TH1RT3EN

There's more Metallica on it than Lou Reed to be fair. They wrote/played the music (4 instruments), he wrote/sang the lyrics (1 instrument - vocals). 4/5ths of the album is Metallica.

If it ain't a Metallica album it shouldn't say "METALLICA" on it. That way there would be no unsuspecting people who hadn't heard of it seeing it in store and going "oo metallica" and buying it. I do agree, this isn't a STANDARD Metallica album (but then what is? I could argue that looking at their catalogue there is NO standard)... but to say it's not Metallica at all is rather silly, even just because it has the name on it.

As for "If it was Metallica it would have sold more than Megadeth" ...
1) why? times change.. sure fanboys are fanboys.
2) If it was EXACTLY the same, but named Metallica ft. Lou Reed, or it was the same but with Hetfield speaking the 'lyrics', it would've done no better... but people wouldn't be able to hide behind "It's not really metallica".
3) They previewed the entire album online, so everyone already knew it was pants and didn't have to buy it. Had they not done this it probably would've sold a lot better just due to fanboys.

They only put it up online because someone leaked it (oh the irony, after their history you'd think they'd guard it a bit better), and they had a choice of napster rage, or leave it leaked and ppl hear it and dont buy it, OR put the whole thing up for preview so that those who hadn't heard of the leak would think "Metallica are being epicly cool letting their fans listen! I knew everyone was wrong about the Napster crap".

For the record, I don't think they're a bad band, I can see why people like some of their albums even if I don't... I've just had years being driven nuts by Metallica fanboys who constantly refer to them as greatest band ever whilst whining they've done nothing good since AJFA (or in some cases MoP) so when the topic comes up I tend to get a big vigorous  :S Whilst this album does help with the "we do what we want, not what we think will sell" ... it also helps to cement the fact they really aren't THAT good.

I should stay away from Metallica discussions... but damnit I came here to find out peoples opinions on TH1RT3EN and it was this instead... another thread taken over >.<
 
I agree that we should probably stop this discussion now and talk more about TH1RT3EN. I haven't heard it yet, but I will do it soon.
 
I listened to the first 6 or so tracks the other day on youtube.

I can't compare it to any previous album as they seem to have an ever evolving sound, it feels like a mix of Endgame/System/Peace to me. Megadeth are one of those bands I think have a LOT of awesome songs, but they're spread across the albums rather than being all on one.

KIMB..ABIG was certainly thrash, PS..BWB was too, after that they seemed to lose the speed as time went on, which is why I like them really.. They are more of a Heavy/Thrash mix these days than pure Thrash. Some of the newer songs (Public Enemy for instance) certainly have the Thrash sound to it as did Endgame, but there are also songs on here which feel more like System has Failed or  say Symphony of Destruction (I wouldn't call that thrash, more heavy metal).

From what I've heard it sounds like a good mix, I'll get it some time soon and give it a proper listen.
 
You all didn't get my point, fine. Let's leave this conversation behind.

Megadeth lost their creativity in my case. Nothing interesting. Hell, even the main riff of one of the best songs off the album (Never Dead) is a repeat (Kick the Chair). It has the Megadeth quality, it gives you what you expect, but that's not how I look to music. I'm disappointed about this release, to be fair.

You see, that's why I appreciate Metallica in a way. They released great thrash metal albums, tried something different, even though they sucked mostly. Iron Maiden also tried different things, a dark mood with TXF, a progressive vibe with reunion albums etc. Judas Priest turned to thrash metal for a while. Dream Theater is a progressive metal band, they released fantastic progressive metal albums then changed their style, tried something different apart from progressive metal cliches. (which is kind of ironic given the fact that meaning of the genre is exact opposite of cliches) Only thing Megadeth tried different so far is the album Risk, it was the worst Megadeth album. Remember when Lars Ulrich said "Megadeth should take more risks about their music" (which inspired the next album's title) he was absolutely right. You may not see it that way, but I do. You have to be experimental in some ways.

Seeing being experimental as "taking the edge off" is nonsense and is sad to see most of metal fans think that way.
 
The Flash said:
You all didn't get my point, fine. Let's leave this conversation behind.
Click to expand...
You see, that's why I appreciate Metallica in a way. They released great thrash metal albums, tried something different, even though they sucked mostly.
Click to expand...
Irony!!

Only thing Megadeth tried different so far is the album Risk, it was the worst Megadeth album. Remember when Lars Ulrich said "Megadeth should take more risks about their music" (which inspired the next album's title) he was absolutely right.
Click to expand...

You say they need to try different things and then say that when they did it sucked...  I see that as pretty similar to what a certain other band has done aswell. Personally there's 3 tracks I can of straight away from Risk that I love, and I havent listened to it in forever. I'd also like to point out that Risk may be their 'worst' and certainly worst rated effort, but it still has better reviews than St.Anger and Lulu....  hell if I go to Metalstorm metallica's ratings have gone consistently down since the black album, whereas Megadeths are pretty stable excluding Risk.

But if it sucked, maybe that's why they dont experiment more? Or maybe they simply don't WANT to.. maybe they like what they do? For most bands the fan's prefer them to stick to tried and tested formula's, and whats to say the band doesn't too. Why do they NEED to do things differently. People seem to only say "It's good to see a band doing what they want" when a band releases something MASSIVELY different and usually a failure. Surely the reason they started the band in that music style to begin with was because they WANTED to do it. In which case, why change?

There are hundreds more examples of bands trying new things and wrecking their career for every example of one doing something different and it working. At the end of the day you dont HAVE to do anything, for ANY reason. The only reason you should do something different is because you WANT to, but everyone assumes that if a band doesn't do it, it's because they "only care about the money" or something.... I'm sure there are many instances of bands doing different things for that exact reason, to sell more.

Again to reiterate, no band HAS to experiment.

It would however be greatly benefitial to be told what your point is if we didn't get it?
 
Crimson Idol said:
Irony!!

You say they need to try different things and then say that when they did it sucked...  I see that as pretty similar to what a certain other band has done aswell. Personally there's 3 tracks I can of straight away from Risk that I love, and I havent listened to it in forever. I'd also like to point out that Risk may be their 'worst' and certainly worst rated effort, but it still has better reviews than St.Anger and Lulu....  hell if I go to Metalstorm metallica's ratings have gone consistently down since the black album, whereas Megadeths are pretty stable excluding Risk.

But if it sucked, maybe that's why they dont experiment more? Or maybe they simply don't WANT to.. maybe they like what they do? For most bands the fan's prefer them to stick to tried and tested formula's, and whats to say the band doesn't too. Why do they NEED to do things differently. People seem to only say "It's good to see a band doing what they want" when a band releases something MASSIVELY different and usually a failure. Surely the reason they started the band in that music style to begin with was because they WANTED to do it. In which case, why change?

There are hundreds more examples of bands trying new things and wrecking their career for every example of one doing something different and it working. At the end of the day you dont HAVE to do anything, for ANY reason. The only reason you should do something different is because you WANT to, but everyone assumes that if a band doesn't do it, it's because they "only care about the money" or something.... I'm sure there are many instances of bands doing different things for that exact reason, to sell more.

Again to reiterate, no band HAS to experiment.

It would however be greatly benefitial to be told what your point is if we didn't get it?
Click to expand...

First of all, it's not ironic. We left the conversation about Lulu behind, I talked about Load, ReLoad and St. Anger actually. Not Lulu.

Being experimental is fine, you can suck whilst doing it. I'd still say it sucks, but appreciate if the band did something different. An experimental work doesn't have to be good whatsoever, but a regular, typical work should be good because well, it's typical. (talking about good bands of course)

I don't care if they want to do experiments or not. I'm not a band member, I'm a regular fan. If they don't want to do it, then they won't do it. I'll still talk about the new album whether it's experimental or not. The thing is that I want to see Megadeth do interesting stuff, I want to see Megadeth surprise me, that's all.

If a band's typical work run it's course, then fine, they can continue doing it. (not to eternity, just for couple of albums maybe) Take Maiden as an example. The Number of the Beast, Piece of Mind and Powerslave are on the same path. Three great albums, then what ? A new sound with Somewhere in Time and Seventh Son of a Seventh Son. No Prayer for the Dying and Fear of the Dark were attempts to go back to the TNOTB, POM and 'Slave days, they failed to do it and changed their direction once again. Maiden always surprised me, always. I don't say a band should change completely. Keep it on your roots, it's fine. (like Maiden did. They tried different stuff but kept their formula) But you have to surprise people to make one record special. That's the way I look at it.

TH1RT3EN, Endgame, United Abominations, The System Has Failed and The World Needs a Hero are all on the same path, I'm getting sick of this. Aaah Megadeth, some fast riffs with palm muting, up-tempo songs that kind of stuff. But look at Rust in Peace, look at Peace Sells...but Who's Buying, look at Countdown to Extinction, they're all special and that's why they're considered the best of Megadeth's catalogue.

Fine, I'll continue the discussion about Metallica and Lulu on its thread.
 
The Flash said:
TH1RT3EN, Endgame, United Abominations, The System Has Failed and The World Needs a Hero are all on the same path, I'm getting sick of this.
Click to expand...

I happen to love that stuff, but also like their early albums. I don't find them different enough to call it 'experimentation' (same with Risk tbh) but I find it different enough to say there is a diversity of the sound. Some sound more like thrash to me, others more like heavy metal.

Can't cater to everyone. If they've found a formula they like, they will stick with that path.. rather than changing it up for the sake of changing it up.


Look at GnR, they started as full on hard rock with AFD, Then UYI brought in piano and orchestra and other various sounds... then Chinese Democracy went the whole way - they changed the sound gradually over a few albums.... but most people really criticise CD. They 'experimented' (I say they, I mean Axl mostly) and most people panned it (I loved it). Experimentation or change is neither a good or bad thing, let alone a requirement. It's just something some people do when they feel like it.... clearly Dave Mustaine doesn't feel like it.


EDIT: I find Killing/Peace to be full on thrash (speeeeeeeed) then SFSGSW midway, RiP is back to thrash but with less speed and more technicality. Then it's a mixture of heavy metal, lighter thrash until endgame which is back to full thrash. That's my opinions of it. As I prefer not just all out speed it means I tend to like a few songs from each album, and full albums in the middle.
 
Crimson Idol said:
I happen to love that stuff, but also like their early albums. I don't find them different enough to call it 'experimentation' (same with Risk tbh) but I find it different enough to say there is a diversity of the sound. Some sound more like thrash to me, others more like heavy metal.

Can't cater to everyone. If they've found a formula they like, they will stick with that path.. rather than changing it up for the sake of changing it up.


Look at GnR, they started as full on hard rock with AFD, Then UYI brought in piano and orchestra and other various sounds... then Chinese Democracy went the whole way - they changed the sound gradually over a few albums.... but most people really criticise CD. They 'experimented' (I say they, I mean Axl mostly) and most people panned it (I loved it). Experimentation or change is neither a good or bad thing, let alone a requirement. It's just something some people do when they feel like it.... clearly Dave Mustaine doesn't feel like it.


EDIT: I find Killing/Peace to be full on thrash (speeeeeeeed) then SFSGSW midway, RiP is back to thrash but with less speed and more technicality. Then it's a mixture of heavy metal, lighter thrash until endgame which is back to full thrash. That's my opinions of it. As I prefer not just all out speed it means I tend to like a few songs from each album, and full albums in the middle.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I also like their stuff from 2000's. But don't find them special enough to love them. The difference between liking and loving is speciality.

I think 4 should be the maximum number of albums on a same path. Maybe that's why I'm disappointed about TH1RT3EN, it's the fifth album in a row on the same path. I expected a diversity of sound. And I actually expect a diversity of sound about Maiden too, because they also released four albums in a row with the same sound. (BNW, DOD, AMOLAD, TFF) Same goes with Metallica, four thrash albums, then a change.
 
I do find there to be a difference between System and Endgame, I don't find System all that thrashy and speedy... Endgame I do, United is somewhere between.

World Needs a Hero was a bit of a mix of all 3 for me. I still regard Peace/Killing as the 2 'thrashiest' in terms of what I think of as thrash.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top