The Silent Man wrote:
Edguy
| Metal Reviews https://www.metalreviews.com/phpBB/ |
|
| Metallica vs Iron Maiden https://www.metalreviews.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3677 |
Page 1 of 8 |
| Author: | stub [ Fri Oct 21, 2005 10:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Metallica vs Iron Maiden |
Are you more Up the Irons ore more Metal Up Your Ass? This is the Clash of the Titans,so choose your side!!! The razor sharp precision and heaviness of Hetfield's riffing against the charm and beauty of Murray/Smith twin guitarwork;Steve Harris (the uncompromising tradition keeper )versus Cliff Burton(the wild metal-hippie);Air Raid Siren versus Almighty James;Number of the Beast versus Kill'em All;the american style against the british style!...and finally also Dance of Death Against St Anger. As for me i won't vote yet...i hate as much DOD as i hate ST Anger. |
|
| Author: | December Flower [ Fri Oct 21, 2005 10:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Maiden, without a second of doubt. Their best albums are better than the best Metallica albums and their worst album is a masterpiece compared to ST Anger... |
|
| Author: | Orion [ Fri Oct 21, 2005 10:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Maiden. I really like the first 4 Metallica albums, but it's Iron Fucking Maiden. |
|
| Author: | Caligula_K [ Fri Oct 21, 2005 10:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
There's absoloutely no question about this. Metallica were a thrash metal band that were very good for their first two albums, decent for their next two, and then descended into shittery, and on St. Anger, super shittery. Iron Maiden, on the other hand, is Iron Fucking Maiden. Their first seven albums are absoloutely classic, their next three decent, then they had one bad album and then two great ones. They're basically kings of metal (sorry, Manowar) and should never be compared to the likes of Metallica. |
|
| Author: | lizardtail [ Fri Oct 21, 2005 10:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Metallica are great fun, but Maiden is timeless. Powerslave will still be heavy twenty years from now. |
|
| Author: | stub [ Fri Oct 21, 2005 11:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Brahm_K wrote: There's absoloutely no question about this. Metallica were a thrash metal band that were very good for their first two albums, decent for their next two, and then descended into shittery, and on St. Anger, super shittery. Iron Maiden, on the other hand, is Iron Fucking Maiden. Their first seven albums are absoloutely classic, their next three decent, then they had one bad album and then two great ones. They're basically kings of metal (sorry, Manowar) and should never be compared to the likes of Metallica.
I know it's just a matter of taste ,but i'll never consider the last 2 Maiden albums great.To me Bruce's return was a big mistake(artistically speaking,of course). BNW is not more than ok imo ,and DAD is very dissapointing(i prefer Virtual XI anytime).DAD has one very good song(Paschendale) and the rest....what can i say? St Anger is shit,but metallica took risks ;Maiden didn't take any risk with DOD...and released an album which is below average...imo. |
|
| Author: | stub [ Fri Oct 21, 2005 11:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
lizardtail wrote: Metallica are great fun, but Maiden is timeless. Powerslave will still be heavy twenty years from now.
And so wILL BE RIDE THE LIGHTNING |
|
| Author: | Anonymous [ Fri Oct 21, 2005 11:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Iron maiden shouldnt be compared to metallica.There discography contains alot of great material, Metallica,s on the other hand starts of great but ends with disaster...IMHO... Metallica couldnt even wash Maidens touring bus..... |
|
| Author: | Radical Cut [ Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Maiden. Metallica just...isn't Iron Maiden. Most good reasons have already been pointed out. |
|
| Author: | The_Voice [ Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Maiden,this post is somewhat useless. |
|
| Author: | Ness [ Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
uhhh.... Maiden. |
|
| Author: | The Silent Man [ Sat Oct 22, 2005 4:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Edguy |
|
| Author: | Ness [ Sat Oct 22, 2005 4:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
The Silent Man wrote: Edguy
|
|
| Author: | Radagast [ Sat Oct 22, 2005 11:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Iron Christraping Maiden |
|
| Author: | Asgardlord [ Sat Oct 22, 2005 11:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ummmm... is this thread for real? Am I really reading this !?!? |
|
| Author: | Anonymous [ Sat Oct 22, 2005 11:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
in terms of credibility at present and of consistency, it'd have to be Maiden. The old Metallica (pre- Metallica album) has more killer songs than Iron Maiden, but the new Metallica's guitar sound is almost as flat, repetitive, boring and irritating as that fucking drum sound. |
|
| Author: | Radagast [ Sat Oct 22, 2005 11:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ozzie_Metaller wrote: The old Metallica (pre- Metallica album) has more killer songs than Iron Maiden,
You will never be more wrong about anything if you live a million years. |
|
| Author: | Metalhead_Bastard [ Sat Oct 22, 2005 11:39 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
IRON-FUCKING-MAIDEN |
|
| Author: | PhyrWolf [ Sat Oct 22, 2005 11:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
The Maiden Of Iron. nuff said. |
|
| Author: | Stefan [ Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
....well... if you're talking historical value, Metallica kinda started Thrash while Iron Maiden only were part of a scene (ok, they were kind of the leaders) known as The New Wave of British Heavy Metal... :roll: so I should go with Metallica... but then, Metallica did only 4 good to excellent albums while I count 7 albums of that kind for Iron Maiden... here's my trick to tell then : each good album gets ten points, and I judge the historical value departing bands on a 100 scale Metallica get 40 & Maiden 70 as for musical value Metallica gets 65 & Maiden 35 as for Historical value Metallica 105 Iron Maiden 105 IT'S A TIE !!! 
I hope you get it all 
|
|
| Page 1 of 8 | All times are UTC + 1 hour |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|