Is anyone going to the download festival were Metallica and Korn are playing??
METALLICA ROCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ID:188404
 Apr 17 2004, 11:11 am
|
|
|
Apr 17 2004, 11:40 am
|
|
Geminidomino
 |
Is anyone else curious about suck-ass Metallica playing at anything called "The Download Festival?
|
Is anyone else curious about suck-ass Metallica playing at anything called "The Download Festival? Especially since Metallica was one of the first bands to support the RIAA's attempt to get rid of P2P programs. | |
Scoobert wrote:
Ya know, some of us like Metallica, watch your mouth. How nice for you. Consider my post targeted to people with taste. | |
Scoobert wrote:
Ya know, some of us like Metallica, watch your mouth. Try alot of us. If it wasn't for Metallica, Megadeth, and Slayer, I don't think we would have alot of the genres of music we do today. Metallica is far more "tasteful" than any of this nu-metal crap. Emo, screamo, etc..., just a bunch of whiny kids singing about getting dumped or hit by their Dad. But that isn't the reason I hate it. I hate it because it's lazy in my opinion. New music has no musicians. I take that back, MOST new music has no musicians. It's amazing to see that a guitarist has been playing for 12 years and he still sounds like he's been playing for 3. There are few new metal bands that I like, and that is because I am picky. I don't like wasting my time listening to people who aren't that talented, and if that makes me untasteful, so be it. | |
Why don't you shut up, and keep your opinion to yourself? None of us are criticizing you for not liking a great band, are we?
Think before you post. Tiko | |
Tiko wrote:
Why don't you shut up, and keep your opinion to yourself? None of us are criticizing you for not liking a great band, are we? Hypocrisy, thy name is Tiko. | |
The same thing was said about rock and roll when it was becoming popular. This is a thing on taste, and claiming that new music has no "musicians" is quite a claim.
| |
A co-worker and I were discussing the poor state of music these days...
He too pointed out that he felt it was becoming lazy... I tend to agree, but I see it in a different light... It seems to me that to sell records these days, you have to appeal to the mass audiences... And how do you do that in an endless sea of "artists" that all sound alike? You make your music more accessible by the average listener... More easily memorized, more catchy... Nothing too complicated, or they won't be able to get hooked... People like things that they can sing along with... Stuff that they can mindlessly listen to, while mouthing the lyrics (even if they're not paying attention to their actual meaning)... And thus, for a current artist to remain competitive, they must remain simple... They've got to cater to the masses in order to make a living... OF course, this is extremely sell-out-ish, but that is life... True artists are a rare thing these days in all fields... | |
I didn't like what they did, but I like their music. Music is music, nomatter who sings it. Hell, if Lil' Romeo sounded like kiss, and had some good music behind him, i would leason, but he doesn't, so i don't, i don't care that he is like 14 and thinks he is a pimp, whatever tickels his fancy. So Metallica sued their fans, theif fans where ripping them off. No one out there can say they dont make music for the money if they sell CDs. They may enjoy playing music, but they also injoy the money. And if they arn't get their money back from the music they make, they will slowly go broke. If no bands wanted the money, they would sell their cds for like $2 because it costs a lot less than that to make one.
| |
I personally don't like Metallica because I don't like the way the singers voice sounds. Great music, but not a great singer in my oppinion. Now, I do like Korn, and I know John has a terrible voice too, but instead of just sounding raspy and like he just got over bronchitis, it sounds almost evil which is a sound I like much more.
I also don't like Metallica, especially, and when Korn did it, I also didn't like it too. What I'm talking about is rushed, crappy songs. Korn's Life is Peachy was a pathetic attempt at making music, and I also feel that way about a lot of Metallica songs. Korn is also more rebellious, which is what rock is about, when Metallica sounds more commercial. Korn includes lots of hate-filled lyrics about their feelings, but that's simply breaking out of the usual "simply rebellion" type of rock, and it is what rock has turned into, and for good reason too. When they sing about that stuff, they connect to their audience much better, when they just sing a corny song about pajamas like you would hear in classic rock, their audience wouldn't like the music, because their audience isn't fun-loving jocks, it is hate-filled teens who were emotionally torn apart in their chaildhood (Of course that doesn't count for all the fans.). All in all, I respect Metallica for really helping rock rocket forward, however, I still feel bands such as Nirvana, Korn, Nine Inch Nails, etc. are better bands for connecting with their fans better and shaping rock into what it is today. But hey, at least Metallica is better than Creed. Man I hate Creed. Hahahahaha. | |
Metallica is far more "tasteful" Disproof in one sentence: "I'm madly in anger with you" (Okay, nu-metal is worse.. but I've lost all respect for Metallica I used to have) | |
nick.cash wrote:
Metallica is far more "tasteful" Agreed. But let me point out that in that album, Metallica, was trying to conform to nu-metal. Kirk took out all the solos in fear new listeners would find them, "untasteful." St. Anger is the result of Metallica selling out. | |