Metallica at Glastonbury.

1789101113»

Comments

  • calico_piecalico_pie Posts: 10,060
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I only like Radioheads 'The Bends' album. Such difficult music to get into to be honest.

    The one thing that annoys me is that critically Thom Yorke and Radiohead are lyrical geniuses, yet when Coldplay write obscure stuff (A Rush of Blood, Viva La Vida) they don't get the same recognition, yet if Radiohead had wrote those particular albums they would be 5 star rated etc etc.

    I think this article is bang on the money:

    Why is it cool to hate Coldplay?

    I watched Metallica and they were OK, but it's not really my sort of thing. Iron Maiden have been mentioned a bit - I think they probably have better tunes, especially from their early stuff.
  • Old Man 43Old Man 43 Posts: 6,214
    Forum Member
    calico_pie wrote: »
    I think this article is bang on the money:

    Why is it cool to hate Coldplay?

    I watched Metallica and they were OK, but it's not really my sort of thing. Iron Maiden have been mentioned a bit - I think they probably have better tunes, especially from their early stuff.

    I am a fan of Heavy Metal and I can tell you that as far as the quality of the music is concerned there is not much difference between Metallica and Iron Maiden.

    In fact I could say that overall Metallica have a more varied range of music styles than Iron Maiden have.
  • calico_piecalico_pie Posts: 10,060
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Fair enough - I was going by the Glastonbury set. The bits I enjoyed musically were the starts of a few of them, like One. (Which I thought sounded a bit like the Cure weirdly.) But once most of them got going, they did sound a bit samey. Although that's just me as much as anything. I love a bit of New Order, but I'm sure a lot of people would say they were a bit same.

    As for musical styles - that wasn't to say that Maiden are particularly diverse. I just didn't find much of Metallica's set to have as good tunes as some of Maiden's early stuff.

    No problem at all with Metallica though - as I said before Glastonbury is all about diversity, and there's no doubt that Metallica are a huge band, and huge live act, in their genre. And so fully deserving of that headline slot.

    I'm still not sure what's going on with the hunting thing though - I saw the pic that was used to slag James Hatfield off that was actually someone else. And then the film that was arguably anti-hunting. But presumably he does still hunt, so wasn't sure what point was being made in the film. Unless he doesn't hunt, and its all been a bit of a witch hunt?
  • NewWorldManNewWorldMan Posts: 4,890
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    calico_pie wrote: »
    Fair enough - I was going by the Glastonbury set. The bits I enjoyed musically were the starts of a few of them, like One. (Which I thought sounded a bit like the Cure weirdly.) But once most of them got going, they did sound a bit samey.

    I can relate to that as far as the live experience sounds (or this particular one). However, if you own all their studio albums (as I do) you'll notice that their style across many albums does vary more than Maiden's.
  • ags_ruleags_rule Posts: 19,388
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    barbeler wrote: »
    Notts TV has just reported that officially, Jake Bugg actually had a bigger crowd watching him than Metallica, so that he was really the headliner on Saturday. Not a joke but based on the most accurate estimates possible, apparently.

    Confirmed as a massive pile of crap by those who were there, and anyone else with eyes or a basic grasp of maths.

    There were best estimate 70-90k at Metallica. Even if Jake Bugg had every other single person at his show, that still doesn't cover even a third of those who went to see Metallica.

    Unsurprising to see the indie press reporting this so much though, the success of Metallica at Glastonbury must have been hugely embarrassing for their journalists who had written it off before it even happened.
  • degsyhufcdegsyhufc Posts: 59,251
    Forum Member
    Watched the whole thing through last night and they were very good. All on form......apart from Hammett.

    Some of his solos were shocking.
    Always thought he was a weak link, espeically when they moved away from the thrash stuff they started with.

    There's no doubt he's a top guitarist and has written some great solos but his live soloing leaves something to be desired.


    If only Marty Friedman joined :) then again his time with Megadeth produced their best stuff imo.
  • Kiko H FanKiko H Fan Posts: 6,546
    Forum Member
    degsyhufc wrote: »
    Watched the whole thing through last night and they were very good. All on form......apart from Hammett.

    Some of his solos were shocking.
    Always thought he was a weak link, espeically when they moved away from the thrash stuff they started with.

    There's no doubt he's a top guitarist and has written some great solos but his live soloing leaves something to be desired.


    If only Marty Friedman joined :) then again his time with Megadeth produced their best stuff imo.

    Freidman was a widdler though, a shredder, originally from the Mike Varney stable.
    I wouldn't say Hammett was a shredder.
  • SoupietwistSoupietwist Posts: 1,314
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    degsyhufc wrote: »


    If only Marty Friedman joined :) then again his time with Megadeth produced their best stuff imo.

    As far as I can tell from what I've read Friedman was never happy playing metal music.
  • degsyhufcdegsyhufc Posts: 59,251
    Forum Member
    Kiko H Fan wrote: »
    I wouldn't say Hammett was a shredder.
    Certainly not with live solos
  • degsyhufcdegsyhufc Posts: 59,251
    Forum Member
    As far as I can tell from what I've read Friedman was never happy playing metal music.
    It didn't come across with Cacophony, Megadeth or his Japanese metal show.

    He may have mellowed later on. I have some of his post-Megadeth albums and they are erm.... not sure of the word. Eastern, yogoistic, mellow - mood music
Sign In or Register to comment.