Pink Floyd v.s Metallica

Yshania · Post by **Yshania** » Mon May 02, 2005 2:15 pm

You have good taste, Luis!

[QUOTE=jopperm2]Hmm Nightwish.. Haven't heard of them. I don't listen to much music right now aside from my daughter's kids stuff.

Are they British?

You're right about Hammet and Hetfield. I thik Hetfield has the voice of satan and I love it.

[/QUOTE]

LOL! They are a Finish band, hard to categorise, really. How about thrash meets opera meets classic meets goth?

Indeed!

Yet he can harmonise too!

And for the record, I have never thought Roger Waters a particularly brilliant singer, a fantastic writer, but sometimes his singing left something to be desired!

Yshania · Post by **Yshania** » Mon May 02, 2005 2:16 pm

[QUOTE=Magrus]That's very very true. I've dealt with a few bands just starting out locally. If the chemistry and talent isn't there with the band, you go nowhere. Not unless your cute and record labels want to make you their...nm. Not going there today.

[/QUOTE]

make you their Kylie?

Cuchulain82 · Post by **Cuchulain82** » Mon May 02, 2005 2:20 pm

Ysh- I agree with what you said about energy. Both bands have been flat for a while. At least the Stones keep making headlines and playing on other people's albums. Metallica and Pink Floyd just kind of keep going, not really doing much different. I think that Metallica wasted a huge chance after S&M- the whole world was waiting to see what they would do next. I mean, they were the premiere metal band and they played with a symphony- an f'ing symphony- and made it work. Fans were restless, they didn't know what was happening, and there was tons of nercous energy about what would happen next. Then, Metallica did...

well...

...nothing.

They fought about Napster, Jason Newsted left, and then they made St. Anger, a thoroughly average (at best) album. Plus it took them like, 10 years to do this. It just seems like they don't have the cojones they used to. And once they lost that edge, everything else seemed to go with it.

jopperm2 · Post by **jopperm2** » Mon May 02, 2005 2:23 pm

I'll make Kylie my.. Soo.. on to metallica! Yeah..

Yeah, Waters' singing always sounded either over the top or, well, watered down.

Magrus · Post by **Magrus** » Mon May 02, 2005 2:26 pm

Yeah, the whole pop-culture "I want you to have sex with me and my band" images that's taken my country by storm with everyone under 30. Irritates me to no end.

Yshania · Post by **Yshania** » Mon May 02, 2005 2:33 pm

Cuchulain82, that is a shame. I don't have St Anger, yet I expect I will get it since I am loyal in that sense, if only to make up my own mind about it.

I loved the symphony addition, since in many ways rock can be as intense and dimensional as a symphony orchestra. It worked. Isn't it funny? What do we want from these guys? How can they possibly improve on that, in a way? The public demands continually, and the wise get out whilst they are ahead...

Yet, comparing PF and M again...how many times have we heard "Mettalicesque" when a critic refers to a new band...and how many times have we heard "Pink Floydesque"? I think it is easy enough to see which band has influenced their adopted genre more, so the question "who is better" should be considered in respect of what does one prefer to listen to, and how long each have continued to sell material? Of course, this will - straight off - be both too personalised and too generalised. *shrugs*

So, for Jopper and Magrus...

Kylie or Madonna?

Darth Zenemij · Post by **Darth Zenemij** » Mon May 02, 2005 2:34 pm

Kylie monguoe or whatever?

Magrus · Post by **Magrus** » Mon May 02, 2005 2:39 pm

I have no clue who this Kylie person is, but if she's anything like Madonna, or britney, or jessica, I say stick her in a hole.

Cuchulain82 · Post by **Cuchulain82** » Mon May 02, 2005 2:41 pm

[QUOTE=Yshania]So... Kylie or Madonna?

[/QUOTE]
I think the proper answer is definately Kylie and Madonna, with a magnum of Dom thrown in

jopperm2 · Post by **jopperm2** » Mon May 02, 2005 2:57 pm

Kylie by a longshot! I don't really care for her music but she won't be able to sing anyway with what I have planned for her.

I used to have her wax figure from Tussaud's on my desktop.

And to think, she's my mother's age!

Or thereabouts anyways.

I really likes S&M too. That was a great album. Ride the Lightning is still my fave though.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Mon May 02, 2005 3:29 pm

[QUOTE=Yshania]I think the sad fact is that we like to categorize music, PF lost itself to mainstream pop, Metallica potentially to mainstream rock...but one of these continues to try to appeal to new audiences by forging on.
[/QUOTE]

Many genre-defining or even genre-creating artists (not only in music, but let's stick to music no to stray too far away from the topic) have "sold out" after a while (unless they died first). I can't really think of anyone. I can't think of many. When you have participated in created a new genre, you will get followers. To move on and create something principally new not one, but two, three or four times, is probably more than most artist have within them. Björk is a musician who can do it, but she was never genre-defining. David Bowie was both a genre definer and creator, but after some 12-15 years he didn't have anything more to add. Neither had Robert Fripp, but he didn't sell out at least.

Cuchulain82 · Post by **Cuchulain82** » Mon May 02, 2005 3:37 pm

[QUOTE=C Elegans]Many genre-defining ...have "sold out" after a while...[/QUOTE]
Rage Against the Machine. I am a complete, total, and unrepentant RATM fan, and IMO they walked the line between staying true to their roots and super-stardom better than any band ever. In the end, it finally broke them down.