hope they take the fans criticism well and and not make the same mistakes aghain.

Yeah wise men learn from their mistakes, but not from their fans' criticisms. Metallica produced more than a few goddamn amazing albums by sticking to their guns and having faith in their own personal sense of what sounds good. 99% of Metallica's fans couldn't write a decent song to save their lives. Where would Metallica be if they just pandered to their ungrateful audience and produced whatever they theought the "fans" wanted to hear? Then they would cease to really be a band.

Metallica's artistic integrity remains entirely intact, IMO. St Anger may be my least favourite Metallica album, but that album proves that Metallica write what they write for themselves and not for their 'fans'. Hell, they've been proving that since Load. So just get used to the idea that they don't f*cking care what kind of music you think they should write.

Doctor J

scouser.tommy wrote:

Metallica's artistic integrity remains entirely intact, IMO.

I draw your attention to the scene in the documentary where Bob Rock and Lars are telling Kirk that there won't be any guitar solos on the album because they're dated and not in keeping with the trend of the time, which was downtuned riffs and no solos. Correctly, Kirk points out that following the current trend would date the album to that point in time yet folds like piece of paper and does what he's told like a good puppet.

That's not artistic integrity :v:

pbsuxok1znja4r

Doctor J wrote:

I draw your attention to the scene in the documentary where Bob Rock and Lars are telling Kirk that there won't be any guitar solos on the album because they're dated and not in keeping with the trend of the time, which was downtuned riffs and no solos. Correctly, Kirk points out that following the current trend would date the album to that point in time yet folds like piece of paper and does what he's told like a good puppet.

That's not artistic integrity :v:

They didn't specifically mention "downtuned riffs" once.
Yeah, so they decided to forgo the solos. Probably a mistake. But you have to remember that there are two extremes to which they could have veered. Personally I think the kind of fast, almost shred-like solos that can be heard on their 80's material will always be more "dated" than not having solos could be.

Not playing solos does not date their music to any period. Solo-less heavy guitar music has been around for decades. Initially, I - like you - thought Kirk was correct in saying that not playing 'em dates it to that period. But it doesn't. He's wrong. The guitar solo is far more genre-specific and time-period specific than the absence of the guitar solo.

Of course, the fact of the matter is, solos are one of Metallica's fortés and by playing solos they are playing to one of their strengths. But to over specialize is to breed in weakness. Like the guys said in the documentary, if it suits the song; solo, it if doesn't; don't.

Personally I see that decision as willingness to mature, maybe experiment, try new things. Play outside of their own established, pidgeonholed genre for a time. At least they weren't too afraid to displease the solo-craving fans. But like I said, solos are their forté, and they'll be a welcome return.

So yeah, artistic integrity still intact.

mayordenis

scouser.tommy wrote:

So yeah, artistic integrity still intact.

no it's not, not at all.
I don't think you got doctor J's point at all either,
it wasn't the actual pushing of solo's away or the adopting of D-tuning that he was making a point about more so why they were adopting these new ways.
The reason being they wanted to be in with the current trends, ie. ****ty pointless melodies then straight into a mesh of horrible guitar rant without any sign of their once immortal musicianship.

pbsuxok1znja4r

I got his point, don't worry.
They did it because it probably occured to them that it might sound good, that it might sound new, fresh. You can only write so many palm-muted
E|-000-000-000-|
thrash-style riffs before they start sounding lame. It's clear to me, at least, that Metallica were not trying to jump in with current trends, but rather to outgrow the old ones.

Doctor J

No, you didn't get it. I wasn't suggesting that Metallica turned to **** because they were going somewhere different with their music, I was using the example to illustrate how they were going somewhere different with their music. It was a conscious policy, a specific agenda with their songwriting which was not artistically motivated or inspired. It was a result of analysing what was out there and doing the same thing. For a band of their illustrious pedigree, it was a truly heartbreaking thing to see.

That isn't art, that's a business plan. They weren't considering what was right for the individual pieces of music, instead they were altering their music to fit in with the trends of the time.

pbsuxok1znja4r

Doctor J wrote:

No, you didn't get it. I wasn't suggesting that Metallica turned to **** because they were going somewhere different with their music, I was using the example to illustrate how they were going somewhere different with their music. It was a conscious policy, a specific agenda with their songwriting which was not artistically motivated or inspired. It was a result of analysing what was out there and doing the same thing. For a band of their illustrious pedigree, it was a truly heartbreaking thing to see.

That isn't art, that's a business plan. They weren't considering what was right for the individual pieces of music, instead they were altering their music to fit in with the trends of the time.

You haven't given any evidence as to why you think it was a "business plan", and I doubt if you can come up with much, because it just plain wasn't.

Drop C tuning does not a nu-metal record make.
Lack of solos does not a nu-metal record make.
The point is, they didn't fit in with the trends of the time. It's simply not a nu-metal album, full stop.

If Metallica wanted to sell out, all they had to do was give the fans RTL Mark II or MOP mark II. Do you have any idea how easy that would've been for them? Haven't you asked yourself why, if they are so business-orientated, haven't they just released yet another thrash-riff shred-solo metalfest of an album? It would be a "glorious return to form" and every Metallica fan would buy the album.
I'll tell you why - Because they would be fooling themselves, as artists and as musicians. It would be nothing short of laziness and stagnancy.

St Anger isn't a great album, by any stretch of the imagination, but at least Metallica did something new for them. Some "truly great" metal bands just make the same album over and over again. Much as I like Iron Maiden, for example, they've made the same album at least 7 times over, with little or no evolution/improvement in their sound, and it's rather pathetic, at times.
From the Black album onwards, Metallica matured. You didn't. But don't bother accusing them of selling out.

Doctor J

scouser.tommy wrote:

From the Black album onwards, Metallica matured. You didn't. But don't bother accusing them of selling out.

You don't know a ****ing thing about me so please don't start getting personal, we have discussed this before, don't start getting personal because you disagree with someone, you know what my response will be.

I am old enough to remember Metallica before their association with Bob Rock and while I would never dismiss a band for changing their sound (quite the opposite, too many bands get stuck in a rut and stagnate) I will say I grew quite disillusioned with their change of direction which seemed, to me, soulless. All the evidence you need of their creative shortcomings are there for all to see on their documentary. You should watch it sometime. The fact is they made a policy on that album to not include guitar solos beacuse guitar solos were not in fashion at the time. Fact. It is there for all to see.

You are, of course, quite right, in pointing out that rehashing the old "classic" material would be the easiest way to make a quick buck. Have you seen any of their recent set lists?

Thomas_S_Hunterson

scouser.tommy wrote:

You haven't given any evidence as to why you think it was a "business plan", and I doubt if you can come up with much, because it just plain wasn't.

St. Anger was one of the most digustingly created albums in history as far as true musicianship is concerened.
It was ridiculously overproduced to make it sound underproduced. It was deliberately as simple as possible so as to appeal to aspiring musicians and to make it sound 'edgy'
The recording was the biggest abhorrence of all.
The music tracks were first written and recorded without lyrics , but then a whole six months later, the band wrote lyrics to fit the music and then recorded them.

pbsuxok1znja4r

Holy f*cking sh*t Doc, there was nothing personal in what I said there. I was pointing out the fact that Metallica's sound moved on, and clearly you didn't move with it, so to speak. You just couldn't dig the new stuff. It was an observation of facts, nothing 'personal' was meant in my saying that, so don't take it that way.
Geez.

Don't worry, I've seen the documentary; more than once.

You can type the word "fact" in italics all you want, but Metallica did not drop the solos to become fashionable. There is no reason for them to want to be 'fashionable'. They are already the most loved haevy metal band of all time. Go back and re-read what I said about guitar solos being more genre and time-period specific than no solos, if you still don't get it.

The fact that you are old enough to remember 'Tallica in the good ol' days counts for nothing. The albums are all there, and we've all heard them.

Metallica haven't been unfaithful to their own vision for their music. That's what counts. fact.

Doctor J

As I recall, the word they used was "dated". Dating music refers to it being in context with the other music of it's time, comparing it to whatever else is current at a particular point in time. They dropped solos because they were viewed at the time as dated, in their own words.

If that's not a clear example of adhering to fashion, I don't know what is.

Dragan

mayordenis wrote:

its their last chance to salvage their career in my opinion,

I would agree with this to a point. It's there last chance to salvage their integrity in our eyes would be better though. There "career" is fine, the money making machine rolls on as steadily as it ever did. Concert tickets sell, albums sell. It's all good.

Except for the music.

To be honest i think we are all assuming the rest of the worlds thinks like us.

Kill em All was the first Metallica Album i heard, back when i was a kid even though it had been out for quite a while at that time and it made me like a band that i feel in love with when i got my hands on Master of Puppets and later on .....And Justice For All.

In escence i was ruined because when i bought Load I cried and i haven't really stopped since.

But what about the kids whose first album was Load, what do they think????

Beekay

Dragan wrote:

But what about the kids whose first album was Load, what do they think????

I see your point and it scares me,but my first album was St.Anger:o and then i got into all the good ones and i haven't listened to St.Anger since

Adam

Dragan wrote:

But what about the kids whose first album was Load, what do they think????

Funnily enough, the first album i heard was Load! 9 years ago i found it in my dads cd collection, it caught my eye so i stuck it on and also found justice.

I listened to Load first and really didn't enjoy it, and moved on to justice, which was the album that hooked me! Followed by some ep's and lp's also in the record collection.

4 years later i got my hands on the rest of the albums and went through them and enjoyed every one, as any sane person should! And then I went back to Load...

...and enjoyed it! I dont know what it was, perhaps my own personal taste had altered over the years, but Load stands as one of my favourite tallica albums to date! Its an easy listen, sounds good, and I feel the passion in the musicians comes across more so than other albums, with anthems like the outlaw torn etc. which was once performed live and clocked in at over 14 minutes, an episode i'm sorry i missed!

Fast forward another few years to the present day and i rarely listen to them at all anymore! I got St.Anger the day it came out, listened to it on the way home, drop tuned my guitar when i got home and played through every note of the album, as its all sickeningly similar to play, and havent really listened to it since. I was very disappointed.

As for the solo/no solo debate going on, i dont think it matters at all, because kirks solo's over those riffs = vomit inducing. And even if it worked, the rest of the album is so different from everything else out there that solo's wouldnt be able to catagorise or 'date' the album in the slightest.
And you are both missing the fact that kirk said he wasn't interested in playing "traditional" solo's anymore, so if he played the solo's he had in mind it probably would severely date it, it would go down in history as the day kirk attacked his guitar with a nail polisher!

Here's hoping they deliver a new album worth listening to someday soon anyway!