Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

IMO, Metallica are the modern day Beatles...

swleary

By swleary
in The Gibson Lounge

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply
swleary

swleary

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Metallica has played the game well.

The Beatles changed the game all together.

 

 

Very well put, Metallica are still not even close to what the Beatles are worth but they are getting there fast.

 

I really don't like the word sellouts, IMO no way they are. Any true fan will tell you that. They got that from Bandwagoners....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Notes_Norton

Notes_Norton

Posted
Posted

I'm going to leave my personal preference out of this, as both groups are comprised of accomplished musicians. Also, this is my opinion and only my opinion.

 

The Beatles defined an entire generation just as Elvis did before them, Sinatra did before him, and so on back to at least Al Jolson.

 

During the Beatles era, they were relevant to everybody's lives who were under 30. New Beatles records were an event, everybody talked about them, and everybody knew their songs (whether they liked them or not). When a new Beatles record came out, everybody under 30 heard the pre-release hype and heard the music the day it was released to radio play (unless you lived under a rock).

 

Beatles movies were huge events and there was even a Beatles Saturday morning cartoon show. You could ask any female under 30 who was their favorite Beatle, and at least 9 out of 10 would name one of the Fab 4. Try it now. Take a female who grew up then and ask her who WAS her favorite Beatle. I asked my wife, Leilani and her immediate answer was George.

 

Metallica has a huge fan base, but they do not define their generation.

 

After the Beatles the music companies fragmented the pop music scene. Before that, just about everybody listened to the same radio stations. The entire youth audience did not have any choice, you listened to Top40, Easy Listening, Country, Classical, or your parent's music. The Top40 stations played rock, R&B-rock, folk-rock, and country-rock. Then in the 70s the music industry, for whatever reasons they chose, fragmented the pop audience. Rock, then came disco/dance, and eventually the dozen or so genres we have today on dozens of different media outlets.

 

Michael Jackson was a big star, but he did not define the generation. You didn't hear his music on every youth-oriented radio station (and radio was all there was back then). The music industry was already fragmented into rock and dance and MJ dominated the dance section, everybody knew his songs, but he did not define the entire generation. And he was the very last to come close.

 

At the same time Zep was as close as anyone came to dominate the rock side of the coin. But the two did not mix on the radio.

 

Now we have Rock, Classic Rock, Alternative Rock, Folk, Metal, R&B, Dance, Rap, Christian and dozens of other "flavors" of youth pop music in the marketplace.

 

And I think that because of the fragmentation of the music industry, the entire generation no longer uses pop music to define it's collective identity.

 

Whether the choices we have today are a good thing or a bad thing probably depends on your viewpoint. But the result is, there will never be another group or person who defines an entire generation as long as we have so many narrow choices.

 

This of course has nothing to do with the relative artistic merits of the Beatles, Metallica or anybody else. But it has everything to do with how we consume pop music today.

 

Insights and incites by Notes ♫

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RobinTheHood

RobinTheHood

Posted
Posted

I'm going to leave my personal preference out of this, as both groups are comprised of accomplished musicians. Also, this is my opinion and only my opinion.

 

The Beatles defined an entire generation just as Elvis did before them, Sinatra did before him, and so on back to at least Al Jolson....

 

Insights and incites by Notes ♫

[thumbup]

Also, to take this one step further, Like Bob said, Metallica did not define a generation. They did, however, define a genre. No doubt about it.

 

But that wasnt enough for Metallica. With The Black Album and everything after - in combination with the whole Napster fiasco (right or wrong), they pretty much alienated their original fan base, causing extreme divides between old & new school metallica fans that we still see today. Death Magnetic was a good nod to the old ways, but I think it was too little to late to bridge the gap the way they had hoped. And as riveting as Some Kind of Monster was, it really showed all of us old schoolers what a bunch of whiny little girls they had become.

 

I dont know if I can call them sellouts or not. I would like to, but making it big and creating longevity is every musicians ultimate dream. But I think there is a definite point somewhere around The Black Album when they quit following thier hearts and started chasing relevancy and the money trail. But at the same time they got older, they got softer, and substance abuse had a stranglehold on them personally and creatively. And really, if Nirvana hadnt popped up into the scene decimating the uprise of metal and changing the face or popular music, who knows what Metallica would have become.

 

The Beatles were much different. Even after their breakup, Paul and John were still speaking to their original, older fan base, as well as a younger generation. Metallica abandoned us and then tried to lure us back with Death Magnetic twenty years later.

Also, Bob Rock [cursing][sneaky][angry][mad]=; Out of everything, he was the single most worst decision they made IMO. Imagine what the last 20 years of Metallica could have souded like with Rick Rubin at the helm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RobinTheHood

RobinTheHood

Posted
Posted

Everything after And Justice for all is commercial crap.

 

Enter Sandman? A metal band singing about the freaking sandman?

Even "Justice" was edging that way in an all too obvious manner. Between the overly sterile production and the triggered drum samples, it was a very hard pill to swallow in 1988.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
46 and 2

46 and 2

Posted
Posted

To many people hate them and i dont believe thousands were calling the Beatles sell outs.

EVERYONE!!! dem00n has spoken!! And he (she?!?) is the ONLY one of us who can speak of metal. Whatever he speaks of metal is the only opinion allowed!! Carry on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twiz

Twiz

Posted
Posted

I'd have to disagree that Metallica is the modern day Beatles in a musical sense. I'm basing that solely in regard to musical innovation. Metallica changed metal, but the Beatles were more innovative in a big-picture kind of way. It's tough to compare them though, because at the time the Beatles came out, there was a lot more uncharted territory in rock. By the time Metallica came around, music was already splitting into genre's and sub-genre's. That's not saying they had a humongous impact though on metal.

 

I think Metallica is kind of like the Beatles. -Maybe in a 'biggest band on earth at the present time' kinda way. I'd give them that.

 

My whole life changed when I heard Master Of Puppets, and I saw Metallica for the first time when I was 12. Of all the bands I've heard in my life, Metallica definitely had the biggest impact. Now, if I was born maybe 20 or 30 years earlier, I'd probably say it was the Beatles that had the biggest impact on my personal musical tastes. I love both bands though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nosbig

nosbig

Posted
Posted

The Beatles are my all time favorite band and Metallica is next on the list.

 

The difference is that I got to live Metallica from the beginning. Cool stuff.

 

 

I was lucky enough to be around when the Beatles started, incredible times and it will never be seen again by any band!!

Metallica are ok but their music wont be played in 100 yrs like the Betales??

Link to comment
Share on other sites
swleary

swleary

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Very interesting opinions by most members. I like how everyone adds something, might be right or it might be wrong. Ok I'll add to this.

 

Beatles did change a generation and they did not sell out, kept evolving musically and tried to stay close to their roots. However they were pushed really hard by their management to sell as much as possible.

 

Metallica changed the way we think about Metal,no question about that. If Bob Rock wasn't around, I think you would have seen Metallica flourish in to a much bigger band but they could have easily broken up due to conflicts within the band.

 

Personally , I think Metallica changed people's lives, maybe not by their music but by who they are. Just my two cents lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jantha

Jantha

Posted
Posted

It's hard to say whether or not Metallica defined a generation. I can tell you that they had a huge impact though... It might be harder to see for those that did not "come of age" during Metallica's reign.

 

When I think of High School... I think of blasting Metallica in my Camaro and "Metal Up Your A$$" t-shirts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Riffster

Riffster

Posted
Posted

It's hard to say whether or not Metallica defined a generation. I can tell you that they had a huge impact though... It might be harder to see for those that did not "come of age" during Metallica's reign.

 

When I think of High School... I think of blasting Metallica in my Camaro and "Metal Up Your A$$" t-shirts.

 

Amen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cookieman15061

cookieman15061

Posted
Posted

And what the Beatles accomplished in 7 short years in the studio is unmatched. Their growth musically while producing an average of 3 albums a year early on plus countless hit singles that weren't on albums, 2 major movies, 4 major tours not to mention TV and radio appearances is remarkable.

 

The effects of their success was far reaching. Just do a little research on the sales of Hofner, Rickenbacker, Gretsch and Ludwig after their American debut on Ed Sullivan. These companies couldn't keep up with the demand for instruments.

 

They effected hairstyles, clothing styles and musical styles.

It was on their records we first heard the Ric 12 string, the sitar, the mellotron and the Moog synth.

 

American record companies rushed to sign any band with an English accent. (Stones,Kinks, Animals, Who etc.)

 

Then at the height of their success they reinvent themselves as a studio band where the word impossible was never used.

So primitive were the studios at EMI that the Beatles along with George Martin and engineer Geoff Emerick had to invent many of the tricks and sound manipulations that we take for granted in our effect boxes.

 

I still hear their influence in new bands today some 40 years after they last played together.

 

So yes Metallica is one heck of a band but can't really be put in the same category as you would The Beatles. Just my thoughts though others may vary.

 

Great discussion by the way. Cookie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...