Is Metallica EVER gonna make a new album?

[AlexHiro4]

I'm a HUGE Metallica fan. I've followed their stuff since I was in high school, and I own every major album of theirs. I think one of the greatest works of art they ever put together was "Metallica S&M". I think blending the sound of a symphony and a heavy metal band was genius. Anyway, in 2003 they came out with "St. Anger" which was AWFUL! I'd loved EVERY Metallica album until they made that piece of junk. BLEH! Anyway, since then they haven't made a new album to redeem themselves for the crap they'd made. Do you guys think they will ever make a new album?

[Ozone]

They say it'll be out in the fall. Personally, I think your question should be whether or not anyone will actually care about the new album.

[exigence]

I wouldnt care if they made another one or not, the black album was the end of metallica, everything before that was great i havent heard s&m because iv never heard anything good about it.

[AlexHiro4]

I wouldnt care if they made another one or not, the black album was the end of metallica, everything before that was great i havent heard s&m because iv never heard anything good about it.

I disagree. Metallica was still great after the Black album, they were just different. They weren't quite as "hardcore" sounding, but it was still very musically artistic. Honestly, I do prefer to listen to darker sounding heavy metal, but I'm still pretty open minded to new ideas as long as they are musical. Metallica learned how to adapt in the late 90's in order to have a wider variety of fans. That's why they sounded so different. As far as Metallica S&M is concerned, I don't see how ANYONE can say bad stuff about that album. I know that they only had two new songs on the album, but the remakes with the symphony are great. Once you listen to some of those older songs with the symphony it's hard to go back to the originals. The new versions have a lot more fullness. You'd be amazed at how much strings, brass, and woodwinds can add to a heavy metal band.

[Ozone]

S&M is relatively weak in my opinion.... Apocalyptica did a better job with re-composing their songs than they did =/... and Metallica hasn't been metal since ...And Justice For All.


I do have to admit that No Leaf Clover is a decent song though.

[AlexHiro4]

S&M is relatively weak in my opinion.... Apocalyptica did a better job with re-composing their songs than they did =/... and Metallica hasn't been metal since ...And Justice For All.


I do have to admit that No Leaf Clover is a decent song though.

If you don't mind me asking, what exactly do you think is so weak about S&M? I'm not trying to be confrontational or anything, I'm just curious. I'll agree with you that Apocalyptica did do a GREAT job playing the older stuff, but if I remember correctly they didn't ADD anything extra to the songs. They played them exactly the way Metallica did....it just sounded cool because it was coming from four cellos. When the San Francisco Symphony played with Metallica Michael Kamen (the concert conductor and music arranger) added a lot of new motives and counter-melodies. The chords sounded more full too. I know all of this is just my opinion, but I wanted to explain my reasoning. Also, as a far as Metallica not being metal anymore, well I agree with you about that too. Although I personally feel like the cut-off point was the Balck Album, not ....And Justice for All. Just because they're more of a "hard rock" band than a heavy metal band now doesn't mean that all of their newer music is bad. It's just different.

And yes, No Leaf Clover really is a good song. It's my girlfriend's favorite.

[DragonmasterAndy]

Metallica sold out. They went back on everything they had previously said, and it was almost as if it happened over night. They went from being pioneers of the Bay Area Thrash Metal scene (although they were really from LA and they owe most of their success to Dave Mustaine, who launched their name out there and almost single-handedly invented that style of playing to begin with) to eye liner-wearing sellouts who were clearly targeting the mindless sheep of MTV to make more money. You can LOVE them all you want, but that simple fact remains and all they are now is a shadow of what they once were, which wasn't even that amazing to begin with.

There were many who did, and still do things better than Metallica ever have, or will.

My two cents.

[AlexHiro4]

Metallica sold out. They went back on everything they had previously said, and it was almost as if it happened over night. They went from being pioneers of the Bay Area Thrash Metal scene (although they were really from LA and they owe most of their success to Dave Mustaine, who launched their name out there and almost single-handedly invented that style of playing to begin with) to eye liner-wearing sellouts who were clearly targeting the mindless sheep of MTV to make more money. You can LOVE them all you want, but that simple fact remains and all they are now is a shadow of what they once were, which wasn't even that amazing to begin with.

There were many who did, and still do things better than Metallica ever have, or will.

My two cents.

Okay man, first of all this is a thread about whether or not Metallica is going to make a new album, not a "Let's bash Metallica" thread. Second, I believe Metallica makes good MUSIC (whether it is "metal", "thrash metal", or whatever), and considering I did MAJOR in music in college I'd say I have a pretty educated opinion on the subject. I listen to a wide variety of music from Baroque to bebop jazz to heavy metal (and everything in between), so I have a really open mind when I listen to anything. Third, I don't mind you having your own opinion. EVERYONE is entitled to their own opinion, and I don't care whether or not you like Metallica. You can hate them as much as you want. However, if you don't have something positive or constructive to say....please don't post on this thread.

[Ozone]

There were a lot of times where the symphony and the band seemed to be out of sync and the sounds clashed rather than meshed. Actually it almost seemed like the two were working against each other at some points. I remember hearing the orchestrated version of Master of Puppets for the first time and cringing, despite how cool the beginning sounded. The same goes for One and just about every other song. Each song had its good parts, but they all had parts where the whole song just seemed to go awry, minus Clover. It was a very good idea, but I think that they most certainly could have pulled it off a lot better than they did, thus, it's weak.


Opeth needs to come out with that new album soon


PS-Duke Ellington ftw.

[AlexHiro4]

There were a lot of times where the symphony and the band seemed to be out of sync and the sounds clashed rather than meshed. Actually it almost seemed like the two were working against each other at some points. I remember hearing the orchestrated version of Master of Puppets for the first time and cringing, despite how cool the beginning sounded. The same goes for One and just about every other song. Each song had its good parts, but they all had parts where the whole song just seemed to go awry, minus Clover. It was a very good idea, but I think that they most certainly could have pulled it off a lot better than they did, thus, it's weak.


Opeth needs to come out with that new album soon


PS-Duke Ellington ftw.

Thank you for your constructive input. I agree that they sounded out of sync part of the time, but you do have to remember that it was a live album. No album is going to sound perfectly polished unless it's done in a studio, but I do understand where you're coming from. I also agree that some of the sounds clashed, but that's just how music is sometimes. There are a ton of jazz charts out there where some of the chords don't quite make sense, but the weirdness grows on you after you hear it a few times. I personally felt like all the stuff Michael Kamen wrote fit in it's own way, but that might just be because I have weird taste. Just so you know, I'm not biased towards "all things Metallica". After all, I've already admitted that "St. Anger" made me SICK. I guess I just like unique sounding music (as long as it's not TOO abstract). All in all, I liked the unique sound the album had (which is why it's my favorite), but I can see how it's not for everyone. Anyway, thanks again for being constructive.

Btw, I think it's cool that you like Duke Ellington. "In a Sentimental Mood" is one of my favorite charts to play on Tenor Sax. The local big band I'm in has a really cool arrangement of it.

[DragonmasterAndy]

Okay man, first of all this is a thread about whether or not Metallica is going to make a new album, not a "Let's bash Metallica" thread. Second, I believe Metallica makes good MUSIC (whether it is "metal", "thrash metal", or whatever), and considering I did MAJOR in music in college I'd say I have a pretty educated opinion on the subject. I listen to a wide variety of music from Baroque to bebop jazz to heavy metal (and everything in between), so I have a really open mind when I listen to anything. Third, I don't mind you having your own opinion. EVERYONE is entitled to their own opinion, and I don't care whether or not you like Metallica. You can hate them as much as you want. However, if you don't have something positive or constructive to say....please don't post on this thread.

I didn't bash them, really. You seem to love them so much that everything not praising them = bashing. Also, I never said that the style of music they play determined why I don't like them. I elaborated on why I don't like them. Don't twist my words, it's irritating. Good for you, for majoring in music. That's really cool. My father majored in music before you were born. It doesn't mean anything. I also listen to a wide variety of music. I mainly listen to Metal, but I also listen to such greats as Al Di Meola and Eric Johnson. You should stop being so incredibly defensive. It causes you to indirectly make false accusations.

On that note, Metallica have been making a new album for quite a while now. I don't think it'll be worth hearing. They're a dead band. MY opinion I.E. don't get worked up over it because you disagree.

[Benevolent_Ghaleon]

If they're smart they won't. Bands can't drop a lot of levels in popularity and then just jump right back. They also can't just change in style. If there are too many changes (which doesn't have to be many) or there has been too much of a break between the last major hit, they won't be accepted back. Sorta like when a mother bird won't touch the "tainted" chick.

[AlexHiro4]

I didn't bash them, really. You seem to love them so much that everything not praising them = bashing. Also, I never said that the style of music they play determined why I don't like them. I elaborated on why I don't like them. Don't twist my words, it's irritating. Good for you, for majoring in music. That's really cool. My father majored in music before you were born. It doesn't mean anything. I also listen to a wide variety of music. I mainly listen to Metal, but I also listen to such greats as Al Di Meola and Eric Johnson. You should stop being so incredibly defensive. It causes you to indirectly make false accusations.

On that note, Metallica have been making a new album for quite a while now. I don't think it'll be worth hearing. They're a dead band. MY opinion I.E. don't get worked up over it because you disagree.

I really don't understand how you can say that you didn't bash them in your previous post. You called them sellouts, you seemed to indicate that Dave Mustaine (who I DO agree is a phenominal guitarist) is the only reason for their success, and said that they were never that great in the first place. That all pretty much sounds like bashing to me. As far as "not praising them = bashing them" is concerned I'd suggest that you look at the rest of the thread. Ozone isn't exactly a Metallica supporter and I feel like I've been able to have a good discussion with him on this topic. Once again, if you hate Metallica that's perfectly fine. I know that not everyone is going to like the same type of music or the same bands. I think what really bothered me is the WAY that you said what you said. It looked a lot like you were stating fact, not opinion. I do apologize for getting as worked up as I did. Also, when I was talking about being a music major I wasn't stating that I knew more than everybody on this thread. I can see how it might have come accross that way, but I was really just trying to show that my opinion was just as valid as yours. I'd also appreciate it if you didn't say my degree doesn't mean anything though. I worked very hard to get my degree and it means a lot to me. Anyway, I do apologize for acting so defensive and twisting your words. I didn't mean to cause any conflict and I'd really like to get along with every here on the message boards.

By the way, I'm not expecting much from their next album either. I'm just hoping it's actually good.

And I do respect your opinion.

[Werefrog]

Bah. I hate the whole mentality of calling any popular band a sell out. Every artist that's ever turned art into a commodity is a sell out. Some are just worse than others.

[AlexHiro4]

Bah. I hate the whole mentality of calling any popular band a sell out. Every artist that's ever turned art into a commodity is a sell out. Some are just worse than others.

....Kenny G maybe? Lol. J/K.

[Benevolent_Ghaleon]

Bah. I hate the whole mentality of calling any popular band a sell out. Every artist that's ever turned art into a commodity is a sell out. Some are just worse than others.

The more money and popularity a band gets, the less their poor and jealous fans can relate to them. They also lose some self-esteem when they find out that what they're listening to isn't as "underground" as they'd like. Calling them sellouts is pretty close to complaining about not having money.

[DezoPenguin]

They also lose some self-esteem when they find out that what they're listening to isn't as "underground" as they'd like.

"How dare millions of other people agree with my taste!? How can I claim to be better than they are if others actually agree with me?!"

Now me, I would scream happily if all the things I liked became ravingly popular. The music I like would be readily available at "make profits through sales volume" prices, the videogames I like would be on the shelves when I want to buy them (and would get sequels), the TV shows I like would stay on the air instead of being yanked for low ratings, the book series I like would be at the bookstores (and maybe actually in mass-market paperback release instead of trade paperbacks*), the anime industry would be rolling in dough (and harem comedies would go away, since...well, I did specify that it was the things that I like...), and all the things I enjoy would get a large enough quantity of fanfiction that even at the usual rates of chaff to wheat there would still be plenty worth reading.

*My opinion on trade paperbacks: All the inconvenience of a hardback (doesn't fit in a pocket, doesn't fit in my desk drawer, doesn't allow for stacking of multiple layers on my limited bookshelf space) and none of the durability. And hey--for this annoying and inferior product, I'm actually expected to pay MORE money. Yes, yes, let's charge me MORE dollars for a product I want LESS. Now, if the only PB edition is a trade paperback that at least makes some sense ("Not a lot of people will buy this book so let's charge them up the wazoo for it"), but when there's both a trade and a mass-market edition?!? Do they actually have focus groups of people out there saying that they prefer trade paperbacks to mass-markets (and if so, who are these people and why are they not getting the antipsychotic medication they so desperately need**)? Or are they just charging by the size of the sheets of paper??

**This comment hereby insuring that at least five people on this board actually do prefer trade paperbacks to mass-market editions...

[DragonmasterAndy]

Bands get called sellouts when they change their style for the sole purpose of gaining more money and fame (At least, that's the only time I've called a band sellouts). Tell me now, how is that not selling out? It's supposed to be about the music.

Some bands just get popular over time. It happens. Look at Iron Maiden and Judas Priest. Two household names, but both bands have stuck to their guns.

Opeth are popular now, if only with the Metal community. I still love almost everything they've done.

[DragonmasterAndy]

I didn't bash them, really. You seem to love them so much that everything not praising them = bashing. Also, I never said that the style of music they play determined why I don't like them. I elaborated on why I don't like them. Don't twist my words, it's irritating. Good for you, for majoring in music. That's really cool. My father majored in music before you were born. It doesn't mean anything. I also listen to a wide variety of music. I mainly listen to Metal, but I also listen to such greats as Al Di Meola and Eric Johnson. You should stop being so incredibly defensive. It causes you to indirectly make false accusations.

On that note, Metallica have been making a new album for quite a while now. I don't think it'll be worth hearing. They're a dead band. MY opinion I.E. don't get worked up over it because you disagree.

I really don't understand how you can say that you didn't bash them in your previous post. You called them sellouts, you seemed to indicate that Dave Mustaine (who I DO agree is a phenominal guitarist) is the only reason for their success, and said that they were never that great in the first place. That all pretty much sounds like bashing to me. As far as "not praising them = bashing them" is concerned I'd suggest that you look at the rest of the thread. Ozone isn't exactly a Metallica supporter and I feel like I've been able to have a good discussion with him on this topic. Once again, if you hate Metallica that's perfectly fine. I know that not everyone is going to like the same type of music or the same bands. I think what really bothered me is the WAY that you said what you said. It looked a lot like you were stating fact, not opinion. I do apologize for getting as worked up as I did. Also, when I was talking about being a music major I wasn't stating that I knew more than everybody on this thread. I can see how it might have come accross that way, but I was really just trying to show that my opinion was just as valid as yours. I'd also appreciate it if you didn't say my degree doesn't mean anything though. I worked very hard to get my degree and it means a lot to me. Anyway, I do apologize for acting so defensive and twisting your words. I didn't mean to cause any conflict and I'd really like to get along with every here on the message boards.

By the way, I'm not expecting much from their next album either. I'm just hoping it's actually good.

And I do respect your opinion.

If you look back through history, they've indirectly stated Dave was the reason they became what they were. Dave Mustaine pretty much invented thrash metal, along with Gary Holt and Bobby Gustafson from Overkill. Those three were mainly responsible for it coming together the way it did. I'm simply stating a fact about Metallica. Kill 'Em All was a landmark release and Dave wrote a lot more of it than they claim he did. The best songs had his name written all over them. I hate Metallica now. I like two of their albums: Ride the Lightning and ...And Justice For All. Too bad Lars Ulrich can't drum to save his life!

Point taken on what you've had to say. I did not mean to say that your degree doesn't "mean" anything entirely. I was just saying that it doesn't make your opinion more valid than mine. Hell, I plan to obtain a degree in music myself. Anyway, there is no bad blood. I was not mad in the first place. Happy posting.

[Werefrog]

Bands get called sellouts when they change their style for the sole purpose of gaining more money and fame (At least, that's the only time I've called a band sellouts). Tell me now, how is that not selling out? It's supposed to be about the music.

Okay, well that's assuming that you have a magical raygun that you can use to tell you the motivation of why a band changes their style. Did you ever think that they might have changed their style because they bored with their other style? You're using the reasoning Band A changed to Style B which made them a lot of money. Therefore, they must have changed their style to make a lot of money. This is a fallacious argument since the making a lot of money part may have been a coincidence.

Also, it hasn't just been about the music for quite sometime. As I said before, music has been turned into a good to be bought and sold-- like it or not. This applies even to the more obscure bands. They're just operating in the Long Tail (which is becoming more and more profitable I might add). That's not to say that the music aspect isn't important as well. It's just that it's not just about the music.