#211
Gimme Back My Brainsaw wrote:
First album I bought was St Anger.
First albums I aquired were Master Of Puppets and Metallica (its not actually called the black album and im going to be snobbish about that)
Posted on Fri, 21 March 2008 at 17:22
#212
deadsetgav wrote:
I started with the Black album - my mate at school stole the tape out of his brothers car and copied it to a jvc 90 minute! I also aquired Nevermind in the same way!
Posted on Fri, 21 March 2008 at 17:46
#213
deadsetgav wrote:
of course that was back in the day when you wanted albums to be under 45 minutes so they would fit on one side of a tape
Posted on Fri, 21 March 2008 at 17:48
#214
cyclops79 wrote:
damn, I remember editing songs (removing silence, samples, whatever) so that an album would fit in 45 minutes of tape… and I don’t miss it at all.
first album I got was the black album, right when it came out, and then everything from kill’em all to and justice… and I’ve been buying every new album since then, and kind of anxious for the new one… I don’t know why, but I really think that they’re coming up with something good this time.
Posted on Sat, 22 March 2008 at 00:31
#215
Charlie wrote:
Hetfield has says they won’t release the album unless theyre completely happy with it. The same goes fro Rick Rubin. According to James ” they’re striving for excellence - keeping only the very best ideas and throwing away anything that doesnt cut it. Whereas Load - St Anger was all about keeping everything and making songs work out of ideas. “
Posted on Sat, 22 March 2008 at 14:15
#216
The Auto Surgeon (Mark) wrote:
Well, if Rick Rubin doesn’t like it then it won’t get released - it’s that simple!
Posted on Sat, 22 March 2008 at 18:25
#217
Taunty Dan wrote:
i’m not sure why rick rubin is so revered. Sure he revived Cash’s career, but on the other tack he worked with Wolfsbane.
Posted on Sat, 22 March 2008 at 19:19
#218
Charlie wrote:
HE made the first two system albums too but then Daron had a napoleon complex and ruined the band.
Besides. If the songs werent good enough, Metallica would not even be Recording them to begin with. Rick likes to get the songs finished before you record.
Posted on Sat, 22 March 2008 at 21:48
#219
Gimme Back My Brainsaw wrote:
Rick likes to string time along to make more cash ;)
Posted on Sat, 22 March 2008 at 23:26
#220
Charlie wrote:
Plus he produces about four bands at the same time. He is a pre producer - he gest the songs absolutely perfect then he just lets the band get on with recording them.
Posted on Sat, 22 March 2008 at 23:41
#221
Divers (Simon) wrote:
deadsetgav wrote:
of course that was back in the day when you wanted albums to be under 45 minutes so they would fit on one side of a tape
They Still should, albums over 45mins you start to lose attention. I like to be left wanting more not left wanting it to end.
Posted on Sun, 23 March 2008 at 00:51 in reply to an earlier post
#222
Charlie wrote:
Hmm i’m not so sure. Imagine waiting 5 years for a new album and its only 30 minutes.
I’d feel a bit ripped off.
I think 50 - 60 is a good length.
Posted on Sun, 23 March 2008 at 16:09
#223
Taunty Dan wrote:
i dont agree with the “the longer you wait the longer you should get theory”. If Metallica turned up with a half hour album of their best stuff since puppets would the length be an issue then?!
Posted on Mon, 24 March 2008 at 10:05
#224
Dennis wrote:
If Metallica could manage half a MINUTE that’s anywhere close to their Puppets standard, I’d be amazed, never mind half an hour.
Posted on Mon, 24 March 2008 at 12:10
#225
The Auto Surgeon (Mark) wrote:
Well at the moment I think most people would settle for something heading towards Justice, but we won’t know until they release it.
Posted on Mon, 24 March 2008 at 19:42
#226
Graeme55? (Graeme Williams) wrote:
i was quite glad they decided not to put the 2 new songs on the album, they sounded so half arsed.
Posted on Mon, 24 March 2008 at 23:30
#227
Charlie wrote:
New Song 2 was dreadful. New Song 1 had some good bits and bobs.
Rob Trujillo said they only played New Song 2 live to give the people something new to hear and that it was never meant to go on an album. He also said the last time they played it, they fucked it up badly so theyre never playing it again :p
Posted on Tue, 25 March 2008 at 00:10
#228
Charlie wrote:
@ Auto Surgeon. Word from the metallicamp is that it sounds like the cd that SHOULD have come out between Justice and Black.
Posted on Tue, 25 March 2008 at 00:12
#229
cyclops79 wrote:
If it sounds anywhere near Justice, I’ll be happy. really really happy.
I don’t think anyone should expect a masterpiece…
Posted on Tue, 25 March 2008 at 03:47
#230
buffalo-boy wrote:
i try not to expect anything - then you’re never disappointed!
I would pay about £11 for the new Metallica album which I think is quite generous!
Posted on Tue, 25 March 2008 at 09:16
#231
Divers (Simon) wrote:
Muskeg wrote:
Hmm i’m not so sure. Imagine waiting 5 years for a new album and its only 30 minutes.
I’d feel a bit ripped off.
I waited 9 years for the Descendents - Everything sucks album and it was worth every year for those thirty minutes.
I was more pissed off waiting for four years for load and reload and being given almost three hours of shite.
Posted on Tue, 25 March 2008 at 09:28 in reply to an earlier post
#232
Gimme Back My Brainsaw wrote:
Wasnt rain in blood by slayer less than half an hour?
and its one of the most citically aclaimed metal albums ever ( i think its a bit shit though)
Posted on Tue, 25 March 2008 at 12:38
#233
Alan wrote:
I think long albums hinder a band more than help. Soundgarden would be an example - I think all their albums were too long and didn’t quite get the acclaim the band deserved. “Superunknown” is a brilliant album but not many people would have the patience to sit through it’s 73 minutes in one go! Imagine if they cut it back to 40 minutes, I think they would really have taken off. I know they were popular, but never in the same league as Nirvana, for example.
AC/DC have always released 40 minute albums (apart from the longer, and shitter, more recent albums), same with Maiden etc.. I just think there’s a lot to be said for good quality control!
Posted on Tue, 25 March 2008 at 14:40
#234
Charlie wrote:
Master of Puppets was 8 songs and 50 odd minutes of perfection whereas And Justice For All was an hour of meandering boredom for 9 songs
Posted on Tue, 25 March 2008 at 17:13
#235
Gimme Back My Brainsaw wrote:
And st anger was over an hour, of 9 songs, that could of easily been trimmed down to 35 minitues.
Posted on Tue, 25 March 2008 at 17:32
#236
Graeme55? (Graeme Williams) wrote:
st anger had 11 songs, 75 mins of brilliance :)
Posted on Tue, 25 March 2008 at 23:39
#237
Charlie wrote:
Well not really. It has some good ideas repeated for 4 minutes.
Frantic is a damn good song. My World is pretty awesome.
Posted on Tue, 25 March 2008 at 23:59
#238
realityfuck (Richard Splash) wrote:
Alan wrote:
I think long albums hinder a band more than help. Soundgarden would be an example - I think all their albums were too long and didn’t quite get the acclaim the band deserved. “Superunknown” is a brilliant album but not many people would have the patience to sit through it’s 73 minutes in one go! Imagine if they cut it back to 40 minutes, I think they would really have taken off. I know they were popular, but never in the same league as Nirvana, for example.
Good point! I love Soundgarden, but often don’t put on their cds for the very reason.
Album length doesn’t doesn’t necessarily mean value for money. Before music went digital (and I mean from when cds started to get popular) album length wasn’t something people thought about as there was no timer counting the song duration on a turntable or tape deck.
St. Anger is probably the only long, heavy album I have that when a I put it on I get bored with and my mind starts to wander to things like doing the dishes. Occasionally put it on full blast to piss off the neighbours, unfortunately I usually ended up just pissing myself off.
Posted on Wed, 26 March 2008 at 06:43 in reply to an earlier post
#239
buffalo-boy wrote:
album length means nothing.
i can sit all the way through flying in a blue dream by joe satriani (guitar hero with 70 minute long albums) & not be bored! it all depends on the quality of the tunes right??
Posted on Wed, 26 March 2008 at 08:37
#240
realityfuck (Richard Splash) wrote:
Correct. Quality, not quantity, as the bishop said to the actress.
Posted on Wed, 26 March 2008 at 09:29
