PDA

View Full Version : the other new Metallica song.



DeAtHsTaR
10-05-2006, 07:39 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQ5bh4FkAxc

Is anyone else getting a strong misfits vibe from it? Also, what are your thoughts on it?

Everyone thinks it sounds like an Offspring song, but aside from the Whoas, I don't hear it.

Manic Subsidal Boy
10-06-2006, 05:28 AM
maybe not such a misfits vibe with the vocals, but the band work (drums, bass, guitar) while playing fast gives a punk vibe. to be honest that is the only part about it, age really does make your voice shit.

Llamas
10-06-2006, 06:01 AM
What? Age makes your voice shit? James is what, 43? Some of the most amazing singers in the world are or were in their 40s or older. Age doesn't make a difference until you're like 60. Or unless you're a smoker/druggie.

Manic Subsidal Boy
10-06-2006, 06:19 AM
well that explains it

Llamas
10-06-2006, 06:28 AM
Well I figured that was obvious... that smoking and drugs are bad for your voice. It always baffles me when singers do that shit. It's so stupid to pretty much intentionally fuck up your voice.

jacknife737
10-06-2006, 07:12 AM
I quite like it, it has this kind of punk vibe about it.

FrancoDaHui
10-06-2006, 07:25 AM
haha it's cool but it sounds a lot like misfits!!!

H1T_That
10-06-2006, 09:03 AM
Its okay, better than the first new song.

BuddyHolly
10-06-2006, 11:38 AM
It sounds quite a lot like it could've been some Misfits song. I like it:cool:

Tigger Army
10-06-2006, 11:58 AM
What? Age makes your voice shit? James is what, 43? Some of the most amazing singers in the world are or were in their 40s or older. Age doesn't make a difference until you're like 60. Or unless you're a smoker/druggie.

James' voice always was shitty.

you're right about how older singers can still rock your socks of.

Ronnie James Dio is at least 57 (though discussion goes he's even 64 as his year of birth isn't entirely certain) and still has a great voice.

Llamas
10-06-2006, 12:14 PM
James' voice always was shitty.

you're right about how older singers can still rock your socks of.

Ronnie James Dio is at least 57 (though discussion goes he's even 64 as his year of birth isn't entirely certain) and still has a great voice.

That's true, James is the only reason I dislike Metallica. His voice annoys me to no end.

Not only can older singers rock, but most opera singers and the three tenors were/are in their 40s and 50s... those guys have voices that will blow anyone out of the water, and they're gettin' up there in age.

Tigger Army
10-06-2006, 12:16 PM
That's true, James is the only reason I dislike Metallica. His voice annoys me to no end.

Not only can older singers rock, but most opera singers and the three tenors were/are in their 40s and 50s... those guys have voices that will blow anyone out of the water, and they're gettin' up there in age.

there are quite some tenors, but I take it you mean the trio with pavarotti in it? I personally prefer Bocelli but he's probably old aswell :)

Llamas
10-06-2006, 12:33 PM
haha they're a whole bunch of old guys ;)

DeAtHsTaR
10-06-2006, 03:37 PM
James' voice always was shitty.


Whatever dude, his voice kicked ass in the 80s.

Llamas
10-06-2006, 03:41 PM
eeeeexiiiiiiit liiiiiiiiightAAH!!
eeeeennnteeerr niiiiiiiightAHH!
taaaaake myyyy haaaaandAHH!
off to never never landAHH!

annoying as fuck.

H1T_That
10-06-2006, 03:42 PM
eeeeexiiiiiiit liiiiiiiiightAAH!!
eeeeennnteeerr niiiiiiiightAHH!
taaaaake myyyy haaaaandAHH!
off to never never landAHH!

annoying as fuck.

As are you.

Llamas
10-06-2006, 03:44 PM
uh oh! H1T_That thinks I'm annoying! How shall I continue on with my life??

DeAtHsTaR
10-06-2006, 03:47 PM
eeeeexiiiiiiit liiiiiiiiightAAH!!
eeeeennnteeerr niiiiiiiightAHH!
taaaaake myyyy haaaaandAHH!
off to never never landAHH!

annoying as fuck.
That isnt 80s Metallica, retard.

Llamas
10-06-2006, 03:50 PM
being written in 1990 is almost 80s... like one year changed his voice.

H1T_That
10-06-2006, 03:52 PM
uh oh! H1T_That thinks I'm annoying! How shall I continue on with my life??

You need to have one before you can continue it.

Grow up.

Llamas
10-06-2006, 03:59 PM
haha. look who's talking.

H1T_That
10-06-2006, 04:02 PM
haha. look who's talking.

What was your point there?

DeAtHsTaR
10-06-2006, 05:28 PM
being written in 1990 is almost 80s... like one year changed his voice.

Actually, it did change his voice drastically. He took vocal lessons, and that somehow made his singing not as good.

Manic Subsidal Boy
10-06-2006, 09:08 PM
Yeah that true eh, since the 1990's his voice has change so much. Expecially live.

Zee
10-07-2006, 03:33 AM
I kinda' like that song, I bet with the studio quality and recording it will sound a lot better, but it has potential already.

Manic Subsidal Boy
10-07-2006, 04:14 AM
I kinda' like that song, I bet with the studio quality and recording it will sound a lot better, but it has potential already.

true, that's the same with new song 1

Tigger Army
10-07-2006, 04:33 AM
Whatever dude, his voice kicked ass in the 80s.
no, on kill 'em all he already sucked even with all the sound effects on his voice and that was 1983.


Actually, it did change his voice drastically. He took vocal lessons, and that somehow made his singing not as good.

vocal lessons are indeed a nice way for bands to fuck up. See also: The offspring

DeAtHsTaR
10-07-2006, 09:15 AM
no, on kill 'em all he already sucked even with all the sound effects on his voice and that was 1983.


That's your opinion, but I like his almost-screams on that album.

Jakebert
10-07-2006, 09:35 AM
James Hetfield has always, and will always, sound like he's taking a huge shit when he sings. Face it, he's not that great of a vocalist.

DeAtHsTaR
10-07-2006, 10:01 AM
No, he's great. His voice just suffers on slow songs, and everything on St. Anger.

Tigger Army
10-07-2006, 10:33 AM
That's your opinion, but I like his almost-screams on that album.

That's the problem, it's almost screaming, it's almost singing, so it's neither. If it was at least one of those options it *may* have been good

Jakebert
10-07-2006, 01:02 PM
No, he's great. His voice just suffers on slow songs, and everything on St. Anger.

No, he's really not that great. If your voice has no consistancy, than you're not a good vocalist. On some songs, it sounds fine, on others it sounds like shit because it doesn't fit the song because he has no range whatsoever.

Just because his voice fits Metallicas music (some of it) doesn't make him a good, or great vocalist. Tim Armstrong's voice fits Rancid, but anyone who calls him a good vocalist has to be tone deaf.

DeAtHsTaR
10-07-2006, 06:19 PM
No, he's really not that great. If your voice has no consistancy, than you're not a good vocalist. On some songs, it sounds fine, on others it sounds like shit because it doesn't fit the song because he has no range whatsoever.

Just because his voice fits Metallicas music (some of it) doesn't make him a good, or great vocalist. Tim Armstrong's voice fits Rancid, but anyone who calls him a good vocalist has to be tone deaf.

Tim Armstrong sounds like a British Down Syndrome kid. Although Lars Frederikson's vocals are pretty good.

Jakebert
10-07-2006, 07:34 PM
Yes, the fact that Tim sounds retarded is exactly my point. Outside of a band like Rancid, no one would want to hear that voice, but for some reason it fits that music. The same goes for James Hetfield and Metallica. Just because a voice fits one style doesn't mean that they're a great vocalist, or even a good one. James Hetfield got lucky that, at least for a few albums, the band was good enough to make up for the fact that he's merely a mediocore vocalist at best. But now the band is evolving to a style that revolves around vocals rather than long insturmental sections, and his voice makes that style fail because of his lack of range. And that is exactly why he's not a great vocalist, because there's no range whatsoever, and every song has the exact same cadence in the way he sings with almost no variation at all.

And I'm not saying his voice is unbearable, or I can't understand someone liking it, but don't call him a great vocalist when he clearly isn't.

Llamas
10-10-2006, 10:22 AM
No, he's great. His voice just suffers on slow songs, and everything on St. Anger.

his slow songs are the only ones where his voice isn't awful. I actually can stand his voice in "nothing else matters" and "the unforgiven"... otherwise, it's horrible.

Jakebert makes a good point about James' voice fitting the music alright (though I still slightly disagree), and that not making him a good singer. Rancid is a perfect example.

Jakebert
10-10-2006, 04:21 PM
Well, I ment for the most part. The problem is that his voice never changes, and on some songs that kills it because that punctuation he has doesn't always work.

Manic Subsidal Boy
10-11-2006, 04:47 AM
I actually can stand his voice in "nothing else matters" and "the unforgiven"... otherwise, it's horrible.

ARE YOU FOR REAL?! They are the worst songs I've ever heard. Try something from Ride The Lightning or Master Of Puppets, THATS A Voiceeeee.

Tigger Army
10-11-2006, 07:19 AM
ARE YOU FOR REAL?! They are the worst songs I've ever heard. Try something from Ride The Lightning or Master Of Puppets, THATS A Voiceeeee.

not really... she's actually completely right

Llamas
10-11-2006, 11:54 AM
ARE YOU FOR REAL?! They are the worst songs I've ever heard. Try something from Ride The Lightning or Master Of Puppets, THATS A Voiceeeee.

I've heard all of their stuff. Those are the only songs his voice doesn't annoy me in.

bouncingcoles
10-11-2006, 03:04 PM
it sounds kinda like the misfits