Your expectations on Metallica's "Death Magnetic"

Toaster Mantis wrote: Am I the only one here who thinks Load and Reload would have been better received if they hadn't been released under the Metallica name?

I agree. Sure, both of them are a bit too filler-packed, but no one here finds Outlaw Torn or Where the Wild Things Are to be interesting songs?

having read all posts, i have some notes:

Cliff gave them the melody, Mustaine the raw thrash frenzy but still Lars and Jamez are excellent composers...
...AJFA, s/t and Load are almost flawless!!! Reload is just Load leftovers...
the three things i didn't care for in their entire history are St Anger, that napster thing and Some Kind Of Monster DVD..

now as for their new album, i'm not dying to listen to it.. i don't expect of them to 'reinvent music' much as they did back in the 80's but i will buy it cause i'm a fan... the thing that excites me though is that they will probably play in Greece and i'll be there!!!!

Load>The Black Album, the latter of which doesn't really have any great songs. However, The Outlaw Torn and Bleeding Me have to be two of Metallica's finest songs.

Also, I think Fixxxer is one of Metallica's better songs along with The Memory Remains. I can't see the rest of Reload really being any better under another name.

Though my expectations are not high I think they may try to pull out all the stops on this one to redeem themselves form the abysmal St Anger. Though Load and Reload had their (few) good moments I agree with those who think they haven't released a great album since the Black Album.

Valarius wrote: The problem with bands like Metallica is that everyone wants to hear Master of Puppets again. Get with it people. That was released 20 years ago. This is a band that has aged and matured. St. Anger had it's moments. So this one should have to. This album will likely get bad reviews for two reasons. 1. Everyone expects MOP again. 2. Thus far I've read very good things about the songs on this album, therefore everyone will be expecting "old" Metallica and will instantly be let down. Myself, I'm looking forward to a good heavy metal album. Regardless if it's Metallica 1988 or Metallica 2008. \m/ \m/

I see where you're coming from, but it's not just so much everyone wants Master Of Puppets again.
I don't want MoP again, nor do I want AJFA, KEA or RTL again.
What I want is something that at least makes me think "I can hear something new here".
When you've got many metal bands in the last few years and now continuing to push the boundaries of what can be done in metal and pushing boundaries of technique, I know already Metallica wont deliver anything new. I know even if the songs were fairly well written, I wont be blown away by the musicianship, because let's face it Lars is no Mike Portnoy (and given many drummers run rings around Portnoy, Lar's level of ability ain't looking too stunning), I've grown weary of Kirk's predictable soloing style, I don't even remember who the bassist currently is but chances are he doesn't have the genius of Cliff and in general thrash metal, just like many genres of metal just killed itself in terms of producing innovative music because the genres became overflooded with bands that no longer cared about making anything new and instead just going through the motions to make it thrash metal.
There is nothing wrong with Thrash metal per se, but nowadays I just prefer to see bits of thrash metal influence in a prog metal band or something like that, rather than listen to a whole album of thrash written in the last few years.

For some people well written songs will be enough and that's fine, but for me, I wont be able to justify taking the time to listening to something which is just going to entirely predictable and cliche'.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Load>The Black Album, the latter of which doesn't really have any great songs. .

HughesJB4 wrote: Valarius wrote: The problem with bands like Metallica is that everyone wants to hear Master of Puppets again. Get with it people. That was released 20 years ago. This is a band that has aged and matured. St. Anger had it's moments. So this one should have to. This album will likely get bad reviews for two reasons. 1. Everyone expects MOP again. 2. Thus far I've read very good things about the songs on this album, therefore everyone will be expecting "old" Metallica and will instantly be let down. Myself, I'm looking forward to a good heavy metal album. Regardless if it's Metallica 1988 or Metallica 2008. \m/ \m/ I see where you're coming from, but it's not just so much everyone wants Master Of Puppets again. I don't want MoP again, nor do I want AJFA, KEA or RTL again. DB - I could live happily if they decided to put out something akin to "Kill 'Em All". As a matter of fact, if the songs are good, I really don't care if they are seen to be taking a step backwards or forward. What I want is something that at least makes me think "I can hear something new here". When you've got many metal bands in the last few years and now continuing to push the boundaries of what can be done in metal and pushing boundaries of technique, I know already Metallica wont deliver anything new.((((DB - I find that to be the main failing with Motorhead & AC/DC. Which for some reason hasn't stopped me from buying their albums)) I know even if the songs were fairly well written, I wont be blown away by the musicianship,((will the songs matter then ? ) because let's face it Lars is no Mike Portnoy (and given many drummers run rings around Portnoy, Lar's level of ability ain't looking too stunning),((DB - and Philty Animal Taylor was no Neil Peart, nor is Mikkey Dee for that matter, Steve Adler will never get the guest musician spots that Matt Sorum does, and Phil Collins will never get the percussion reputation that Bill Bruford enjoys. Your point as to how that would affect enjoying a good song ? I've grown weary of Kirk's predictable soloing style,(DB - he's a shredder, I don't remember reading about any guitarists inventing new scales or notes. Again, so he's not the best out there. Too many metal (in all its' forms) guitarists sound like one another. This hasn't prevented a the better or more popular groups from achieving some success)) I don't even remember who the bassist currently is but chances are he doesn't have the genius of Cliff (DB - He's called Robert Trujillo. He may be one of the best bassists out there. But he fits his playing withing the context of the band - whether it is or was SUicidal Tendencies, Infectious Grooves or Ozzy. You might, or better , should Google "Robert Trujillo Flamenco". Then please list the metal (and other genre) bass players who have exhibited such ability )and in general thrash metal, just like many genres of metal just killed itself in terms of producing innovative music because the genres became overflooded with bands that no longer cared about making anything new and instead just going through the motions to make it thrash metal.(DB - sounds like trash metal eventually matured and established enough commonalities to distinguish itself as a genre of its' own. SO it has arrived at a point where changes or advances are incremental. I do believe that PA has had a number of threads on that same "problem" with some the genres included here.) There is nothing wrong with Thrash metal per se, but nowadays I just prefer to see bits of thrash metal influence in a prog metal band or something like that, rather than listen to a whole album of thrash written in the last few years.(DB - nice to see that this has turned into a subjective view, eh. I am never surprised whenever an existing music type still manages to show flashes of brilliance, basically music that is made to be enjoyed, not compared to or analyzed for "innovation")) For some people well written songs will be enough and that's fine, but for me, I wont be able to justify taking the time to listening to something which is just going to entirely predictable and cliche'. DB - So we shouldn't count on your bothering with AC/DC, Motorhead, Mastodon, Flower Kings, Porcupine Tree, Opeth and many other musical acts that have found their own "style" and choose to stay true to their muse by writing and playing music that they want to. Sometimes a band gets it right and keeps it there. Sometimes a band stumbles onto something new that makes sense to "add" to their mix. Simply "progressing" for "progression's" sake seems forced, eh)

debrewguy wrote: HughesJB4 wrote: Valarius wrote: The problem with bands like Metallica is that everyone wants to hear Master of Puppets again. Get with it people. That was released 20 years ago. This is a band that has aged and matured. St. Anger had it's moments. So this one should have to. This album will likely get bad reviews for two reasons. 1. Everyone expects MOP again. 2. Thus far I've read very good things about the songs on this album, therefore everyone will be expecting "old" Metallica and will instantly be let down. Myself, I'm looking forward to a good heavy metal album. Regardless if it's Metallica 1988 or Metallica 2008. \m/ \m/ I see where you're coming from, but it's not just so much everyone wants Master Of Puppets again. I don't want MoP again, nor do I want AJFA, KEA or RTL again. DB - I could live happily if they decided to put out something akin to "Kill 'Em All". As a matter of fact, if the songs are good, I really don't care if they are seen to be taking a step backwards or forward. Yeah okay, fair enough, but I'm not debrewguy am I and I don't share your opinion, so feel free to listen to the album if you think the songs are good, I'm just stating that ME PERSONALLY, I, do not want to listen to retroactive thrash. I would think that is reasonable, don't you? What I want is something that at least makes me think "I can hear something new here". When you've got many metal bands in the last few years and now continuing to push the boundaries of what can be done in metal and pushing boundaries of technique, I know already Metallica wont deliver anything new.((((DB - I find that to be the main failing with Motorhead & AC/DC. Which for some reason hasn't stopped me from buying their albums)) I'm not a fan of either Motorhead or AC/DC, but again you can feel free to listen to it  I know even if the songs were fairly well written, I wont be blown away by the musicianship,((will the songs matter then ? ) because let's face it Lars is no Mike Portnoy (and given many drummers run rings around Portnoy, Lar's level of ability ain't looking too stunning),((DB - and Philty Animal Taylor was no Neil Peart, nor is Mikkey Dee for that matter, Steve Adler will never get the guest musician spots that Matt Sorum does, and Phil Collins will never get the percussion reputation that Bill Bruford enjoys. Your point as to how that would affect enjoying a good song ? You've entirely missed what I thought was pretty much implied in what I just said. I don't mind if the drumming isn't spectacular as such, but the point is Lars has been so ridiculously overhyped by the media and he himself has such an inflated ego for such little drumming capability that you could at least hope he has improved over the years, but he hasn't at all, not since the late 80s, he just got lazy like many other muscians who let fame get to their head. At least guys like Dave Weckl, Mike Portnoy etc and other virtuoso drummers can not only walk the walk, but they could talk the talk too, but since they are humble guys, they let their playing speak for their talents and don't feel the need to be complete idiots like Lars is. And believe me, I'm not the only one that thinks Lars should have quit playing in the late 80s while he was ahead. I've grown weary of Kirk's predictable soloing style,(DB - he's a shredder, I don't remember reading about any guitarists inventing new scales or notes. Again, so he's not the best out there. Too many metal (in all its' forms) guitarists sound like one another. This hasn't prevented a the better or more popular groups from achieving some success))What? Where did I ever state it had anything to do with a group achieving sucess? A shredder is a virtuoso guitarist. Kirk is no virtuoso. He can play fast, but he doesn't have the chops of John Petrucci, Steve Vai, Uil Jon Roth, Michael Romeo, Troy Grady (I could go on forever). I liked what Kirk did in the 80s, don't get me wrong, but he, like Lars, obviously didn't improve anymore, and his lead playing is nowhere near as tight as it was back in the 80s. So many of the videos of his latest performances have cringe worthy bends, vibrato, and lots of slop in his alternate picking. For someone that is constantly featured on guitar magazine front covers (of which many magazines were a lot better quality years ago, but now just kiss the asses of mainstream players rather than look more underground for the serious talents), he really needs to lift his game and actually practice more. Ever seen his rendition of Little Wing? It made me want cry, not from it being good, but cry because my ears were being eaten alive by his horrible intonation with bending. I don't even remember who the bassist currently is but chances are he doesn't have the genius of Cliff (DB - He's called Robert Trujillo. He may be one of the best bassists out there. But he fits his playing withing the context of the band - whether it is or was SUicidal Tendencies, Infectious Grooves or Ozzy. You might, or better , should Google "Robert Trujillo Flamenco". Then please list the metal (and other genre) bass players who have exhibited such ability )I've heard Trujillo, but at the time of posting couldn't remember his name off the top of my head. He has ability, yes, but so do heaps of other guys, just in different aspects of technique etc. I could list 100 bass virtuosos really, but in the end they are no better or worse than each other, because some might specialise in 8 finger tapping techniques, others might have incredibly fast right hand finger ability etc etc and in general thrash metal, just like many genres of metal just killed itself in terms of producing innovative music because the genres became overflooded with bands that no longer cared about making anything new and instead just going through the motions to make it thrash metal.(DB - sounds like trash metal eventually matured and established enough commonalities to distinguish itself as a genre of its' own. SO it has arrived at a point where changes or advances are incremental. I do believe that PA has had a number of threads on that same "problem" with some the genres included here.) Thrash established itself as a genre on it's own easily by 1981, if not even earlier, read the history books. Exodus, Dave Mustaine era Metallica and many of the Bay Area bands had already cemented thrash as a recognizable genre of metal. Metallica left the thrash game entirely pretty much in the 90s, Megadeth were only doing a few thrash songs per album in the 90s, Exodus just wasn't very popular at that stage, Testament weren't really doing thrash per se at that point either and much of the more innovative thrash was found in some of the instrumental band and the technical/prog thrash genres which were no longer "Straight thrash" anyway. Apart from the odd very underground thrash band on myspace or something, a lot the well known "thrash bands" of today were completely retro, and for some people that had never heard thrash before it was pretty cool, but for the old guard of thrashheads, it was just dull. I might be young, but I do know the early thrash stuff and to me I found the vast majority of today's thrash to be boring, but AGAIN, anyone can feel free to listen to it if they want, but I wont be though. There is nothing wrong with Thrash metal per se, but nowadays I just prefer to see bits of thrash metal influence in a prog metal band or something like that, rather than listen to a whole album of thrash written in the last few years.(DB - nice to see that this has turned into a subjective view, eh. I am never surprised whenever an existing music type still manages to show flashes of brilliance, basically music that is made to be enjoyed, not compared to or analyzed for "innovation")) It was a completely subjective argument in the first place, I used "I" in my sentences, which means that it was coming from my own POV, my own opinions and not  a generalisation.  Example:I've grown weary of Kirk's predictable soloing style NOTE THE I'VE, which means IMO I've grown weary of it, but perhaps other's haven't and that's fine because they are entitled to their own opinions For some people well written songs will be enough and that's fine, but for me, I wont be able to justify taking the time to listening to something which is just going to entirely predictable and cliche'. DB - So we shouldn't count on your bothering with AC/DC, Motorhead, Mastodon, Flower Kings, Porcupine Tree, Opeth and many other musical acts that have found their own "style" and choose to stay true to their muse by writing and playing music that they want to. Sometimes a band gets it right and keeps it there. Sometimes a band stumbles onto something new that makes sense to "add" to their mix. Simply "progressing" for "progression's" sake seems forced, eh) Well IMO, PT, Opeth and Mastodon have improved and evolved over the years (have not heard Flower Kinds, so I'll leave that for now). Yes, I might know where the next Opeth or PT album might take me, but never do I get through one of their albums without hearing at least ONE unexpected twist (but normally I get many twists and turns anyway), whereas when I heard United Abominations from Megadeth (which was hailed as a return to form and more thrash metal sounding again for the band), I was severely left wanting to hear something fresh, and I no longer bother listening to it anymore because I just found it got boring quickly and never surprised me, even upon the first listen. Metallica's "return to form" in the form of St Anger was just too poorly written IMO to even try to see if it was anything different. And even if I thought PT and Opeth wete to churn out samey stuff, I like their style on recent albums more than anything that Metallica has done since 1988 enough that it would easily a good listen for me anyway. And yes, sometimes progressing for progressions sake seems forced, but in some cases it has worked too, but again, just IMO.

Certif1ed wrote: heyitsthatguy wrote: wouldn't one's opinion have a rather strong bearing on what defines a 'great song'?   Not necessarily - depends on the criteria you use to determine what makes a great song.

I expect something better than last 3 albums and something worse than first 5 albums.I think after the worst album I've ever heard,St. Anger,they will return to form with this.But it will not be easy.maybe "Death Magnetic" will be moderate,and than there will be a big return-some years later.