Metallica

Collin said:
So if it's nearly 80 minutes of music, why couldn't it fit on one disc?
Click to expand...
Well, an audio CD can only hold up to 74 minutes. But I think Metallica found a way to add an extra 6 minutes just so they could call their new album a double disc. Someone had a theory that maybe one disc will be called "hardwired" and have all old school thrash type songs and the other disc will be called "to self destruct" and have stuff that sounds more like post-black album material.
 
Travis The Dragon said:
Well, an audio CD can only hold up to 74 minutes. But I think Metallica found a way to add an extra 6 minutes just so they could call their new album a double disc. Someone had a theory that maybe one disc will be called "hardwired" and have all old school thrash type songs and the other disc will be called "to self destruct" and have stuff that sounds more like post-black album material.
Click to expand...
My CD's that I used to burn for my car had a limit of 80.
The Final Frontier is 76 minutes long, Tool's Lateralus is 78. I'm not sure where you're getting 74.
 
Travis The Dragon said:
Well, an audio CD can only hold up to 74 minutes. But I think Metallica found a way to add an extra 6 minutes just so they could call their new album a double disc. Someone had a theory that maybe one disc will be called "hardwired" and have all old school thrash type songs and the other disc will be called "to self destruct" and have stuff that sounds more like post-black album material.
Click to expand...
That would actually be really cool.

Collin, 74 minutes was the standard length of a CD when the medium was created. Some can go longer now, but you start to risk playback issues with certain older machines. It's not really a big deal now (a few cds are even over 80 minutes) but most like to be safe and stick to 74.
 
Mosh said:
That would actually be really cool.

Collin, 74 minutes was the standard length of a CD when the medium was created. Some can go longer now, but you start to risk playback issues with certain older machines. It's not really a big deal now (a few cds are even over 80 minutes) but most like to be safe and stick to 74.
Click to expand...
Still though, there's a lot of albums that come close to that limit of 80. Heck, Death Magnetic was 75. I suppose that the only reasoning behind this is that you can charge more money for a double album, rather than a single album. That sound exactly like something Metallica would do.
 
No way, especially with CDs being a dying format. Double albums are more expensive to produce and they arent really sold for that much more than single CDs anymore. I think TBOS was pretty much standard CD price.
Remember the interviews about Rod trying to persuade them to release two separate albums instead?
 
Don't you get 'double credit' if you have a double album for sales? (selling a million would actually count as double platinum?) Maybe that's a reason (though no one buys CDs in rock anymore so....)
 
Yea that's still true last I checked, streaming has also become considered in that recently. I don't know if RIAA certifications mean that much to make it worth the expense of producing a double album though. And forget double platinum, just platinum is totally rare now. In 2014 only two albums went platinum. Don't know if any did last year.
 
Actually, it won't get double the sales. From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_certification
Multi-disc albums are counted once for each disc within the album if it is over 100 minutes in length or is from the vinyl era.
Click to expand...
Mosh said:
No way, especially with CDs being a dying format. Double albums are more expensive to produce and they arent really sold for that much more than single CDs anymore. I think TBOS was pretty much standard CD price.
Remember the interviews about Rod trying to persuade them to release two separate albums instead?
Click to expand...
Well, Metallica definitely has a HUGE GIGANTIC TON of money to throw around so I think they want to say "hey, guess what. After all these years of waiting for a new album, you're getting a 'double' album" just to make it sound more exciting.
 
Last edited:
Dunno about the festival, but the movie was a major loss for them. 7 million on a 32 million budget.
 
That solo is a joke. And it's played on probably the most expensive guitar ever (ex Peter Green and Gary Moore's guitar known as Greeny). He probably splashed around two million $ on that thing.
 
I still buy CDs because I like having the physical product, but I've cut down big time recently and only buy CDs from my favorite bands that I already have completed collections of. Some CDs also have bonus DVDs/5,1 mixes and interesting liner notes. Opeth are a good example of that with their reissues of Still Life and BWP. So if you're into that stuff, it's still worth it. If you're buying for audio quality reasons then it's usually a waste.

Edit: I'll take that last thing back. I've never bought digital so I'm not sure how this works, but unless you're into piracy the only way to hear original masters of some albums is to get the CD. Rush, Iron Maiden, and Judas Priest are all bands that have taken criticism over their remasters and afaik those are the versions that will be on itunes, etc. So in that case, buying the original CD is a good idea. It takes some research though for which versions to get, since some early CD pressings could also be really bad.
 
Last edited:
I've only recently started to buy physical copies of music that I listen to -except for Maiden, I bought their studio albums years ago-. Not looking for audio quality because I've been listening to good quality rips for years. But I want to collect music and support my favorite artists as well.

I realize vinyls are the best option for someone looking to collect albums, but they're out of my economic comfort zone. (And I don't have a record player)
 
Last edited:
The Flash said:
I've only recently started to buy physical copies of music that I listen to -except for Maiden, I bought their studio albums years ago-. Not looking for audio quality because I've been listening to good quality rips for years. But I want to collect music and support my favorite artists as well.

I realize vinyls are the best option for someone looking to collect albums, but they're out of my economic comfort zone. (And I don't have a record player)
Click to expand...
If you don't have the means for vinyl, CDs are a solid alternative still.
 
Yeah, there are bands that are better on vinyl (because of the brickwalling, mostly - Nile, I'm looking at ye. What do ye have to say for yourself, young boy? The Annihilation of the Wicked CD's nearly unlistenable, honestly) and I wouldn't trade my vinyl early Genesis for anything, but let's admit it - CDs have their advantages, too (let's see you trying to play vinyls in yer car).

Personally, I think it's great if someone appreciates vinyls, but listening to/respecting only those is weird, and more than a bit hipster-ish.
 
JudasMyGuide said:
(let's see you trying to play vinyls in yer car).
Click to expand...

12PLh6z.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top