Metallica mention Maiden in Rock and Roll Hall of Fame speech

A very classy move on Metallica's part to have Newsted up there with them. That was an acrimonious split; I hope they're getting along these days.

In terms of style and creativity, Cliff Burton was their best bassist. In terms of sheer chops, Trujillo is their best. Yes, much better than Cliff, and criminally underutilized in Metallica. Go listen to the Infectious Grooves albums now.

But Newsted always had the best spirit. He was a fan who got to play with his heroes, and he never forgot that. He was the one who would stay after the show signing autographs with the fans until the road manager literally had to drag him away every night. He stayed in that band despite the shit they gave him years longer than any sane person would have. I love Metallica's music, but Newsted is the one guy from that band who I really respect.
 
SinisterMinisterX said:
A very classy move on Metallica's part to have Newsted up there with them. That was an acrimonious split; I hope they're getting along these days.

In terms of style and creativity, Cliff Burton was their best bassist. In terms of sheer chops, Trujillo is their best. Yes, much better than Cliff, and criminally underutilized in Metallica. Go listen to the Infectious Grooves albums now.

But Newsted always had the best spirit. He was a fan who got to play with his heroes, and he never forgot that. He was the one who would stay after the show signing autographs with the fans until the road manager literally had to drag him away every night. He stayed in that band despite the shit they gave him years longer than any sane person would have. I love Metallica's music, but Newsted is the one guy from that band who I really respect.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you just wrote.  He took a lot from both fans and the band, but regardless of what people thought he always gave it his all.  I'm not a big fan of him as a bassist, but his composure always set him apart, especially in the latter years, from the other members of Metallica.

He also sang great backing vocals.



That being said, I think I'm going to go down on record now as saying Metallica is the best metal band ever to have such crappy musicians (besides Trujillo) playing in it.
 
That being said, I think I'm going to go down on record now as saying Metallica is the best metal band ever to have such crappy musicians (besides Trujillo) playing in it.
Click to expand...

Here here.

I mean...i don't think they're crap, i think they're just plain old average. Cliff was a very good bassist, possibly a bit overrated by metal community, but i'll tag that to his tragic death. In any case, it was a great loss for metal community, and music in general. James is a good songwriter and fairly average thrash metal rhythm guitarist...same goes to Kirk for solos (altrough both have a good stage presence). I agree what you've both said about Jason. Regarding Trujillo, he seems very virtuosic on the bass, but i don't think that Metallica's music suits him in a way where he can release his full potential. It's like Steve Harris playing in Black Sabbath. Yes, i intentionally took a band with legendary bassist aboard, Geezer Butler, who is regarded by many as one of the best. However, Sabbath doesn't have a lot of fast tracks for Steve to show off his right-hand fingerwork. It's just not the right type of band for him, as Metallica isn't for Trujillo.

About Lars, he's just plain old egocentric idiot. Nuff said.
 
I'll step up and offer some defense for the musicianship of James, Kirk and Lars.

James is a very good rhythm guitarist. One thing you ought to keep in mind is that James is one of the legitimate inventors of thrash metal. Sure, many others have since surpassed him (Jon Schaffer is a great example). But it takes a fair bit of skill (especially right-hand skill) to play some of his parts. He's no virtuoso, but he's no slouch either.

Kirk tends to rest on his laurels sometimes, but he has created some monstrous classic solos. He's not consistent, but when he's on top of his game he is indeed world-class.

Lars, in his younger days, was a hell of a drummer. I think he hit his peak around Master Of Puppets. Check out some boots from that tour; you'll see how great he once was, and how far he has fallen. But I really liked his drumming on the latest album. What he lacks in skill, he has finally made up for in taste. Yes, he's an intolerable dumbass, but he's still a good drummer. Not great, but good.

Are they "average"? No. In my opinion, they are all well above average, yet not superb (with the occasional exception of Kirk).


More about the speeches...

When James listed all those bands who aren't in the Hall, I was shocked to hear him say Deep Purple. I thought they were in. There's no question they deserve it. As to the others... I set the bar high. I wouldn't put Thin Lizzy, Judas Priest or Motorhead in the Hall. But Maiden and Rush are also unquestionably deserving.

And I was happy to hear Trujillo mention Suicidal Tendencies. Again not Hall material there, but they were a great band. ALL I WANTED WAS A PEPSI!
 
Zare said:
It's like Steve Harris playing in Black Sabbath. Yes, i intentionally took a band with legendary bassist aboard, Geezer Butler, who is regarded by many as one of the best. However, Sabbath doesn't have a lot of fast tracks for Steve to show off his right-hand fingerwork.
Click to expand...

Stylewise, Mob Rules always remembered me of Iron Maiden. That solo part is actually so great because of the galloping bass beneath it.

Definitely one of my top 3 moments from that album, maybe even the best. Just my 2 cents.
I don't have a link to the original studio version but here you can hear a recent live version by Heaven and Hell: Click (solo part starting around 1.35).

@SMX: Why not the Priest? A Matter of Taste?

How high would you set the bar?

Priest were very successful in the States, I mean, they were almost an American band in the eighties. They practically lived overthere, played so many gigs and sold more albums than Maiden. Since this Hall of Fame is an American thing... ;)
 
Forostar said:
@SMX: Why not the Priest? A Matter of Taste?

How high would you set the bar?
Click to expand...

Because I think something like a Hall of Fame ought to be extraordinarily selective. The current Hall has way too many inductees. It stops meaning anything when every great band can get in. For instance, consider the Hollywood Walk Of Fame. It's well-known that nowadays, any celebrity can buy a star there. It has lost all significance.

As for taste - I love Priest. They're one of my all-time favorite bands. But my personal tastes shouldn't be the standard for the Hall. And therein lies the Hall's main problem: it is largely a reflection of the personal tastes of founder Jann Wenner, one of the smelliest assholes rock and roll has ever had the displeasure to see. Fact: if Rolling Stone gave your albums bad reviews, you're not getting in. That's why it took a decade for Sabbath to get in - a huge mob of people screaming at Wenner was required to make him give in. That's why Rush and Yes still aren't in, despite the obvious, enormous and undeniable influence those bands had on hundreds (maybe thousands) of later bands.

Priest comes very close to being worthy. Their image is iconic, and their influence is undeniable. Halford is The Metal God. Perhaps a better way to say it: they're not no-brainers like Maiden or Rush. They're in that second tier of "possibly deserving, but not automatic".
 
SMX, I am sorry but I beg to differ. I think that Wenner and the clowns at the Hall should be ashamed even of inducting Metallica before Priest! Would Metallica still be what they are/were if we haven't got the Priest in the 70s and early 80s? I think not! Plus, Lizzy, might not be that big but they're certainly big enough to be called an influence by Maiden. The same goes for Motorhead, which is like, one of the pillars of Hard Rock. I do agree with you about Rush and Yes though. However, I must say this whole discussion is irrelevant because this is the way the Hall have been run since ever, hell, even skynyrd are already in there. So it's not really a question of which bands were most influential/successful, but the case of a dickhead's disrespectful attitude towards the entire community - But I guess that many people already know that, and remember to not pay their respects to The Rolling Stone and to the Hall.

I also agree with you that the Hall should be very picky about who gets in, but that doesn't mean they should dis the good stuff because other bands which (in my opinion) deserve the bill less have already been inducted.
 
To give my two pence:

I've never regarded the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame as being of any sort of significance. None at all. It's something that plays absolutely no role in my view on rock music. And it probably wouldn't be even if the inclusion of artists was more objective. In my opinion, any sort of Hall of Fame is just a premise for pointless, hour-long pub arguments that lie somewhere between what the best beer is and whether you prefer blondes or brunettes.

In other words: It all comes down to a matter of taste. You cannot assess the significance of a band objectively.

I could argue, for example, that I think Venom should be inducted in the Hall of Fame. Venom are a very old band, and they have laid the groundstone to the entire genre of Black Metal. However, the next person could say that Black Metal is either just a subgenre of Extreme Metal (and that Extreme Metal itself is just a subgenre of Heavy Metal), or that it is in fact not music but noise, and that a band that founded a genre of so little significance to the rock world as a whole needn't be regarded. We would get into a heated argument about originality vs artistry, and in the end none of us would win and nothing would have changed. To me, this entire Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame thing is all about that and nothing else.

Having said that, there is nothing wrong with voicing your own personal opinion on which artists are influental and significant, and therefore create your own Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame. I know that in my own hall, Metallica have a fixed spot, both for their run of excellent and nearly flawless albums from Kill 'em All through Metallica and the sheer impact they have had on the rock and metal world. Putting the spotlight on what was the most down-to-earth genre in the entire rock world (thrash metal) and bringing it to mainstream attention is no mean feat, both in terms of making the great mass like it and facing accusations of selling out, as well as actually surviving it as a band. I have known more people to actually know a Metallica song (from their 'metal phase' for all you elitists out there) and being able to associate it with the band than with Iron Maiden or Judas Priest. Whether we like it or not, Metallica have managed to overtake Iron Maiden in terms of commercial success as a metal band (we're talking about 1991-1992 here) and that alone deserves recognition.
 
Good post Perun.  I would add though that I've hardly ever heard non-metal people even know/talk of Judas Priest, and in that sense only Maiden and Metallica are "big enough" for most people to know them at least by name.  Oh, and Black Sabbath too.  And it is, after all, the "hall of FAME", so I guess it's not a question of deserving it but being famous enough.  And by those criteria metal doesn't really fit in all that much. 
 
So, it's about personal views / taste etc. But there's also this different aspect: popularity, fame.

Perun said:
I have known more people to actually know a Metallica song (from their 'metal phase' for all you elitists out there) and being able to associate it with the band than with Iron Maiden or Judas Priest.
Click to expand...

Because Metallica made more radio friendly music than those other two bands. Priest had its softer period with Turbo, and around that time they were HUGE in the States.

Perun said:
Whether we like it or not, Metallica have managed to overtake Iron Maiden in terms of commercial success as a metal band (we're talking about 1991-1992 here) and that alone deserves recognition.
Click to expand...

My 2 cents on that commercial success: They had more commercial success with a discography containing at least 3 or 4 mediocre albums, all released after the Black Album. I dislike their career later path. Their music became softer, and now when they got aggressive again, these albums still fail to impress me. Where are those good melodies, where's that spark, where's that soul? But one personal opinion has not much to do with the Hall.

In the end those albums sold great, and that's what matters. So if it's indeed about fame only, then what are we talking about? We only have to look at sales, and the Hall has to notice that too. Does it rock? How much does it sell? OK, then let's decide the order of the puppets involved.

What I am sure about is that Priest and Maiden had more influence on other metal bands than Metallica. And that deserves my recognition.
 
I didn't argue that Maiden and Priest don't deserve to be in a rock hall of fame, only that Metallica do. Of course Maiden and Priest deserve to be in such a hall. Maybe even more than Metallica. But still, Metallica deserve it as well.
 
Perun said:
You cannot assess the significance of a band objectively.
Click to expand...

Actually, you can ... though it's not necessarily easy.

Nearly every major artist has answered the question "Who are your influences?" many times. Through reading many interviews, it can be determined which bands are the most influential. To me, that ought to be a critical factor for getting in the hall. The Beatles deserve inclusion for their influence alone, regardless of whether any particular person likes their music.

On that basis, all three bands under heavy discussion here (Metallica, Maiden and Priest) all deserve inclusion[sup]1[/sup]. Many artists who are in the hall do not. (Dusty Springfield? Seriously? She had two hits and influenced no one.)

However, Invader is right. It's a Hall of Fame. Sadly, I don't give a wet fart about fame - thus my problems with the hall. (Dusty Springfield? Seriously?)


[sup]1[/sup] Yes, I have modified my position regarding Priest since my posts above. They should be a no-brainer - but they still come after Rush, Yes and Maiden.
 
SinisterMinisterX said:
(Dusty Springfield? Seriously? She had two hits and influenced no one.)
Click to expand...
She has probably had a greater influence on the current crop of female vocalists in the UK than any one else (Duffy, amongst others). And I thought she had more hits than just the two!

But this is not to say I advocate her inclusion in the Hall of Fame.
 
SinisterMinisterX said:
[sup]1[/sup] Yes, I have modified my position regarding Priest since my posts above. They should be a no-brainer - but they still come after Rush, Yes and Maiden.
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
SinisterMinisterX said:
My bad, then. I didn't know she had such influence in the UK. Here in the States, she was a decidedly minor star.
Click to expand...
I would say it is the current crop she has had the influence over (seriously, take a look at the styling of Duffy and her songs as well) - although she has always been highly respected and admired in the UK.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top