Is Metallica EVER gonna make a new album?

[AlexHiro4]

If you look back through history, they've indirectly stated Dave was the reason they became what they were. Dave Mustaine pretty much invented thrash metal, along with Gary Holt and Bobby Gustafson from Overkill. Those three were mainly responsible for it coming together the way it did. I'm simply stating a fact about Metallica. Kill 'Em All was a landmark release and Dave wrote a lot more of it than they claim he did. The best songs had his name written all over them. I hate Metallica now. I like two of their albums: Ride the Lightning and ...And Justice For All. Too bad Lars Ulrich can't drum to save his life!

Point taken on what you've had to say. I did not mean to say that your degree doesn't "mean" anything entirely. I was just saying that it doesn't make your opinion more valid than mine. Hell, I plan to obtain a degree in music myself. Anyway, there is no bad blood. I was not mad in the first place. Happy posting.

I know Dave wrote a lot of their earlier stuff, but I didn't know that they ever indirectly stated that he was the reason for their success. It's interesting to me that they would have the kind of falling out they had and still give him credit for anything. <shrugs> I always thought that whole story about "The Mechanix" and "The Four Horseman" was interesting though. I actually liked the sound of The Four Horseman quite a bit better than The Mechanix. As far as Lars is concerned, I'll admit he's not exactly a world class drummer, but he does enough to get by. I'm a sax player, so I'm a lot more or a "melodic" oriented musician. I tend to be not as anal about rythmic stuff as I am about melodic stuff. However, I do wish they'd ditch their loudmouth fearless leader and replace him with a more tallented drummer. Kirk and James are the people that make the band worth listening to for me.

As far as you getting a music degree is concerned, I hope you really follow through with that. For me, it was an experience that I wouldn't trade for anything in the world. Lots of luck to you man.

[Ozone]

Opeth are popular now, if only with the Metal community. I still love almost everything they've done.

Opeth ftw. I've got money on their new album blowing Metallica's out of the water.

I do have to agree with most of what DMAndy has said up to this point when it comes to Tallica, but I really feel that Kill 'Em All was mediocre at best, though Hit the Lights and Four Horsemen are definitely classic. Ride the Lightning is still my favorite album from them, though Justice and MoP had their high points (Orion is still my favorite Metallica song.... I miss Cliff).

And LOLZ @ Lars Ulrich

[Benevolent_Ghaleon]

Bands get called sellouts when they change their style for the sole purpose of gaining more money and fame (At least, that's the only time I've called a band sellouts). Tell me now, how is that not selling out? It's supposed to be about the music.

Some bands just get popular over time. It happens. Look at Iron Maiden and Judas Priest. Two household names, but both bands have stuck to their guns.

Opeth are popular now, if only with the Metal community. I still love almost everything they've done.

Who gives a damn if a band rightly gets the label of "sellouts"? Why can't people just listen to songs and like what they like as opposed to caring about the views and actions of the band? It's nutty stuff.

Look at how people got about Michael Jackson. A lot of people "used to" listen to his stuff and they've used the drama surrounding him as reasoning to stop.

[exigence]

Who gives a damn if a band rightly gets the label of "sellouts"? Why can't people just listen to songs and like what they like as opposed to caring about the views and actions of the band? It's nutty stuff.

Look at how people got about Michael Jackson. A lot of people "used to" listen to his stuff and they've used the drama surrounding him as reasoning to stop.

Shouldn't the character of the artist should be taken into consideration, If you apply your theory it would be fair to enjoy John Wayne Gacy's paintings, why discredit his art only because he raped and murderd over 30 boys. To each his own, but still the veiws and actions do matter.

[Benevolent_Ghaleon]

Who gives a damn if a band rightly gets the label of "sellouts"? Why can't people just listen to songs and like what they like as opposed to caring about the views and actions of the band? It's nutty stuff.

Look at how people got about Michael Jackson. A lot of people "used to" listen to his stuff and they've used the drama surrounding him as reasoning to stop.

Shouldn't the character of the artist should be taken into consideration, If you apply your theory it would be fair to enjoy John Wayne Gacy's paintings, why discredit his art only because he raped and murderd over 30 boys. To each his own, but still the veiws and actions do matter.

My theory does apply even in that case. People should be able to enjoy art seperately from the artist.

[DezoPenguin]

I have to agree with B_G here. Art can and should exist separately from the artist. If one knows the personal history of the artist one can apply that to their understanding of the themes and whatnot in the art itself (now, that's a question for endless debate in literature/fine arts/other assorted liberal arts college departments), but the fact that the artist did evil things in life shouldn't make the art inherently tainted.

Now, that's the artistic context. The social context is a different question. For example, if you have a collection of John Wayne Gacy or Adolf Hitler paintings on your wall, you have to expect people who know who the artist is to start wondering why you've collected those paintings and whether you're making a sociopolitical statement by doing so--at that point it's not the art that's being examined but the collector.

And then on a completely different note, there's the commercial context, applicable to those like Michael Jackson. There's no reason to, say, throw your "Thriller" album in the trash because he's a weirdo and possible child molester, but as an individual consumer you might decide that you won't go to the music shop or iTunes and buy any of his music in the future because he's still alive and kicking and a portion of your money would go to him. After all (referring to the original "sellout" issue), if no one buys a "sellout's" album, then they don't benefit from it.

But the art itself can and should be seen and perhaps appreciated independently of the artist. To devalue a great song because it happens to be performed by someone you dislike is hypocritical.

[Sonic#]

Who gives a damn if a band rightly gets the label of "sellouts"? Why can't people just listen to songs and like what they like as opposed to caring about the views and actions of the band? It's nutty stuff.

Look at how people got about Michael Jackson. A lot of people "used to" listen to his stuff and they've used the drama surrounding him as reasoning to stop.

Shouldn't the character of the artist should be taken into consideration, If you apply your theory it would be fair to enjoy John Wayne Gacy's paintings, why discredit his art only because he raped and murderd over 30 boys. To each his own, but still the veiws and actions do matter.

First, I hardly think that comparison of a serial killer and a "sellout" do well to make your point. One is a far more serious crime than the other.

Second, I'm tending to agree with Benevolent_Ghaleon here mostly. The first thing that should be considered, when dealing with the artistic production of a person, is the art itself. This is what we do when someone's work is anonymous. Now, if we see something in the artwork that indicates some disturbance, something vulgar, something we cannot like on moral grounds, then it's fair to consider the morality of the person who painted it, and make comparisons that way.

At the same time, it is fair to make a decision such as, "I like the product, but I can't support the person producing it." That's why we've held boycotts in the past. One of the things we assume when separating the artist from the art work is some sort of distance that can be placed between the two, normally due to time. That is, the bad things they did can be placed in some context, historical or otherwise, one that can be rationalized separately from the art that is enjoyed.

So I think it is possible to like a serial killer's painting. I happen to like very much a work written by an accused rapist who wrote from prison (on different charges), Le Morte Darthur. I happen to like the work of a man who died from syphilis at a young age due to his many, many sexual escapades, John Wilmot. Who knows who all the anonymous artists in the world are? What they did? It's possible to evaluate works without reflecting on the artist. I leave it to you to choose what you will.

[Jenner]

Metallica doesn't need to make a new album.

[AlexHiro4]

Wow, I didn't realize I was going to stir up so much controversy with this thread. I agree with BG about seperating the art from the artist. I love Metallica's music. However, I really only like half of the current band members. James Hetfield and Kirk Hammett are wonderful musicians. Lars Ulrich is the world's biggest prick and doesn't even have the drumming ability to back it up. Robert Trujillo is an average bassist at best and Jason Newsted wasn't much to talk about either. The only good bass player they ever had was Cliff Burton and he's....well....dead. Anyway, all I'm trying to say is that I only really like half the band members and I still love their music.

Metallica doesn't need to make a new album.

I have to disagree. Metallica does need to make a new album, so they can redeem themselves for making St. Anger. I still get sick when I think about that album....

[Benevolent_Ghaleon]

Metallica doesn't need to make a new album.

They need their own Guitar Hero or Rock Band game (preferably RB for me). If Aerosmith can get a GH then Metallica would do well, too.

[exigence]

If art should be separated from the artist tell me why nearly every educational institution that teaches art examines the artist as well as the art itself.

[Benevolent_Ghaleon]

If art should be separated from the artist tell me why nearly every educational institution that teaches art examines the artist as well as the art itself.

For a possible better understanding of the art. There are several aspects of a person that can come out in their art. Unless it is blatantly obvious, we can only make assumptions as to if they are or not, though.

[AlexHiro4]

If art should be separated from the artist tell me why nearly every educational institution that teaches art examines the artist as well as the art itself.

They examine both because it's important to know where the art comes from. Just because you learn about the art and the artist in school doesn't mean you have to like both. Education is the guiding tool that alows us to make our own decisions and form our own opinions. Learning something in school doesn't always mean that you have to appreciate it. It just means that it's important enough for you to know so you can be a well-rounded person.

[Werefrog]

And actually... in my literature classes we have been encouraged to separate out what we know about a writer from the work itself.

[Sonic#]

And actually... in my literature classes we have been encouraged to separate out what we know about a writer from the work itself.

Yes, I've noticed that tendency a lot, both before and after I could put a name to the critical movement that made that standard.

What a lot of the classes I've taken have tried to do is study it both on its own and in context. On one level, you should be able to evaluate it mostly on its own, picking out different things to like and dislike and being able to interpret it generally. On the other level, it does come from a context, and it's important to understand that. But a morally reprehensible man is capable of producing a redeeming work (1). Otherwise, I like the way AlexHiro said it.

(1) I reread an article today, just today, about a Middle English poem I'm reading. In part of it, Old Age is arguing with Middle Age and Youthfulness over why they should accept history and biblical scripture and accept that they will eventually die, and constantly take care to prevent themselves to do it. But the article argues that he does this, while at the same time being rather jealous of the youth they have, and being apprehensive of his own death. In a few words, he's as sinful as anyone else, but he can still give good advice. It's a very Christian principle, and one I recognize. Even a repulsive person can have some value in their art, even if it doesn't change what sins they have committed.

[Jenner]

Metallica doesn't need to make a new album.

I have to disagree. Metallica does need to make a new album, so they can redeem themselves for making St. Anger. I still get sick when I think about that album....

St. Anger is the perfect end for Metallica and what it is.

[AlexHiro4]

St. Anger is the perfect end for Metallica and what it is.

What exactly do you think Metallica is?

[exigence]

I just dont see how you guys can discredit personality and character, it has a direct impact on the work itself. If you really examine it you'd be able to pick up on the subtle diffrences. personality shows through in the work of some one who cares vs. the work of metallica post 1988,

For example no one in the velvet underground had much musical talent, but they became such an important band because of their personalty. Take a song like "Heroin" for example theres only two chords throught the whole 8 mins of the song, theres screeching feedback all over the place, i cant honestly say why I find myself listening to that song so often (it hurts my ears somtimes), it's pure character, I dont think any one in metallica has what it takes to make a truly great record or song for that matter anymore, This is just my opinion but I dont think their in it for the music I think their in it for the money.

[Werefrog]

Well, you know some of the greatest artists were extremely and horribly flawed individuals.

Hemingway (and many other writers): Alcoholism
D.W. Griffith (often considered the first great director): Horribly racist

Those are the only two that I can think of right now, but I'm sure other users can think of others.

Would you discount a scientist's findings if he were racist? I'm guessing not. If so, you would have to discount the finding of DNA because James Watson is a pretty horrible person. I don't see why we can't step back and admire the aesthetic value of a painting by Hitler. Well, besides the fact that Hitler was a horrible painter.

http://xkcd.com/29/

[AlexHiro4]

This is just my opinion but I dont think their in it for the music I think their in it for the money.

To a degree, ALL professional musicians are in it for the money. It's called a profession for a reason. If you're a band that has the tallent (and I personally believe Metallica has a lot of tallent) and means to make money, why not? You've got to put food on the table, and if you're able do MORE than just get by then go for it. Musicians don't have to do the "starving artist" thing in order to be real musicians. Sometimes you should just look past the money and enjoy the music.

Let me give you a more personal example. As I've said before, I'm a sax player. I used to HATE Kenny G. I thought he was a no tallent sellout because of the cheesey music he played. I finally got the opportunity to listen to him play some real legitimate jazz and I realized what an incredable player he was. Just because he's made a ton of money off of playing a type of music that I can't stand doesn't mean I shouldn't respect him as a musician. I guarantee you that if you put a John Coltrane, Lester Young, or Don Menza solo in front of both of us he would play circles around me (or most sax players for that matter). I'm a really good sax player, but Kenny G is phenominal. I'm willing to respect his musicianship in spite of the fact that he's made so much money off of music I dislike. I really wish people would do that with Metallica. I know not everyone is going to enjoy their music like I do. However, it's not fair to call them sellouts or say "they're just in it for the money" just because they make a lot of money. They're just making a living like the rest of us. There's nothing wrong with that.