visionquest wrote:
Anyone...I mean ANYONE who would say a statement like this, was NOT around when Metallica released their ONLY good albums. 1. Kill 'Em All....2. Ride The Lightning...3. Master of Puppets...4. And Justice For All....after that, it doesn't matter because they became hard rock. Those first 4 albums were the blueprint for thrash. Certainly not the mainstream whiny ass rock that Nickelback peddles and some folks consider "metal". If Nickelback is metal, then I give up on music.
Metallica, for the most part died after "and justice for all" came out to a large majority of us fans. Before "enter sandman", the mainstream didn't know Metallica, and we felt that the mainstream was taking our band from us. If you were around during the reign of the Big 4(Metallica, Megadeth, Anthrax, and Slayer) you would understand feelings on this. Metallica were thrash, and thrash DID NOT belong on the radio, and it still doesn't. Do they belong there now? Yes, Metallica is a radio band now, like Nickelback I suppose. But to equate Metallica with Nickelback in any sense or form is totallly unjustified at this point, unless of course Nickelback makes "kill 'em all 2". That won't happen...so, they suck and they suck bad.
PS: Yes, I'm offended, and yes this is somewhat of a lecture on being "true". Thrash 'till death I guess.
This makes the most sense so far. But another thing I've never understood is how people say Metallica "sucks" because their sound changed a bit. So what if they became hard rock? The music was still good, whether YOU liked it or not. It just wasn't thrash. And I must say, as Metallica fan, I do not like Kill 'Em All. I love the other records you mentioned.
It's one thing to say, "You know, after JFA, I didn't really care for Metallica's music", but it's another to say "You know, after JFA, Metallica really sucked and became irrelevant."
To me that is just ignorant.
