Metallica

Hammett has become Janick with a wah pedal. Except Hammett doesn't have the yoga pose stage moves or the song writing talent.
 
Cried, I'm saying that Hammet would fail if he tried to 'emulate' Smith. He lacks precision and everything else.
 
I think that tone (the biting quality of it and the lack of bass) actually highlights how thin those riffs are evener more than the current tone.
 
Kill 'Em All remakes of the new songs sound the best imo, which is not surprising because they're obviously channeling the punk influence with the new material. (Except for Atlas)
 
This isn't a criticism of Metallica in particular, but this seems to highlight how little people really care (a perfectly legitimate stance; again no criticism here) about what bands are actually playing (i.e. the writing, rather than the presentation of the music); the tone & mix seem incredibly important. This is the only conclusion one can draw if people genuinely think one mix is awesome & another mix is not. It has parallels with Maiden; criticism of Shirley &/or criticism of how most of the 90's material sounds. It's an interesting aspect of how people listen to music...
 
That's funny Cried, I was just about to say that I would love it if someone could do this with the Shirley Maiden records and give them the Powerslave treatment...
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
This isn't a criticism of Metallica in particular, but this seems to highlight how little people really care (a perfectly legitimate stance; again no criticism here) about what bands are actually playing (i.e. the writing, rather than the presentation of the music); the tone & mix seem incredibly important. This is the only conclusion one can draw if people genuinely think one mix is awesome & another mix is not. It has parallels with Maiden; criticism of Shirley &/or criticism of how most of the 90's material sounds. It's an interesting aspect of how people listen to music...
Click to expand...

I really don't think that showcases such a thing at all. People care about both aspects.

There's a reason people generally dislike rip-off bands that completely emulate a band's sound and tone. What they're writing/playing isn't as good.
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
This isn't a criticism of Metallica in particular, but this seems to highlight how little people really care (a perfectly legitimate stance; again no criticism here) about what bands are actually playing (i.e. the writing, rather than the presentation of the music); the tone & mix seem incredibly important. This is the only conclusion one can draw if people genuinely think one mix is awesome & another mix is not. It has parallels with Maiden; criticism of Shirley &/or criticism of how most of the 90's material sounds. It's an interesting aspect of how people listen to music...
Click to expand...
Bull's eye. People often seem to overrate production out here. They walk away with the surface and don't reach for the depth underneath.
 
Last edited:
The Flash said:
I really don't think that showcases such a thing at all. People care about both aspects.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's an enormous leap to suggest that the remixing of these newer tracks in this case was probably motivated by someone who prefers the mix/tone of Justice. Or at the very least it was done to allow the comparison to be made by others.
The Flash said:
There's a reason people generally dislike rip-off bands that completely emulate a band's sound and tone. What they're writing/playing isn't as good.
Click to expand...
I agree; although I don't see how this is particularly relevant.
Forostar said:
People often seem to overrate production out here.
Click to expand...
Production is really important though. Hell, I rate production...
Forostar said:
They walk away with the surface and don't reach for the depth underneath.
Click to expand...
And as Flash points out, this can mean overlooking not just good writing but crap writing too. It works both ways; production can enhance & hide.
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
This isn't a criticism of Metallica in particular, but this seems to highlight how little people really care (a perfectly legitimate stance; again no criticism here) about what bands are actually playing (i.e. the writing, rather than the presentation of the music); the tone & mix seem incredibly important. This is the only conclusion one can draw if people genuinely think one mix is awesome & another mix is not. It has parallels with Maiden; criticism of Shirley &/or criticism of how most of the 90's material sounds. It's an interesting aspect of how people listen to music...
Click to expand...

Yes, i am one of those, who don't like reunion albums production. Honestly. :( They must abandon 'live recording' thing. Maybe my problem is that they've changed songwriting style. I miss riffs and harmonies. Book of Souls was big step in right direction. (minus overall production) Yes, that's my problem. Sorry for my english. And i truly think, that new Metallica songs sound better in AJFA treatment. Songs sound more metal to me.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to grossly oversimplify, but I look at this way: If I play Gojira's "Ocean Planet" with a Tom Petty tone, it sounds ridiculous. If I play it with a Jackson through a Triple Rectifier, it sounds crushing.

Obviously, the order of magnitude that we're discussing here is different, but the concept is essentially the same. Production/tone/texture can be a huge part of the overall listening experience.
 
I think playing/writing/arrangement/performance is all part of production. One thing they tell us in mixing class is that you can't polish a turd. In other words, a good mix starts with the composition. There's also only so much you can do with a poor performance during the recording phase. Mikael from Opeth talked about this in a recent interview regarding the Deliverance album.

I think the actual mixing phase can often act as a mask for a weak song/performance. Sometimes when I hear a really overproduced song, I wonder how it would sound stripped down. Luckily those performances are often available (especially in a live setting) so it's possible to assess that. Maiden and Metallica in particular have proven with their live performances that the very bare bones versions of most of their songs still hold up, no extra studio frills necessary.
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
I agree; although I don't see how this is particularly relevant.
Click to expand...

I brought it up because it's an example that production/tone/sound can't completely hide the quality of songwriting and playing (or lack thereof).

There are cases where material is enhanced by production, but that's part of music anyway. However, you can't polish a turd, I think. It has to be at least somewhat decent.
 
jazz from hell said:
I've got some sympathy for your point and I think I can understand what you're arguing against. However, at the core you can't really separate the two, sound and abstract notes/rhythms etc. are equally important. Simple example: Rock music is based on the sound of an amplified and distorted electric guitar, it wouldn't even be able to exist without that sound.
Click to expand...
No need for sympathy; I'm not arguing either angle here. (My own opinion was never included in what I originally said.) I was merely observing the phenomena of putting a classic/older mix-style on newer material & questioning what would motivate someone to do this.

For what it's worth I agree with what you (& others) have pointed out. Most people consider both aspects when listening: production & playing.
 
pool-leak-dectection-swimming-pool-maintenance-pool-inspection-575x385.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top