lux

What do you mean?

The Korn, however, have met a bad end, almost like the Metallica... their latest works are not great. The first two albums by Korn are one of the few examples of high-quality "Crossover, Nu metal" (along with Around the Fur by Deftones). Even the first album by Limp Bizkit wasn't bad, but I almost feel ashamed to say it considering how they've turned out since.

If you don't believe me, you can still take a stroll on the Web and check out, just for kicks, the decent music sites you stumble upon. Let me know if anyone (knowledgeable) claims that Metallica "sucks." Of course, I demand reasons for a hypothetical total dismissal of Metallica... Simply saying "So-and-so said Metallica are terrible" isn't enough for me; I expect a valid argument! :)

eheh you know what... this last statement of yours means absolutely nothing (sorry for my bluntness, but I think I know what I'm talking about). Metallica are one of the very few bands that have had a public response DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to the artistic quality of their music (as rightly pointed out in a dedicated profile on Ondarock). In 80 percent of cases, POPULARITY (nowadays) means SELLING OUT TO THE PUBLIC; this doesn't apply to Metallica, as they belong to that other 20 percent. I would also like to remind you that Metallica became globally famous only after the Black Album, that is, since they REALLY sold out to the public. Nevertheless, even the Black Album was a good album, but "metal" fans didn't take well to the "heavy hard rock" shift, as they were used to the thrash blows of Master of Puppets & Co.

But can you stop tarnishing historical albums with these ridiculous reviews? I thought that after that disgraceful one on the Velvet Underground, you would have taken a moment to reflect on your nonsense, but instead...

Speaking of RAGE, in their latest album (I think), the second track has the same guitar riff as Master Of Puppets...:)))))))))))))))))))))))) Old Metallica Rules!!!!

It's not that those who hit harder necessarily make better artistic music... Pink Floyd didn't hit at all, yet Gilmour's guitars and extended solos have gone down in history... what does this mean??

Am I perhaps questioning the merits of Slayer?? We are talking about Metallica, not Slayer, though... don't change the subject.. Slayer are great, but they came a couple of years late compared to Kill 'Em All, which is from '83. Sure, Show No Mercy is from '83 too, but the merits of Kill 'Em All are recognized by everyone.

When Metallica came out, their sound was outdated???? But do you know the influence that Kill 'Em All had on METAL AS A WHOLE? Who do you think invented speed thrash if not Metallica?? Come on, this is the A B C of metal history... I can partially agree with you about Iron Maiden... I couldn't care less about IMOLA BECAUSE after the Black Album, METALLICA DIED. But up until '91, great respect for them. Master of Puppets Hard Rock?!?! Come on, please... you base everything on technique and make a monumental mistake. METALLICA WERE REVOLUTIONARY in the '80s. Period. Of course, today they may seem outdated, but time passes for everyone, what does that have to do with it???? Are the Velvet Underground particularly technically gifted by chance?? Yet I don’t believe you would dare question their FUNDAMENTAL historical importance, as well as their artistic impact. Man, technique is a means, not an end, get it through your head!

Well, after the black album, Metallica were a disappointment and a pity.