VT’s Music Chat

[mjmooney]

2 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

There are four people in the entire world that liked the Metallica and Lou Reed album, Lulu.

I’m 25% of that figure.

So, you and Lulu. Who are the other two? 

[Chindie]

5 hours ago, VILLAMARV said:

Metallica haven't put a decent album out since the black album. Hammet's not great live. They are one of the few bands still around who have albums I'd say are genre defining classics, puppets is a masterpiece, yet I've never wanted to see live. They unveiled themselves as corporate whores long ago though. A VIP mosh pit sounds about right.

Not sure I agree.

They became a different band after the black album, sure, and that album was the last all timer they've done, but what followed wasn't all bad. Most of it is at worst decent, and if you take St Anger out, which is dire, you've got a decent run of classic metal.

Load and Reload have a lot of good songs on them. I actually really rate both of these and while they are definitely a move towards hard rock rather than metal, it's still good music.

St. Anger is shit, a band in turmoil trying to do a reaction to the growth of nu metal and it goes real, real bad. Awful.

Death Magnetic is a solid return to an old school style of metal but suffered a little for the production being **** over - it's one of the few albums were a remastered version is genuinely a better listen than the original release.

Hardwired to Self Destruct is a decent metal album that doesn't really have any classics on it but isn't awful either.

72 Seasons is more of the above but has a bit more swagger and oomph to it, sounds like a band that's firmly back in the groove and enjoying it.

[Seat68]

2 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Not sure I agree.

They became a different band after the black album, sure, and that album was the last all timer they've done, but what followed wasn't all bad. Most of it is at worst decent, and if you take St Anger out, which is dire, you've got a decent run of classic metal.

Load and Reload have a lot of good songs on them. I actually really rate both of these and while they are definitely a move towards hard rock rather than metal, it's still good music.

St. Anger is shit, a band in turmoil trying to do a reaction to the growth of nu metal and it goes real, real bad. Awful.

Death Magnetic is a solid return to an old school style of metal but suffered a little for the production being **** over - it's one of the few albums were a remastered version is genuinely a better listen than the original release.

Hardwired to Self Destruct is a decent metal album that doesn't really have any classics on it but isn't awful either.

72 Seasons is more of the above but has a bit more swagger and oomph to it, sounds like a band that's firmly back in the groove and enjoying it.

Do you feel any of their latter 6 come anywhere close to the 5 albums that preceded them. Arguably their first 5 albums are classics of the genre, groundbreaking, world beaters, again arguably, but everything post Metallica could be described, at best as OK or decent. I know personally if I go to the shelf and pick out a Metallica CD I am not dismayed that I haven't got any of those later albums but listening to them there isn't, as a casual listener, a harvester of sorrow as an example. 

[sidcow]

So, has anyone got any thoughts on Metallica they'd like to discuss here? 

[Chindie]

2 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

Do you feel any of their latter 6 come anywhere close to the 5 albums that preceded them. Arguably their first 5 albums are classics of the genre, groundbreaking, world beaters, again arguably, but everything post Metallica could be described, at best as OK or decent. I know personally if I go to the shelf and pick out a Metallica CD I am not dismayed that I haven't got any of those later albums but listening to them there isn't, as a casual listener, a harvester of sorrow as an example. 

No, the black album is the last 'all timer' they release. But to say the stuff that follows is bad isn't true. It's possible to produce good music and not be making a genre definer.

I can also say that I'd be much more likely to sit down and listen to Load than I am to listen to Kill'em All. Doesn't stop the latter being a genre definer, and the former just a good album, but I'm more likely to listen to the good album at the moment than the colossus.

[theboyangel]

23 minutes ago, sidcow said:

So, has anyone got any thoughts on Metallica they'd like to discuss here? 

Wrong thread, try here

 

[chrisp65]

29 minutes ago, sidcow said:

So, has anyone got any thoughts on Metallica they'd like to discuss here? 

You struck me as more of a Shed Seven kinda guy?

[theboyangel]

2 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

You struck me as more of a Shed Seven kinda guy?

Playing these covers? 
 

[Mark Albrighton]

I often think about the identity of a band, which members HAVE to be on stage/recording their part on an album for the band to still be generally regarded as still being the band.

Typically the main guy is singer/guitarist/the one who writes the songs. That’s kinda a general rule of thumb, not always as simple as that.

The Rolling Stones for instance, it obviously is Mick & Keith. Could Jagger front the band without Richards and still “get away with it” as the stones? I don’t think so.

Fleetwood Mac I feel are a funny one. They’ve all been prominent in their own way. They’ve toured without a couple of the vocalists on occasions. You perhaps wouldn’t say the drummer and bassist are typically the forefront when people think of bands, but it’s their names at the top of the bill as it were. Would it be the same without Mick on drums…

Just a musing really, no one real answer. Kinda verges into Ship of Theseus stuff/Spinal Tap having had 37 band members over the years scenario.

[mjmooney]

19 minutes ago, Mark Albrighton said:

I often think about the identity of a band, which members HAVE to be on stage/recording their part on an album for the band to still be generally regarded as still being the band.

Typically the main guy is singer/guitarist/the one who writes the songs. That’s kinda a general rule of thumb, not always as simple as that.

The Rolling Stones for instance, it obviously is Mick & Keith. Could Jagger front the band without Richards and still “get away with it” as the stones? I don’t think so.

Fleetwood Mac I feel are a funny one. They’ve all been prominent in their own way. They’ve toured without a couple of the vocalists on occasions. You perhaps wouldn’t say the drummer and bassist are typically the forefront when people think of bands, but it’s their names at the top of the bill as it were. Would it be the same without Mick on drums…

Just a musing really, no one real answer. Kinda verges into Ship of Theseus stuff/Spinal Tap having had 37 band members over the years scenario.

Then there are the "Trigger's Broom" type bands, where the name is basically a franchise. Doctor Feelgood being a prime example. 

[Seat68]

Tangerine Dream, Sugarbabes those to me are the worst of the triggers broom acts, but in the latter example they are now back to the original lineup. 

[chrisp65]

The last original member of Dr Feelgood left (died) in 1994. The band are still touring and producing records now.

Fun Lovin’ Criminals are currently on tour, the only original member being the bass guitarist, who is now the singer. That feels particularly pointless.

Steps without H would be unthinkable.

[chrisp65]

I like that The Jam have never reformed. Bloody loved that band and PW said they’d never do the whole reformation thing and fair play decades later he’s been good to his word.

[mjmooney]

Fairport Convention and Eagles both down to one original member each. 

[bickster]

2 hours ago, sidcow said:

So, has anyone got any thoughts on Metallica they'd like to discuss here? 

No, this is a music thread

[bickster]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

I like that The Jam have never reformed. Bloody loved that band and PW said they’d never do the whole reformation thing and fair play decades later he’s been good to his word.

Because he (who holds ALL the cards) doesn’t need to

Had his solo career not been successful…. Who knows

 

[chrisp65]

3 minutes ago, bickster said:

Because he (who holds ALL the cards) doesn’t need to

Had his solo career not been successful…. Who knows

Back in the day, when The Style Council were a thing and Weller was trying to order an Irish Scotch at the bar I was working, his dad was still his manager.

His dad asked me, as a Jam fan who had blagged that shift deliberately because I had worked out the false names in the booking of the hotel, whether I would like the Jam to be reformed. I said no, they’d been a thing, they’d been the greatest, please don’t do that predictable cashing in reformation in 5 years time.

He was absolutely chuffed, turned to the rest of the crew and said something like ‘see, that’s exactly why I’ve made him promise me he’ll never go back, we need to be more than just another band for these kids’. Words to that affect anyway, it was a long time ago. So I took from that Weller had promised his dad the band would never reform.

 

[chrisp65]

[mjmooney]

29 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

"The piano ain't got no wrong notes" (Thelonius Monk). 

 

Edited June 11, 2023 by mjmooney

[il_serpente]

7 hours ago, mjmooney said:

"The piano ain't got no wrong notes" (Thelonius Monk). 

 

There was a really good documentary about Monk in the late '80s.   A seriously eccentric guy, but musical genius.   The two seem to go hand in hand pretty frequently.