Metallica RAR 2014 Axe-fx II?!!

I don't care one way or the other about Metallica. But you can't really go by the "selling out concert" logic to determine how talented people are can you?

If so, that means that Bon Jovi, Pink, Rihanna, Taylor Swift, One Direction, Justin Bieber, Madonna, Jay Z, Justin Timberlake, Maroon 5, Lady Gaga, etc. are all better than Metallica, since their tours are far more successful.



Severed said:
Isn't it funny.... Metallica are still selling out concerts after 30 years, but according to all the bedroom weekend warrior guitarists on the internets, they are terrible.....

Maybe you all should stop trying to be the judge and just enjoy the music. If you don't enjoy it, then here's an idea... don't listen and don't comment.
Click to expand...
 
GaryRichie said:
I don't care one way or the other about Metallica. But you can't really go by the "selling out concert" logic to determine how talented people are can you?

If so, that means that Bon Jovi, Pink, Rihanna, Taylor Swift, One Direction, Justin Bieber, Madonna, Jay Z, Justin Timberlake, Maroon 5, Lady Gaga, etc. are all better than Metallica, since their tours are far more successful.
Click to expand...

And half those bands use Axe-Fx's.
 
Ok, Kirk and Lars won't become the best players in their league for the rest of their lifetime...but damn' - they sounded great (like on the vids of the South American Tour). M'tallica NEVER sounded this good live. Ever.
 
This rocks, but "Master of Puppets" guitar harmonies are with painful how out of tune the guitars are.
 
Severed said:
Isn't it funny.... Metallica are still selling out concerts after 30 years, but according to all the bedroom weekend warrior guitarists on the internets, they are terrible.....

Maybe you all should stop trying to be the judge and just enjoy the music. If you don't enjoy it, then here's an idea... don't listen and don't comment.
Click to expand...

So...just to be clear, you believe people shouldn't make comments about things they do not like. Which, unless I'm reading you post incorrectly, is exactly what you did. Or rather is it that you believe that negative comments shouldn't be made about things that you like?

I must agree with GaryRitchie's summation of your logic.
 
I am not a fan and don't follow the band. But haven't they always had stacks on the stage? And if the answer to that is yes, are they still going to have those on stage as props? I mean, the assumption is, that when you see a wall of full stacks, they are on standby and there is one amp and cab side stage that the tech is guarding, or an iso-box somewhere. But that is common, when using a real amp. Now that they are 100% Axe FX, will they still do that for the their shows?
 
GaryRichie said:
I don't care one way or the other about Metallica. But you can't really go by the "selling out concert" logic to determine how talented people are can you?

If so, that means that Bon Jovi, Pink, Rihanna, Taylor Swift, One Direction, Justin Bieber, Madonna, Jay Z, Justin Timberlake, Maroon 5, Lady Gaga, etc. are all better than Metallica, since their tours are far more successful.
Click to expand...

Firstly, I implied that a band is still selling out shows which means they are successful professionals. So if selling out concerts and millions of albums is not a measure of success then please by all means, show us what you or the critiques have accomplished that is a better representation of success. You say all those bands are better than Metallica, because their tours are more successful... I could say a bunch of stuff too, but without proof it's just an opinion.

2ndly, YES, Metallica are very talented. It got them where they are, and it keeps them up there. You can disagree all you want, but you can't argue facts. Just because their music is not overly difficult to play or overly complicated does not diminish that a talented group wrote, recorded, marketed, sold, and toured their music successfully for over 30 years, and continue to do so. What this means is, regular people (read : the majority of fans) are not listening to hear where the mistakes are so they can judge the bands viability...... instead people are going to a concert and enjoying the show for the music, and the show, and perfection doesn't even enter into the equation until you have a bunch of weekend warrior "semi-pro's" critiquing.


MGW said:
So...just to be clear, you believe people shouldn't make comments about things they do not like. Which, unless I'm reading you post incorrectly, is exactly what you did. Or rather is it that you believe that negative comments shouldn't be made about things that you like?

I must agree with GaryRitchie's summation of your logic.
Click to expand...

Here is the series of events..

A guy starts a thread about a band/genre he is excited about, while watching a live airing, and wants to discuss their equipment on the forums of the company's product they are exclusively using. Then instead of that, he gets a technical play by play of every little mistake, nuance, or anything not 100% perfect of the performance thrown in his face, and the bashing of the band/genre's talent and viability ensues. One guy decides to school them on their bad etiquette and none the less, the belittling of the band continues.

I never said you shouldn't take part in a discussion just because you don't like something, in fact a healthy debate is great, however, this is not whats happening here.
 
Severed said:
Maybe you all should stop trying to be the judge and just enjoy the music. If you don't enjoy it, then here's an idea... don't listen and don't comment.
Click to expand...

Why aren't we allowed to make comments on Metallica? To me the guitar sound is good but a bit lifeless. Not sure how to describe it or what it is. The bass is too soft in the mix for my taste and also I miss the aggressive edgy tone.
 
Well, as I originally stated, I don't care one way or the other about Metallica. I also never said they were or were not talented nor successful. I also never said that I thought those other artists I mentioned are better than Metallica, because I don't think that. I was just referring to your example of "selling out concerts" as a measure of talent, since most of the posts previous to yours were referring to things talent related, not success related. I am smart enough to know that "talent" isn't all its about. I was raised on KISS. They were the only band I gave a crap about as a kid. I still enjoy a lot of their music today. Does that mean I think they're super talented? Hardly. What they did/do just happens to register with me for whatever reason. I could sit here and name a ton of guitarists that I think are way more skilled players than either of the guys in KISS, but I still enjoy them. Does that make me an idiot for liking them? Maybe so. As far as I'm concerned any talent comparison is silly, as it's just personal opinion to a large extent. Talent can't be measured, unless you're talking about whoever holds the world record for playing Flight Of The Bumblebee the fastest as talent. Other than that, it all comes down to what you like. I'm not a metal person. I'm not a country person. But I can tell who "I think" are the better players in those genres just because I may happen to hear them hit on something I like.

As far as success, obviously Metallica are very successful "professional musicians" as they have made a lot of money playing music. So as far as that definition of success goes, they win. You said for me or the critics to show you what I/we have accomplished that is a better representation of success. I have succeeded in playing/writing etc. music I enjoy listening to. Metallica does not play music I enjoy listening to. So I guess by that definition of success, I win, Metallica loses.

I often wonder why when someone criticizes something people immediately come back with a "can you do better" sort of response. I'm not a master chef, but I know when food tastes like shit.

Severed said:
Firstly, I implied that a band is still selling out shows which means they are successful professionals. So if selling out concerts and millions of albums is not a measure of success then please by all means, show us what you or the critiques have accomplished that is a better representation of success. You say all those bands are better than Metallica, because their tours are more successful... I could say a bunch of stuff too, but without proof it's just an opinion.

2ndly, YES, Metallica are very talented. It got them where they are, and it keeps them up there. You can disagree all you want, but you can't argue facts. Just because their music is not overly difficult to play or overly complicated does not diminish that a talented group wrote, recorded, marketed, sold, and toured their music successfully for over 30 years, and continue to do so. What this means is, regular people (read : the majority of fans) are not listening to hear where the mistakes are so they can judge the bands viability...... instead people are going to a concert and enjoying the show for the music, and the show, and perfection doesn't even enter into the equation until you have a bunch of weekend warrior "semi-pro's" critiquing.




Here is the series of events..

A guy starts a thread about a band/genre he is excited about, while watching a live airing, and wants to discuss their equipment on the forums of the company's product they are exclusively using. Then instead of that, he gets a technical play by play of every little mistake, nuance, or anything not 100% perfect of the performance thrown in his face, and the bashing of the band/genre's talent and viability ensues. One guy decides to school them on their bad etiquette and none the less, the belittling of the band continues.

I never said you shouldn't take part in a discussion just because you don't like something, in fact a healthy debate is great, however, this is not whats happening here.
Click to expand...
 
Severed said:
2ndly, YES, Metallica are very talented. It got them where they are, and it keeps them up there. You can disagree all you want, but you can't argue facts. Just because their music is not overly difficult to play or overly complicated does not diminish that a talented group wrote, recorded, marketed, sold, and toured their music successfully for over 30 years, and continue to do so.
Click to expand...

This is true, but it doesn't make Kirk's playing not suck.
I like Metallica quite a bit. But Kirk's live playing makes me cringe.
Same thing when I saw White Zombie years ago....I loved their first two albumes, and I loved Rob Zombies style on the vocals....then I saw them live and he sang maybe half of the words, and they were all out of key. I was bummed.
A successful band doesn't always have all talented musicians.
(my band mates probably say the same thing about me...haha)

If you can't hear how bad Kirk's playing is....then no worries....just listen and enjoy.
There have been a few threads about Kirk's playing and the Metallica die hards have the same reaction - "Metallica sold xxx amount of albums over xxx years, you can't argue that".
But nobody ever responds with - "Kirk's playing is flawless".
That's because it's not.


@GuyRichie said it perfectly:
"I'm not a master chef, but I know when food tastes like shit."
 
So you're trying to pass of "if you don't enjoy it...don't comment" as healthy debate? Now THAT is what's funny!

As for "weekend warrior" / "semi-pros" crap...Yeah...that's not meant to be insulting or anything. Apparently, those of us who fit in those categories shouldn't have an opinion and certainly shouldn't share it if we happen to have one. And trying to pass that garbage off as coming to the defense of the OP. Gimme a break....Nothing like a little name calling for the healthy debate you wanted us to have. Which that begs the following question...who is this guy who is calling everyone, and I realize you didn't mean EVERYONE, weekend warrior and semi-pro? I mean really...who the hell are you? OH wait...I just remembered...I really don't care. Just pointing out your hypocritical BS. If you want healthy debate, it doesn't start by telling the someone not to share their opinion and name calling. I believe we can all do better around here.

I'd like to apologize to the OP for the direction this thread has taken. I agree...quite cool to still see that they're doing what they do and well. Also quite cool to be using the same piece of gear they do to get that sound.
 
Bodde said:
Why aren't we allowed to make comments on Metallica? To me the guitar sound is good but a bit lifeless. Not sure how to describe it or what it is. The bass is too soft in the mix for my taste and also I miss the aggressive edgy tone.
Click to expand...
I mean i can tell you my main guitar tone is a lot more brutal and life what I get from my Axe-fx II, its just the way they tweaked and like their preset tones, depends on how they wanted it to sound(amp, cab,effects and all). For sure we can discuss here how it sounded to us but there are more points of view then, you know its a live mix,unedited too, so for example there were also parts you can't hear Kirk singing because the mic was off or set too quiet in the mix, there are some little mistakes at any event. But sometimes things like that make it more real abd unique to me, tough work behind concerts and that big shows for everyone involved. I had much fun watching Metallica last night, they sound awesome instead of a show i saw a few years back!! Just wanted to ask if they used the Axe-fx there too, so 100%!! Good to know from Cliff! \m/
 
Maybe it's just me but I'm convinced Metallica were a far better live band musically when Jason was in the band.

Apparently he used to piss Lars off cos he liked to rehearse things a lot!!

They were definitely a tighter band with Jason's pick playing style.......I think even Kirk used to play better when he was around!!

........basically I miss Jason!!
 
Metallica has never been Queensryche when it comes to playing live. Their musicianship is exceptional on album. They're basically the Led Zeppelin of the 80's/90's and they changed the sound of radio and modern rock music. They kick ass live due to the power of the music and the energy of the performance not necessarily the technical aspects. I won't comment on Kirk's playing but you can't say he hasn't written so many incredible solos, especially on the older albums.

Oh, they also play ridiculously fast which significantly increases the challenge of playing live...
 
Last edited:
For everyone commenting about the tone, go back to the full video and skip the first few songs. It didn't sound like the mix was great, but about 3 or 4 songs in it came alive and I have to say that the entire show was amazing. Now I'm a massive fan and for everyone that complains about them being out of tune (which is a pet peeve of mine too) or Kirk not bending to pitch or whatever....well at least you know that they are playing live.

And the most impressive thing to me was how good James sounds these days. From what I had seen there was a stretch where he just wasn't as powerful anymore and I thought that it was pretty much over. I think that he nailed it.

Save for the first few songs I thought that it sounded frickin' as good as any show they've ever done.

But the question I have is for Cliff. How does it feel to know that you started building off building one of these things for yourself in your home and now it was just used by probably the biggest metal band in the world to close one of the biggest shows in the world? Do you have to pinch yourself? I mean that's pretty damn amazing to me. :encouragement:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom