Metal Reviews

that's how wrong I think you are... as someone said before, for me St Anger is just a (very) bad dream ! I still hope the guys will be back in good form on their next release...

I'd say 75, 90, 85, 80, 60, n/a, n/a in that order.

the same for Iron Maiden :


so it looks better on the Maiden side of things but I still think Metallica had a greater historical value which makes it a tie ! :twisted:

You give Seventh Son a lower score than Load? Now that is blasphemy.

The Evil That Men Do and Moonchild vs. Mama Said and Hero of the Day... What a battle!

7th son is a damn good album but still the weakest of the classic Iron Maiden I rated earlier (imo... :roll: )

on the other hand, I find Load to be a very underrated album... the kind of album I hope Metallica will deliver to us soon, modern (but not selling out) metal !

as for the battle of the songs, I would have chosen The House that Jack Built & King Nothing vs. Moonchild & The Clairvoyant... but even then, Metallica wins

Kill Em All is the only Metallica album I'd give a rating in the 90's. ALl Maiden albums from Killers until 7th son get scores in the high 90's with about 3 or 4 100's in there. Maiden's 80's material is without parallel in the metal world No one will ever reach that level of quality. I think the only other band that put out so many awesome consecutive releases....those being almost perfect, was Blind Guardian. Twighlight Hall through Nightfall are the only string of albums that comes close to Maidens.

I totally agree with everything said here.

Metallica more historically important? Perhaps they might have had a slightly broader influence (although I would argue otherwise anyway, but for the sake of argument let's say it can be proven that they did). They influenced a lot of crap, in my opinion. They taught the metal world that it's okay to let your balls retract to achieve a more accessible sound.

Don't get me wrong, I do like Metallica up to and including Master of Puppets (Justice was a lesson in boredom in my opinion), but after Kill 'em All, they took what thrash they had leftover and diluted it with quasi-metal moments to spread it out. For example, The Thing that Should Not Be is the biggest filler on any album ever. The song Master of Puppets has some nice riffs, but then they play them too much, and that acoustic part's pretty boring (which is not to say that non-metal parts of their songs are necesarily bad, I think Fade to Black is a good song). Disposable Heroes is great... for the first five minutes, it really doesn't need to be so friggin long...

And people ate it up. Multitudes of bands were influenced by Metallica playing like this. Snore-inducing song writing became "meaningful" and "emotional" to those who couldn't consistantly write interesting music. By the way, I'm referring, more than anything else specifically, to the Gothenburg scene.

And I'm not saying that Maiden doesn't have any filler, because they definately do (Gangland, anyone? ... They made up for it by chasing it with Hallowed be thy Name). However, they never crapped out like Metallica did, and even among their worst songs, they never got boring like that. A couple bad songs on a few albums is awesome considering how many Maiden songs are absolutely incredible. They never stopped trying.

Beautifully put. I agree with it all.

OPETH

You know you just admitted to the fact that songwriting is, despite your best efforts, EXACTLY what you look for in music?!

If something you like wasn't written the exact way it was, you might not like it. What the fuck else could you be possibly talking about?

Understood. When i first posted, when i saw songwriting, i thought it meant lyrics only....it was around 4:00am when i read it so i was pretty tired.
Yes, hearing a song and liking it would mean that the songwriting is great and therefore would be important to me....its the lyrics that i dont care too much about. OK, everyone got that now. Yes? Good, now drop it for fuck's sake......


The last few replies waving the Maiden flag while somewhat burning the Metallica one.....fillers is somehting different to everyone. What someone considers a "filler", could be gold to another person. To call The Thing That Should Not Be a filler is pure lunacy. Have you heard the S&M version, its even better than the original. Metallica were known for having long songs in the 80's, and they all worked, particularly Disposable Heroes.
IMO i think Metallica have overall less fillers than Maiden...IMO. But like my previous statement, fillers are different from person to person, much like the scores people have been giving Metallica and Maiden albums, they all are very different.
I find it hard to believe that most people here dont like BOTH Maiden and Metallica. Its either love Maiden hate Metalica or its love Maiden like Metallica. It seems like its only myself and T.I.E who love both bands equally.

oh yeah... aren't we both old byt the way ? :roll: I think the main problem with Metallica is how people came to realise Jamz was a stupid white trash american, Larz a total cunt... they never experienced how Metallica used to t(h)rash everything back in the 80's.... they miss the historical perspective on things... Now that Metallica is no longer a band that deserve respect (they say... :roll: ) it's like they never did anything good... as if Kill'Em All wasn't a fucking nice thrashing heavy metal album, as if Metallica never was the first band to make their thrash more "progressive", etc...

and yes, HT, I like Load better than 7th son because Metallica takes risks when Iron Maiden only serve the same dish album after album after album... don't get me wrong, I still looooooove Iron Maiden but Metallica has evolved and took many more risk than maiden ever did...

to quote actual bands, I would say Metallica is Katatonia when Iron Maiden is Iced Earth and this is not a compliment for Iron Maiden !

Yeah T.I.E, we are old, lol

I agree with pretty much everything you said....except for the Iced Earth thing, but i know you dont like IE that much while i love them, but i get your point.
Maiden does serve up the same thing with every album, with maybe an exception with Somewhere In Time and Brave New World. BNW had a more progressive feel, which IMO didnt really work.
I think Maiden are starting to suffer a bit from serving up the same stuff. Compared to their 80's meterial, BNW and DOD are quite poor and i wonder how much they have left in them.
Bruce has already stated that after their next album, they wont go on tour anymore cause they just cant do it anymore.
Maybe they should go talk to the Rolling Stones and ask to have some of what they are taking

There's only one band i know off the top of my head that can serve up the exact same thing album after album and still kick total ass, and have been around for 20+ years....

AC/DC!

You consider Load a metal album? Nigga Please!


I hate Metallica after and including AJFA, and Jaymz and Lars do seem like complete cunts, but that doesn't devalue their older works.

Old Metallica is still good, although overrated as hell.


Taking risks is good. But i don't see what's so awesome about taking risks and falling flat on your ass.

Making good music is more important than making original music. IMHO, of course.

I dont think load was a risk for Metallica,it was meant to be more apealing to the media so i wont call that risky,sticking to the old Heavy Metal sound when all of the media says is dead (MTV,radio,etc) is far more risky.and i may not be that old but i still enjoy kill em all,but after that cmon nothing is really that great IMO,and yes Metallica has a great Historical value but when Master Of Puppets came out almost every other Thrash band realesed Masterpieces far more superior than anything ever made (or stole) by Metallica.

Hey!Don't forget me,i try to defend Metallica from the beginning of the thread!And i feel sorry seeing how many metalheads hate Metallica here.

And btw i'm old too! :oops:

I don't think most of us who posted here in favour of Iron Maiden hate Metallica. I certainly don't, and find their first two albums to be very good and their third and fourth to be good. I just think they are horribly overrated and that they just can't compare to Iron Maiden.

An excellent point. Metallica traded in their balls for continued mainstream exposure. When the thrash movement of the late 80's-early 90's was losing popularity, Metallica latched onto the alternative rock/grunge scene. Load is not even a metal album, and no one can convince me otherwise.

TIE, to say that Metallica took a chance with Load is just flat out false. Taking a chance is playing the music you love and catering to your real fans, even if that means never being on college radio or MTV.

That's how Maiden wins this battle in a blowout. Integrity, Maiden has it, Metallica doesn't.

the thing is all you're saying is based on your opinion that Metallica did "Load" to please and attract a larger, more mainstream audience into their music... I don't think it's true at all... Imo "Load" is an album by an adult modern metal band, not a sell-out album... :roll:

and that shows the whole difference between Iron Maiden & Metallica... when Metallica grew into a band of adult musicians (that would be Load & Reload), Iron Maiden kept on being a teenagers oriented outfit. not that one is good and the other's bad... it's just a choice of career (that isn't really deliberate for any of those two bands) and a reflection on both band member's choices.

I personally have room for both bands because they're so damn different... so, like I said before, it's a tie :twisted:

Maiden, easy... thrash metal just doesn't do anyhting for me