Worst Album Of The Year

irrelevant wrote: But wouldn't it be boring if every music thread here was unanimously positive? Variety I say!

Thank you


If you don't like 'negative' threads- then don't read them!

Solar, let me clearify so that you maye undersit.

I like that last post some.

Drew wrote: The new Blackfield

zappaholic wrote: TheMasterMofo wrote: I'm terrified to actually listen to "Lulu" because I've been a Metallica fan since I was 10 years old, started playing guitar because of James Hetfield and Kirk Hammett, and I'm pretty positive that this album will be absolutely horrible. St. Anger wasn't good as an album, but it at least had a few redeemable qualities. To me, Metallica ceased to exist when Newsted left (I know, for most people the dividing line was Cliff's death).  The people calling themselves Metallica now are impostors. And with the possible exception of New York, Reed hasn't done anything to merit my attention in many, many years.

Newstead was definitely my favorite Metallica bassist of all time; My Friend of Misery has one of the coolest sounds ever. The whole atmosphere of that song is something special that's always stood out since the first time I ever heard it. Rob is a pretty talented bassist, and a good performer, but not the writer that Newstead was.
I really enjoyed Death Magnetic though; it was a really strong album in all regards IMO. The whole concept for Lulu just scares me as it seems so foreign. Maybe it will allow Metallica to make their way on PA!!

Any Colour You Like wrote: Metallica are on PA.

Wow, I've been coming to this site for years and never even noticed that...

This is a somewhat interesting post I read about it

this album is obviously terrible and thus fascinating. the best description i've seen for it was someone (dilloway?) calling it "outsider art." which makes sense if you think of the life experiences of metallica dudes and lou - completely, utterly outside any kind of normal, relatable, human life experience for the last however many years.

Horizons wrote: Because they shouldn't be.

Old Metallica is as much prog as Strawbs, Heep, most of Renaissance mk-2 and loads of other stuff from the 70s largely accepted as prog.  Unfortunately, they are punkish and aggressive rather than 'sophisticated' and 'technical', not a good thing at all, ya know.

Horizons wrote: Because they shouldn't be.

I can see the argument for them to be on the site and the argument against...

The argument for would be that Metallica has always been changing their approach to music; they more or less made thrash metal popular in the mainstream, made heavy metal/rock popular in the mainstream, and tried several very unique approaches to recording music. "And Justice For All" has a lot of time signature and tempo changes.


The argument against would be that most of their music, though often experimental or changing, uses straight time signatures and has a common song structure. Their time signature explorations were also often accidental rather than deliberate, but I'm not sure if that's a knock against their musical knowledge or a compliment for their creativity.


I've always seen Metallica as the ultimate pioneer of metal, I just didn't think they'd be listed here.