If he didn't have his head so far up his own ass he'd be wise to do her a favour and save the constant trouble of embarrassment by just telling her he's not participating.
Totally fair. Again, I think it's important to acknowledge his legacy and contributions to the genre. Metal and metal drumming wouldn't be where it is if not for Ulrich, and I'm sure most if not all the examples provided would say the same.
On record he blends in with complete adequacy. The real flaws are in the live performance.
With Metallica, The Biggest Metal Band in the World, it's safe to assume that 6 to 7 out of 10 fans, that's the one metal band they like, therefore the drumming isn't an issue at all. But a massively successful band like Megadeth, despite being one of the Big 4, is still kind of niche, therefore is judged more harshly in terms of musicianship, and never would have survived with a drummer as limited as Ulrich.
Re: Ulrich's drumming. Moore was pretty kind with the comment; it could have been much worse. It is entirely acceptable to say the big shift in Metallica's style (thrash to hard rock) was due to limitations in musicianship, with most of the limitations being those of Lars. Giving all credit where it's due as far as his drive, songwriting contributions, and general status as a mouth-piece, it is pretty miraculous the band has survived with him behind the kit.
Even if you were to skim off the top of the metal-drummer pile (I don't know, say, Dirk Verbeuren, George Kollias, Brann Dailor, Tomas Haake, and Martin Axenrot, as general examples) and just go with (baseball reference) replacement level ability, Lars would be far below average. He's charismatic on stage, with his jumping around and all that standing up, but he struggles with basic meter and rudimentary requirements. Hearing a current live version of Battery with the kick only played on the "1" is a drag, if you listen for that kind of thing.
Big time. Especiialy the way she punctuates lines with a quick breath. Their song Forever is practically the same song as Wanna be Startin' Somethin'. I think Haim sounds cool, but it's an unexpected place to hear these parallels.
Thanks, Kaitlyn. Did your knee smash into your schnozz when it jerked its way through your comment? I'm old enough to remember when Tegan and Sara were 2 shrub-headed Ani DiFranco's as well.
The comparison wasn't a criticism; I like the song, and I hear a lot of post 2010 Robyn-isms in it. If you don't, that's cool.
It's cool, man.
We mutually don't care what the other really thinks. I'm just glad it didn't spiral into something really negative, which I was afraid my initial response would have caused.
To riff, one could argue that Junkhead is a modern-day "Heroin." I'm not making the argument, but if someone did, I wouldn't disagree.
To your credit, if Alice in Chains is your most hated band, you've deftly gone through life avoiding many, many worse ones. But I'm being subjective.
Objectively I'd say having a singer of strong and unique voice, skilled percussion, and tasteful guitar playing with above standard tone and vibrato are positives.
I'd also credit catchy hooks, great melodies, and interesting lyrics to the band, but those are subjective.
Going to not go out on a limb at all and say you're horribly wrong. To say "one of my least favourite bands of all time" is one thing. To say "one of the worst" tells me you have a disastrous ability to judge what makes music objectively good or bad.
I know what he said, just as much as I'm sure he knows how to "@" someone or add a comment here, and would have had he wanted to. I don't take issue with the way you phrased it, I think it's lame you did altogether.
It's not a big deal, I just think it was an unnecessary rat move.
So true re: Everything's Ruined. The record highlight, for sure. "But when he lost his appetite, he lost his weight in friends" has always stood out as a great lyric.
I know where you’re coming from re the suing of the band’s own fanbase; despite the hugeness of the Metallica “brand”, its vision has always been pretty myopic, with a confused “shoot first, ask questions later” approach. I’m not saying the band was right, but it also wasn’t wrong. The issue, of course, is Lars, music's all-time goat. That guy could cure cancer and people would still dislike him (although to be fair, he’d probably be pretty annoying about it.)
For the sake of argument, the band probably did have to go glossy and clean. As I'm sure you recall, the mainstream Metal landscape in 1996 was very different than 1991, and because of the limited technical musicianship, Metallica would have been spinning its wheels hard had it dumped another Black album into the market. Skin tight black pants and long hair just wasn’t “cool” in the mid 90’s to the type of audience the band had gained, and if there’s anything Lars wants to be it’s “cool.” If you want people to believe you’re the biggest Metal band in the world, you aren’t gonna convince them by dressing like Pete Sandoval.
I’m not accusing you specifically of falling into the crossover category, but it is a huge percentage of Metallica’s audience. I love Metallica, and I’ll defend Load, but if the pre Black album era material wasn’t so incredibly composed I’d never be able to sit through a current live performance. It sounds elitist, but hearing Lars hit his kick exclusively on the 1 during a song like Battery? It’s like, come on, man.
The ghastly skillset of Lars forced the band to take a different path, which, interestingly, made Metallica the biggest Metal band in the world.
There's a boring and obvious argument to be made about suing the fans you love.
The band did earn its success, but there was no way but down after the Black Album because they'd overreached so far with ...and Justice. They simply weren't talented enough musically to evolve, so Metallica became a hard rock band, then tried to catch the Metal wave again only to falter after having been surpassed by those who took the early influence and ran with it.
It's such an interesting case where strong material excuses some wretched playing for a split audience of small part 'grin-and-bear-it' and mostly crossover 'this-is-the-only-metal-band-I-like-and-therefore-don't-know-the-difference.'
MAN, the first sample is from the Extreme song Rest in Peace! Which makes this mixtape infinitely better.
Don't even get me started on the use of Zappa's Tell me you Love Me.
Help me, Rhonda.
That’s fair. I get what you’re saying. I’d still argue that Pantera has a tremendous and very real legacy, though.
In terms of appreciating the pre-90’s output of the Big 4, yes, what they’ve since released certainly puts perspective on the strength of those records, but those bands at that time were also at their creative high points; flying by the seats of their collective pants in a genre that was at its most “dangerous.” The bands all peaked and came down right as metal was fading. But while those bands faded and tried to accommodate to trend, Pantera released 5 records in 10 years, each more difficult than the next.
I do agree with you that not all of what those bands recorded in the 90’s was dreadful (yes, some John Bush era Anthrax is pretty cool, and Megadeth has some great stuff from the decade,) but none were as vital as Pantera.
We’re just differing in opinion, which is fine. If mainstream hard rock is lame, I can’t blame a band that was only mainstream in name (due to magazine covers, individual virtuosity, being the most impressive American metal band over a 10 year span.) And I would suggest Alice in Chains, Korn, and Marilyn Manson as being far more responsible for what happened to modern rock.
Pantera isn’t my “favourite band ever, bro!” but it was an important gateway, and I suppose my point is that its legacy doesn’t fairly represent what the band actually was (as seen in some of the one sentence comments below.)
Comments