Metallica - Beyond Magnetic

[heaven&hell]

Unrelased tunes from Death Magnetic. Itunes only so far.

 

 

"Hate Train"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZBZS4x9lts

 

"The Rebel of Babylon"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmKoOevPYLs&feature=related

 

"Just A Bullet Away"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMtMHSu2-jU&feature=related

 

"Hell And Back"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFHTA27r-ts&feature=related

[Fat Freddy]

Meh. Not bad, but all four of these sound "unfinished." The lyrics to "Hate Train" are pretty frickin goofy.

 

That said, they could've easily left "Suicide & Redemption" and "Unforgiven III" off of DEATH MAGNETIC and replaced 'em with any two of these songs, would've been fine by me.

[heaven&hell]

Rebel of Babylon and Just a Bullet Away would be the only two that could of been used for DM and as you said Keith leave off the two tracks you mention but yeah they do sound unfinished. I'm also reminded a little of St Anger in how the songs are great riffs but don't seem to go anywhere. I enjoy DM but Hetfield don't write songs like he used to.

[heaven&hell]

So where are the Metallica fans?

It used to be you started a thread about Metallica there was a lot of conversation but not so much anymore. I guess Lou Reed disc was more popular than these new/old tunes.

[TIM (2)]

Meh. Not bad, but all four of these sound "unfinished." The lyrics to "Hate Train" are pretty frickin goofy.

 

That said, they could've easily left "Suicide & Redemption" and "Unforgiven III" off of DEATH MAGNETIC and replaced 'em with any two of these songs, would've been fine by me.

 

Backed. "Unforgiven III" is just unforgiveably bad IMO. In fact, I still haven't forgiven them for Unforgiven I or II. I liked "Death Magnetic" (still do) and can see why they left these songs off, but is good to see they haven't lost the art of finding ways to make money from their fans...

[Captain Howdy]

So where are the Metallica fans?

It used to be you started a thread about Metallica there was a lot of conversation but not so much anymore. I guess Lou Reed disc was more popular than these new/old tunes.

Or maybe the after the Lou Reed album they all denounced Metallica and moved onto another band.

[TIM (2)]

So where are the Metallica fans?

It used to be you started a thread about Metallica there was a lot of conversation but not so much anymore. I guess Lou Reed disc was more popular than these new/old tunes.

Or maybe the after the Lou Reed album they all denounced Metallica and moved onto another band.

 

I think that those were the days when the name Metallica had an air of greatness about it. The brand was flawless and everyone wanted their merch or to see a gig, and bands wanted to copy their style. These days no-one wants to copy them because they don't really have any style, and who wants to buy a Lulu t-shirt or pay a lot of money to hear those songs live? People were genuinely shocked when "St.Anger" came out and it showed they had very few good ideas left, but what's more shocking these days is that "St.Anger" is not the worst thing in their discography. Staying on top of your game is tough, especially as new bands come along and you have to step your game up, but Metallica haven't been able to compete for donkey's years. Their first 3/4/5 albums (depending on your taste) will always be legendary, but making some great albums 20 years ago doesn't buy you the right to a permanent fan-base and since then they've been passed by a zillion better bands IMO and are no longer worthy of your hard-earned money...

[Glen]

So where are the Metallica fans?

It used to be you started a thread about Metallica there was a lot of conversation but not so much anymore. I guess Lou Reed disc was more popular than these new/old tunes.

Or maybe the after the Lou Reed album they all denounced Metallica and moved onto another band.

 

I think that those were the days when the name Metallica had an air of greatness about it. The brand was flawless and everyone wanted their merch or to see a gig, and bands wanted to copy their style. These days no-one wants to copy them because they don't really have any style, and who wants to buy a Lulu t-shirt or pay a lot of money to hear those songs live? People were genuinely shocked when "St.Anger" came out and it showed they had very few good ideas left, but what's more shocking these days is that "St.Anger" is not the worst thing in their discography. Staying on top of your game is tough, especially as new bands come along and you have to step your game up, but Metallica haven't been able to compete for donkey's years. Their first 3/4/5 albums (depending on your taste) will always be legendary, but making some great albums 20 years ago doesn't buy you the right to a permanent fan-base and since then they've been passed by a zillion better bands IMO and are no longer worthy of your hard-earned money...

 

my bro saw them at O2 a couple of years back and said they were awesome (and he's been to 300+ gigs) so I guess they can still cut it in the live arena.

[TIM (2)]

So where are the Metallica fans?

It used to be you started a thread about Metallica there was a lot of conversation but not so much anymore. I guess Lou Reed disc was more popular than these new/old tunes.

Or maybe the after the Lou Reed album they all denounced Metallica and moved onto another band.

 

I think that those were the days when the name Metallica had an air of greatness about it. The brand was flawless and everyone wanted their merch or to see a gig, and bands wanted to copy their style. These days no-one wants to copy them because they don't really have any style, and who wants to buy a Lulu t-shirt or pay a lot of money to hear those songs live? People were genuinely shocked when "St.Anger" came out and it showed they had very few good ideas left, but what's more shocking these days is that "St.Anger" is not the worst thing in their discography. Staying on top of your game is tough, especially as new bands come along and you have to step your game up, but Metallica haven't been able to compete for donkey's years. Their first 3/4/5 albums (depending on your taste) will always be legendary, but making some great albums 20 years ago doesn't buy you the right to a permanent fan-base and since then they've been passed by a zillion better bands IMO and are no longer worthy of your hard-earned money...

 

my bro saw them at O2 a couple of years back and said they were awesome (and he's been to 300+ gigs) so I guess they can still cut it in the live arena.

 

Yep they can still play, no question. The material has got worse but there's still talent in there. Apart from the drums of course, which are shit. I've seen them a handful of times and the best one was with Joey Jordison (Slipknot) instead of Ulrich on drums. Was great to hear someone behind the sticks able to keep time...

[Fat Freddy]

I saw Metallica in January of '09 (for the first time in 15+ years) and had to admit that they can still kick it live.

[AlphaMale]

I'm just not that interested in Metallica anymore. I thought Death Magnetic was okay but with all the GARBAGE they've released since the Black Album, I just don't like 'em much anymore.

 

I'd easily rate every thrash band from that era that is still around over Metallica. Especially Megadeth, Overkill, Testament, Anthrax, Anvil, and even Slayer. All have been waaaaaaay better the past 10-15 years.

[Captain Howdy]

So where are the Metallica fans?

It used to be you started a thread about Metallica there was a lot of conversation but not so much anymore. I guess Lou Reed disc was more popular than these new/old tunes.

Or maybe the after the Lou Reed album they all denounced Metallica and moved onto another band.

 

I think that those were the days when the name Metallica had an air of greatness about it. The brand was flawless and everyone wanted their merch or to see a gig, and bands wanted to copy their style. These days no-one wants to copy them because they don't really have any style, and who wants to buy a Lulu t-shirt or pay a lot of money to hear those songs live? People were genuinely shocked when "St.Anger" came out and it showed they had very few good ideas left, but what's more shocking these days is that "St.Anger" is not the worst thing in their discography. Staying on top of your game is tough, especially as new bands come along and you have to step your game up, but Metallica haven't been able to compete for donkey's years. Their first 3/4/5 albums (depending on your taste) will always be legendary, but making some great albums 20 years ago doesn't buy you the right to a permanent fan-base and since then they've been passed by a zillion better bands IMO and are no longer worthy of your hard-earned money...

 

my bro saw them at O2 a couple of years back and said they were awesome (and he's been to 300+ gigs) so I guess they can still cut it in the live arena.

Thing is though that a live performance is like a greatest hits package in many ways, it points to the fact that in their day, they recorded some amazing songs, but then when you mix in the newer stuff, it really stands out like a sore thumb, but while you are in the euphoria of hearing a great performance, it kind of softens you opinion on the new tracks. Play those tracks on their own or a whole album of them, and your opinion will once again be that the new tracks are shite.

 

Death Magnetic seemed to be acceptance from the band that the fans didnt want to hear their progressive diversions from their core sound, but then along comes Lulu, an album that did the impossible and stopped St Anger from being the worst album in their discography.

Very few people expect them to fully recapture the sound from their first few albums, or the commercial blend on the black album, but what they do want is something that at least sounds like those albums, not some old fart telling us about what is on the menu at his care home today.

[TIM (2)]

So where are the Metallica fans?

It used to be you started a thread about Metallica there was a lot of conversation but not so much anymore. I guess Lou Reed disc was more popular than these new/old tunes.

Or maybe the after the Lou Reed album they all denounced Metallica and moved onto another band.

 

I think that those were the days when the name Metallica had an air of greatness about it. The brand was flawless and everyone wanted their merch or to see a gig, and bands wanted to copy their style. These days no-one wants to copy them because they don't really have any style, and who wants to buy a Lulu t-shirt or pay a lot of money to hear those songs live? People were genuinely shocked when "St.Anger" came out and it showed they had very few good ideas left, but what's more shocking these days is that "St.Anger" is not the worst thing in their discography. Staying on top of your game is tough, especially as new bands come along and you have to step your game up, but Metallica haven't been able to compete for donkey's years. Their first 3/4/5 albums (depending on your taste) will always be legendary, but making some great albums 20 years ago doesn't buy you the right to a permanent fan-base and since then they've been passed by a zillion better bands IMO and are no longer worthy of your hard-earned money...

 

my bro saw them at O2 a couple of years back and said they were awesome (and he's been to 300+ gigs) so I guess they can still cut it in the live arena.

Thing is though that a live performance is like a greatest hits package in many ways, it points to the fact that in their day, they recorded some amazing songs, but then when you mix in the newer stuff, it really stands out like a sore thumb, but while you are in the euphoria of hearing a great performance, it kind of softens you opinion on the new tracks. Play those tracks on their own or a whole album of them, and your opinion will once again be that the new tracks are shite.

 

 

These days Metallica mostly leave out those new songs anyway. Plus they just don't play the old songs as well as they used to anymore. Machine Head sometimes play "Battery" as part of their set and it has all the ferocity of the original, whereas when I've seen Metallica play it they make it sound like a mid-tempo metal song rather than a raging thrash tune...

[Fat Freddy]

Looks like this 4-track EP is now available in CD format... supposedly you can get it at WalMart for around five bucks.

[cdjunky41]

Looks like this 4-track EP is now available in CD format... supposedly you can get it at WalMart for around five bucks.

 

I got mine yesterday for $5.00. I went to my local record store and they had it for $6.99 (I made the right decision ). They also had Hendrix- In The West for $7.00,I paid over double that..

[Gibbo]

So where are the Metallica fans?

It used to be you started a thread about Metallica there was a lot of conversation but not so much anymore. I guess Lou Reed disc was more popular than these new/old tunes.

Or maybe the after the Lou Reed album they all denounced Metallica and moved onto another band.

 

I think that those were the days when the name Metallica had an air of greatness about it. The brand was flawless and everyone wanted their merch or to see a gig, and bands wanted to copy their style. These days no-one wants to copy them because they don't really have any style, and who wants to buy a Lulu t-shirt or pay a lot of money to hear those songs live? People were genuinely shocked when "St.Anger" came out and it showed they had very few good ideas left, but what's more shocking these days is that "St.Anger" is not the worst thing in their discography. Staying on top of your game is tough, especially as new bands come along and you have to step your game up, but Metallica haven't been able to compete for donkey's years. Their first 3/4/5 albums (depending on your taste) will always be legendary, but making some great albums 20 years ago doesn't buy you the right to a permanent fan-base and since then they've been passed by a zillion better bands IMO and are no longer worthy of your hard-earned money...

 

my bro saw them at O2 a couple of years back and said they were awesome (and he's been to 300+ gigs) so I guess they can still cut it in the live arena.

Thing is though that a live performance is like a greatest hits package in many ways, it points to the fact that in their day, they recorded some amazing songs, but then when you mix in the newer stuff, it really stands out like a sore thumb, but while you are in the euphoria of hearing a great performance, it kind of softens you opinion on the new tracks. Play those tracks on their own or a whole album of them, and your opinion will once again be that the new tracks are shite.

 

 

These days Metallica mostly leave out those new songs anyway. Plus they just don't play the old songs as well as they used to anymore. Machine Head sometimes play "Battery" as part of their set and it has all the ferocity of the original, whereas when I've seen Metallica play it they make it sound like a mid-tempo metal song rather than a raging thrash tune...

 

I saw some recent footage of them playing 'Trapped Under Ice', and it was nowhere near as ferocious as it originally sounded ... I appreciate that they're all older, and maybe don't have the stamina that they had all those years ago, but most of their peers have now overtaken them in terms of consistency of material AND performance levels ....