Metal Reviews

To be honest, I think anybody that gets so dramatic about a band that they refuse to even listen to their earlier stuff when they start sucking seriously needs help. I mean, music is music. If you don't like a band's more recent music/motives, that's fine. But don't be one of those "ex-Metallica fans" that cries every night over what the band has become, and don't let your problems with their recent material hinder your enjoyment of their past material either.

Note: I'm not speaking to anybody in particular here, just the people that get so mellowdramatic over Metallica that they make up "Anti-Metallica websites" and actually start crying over what the band became in the 90s/00s.

Its not a question of image, it has nothing to do with present day Metallica, I just never thought the album was that good. Its as simple as that. There are too many metal bands out there that have released awesome records for me to consider anything by Metallica to be classic. They just arent that good of a band.

yep i second that, you made what i was gonna type alot shorter, . anyway you look at it, it is a classic!!!

Basing whether albums are classic on whether or not more people buy it is, and should never be, the criteria for determining whether an album is classic, in any genre. A classic album should define a genre, or show one of its peak; according to some people here, including me, Master of Puppets does not do this. Therefore, it is not a classic album to us, and we don't think that it deserves classic status.

I'm sorry to say so but what you think doesn't matter... MoP, IS A CLASSIC ! you wanna know why ? I'll tell you why : it's a classic because it got many people into metal (meaning not NU metal), it's a classic because it started to pull more progressive music in a thrash environment, it's a classic because all the 8 songs (imo) kick serious asses and because that opinion has widely spread since its release, it's a classic because it influenced a lot of listeners and a lot of bands, finally, it's a classic because I says so and if you dare say something else I'll hunt you down & spank you until you agree

and nobody said you had to like it... for example I agree Operation : Mindcrime, Reign in Blood, Images & Words or Rust in Peace are classics however I am not a fan of any of these albums... :roll:

'cause finally, what decides if an album is a classic or not is the general consensus around it... that's the case with MoP so just quit whining about how Meatallica was and is crap and just admit the facts !

Well said Emokid, i agree with you fully.

I too agree with you, emokid.
Master Of Puppets is a classic, hands down.

How many of the new bands we listen to now say in interviews that their influences were Metallica, among other bands...
Metallica was the instrument that made the world aware of pure heavy metal during the 80's. Their music and stature started other musicians to create metal bands.
MOP is a classic for all those reasons. The name Metallica will always be known for "classic" status. Those of you who never liked them, thats fine, but you dont know what your missing. And you are in the VAST minority.
It doesnt matter what Metallica have become now, this review is about the old 80's 'Tallica....and comments should be based on the 80's 'Tallica for this discussion.
All of Metallica's 80's albums should be regarded as Classics, they deserve nothing less. From the blitzing Kill Em All, which gave us metal tracks such as Seek And Destroy and Whiplash, to Ride The Lightning, an underrated album which gave us Fight Fire With Fire, For Whom The Bell Tolls and Fade To Black, to my personal alltime favourite Metallica album.... And Justice For All.
Blackened, One, Harvestor Of Sorrow, Frayed Ends Of Sanity, Shortest Straw.....
METALLICA = CLASSIC

end of discussion

Very well said. You and emokid seem to be able to grasp the concept of a classic album.

Ha ha Emokid, you're starting to sound like me. SO far I think I'm the only one who has told people their opinion means jack shit. Well done. in any case I still think Metallica is a shitty metal band. Good for beginners....but not for an experienced metal master such as myself.

a question: how can you still get you head through your shirts?
ain't that neck a little big,hmm??? :roll:

I'm liking this...

But concerning the discussion, my problem is that, as a thrash fan, I can't honestly say that Master of Puppets pushed any boundaries and that it only really became that popular because Metallica had good publicity. Your assertion that the classic albums are the most popular ones sounds more like pop music mentality than metal mentality. In any case, this is a pretty dumb debate.

Brahm, I was there in 1986 when MoP came out... I can tell you it only had the publicity it deserved (an by publicity I mean a lot of articles, reviews, interviews etc... metal back then wasn't as marketed as it is now).

and you had to be there when Kill'Em All was released in 1983... I was ! We all felt a breath of fresh air from this album and its "followers" (Slayer, Anthrax mostly... Megadeth & Exodus came later... 1985 :roll: ) and Metallica were the first to reach our hands and it was soooooo good !

when Ride The Lightning came out we were still pretty excited with KEA so we ate the album as if it was as good as its predecessor which he wasn't while containing some very good songs (Fight Fire With Fire, Creeping death, Fade to Black, For Whom the Bells toll, The Call of Cthulu).

then we had to wait 2 FVKKING YEARS to get another release by that fucking leading thrash band (that's what almost everybody thought of them back then).... and the scene had grown bigger and stronger, yet, Metallica BLEW US ALL with their 3rd album... on about 50 metalheads I knew back then only two or three had negative remarks on the album (mainly due to the production)... does it say we were all deaf, dumb & blind , was Metallica another marketed pseudo metalband sent by the big corporations ? NO ! Metallica were 4 kids, crazed on NWOBHM and punk rock (which was pretty big in California back then) who wanted to mix both in a super-powerful new mix : and they did ! and THRASH WAS BORN ! and Metallica has a big part of the credit in this !

so regardless objections you might have on their quality from your "modern perspective", it doesn't change the FUCKING FACT : Metallica 83/86 ( some would say 88 ) ARE ABSOLUTE METAL CLASSICS !!! :twisted:

I'll take your word for it since you were there, but I still believe there to be a huge drop in quality between Kill'Em All/Ride the Lightning and this, and I therefore believe that if people are going to fellate any Metallica album, it should be one of those two. And bands like Exodus and Overkill were formed even before Metallica... Metallica basically just got a record deal first (because of Lars), and although they are among the pioneers of thrash, they are in no way the only pioneers, nor did they have a larger role than say, Exodus, Overkill, Slayer, or Megadeth (for as we know, Dave Mustaine wrote a good deal of Kill'Em All anyway). And I still can't consider this a classic. Maybe there's something wrong with me, but I just don't get it. This album is composed of two excellent thrash songs (Battery, MoP), two average thrash songs (Disposable Heroes, Damage Inc.), one incredible instrumental (Orion), two boring songs that become all right at some point (Leper Messiah, Sanitarium) and an incredibly boring, plodding and generally terrible song (The Thing That Should Not Be). What makes this so much better than hundreds of other thrash albums? Why is it better than Victims of Deception, Darkness Descends, Coma of Souls, Eternal Nightmare, History of a Time to Come? Hell, why is it better than Metallica's first two albums? Please explain to me why all these albums were basically ignored in favour of this one. What makes this one so awesome?

clas·sic - adj.

Belonging to the highest rank or class. (MoP does not)

Serving as the established model or standard: a classic example of colonial architecture. (Debatable, but MoP is not nearly the "established model" reign in blood was)

Having lasting significance or worth; enduring. (Not for me, I guess this one is opinion based.)

So, based on an actual dictionary definition of the word classic, MoP (debatably) does not fit the criteria for a classic. However, as the last criterion is opinion based, I guess it depends on the listener.



So if I don't like the album, it's a problem with MY tastes more than anything else? That doesn't make ANY sense. Thousands of people who are into Metal give shitloads of acclaim to Mayhem, but I personally think they are at best a VERY mediocre band, especially considering bands such as Emporer who explored the genre in a much more enriching and challenging way. When someone says "You have good taste" they almost always mean "You have similar tastes to mine". Metallica isn't on this list because the album is of infinite quality, they are here because, amongst the thrash albums released that year, this was probably the most accessible. And therfore, because it was more accessible, more metalheads were likely to purchase it. This does not mean that the album was the best of that year, and it certainly does not make the album a classic, and so if thousands of metalheads hold this album in high regards, I think that can be attributed to the accessibility of the album more than anything else.

since you guys seem to keep considering Metallica not from an historical perspective I'll stop debating the matter with you... Clearly it's one "You had To Be There" things or I failed communicating just how it felt for us back then :roll:

so, guessing you are all much more intelligent than we used to be, I'll excuse myself for daring oppose your most prufunds trusts... :oops:

PS : Reign in Blood is a way overrated album as Slayer is a way overrated band

PPS : I love "The Thing That Should Not Be"

PPPS : I hate Idiots :evil:

So many MOP haters out there...whats wrong with people. Every song on MOP is kick ass. A true thrash metal fan would over analize this album because Metallica are hardy a thrash band. Calling The Thing That Should Not Be a boring song is an example of over-analizing....its slower and cannot be described as thrash. Welcome Home- boring? WTF! Its one of Metallica's anthems!
I am also a slayer fan, but i agree that Reign In Blood is over-rated. Perfect for a thrash fan, but i cant get enjoyment from songs which last 1:30 an an album no longer than 20-30 minutes. Seasons In The Abyss- now thats a good Slayer album and i think has already recieved classic status in metalreviews...

Slayer, Metallica, Megadeth, Anthrax = Over rated.

The big four are complete shit as far as I'm concerned....Megadeth being the best of the four. Slayer's only really great album in my opinon was Show No Mercy. Megadeth was always better than Metallica....but they were never really that good. ANthrax had one good album and then went gay.

Now Holy Terror....there's a thrash metal band. Their two albums are classics and better than anything released by the big four...yet they recieve no recognition because people can't get past album sales.

That's what I'm trying to debate with you. Why is Metallica so historically important as compared to the other thrash bands? As for Reign in Blood, yes, it is an overrated album, and easily beaten by Hell Awaits, Show no Mercy and South of Heaven. And yes, I hate idiots too... But how has idiocy been present in this thread?

And Holy Terror's got it. The Big Four, with the exception of Megadeth, whom I love and are among my favourite thrash bands, were and are completely overrated. Plenty of bands, from Kreator to Mekong Delta to Dark Angel to Heathen completely beat bands like Anthrax and Slayer.

People tend to consider people with different opinions then their own idiots. Nasty habbit that shows up on these boards as well. Quite often.



That's very true.

Other than that, I think Emokid is quite right in what he said, regarding Metallica, MOP and the way it was received back then.

If some people don't like Metallica or don't consider them classics it's their business, and it's fine with me. But I just can't help to notice that most people who think like that are either die-hard thrash fans, either teens or in their early twenties, either both.
While the fact that Metallica will never make best band in a die-hard thrash fan's book is selfexplanatory, I'm curious about the second category. If I were 18, let's say, now, in 2005, would I like Metallica? And if I wouldn't, would it be because of their recent shit that influences the mood in which I'm approaching the old stuff, or simply because their music hasn't aged too well, because time and the general metal evolution has proven that they were never that good to begin with?

HT :
there's a reason why the big 4 were the big 4.... maybe your modern perspective shows different things than we did back then but that doesn't change the fact those bands (and Metallica 1rst) changed the face of the metal scene in the years 83/85... then a lot of good bands followed that never could get the popularity of the Big 4.... doesn't mean they were bad, just that all the slots had ben taken... :roll:

Brahm :
Metallica are historically more important because they were first, because they were new, because they kicked asses and probably because they were the easiest of the thrash bands.
And Idiocy has been present when you & HT and a few others just refuse Metallica their Classic status even though it's very obvious they are (for the reasons I just told you and for those I gave in previous posts). deny historical facts is idiocy

and now, I consider this thread is over as for my participation in it !

:roll: