'Tonight Matthew, We're Going to Be.....'

viadah

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/metallica-play-black-download-222828015.html

I don't want to piss anyone off by their proclivity for certain bands but this trend of playing the old albums just seems like 'hey, look at us, remember when we were good?', or in some cases, the word 'relevant' might be just as applicable as 'good'.

Malice

I'm not sure what the question is but your usage of the word proclivity doesn't seem quite right. Preference maybe?

Motley Crue

I'm not really sure what this thread is doing here. I mean, there's the Metallica super thread, so if a discussion about Metallica get's started it will probably move there....and then the title of the thread is actually a line used by contestants on the game-show "Stars in Their Eyes" to Matthew Kelly

As the best selling album of the Sounds Scan era, it is an album that a lot of people will want to see live, and I don't see any kind of fake or tribute act about it. I do worry about the band performing one song on the album (a song their ex-bassist wrote the hook for and one they have never performed live before) but other than that you're going to hear a collection of songs you've heard before and a few filler songs that aren't really played live because they're not good enough.

But it's the anniversary (well just gone) so try and celebrate

Welsh Megaman

With it being the 30th. anniversary, let's hope Kiss play '(Music From) The Elder' in its entirety.

*gets coat*

Angron

Bands playing full albums live seems to be getting quite popular of late. But anyway, I get the feeling the op doesn't like Metallica that much.

RayCon

Welsh Megaman wrote: »

With it being the 30th. anniversary, let's hope Kiss play '(Music From) The Elder' in its entirety.

*gets coat*

Id rather go see that than Metallica playing Black tbh....

JBnaglfar

I don't think that bands playing old albums live is necessarily a bad thing. I see the OP's point, and it might be true in some cases, but it can be a great chance for younger fans to experience a gig that would otherwise be lost in the past. As a massive (mid-twenties) fan of The Wall, I was delighted that Roger Waters re-played the album live this year.

nyarlothothep

I really don't get the use of the word relevant. What is so important about being relevant as opposed to being good. A band can be relevant (trendy) but suck. I care not about being relevant to the fleeting tastes of the present/mainstream or the artistic dictates of the self proclaimed underground/alternative scene. If a band releases one or two great/classic albums so what if their subsequent material is mediocre, its more than what 99.999999% of artists achieve. Example, if history were altered and you woke up and wrote Bridge Over Troubled Water that would be all you would need to say I've achieved more artistically than most other people. Alex Turner could come up to you and say "I've written a few albums that were popular" and you could just respond by saying "yeah, well I wrote Bridge Over Troubled Water, put that in your pipe and smoke it" and exude a wafting cloud of smug.

viadah

It was an ambiguous point to make, and everyone's gonna defend their favourites, so maybe I should have mentioned more bands, but it's more the trend that I'm getting at than anyone specific, based on the story linked. And I was very tired at the time.

But, on the topic it might be worth mentioning that following disappointing sales of 'LuLu', Metallica announce their next big thing will be playing the album that launched their megastardom in its entirety.....

nyarlothothep

James Hetfield said that Lulu isn't a Metallica project, its just a side project. I know what you're getting at though, they probably hoped that if it were successful they could say, yeah it was a Metallica/Lou Reed project rather than disowning it and saying oh no its just a Lou Reed venture and we're helping out. I can also see that its kind of a corporate rock thing in a way to play the classic album, there's something staid in it, a lack of creativity and passion and moreso just about using the single album gig as a novelty to get punters in. Its a bit crap in other words but then most things corporate are, the whole attitude of corporatism is about profit, substance gets sacrificed, go to an airport lounge to see what I mean, its what the world would look like if it were completely corporate, ergo devoid of personality, eccentricity, honesty and humanity, just suffocatingly sh1tty and crap.

Zerroth

There's a load of albums I'd love to witness played live in their entirety.

Metallica playing Master of Puppets in it's entirety in 2006 was awesome.

Manowar playing Battle Hymns in it's entirety was awesome. (the Birmingham show that was on earlier this year)

I would prefer if Metallica were to play their first 4 albums in their entirety rather than the black album. Though it's a shame that Lars is too lazy to play drums like he did back in the 80s. I still find it hard it to believe that Lars recorded 'Dyer's Eve' on the drums, they must have secretly hired another session drummer. :P

Actually, any album I like listening from start to finish, I would like to hear and see live.

Zerroth

nyarlothothep wrote: »

James Hetfield said that Lulu isn't a Metallica project, its just a side project.

I would say that it's both a Lou Reed and a Metallica project because the album is called "Lulu" and it's by "Lou Reed and Metallica" (or Metallica and Lou Reed if you want). Therefore it's not a side project.

It's a collaboration of 2 artists and it's both their album. If it were a side project then I don't think the artist for this album should have "Metallica" in it. Similarly, if Lou Reed considered this a side project, the artist name should not have "Lou Reed" in it. The artist name should be called something that doesn't have Metallica or Lou Reed in it, then I would believe it's a side project. Mayhaps! Perbe! :P

Mental Mickey

Zerroth wrote: »

I would say that it's both a Lou Reed and a Metallica project because the album is called "Lulu" and it's by "Lou Reed and Metallica" (or Metallica and Lou Reed if you want). Therefore it's not a side project.

It's a collaboration of 2 artists and it's both their album. If it were a side project then I don't think the artist for this album should have "Metallica" in it. Similarly, if Lou Reed considered this a side project, the artist name should not have "Lou Reed" in it. The artist name should be called something that doesn't have Metallica or Lou Reed in it, then I would believe it's a side project. Mayhaps! Perbe! :P

Clever clogs.

nyarlothothep

Zerroth wrote: »

I would say that it's both a Lou Reed and a Metallica project because the album is called "Lulu" and it's by "Lou Reed and Metallica" (or Metallica and Lou Reed if you want). Therefore it's not a side project.

It's a collaboration of 2 artists and it's both their album. If it were a side project then I don't think the artist for this album should have "Metallica" in it. Similarly, if Lou Reed considered this a side project, the artist name should not have "Lou Reed" in it. The artist name should be called something that doesn't have Metallica or Lou Reed in it, then I would believe it's a side project. Mayhaps! Perbe! :P

Ok, the could have called it by a different name, like Probot or whatever, but with both their names attached they could maximise sales, its financially savvy in the short term. But its not a Metallica album, its a collaborative experimental album with Metallica as part of it, therefore it would still be a side project regardless of the naming convention no?

Nailz

Not a popular opinion, but I never got the fuss about the Black album. I'm a Ride The Lightening person myself...