Sceadugenga wrote:
AlexandeR wrote:
The acoustic breaks is one of the things that I like more from MoP. I couldn't care less if metal elitists thinks it's overrated or shitty. The songwriting is better than all the german thrashers. MoP is more complex, more melodic, than the in-your-face, more primitive and agressive teutonic movement. I feel the same way in Black Metal, while I enjoy Darkthrone, Mayhem and all the norwegian sound in general, I would choose anytime Drudkh or Wolves in the Throne Room or Negura Bunget over them. Most people disregard Metallica because they've been releasing shit since ...And Justice of All and because they are famous. I wonder if they would've been receiving the same treatment nowadays if they'd disbanded after the demise of Cliff...
Both RtL and MoP have a very special site in my collection, and I will love those albums until the day I die.
Tbh, MoP was not all that musically complex in comparison to many of the other releases mentioned in this thread. I think people too often smack a "complexity" label on anything with long accoustic or melodic passages. MoP was more melodic, yes, but being melodic is not an immediate sign of complexity or superiority. PtK had better written riffs that caught my attention much more than MoP in my view. And they did all that while still maintaining the level of aggression I enjoy in thrash.
And that's exactly what I was saying before about it depending on what you look for in thrash.
Honestly, I couldn't care less if people like Metallica. In fact, it's safe to say that more people in the world like MoP than PtK if only because more people know MoP exists. So I don't see how this is about "many people who don't like Metallica don't like them cause they're so popular." Lots of bands are popular and people still like them. Just look at Maiden or Priest. Many people who don't like MoP and prefer RtL have a reason to. It's stupid to just write them off as judging them on popularity or dislike of post-AJFA.
The reason more people like MoP is probably a) because of exposure and b) because something that is tamer and more melodic is easier to digest then something as aggressive as PtK. Less people are inclined to like the more extreme.
Personally, if I want long atmospheric accoustic passages, MoP is not where I find it. So yeah, go ahead and like MoP all you want, but making it out that PtK or others were just pure primitive aggression without any complexity or technical proficiency is just outright false. Tame does not always = more complex.
I fail to hear the "tameness" in MoP, I get a blast of energy everytime I hear it. Never said that I considered Metallica "complex" (to thrash standars) because of the acoustic passages or being melodic, but for the overall songwriting. Also I don't consider Metallica superior to any of the aforementioned bands, only I like this 86 album in particular more than the others. I get a bit annoyed with Milles singing in PtK, he improved a lot in Extreme Agression.
Metallica is more popular than the Priest and the Maiden together. Metalheads still love them because they keep releasing acceptable stuff and doing great live shows (the live energy of Iron Maiden is incredible!); Metallica got shit after AJFA like I already said. I'm sure a lot of people like the Black Album, I don't.
If you insist in believing PtK is more complex, and better, fine, I can live with it, to each his own. More agressive not always = better, not even in Metal. I search for energy in Thrash, instead of agression. Death and Black are more suitable to my ears for agression and destruction, and also for long acoustic passages (the passages in MoP are not that long).
poor trapt...
)