METALLICA's KIRK HAMMETT Says GUNS N' ROSES Has 'Turned Into Somewhat Of A Nostalgia Act'

[DieselDaisy]

17 minutes ago, wasted said:

Whereas Load is just earnest rock, I've heard it all before. Very safe. 

Not for Metallica. It was a bold divisive gamble which alienated a sizable fraction of their fanbase.

[NicDwolfwood]

3 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

I'd almost agree with you with the caveat that they are releasing a new album in a week, and that some of those peripheral releases had new material (Beyond Magnetic, Lulu - its awfulness is besides the point, ''Lords of Summer'' digital single). That, combined with the live/film releases kept things interesting enough, and ticking over, for the consumer-fans. As I said earlier, Metallica are notorious plodders, yet what does this say about Axl, that Metallica are even outpacing him?

Perhaps it is best to say both bands have been nostalgic for the last five - six years, Metallica less so.

Fair enough. lol

 

Yeah, Not a good look for Axl. One can only hope that at some point after this tour is over, he feels empowered to make and release an album, whether with CD 2 tunes or new ones. 

Im not holding my breath though. 

[wasted]

10 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Not for Metallica. It was a bold divisive gamble which alienated a sizable fraction of their fanbase.

Exactly. They did it to sell more records. 

St Anger is a different spin on what they do. Not a complete sell out. 

DM is like a computer put together what a Metallica album should sound like. I got a sense of dejavu. 

Edited November 14, 2016 by wasted
Deja vu

[DieselDaisy]

17 minutes ago, wasted said:

Exactly. They did it to sell more records. 

I didn't say that, and do not believe it. One thing about the Loads is, some of the stuff is just plain weird: ''The Outlaw Torn'', ''Fixxer'' - bluesy epic psychedelia. Also, a lot of it is AC/DC-esque, ZZ Topish, mid-tempo bluesy rock. I didn't see AC/DC or ZZ Top selling too many records when Metallica began recording in 1995? I'd actually argue the reverse in some ways.

17 minutes ago, wasted said:

St Anger is a different spin on what they do. Not a complete sell out. 

It's a sack of shit.

17 minutes ago, wasted said:

DM is like a computer put together what a Metallica album should sound like. I got a sense of dejavu. 

Pretty good album though, mastering aside.

Presumably you will be disappointed in any future Guns album if it is not more progressive than Chinese? The return of Slash must worry you?

[wasted]

48 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I didn't say that, and do not believe it. One thing about the Loads is, some of the stuff is just plain weird: ''The Outlaw Torn'', ''Fixxer'' - bluesy epic psychedelia. Also, a lot of it is AC/DC-esque, ZZ Topish, mid-tempo bluesy rock. I didn't see AC/DC or ZZ Top selling too many records when Metallica began recording in 1995? I'd actually argue the reverse in some ways.

It's a sack of shit.

Pretty good album though, mastering aside.

Presumably you will be disappointed in any future Guns album if it is not more progressive than Chinese? The return of Slash must worry you?

Bluesy AC DC Z Z Top just retro rock. I like it, it's just not much more than nostalgia rock. 

 Slash has shown with VR he can do modern rock. He can even rework Chi dem, Better. 

I like DM, but when you calling others out for being nostalgia act you have to look in the mirror. 

Honestly, I think GNR should do the nostalgia album, UYI 3, back to basics, Rick Rubin producing. But hopefully put a new spin on it. 

But I think it's hard to recreate the spirit of that era. And with no Izzy it starts to look like a tall order. 

Yeah I might not like the GNR nostalgia album but lots more probably hated CD so I'm a minority. Trump would deport me. 

[DieselDaisy]

11 minutes ago, wasted said:

Bluesy AC DC Z Z Top just retro rock. I like it, it's just not much more than nostalgia rock. 

But for Metallica it is rather bold. Imagine if AC/DC put out a thrash metal album?

[wasted]

11 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

But for Metallica it is rather bold. Imagine if AC/DC put out a thrash metal album?

That would be an interesting disaster. 

I get that but I think it's a conveinently commercial decision. They jumped on MTV ballad wagon with Bob Rock, the Motely Crue producer.C'mon! But it worked for them. 

Point is they made retro and nostalgia decisions to stay successful. They weren't evolving thrash to new heights.

So calling out other bands acting like they are better just doesn't fly. 

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, wasted said:

That would be an interesting disaster. 

I get that but I think it's a conveinently commercial decision. They jumped on MTV ballad wagon with Bob Rock, the Motely Crue producer.C'mon! But it worked for them. 

Point is they made retro and nostalgia decisions to stay successful. They weren't evolving thrash to new heights.

I would equate that with more The Black Album era than the Load era.

[wasted]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

I would equate that with more The Black Album era than the Load era.

It was a continuation of ballading with even less Metallica rockers. Ain't My Bitch could almost be a GNR song. Kind of earnest Pearl Jamy songs. I like them. It's more retro/nostalgia feel than anything. It's appealing to general rock fans, broadening the fanbase. 

[amacfantasy]

As far as Kirk's comment goes unless he knows something we don't (which i doubt) I feel he is speaking way to early. Because like everything else in life unless you use context data is almost useless. Nothing Kirk said was technically wrong that is until you put it in full context, yes they are only touring so far playing mostly old stuff mixed with a few 2008 CD songs but as of November 2016 that is a big deal and way to early to call them out. You have to consider Axl and Slash have not spoken since 1996 and all the animosity that has built since then for a lot of reasons was crazy. And really Axl and Slash's end could be considered when the UYI tour ended in July 1993 and you could make a case things kind of ended before then albeit they still were finishing the UYI tour so technically still together in that regard. Also let's consider they still might not know what is going to happen with Izz/Adler/Sorrum as far as how they should/could fit into the band if they do record/compose stuff.

I know if I just rekindled a cordial relationship i would not be rushing into the most tense of situations (which recording new music would most definitely be considered). After all a large part of what broke the band up was musical direction/control. So it makes sense to want to just tour for a while to totally rekindle friendship for one but also to feel things out so everyone feels at home or at least more comfortable for when they are all in the composing/recording process which is a totally different beast.

And also let's not forget Axl has been using time/energy else where in fronting AC/DC which kind of messes with fully committing to other areas. So while i would love new music as fast as anyone else it really should not be expected by November 2016 with 30 some live shows played thus far lol.

 

Now on a separate topic as to what i would like the direction of GNR music to go, I lean way more towards them going more progressive than trying to repeat AFD type stuff. I just find 50 something year old rockers who have been rich and famous for 30 years trying to sing about cheesy childish topics and the whole teenage angst/lets party all night/fuck the world stuff i see as corny at that point. I'm not saying I only want ballads i love a good fast paced rocker as much as the next guy but that is not the only thing i want and the rockers we do get i dont want them to musically sound like a 80's rocker or at least i dont want them to try to force it to much to regress back to a old point just to please those old school fans that want to relive 1988. So if they release a single disc album at most i want 4 songs on it that are "non-progressive" so to speak.

Edited November 14, 2016 by amacfantasy

[shjtjustgotreal]

14 pages on kirk?

damn bruh  

[wasted]

On 11 November 2016 at 3:30 AM, GoBucky said:

Of course this tour is a nostalgic tour, but it has to be. Just wait and see what they do after its over before you label them. Metallica waits 8 years to release an album, and tours on old songs in between. They opened the new Vikings Stadium a few months ago and played one song that was released post '97. They've been a band for 30 years and the majority of their setlists are full of old songs. They've done shows where they play old albums all the way through. Even if they play the entire new album on tour like Maiden did, they are still a nostalgia act, whether they like it or not. The new songs will die off like the Death Magnetic ones did, and they still be playing the same songs from the first 5 albums like they always do.

Yep. 

[Good, Fuck'n, Night.]

11 hours ago, wasted said:

I'd settle for moderately creative instead of falling back on what's been done before and what's best commercially. CD is worth a thousand rehashes. 

Nonsense, CD is rubbish given the resources that went into it. The only voices that claim otherwise are found on boards like this.  

Kirk is on the money, Metallica have been creative & productive through out their long & successful career, it is absolutely understandable that they have slowed down somewhat as they aged & had family's.  

To call them a nostalgia act because they have & play a strong back catalogue looks like sour grapes, are RHCP's & Pearl Jam nostalgia acts as well?

 

[Good, Fuck'n, Night.]

7 hours ago, shjtjustgotreal said:

14 pages on kirk?

damn bruh  

The but hurt is strong in this thread. 

At least it livened a thread up, has been getting increasingly dull around here. 

[Asia]

Metallica has been so much of a joke of a band for so many years now that them venting at Guns N'Roses is like pot calling the kettle black. They better shut up and concentrate on proving to the world that they are capable of making a listenable record again.

After watching that Monster movie with all the childish hissy fits they were throwing, with that pathetic shrink or whatever he was and with that ridiculous idea straight from the deepest depths of absurd that songs should be written democratically meaning every person adds one line to the lyrics! so that every sick ego in the band feels satisfied regardless of what senseless shit of a song emerges, I don't think they have any right to criticise others even of those others deserve criticism.

They are no different simply. And don't give me that album number argument because they barely made any new music as well and what is worse what they made doesn't even qualify as original albums - just pathetic attempts to be 16 years old again or something. CD might have been a shit of an album and I believe it was but at least it was some effort on Axl's part to grow and develop and show something different reflecting where he was as an artist. A valid attempt even if with a poor outcome. Metallica hasn't made one valid attempt in many more years even than Axl, so please Kirk, just shut up.

And I am speaking from the point of view of someone who really liked Metallica once.

[Mr. Dude]

12 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Not for Metallica. It was a bold divisive gamble which alienated a sizable fraction of their fanbase.

The biggest risk they took with load was cutting their hair. 

[Good, Fuck'n, Night.]

At what point did it become a requirement that a band or artiest needed to change their sound, style or direction to prove their creative abilities or worth? 

Axl's efforts served to tarnish Guns near perfect artistic output, pre breakup. Guns is currently trading of a body of work created over a 5 year period 25-30 years ago. The same body of work that Axl slowly turned the word off to with his joke shop line up. the stadiums are full & taking record takings because people want to relive a period of time 25-30 years a go in music, the very definition of nostalgia. The same as adults paying huge money for original toys from their youth. Its why I payed for VIP tickets next year. I'm a GnR fan way before a Metallica fan.

Metallica had a 17 year period of putting out good music. I'm including S&M in that body of work. Post 2000 they put out two shit albums but they are active.

Kirk isn't bagging out GnR, he is making an accurate observation.  

[EvanG]

13 hours ago, wasted said:

Exactly. They did it to sell more records. 

 

Sell more records? Dude, did you even listen or watch Metallica during that era?

If they wanted to sell more records they would have stuck with the Black album formula seeing as that one sold better than any other Metallica album before that. But instead they started exploring a different rock genre, and on top of that they all cut their hair and some of the members even started wearing eyeliner, knowing full well that a big part of their metal fanbase would be alienated by those shenanigans.

 

[Lies They Tell]

2 hours ago, Good, Fuck'n, Night. said:

Nonsense, CD is rubbish given the resources that went into it. The only voices that claim otherwise are found on boards like this.

Factually incorrect.

[ludurigan]

10 hours ago, amacfantasy said:

I know if I just rekindled a cordial relationship i would not be rushing into the most tense of situations (which recording new music would most definitely be considered). After all a large part of what broke the band up was musical direction/control. So it makes sense to want to just tour for a while to totally rekindle friendship for one but also to feel things out so everyone feels at home or at least more comfortable for when they are all in the composing/recording process which is a totally different beast.

that somehow makes sense

but there is still no excuse for the ever-repeating lazy as fuck setlist

it wouldnt hurt no one and it would take very very little effort to add 10 original songs and 5 covers to this tour and rotate like 5-8 songs every show

 that would be really really easy to do

[action]

st anger was a good album, were it not for the awful, awful lyrics and ridiculous vocals.

the instrumentation was actually....not that bad. all rockers, no unforgivens.

that didn't stop me from throwing it in the trash. it sounded like trash anyway (in a garbage can kind of way).

[Towelie]

3 hours ago, Good, Fuck'n, Night. said:

Nonsense, CD is rubbish given the resources that went into it. The only voices that claim otherwise are found on boards like this.  

Kirk is on the money, Metallica have been creative & productive through out their long & successful career, it is absolutely understandable that they have slowed down somewhat as they aged & had family's.  

To call them a nostalgia act because they have & play a strong back catalogue looks like sour grapes, are RHCP's & Pearl Jam nostalgia acts as well?

 

TBH, RHCP are a bit of a nostalgia act these days. Most recent setlists are made up of 3 new album tracks and then the rest is Californication, Give It Away, Under The Bridge, Dani California, By The Way.... eg, the hits.

[BorderlineCrazy]

5 minutes ago, Towelie said:

TBH, RHCP are a bit of a nostalgia act these days. Most recent setlists are made up of 3 new album tracks and then the rest is Californication, Give It Away, Under The Bridge, Dani California, By The Way.... eg, the hits.

If I was them, I would play 95% of material from the John Frusciante era as well.

[EvanG]

2 hours ago, Towelie said:

TBH, RHCP are a bit of a nostalgia act these days. Most recent setlists are made up of 3 new album tracks and then the rest is Californication, Give It Away, Under The Bridge, Dani California, By The Way.... eg, the hits.

Right now they play about 4 to 5 songs each night from their latest album, and the rest is filled with the big hits (and they've got quite a lot of them) and some more obscure songs from the past. I don't think it's that bad... they play the big songs because the people want to hear them, and still play about 1/3 of the new album every night.

Edit: Just checked their most recent setlists... about 5 songs from the new album every night, sometimes even 6. That's not so bad compared to a lot of other bands that rely heavy on their ''big hits''. And the RHCP have so many hits that they can mix them up too... they don't play Under The Brigde every night, for example.

Edited November 14, 2016 by EvanG

[nelsontod]

any music without izzy is not gnr.