Written by Angelic Storm on 28.07.2010 at 14:09

Written by vezzy on 28.07.2010 at 14:07
You responded!
Meh, I guess I'm done with this.

The truth hurts.

It sure does for you, doesn't it?

Written by vezzy on 28.07.2010 at 14:14
It sure does for you, doesn't it?

You're the poser here, matey. lol I get derided by fanboys for criticising bands at all, and I get derided by you for not criticising them enough! Im not going to tailor my opinions to suit you, or anyone else. I'll leave that sort of nonsense to the likes of you.

Written by Angelic Storm on 28.07.2010 at 14:18

Written by vezzy on 28.07.2010 at 14:14
It sure does for you, doesn't it?

You're the poser here, matey. lol I get derided by fanboys for criticising bands at all, and I get derided by you for not criticising them enough! Im not going to tailor my opinions to suit you, or anyone else. I'll leave that sort of nonsense to the likes of you.

These people don't know criticism then. Oh, sorry, you can't prove I'm a poser. Besides, I didn't call you one... did I? I only *implied* it.

Written by vezzy on 28.07.2010 at 14:20
These people don't know criticism then. Oh, sorry, you can't prove I'm a poser. Besides, I didn't call you one... did I? I only *implied* it.

Well, there's a difference between criticising something honestly, and criticising something "just because". When I criticise something, its because I genuinely dont like it. When "tr00" people criticise a band/album, its done for their personal image. There is no doubt that some "tr00" metalheads criticise Metallica simply because they are Metallica. Ultraboris's review of this album being the extreme edge of that attitude. Poserism at its worst. Just as bad as fanboyism.

Implying is more or less accusing. Anyways, you did in another thread flat out accuse me of "praising everything every band has ever done". That wasnt an implication, but a direct accusation. And also a complete falsehood.

Written by Angelic Storm on 28.07.2010 at 14:36
Well, there's a difference between criticising something honestly, and criticising something "just because". When I criticise something, its because I genuinely dont like it. When "tr00" people criticise a band/album, its done for their personal image. There is no doubt that some "tr00" metalheads criticise Metallica simply because they are Metallica. Ultraboris's review of this album being the extreme edge of that attitude. Poserism at its worst. Just as bad as fanboyism.

Implying is more or less accusing. Anyways, you did in another thread flat out accuse me of "praising everything every band has ever done". That wasnt an implication, but a direct accusation. And also a complete falsehood.

Some people, yes. But a lot of the time, people do it because they're sick of people kissing the album/band's feet like they're gods or something. Not in UltraBoris's case though.

Well, I did get quite sick of your long "oh this song is heavy, etc." posts. Never knew a person could respect/be fascinated so much by songs which really aren't much at all, just have small, appealing elements thrown in.
Oh wait... this is entirely subjective, right? So that must mean I lose, huh?

Written by vezzy on 28.07.2010 at 14:41
Some people, yes. But a lot of the time, people do it because they're sick of people kissing the album/band's feet like they're gods or something. Not in UltraBoris's case though.

Well, I did get quite sick of your long "oh this song is heavy, etc." posts. Never knew a person could respect/be fascinated so much by songs which really aren't much at all, just have small, appealing elements thrown in.
Oh wait... this is entirely subjective, right? So that must mean I lose, huh?

While that is true to an extent, the problem with that attitude is, it lumps in blind fanboys with people who genuinely like the music being put out. Example: I love most of the music on "Load", so I rate that album highly. Many would brand me a poser just for liking that album, which is moronic. A poser is someone who praises/criticises music blindly. Their opinion of the music is affected by other factors which have little or nothing to do with the actual music itself. The ironic thing is "tr00ism" and fanboyism are just different sides of the same coin. Both groups of people are posers, but for different reasons. "Tr00ism" is marginally worse, because they see their opinions as being gospel when it comes to "real metal".

You thinking that certain songs "aren't much at all" is just your opinion. Not a fact. Getting annoyed just because someone fails to agree with your opinions on music is completely childish. And yep, subjective opinions carry less credibility than objective ones.

VezzyRattlehead, shut up. The fact that you actually even paused to consider the validity of that infamous review is a strong inclination that you are a wet-behind-the-ears newbie to metal that would do anything to fit in. I do not know what your problem with Angelic Storm is and she does not need anyone to speak for her, but you really shut before you start looking really stupid.

This is a master piece

Pure Fucken Metal

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 22.07.2010 at 14:17

Acutally it is revisinism cause UltraBoris has a tendency to rewrite history to suit his own tastes/opinions in the meantime ignoring quite a few facts.

The review goes way too far and looses contact with reality at times, but the guy has a few good points.
For example, I totally agree about "Darkness Descends", "Reign In Blood" and "Pleasure To Kill" being all better than "Master Of Puppets".
The only reason those albums never were as popular as MOP is they're too extreme for that. Too uncompromising. They have nothing commercial. MOP is much more accessible than them.
But I must admit I never liked Metallica and never found anything special in this band.

And if there's an album that killed metal, it is not MOP but the black album because it showed that metal bands can make a shitload of money by selling out and releasing mainstream crap

EDIT: And Lars Ulrich can't be compared to Gene Hoglan, Dave Lombardo or Ventor Reil. They all utterly destroy him nowadays. They were always better than him but now that Ulrich stopped caring for his skills long ago, the difference is even much bigger than it was in 1986.

I agree those albums are better even Pleasure To Kill. But that is the only he is right about. Those three drummers are of course also better but than again which drummer isn't? ulrich always was Metallica's weak spot. iMO Ride The Lightning is still their best by far. mop just being a weaker copy of that one.

Written by RavenKing on 27.08.2010 at 03:39

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 22.07.2010 at 14:17

Acutally it is revisinism cause UltraBoris has a tendency to rewrite history to suit his own tastes/opinions in the meantime ignoring quite a few facts.

The review goes way too far and looses contact with reality at times, but the guy has a few good points.
For example, I totally agree about "Darkness Descends", "Reign In Blood" and "Pleasure To Kill" being all better than "Master Of Puppets".
The only reason those albums never were as popular as MOP is they're too extreme for that. Too uncompromising. They have nothing commercial. MOP is much more accessible than them.
But I must admit I never liked Metallica and never found anything special in this band.

And if there's an album that killed metal, it is not MOP but the black album because it showed that metal bands can make a shitload of money by selling out and releasing mainstream crap

EDIT: And Lars Ulrich can't be compared to Gene Hoglan, Dave Lombardo or Ventor Reil. They all utterly destroy him nowadays. They were always better than him but now that Ulrich stopped caring for his skills long ago, the difference is even much bigger than it was in 1986.

Yet again another metal elitist.
I recognized your name from the review on Maiden's new album and completely bashing it. It's not that the black album was just a useless mainstream piece of crap, on the contrary I find it great. The problem with the album was that the record company tossed them a mainstream producer and took advantage by funding them a bigass tour. But I thank them because that was the album that made metal recognized, and in doing so, helped us discover metal in the first place.
But you are too arrogant and full of yourself to embrace a bands capability in having flexibility in their genre, if you think about from an actual musicians perspective and stop being a such a chapped-assed troll than you'd realized the musical brilliance of it.
Thats what I hate about metal, half of you dont get the point

Written by ViolentPrayers on 09.09.2010 at 04:36

Written by RavenKing on 27.08.2010 at 03:39

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 22.07.2010 at 14:17

Acutally it is revisinism cause UltraBoris has a tendency to rewrite history to suit his own tastes/opinions in the meantime ignoring quite a few facts.

The review goes way too far and looses contact with reality at times, but the guy has a few good points.
For example, I totally agree about "Darkness Descends", "Reign In Blood" and "Pleasure To Kill" being all better than "Master Of Puppets".
The only reason those albums never were as popular as MOP is they're too extreme for that. Too uncompromising. They have nothing commercial. MOP is much more accessible than them.
But I must admit I never liked Metallica and never found anything special in this band.

And if there's an album that killed metal, it is not MOP but the black album because it showed that metal bands can make a shitload of money by selling out and releasing mainstream crap

EDIT: And Lars Ulrich can't be compared to Gene Hoglan, Dave Lombardo or Ventor Reil. They all utterly destroy him nowadays. They were always better than him but now that Ulrich stopped caring for his skills long ago, the difference is even much bigger than it was in 1986.

Yet again another metal elitist.
I recognized your name from the review on Maiden's new album and completely bashing it. It's not that the black album was just a useless mainstream piece of crap, on the contrary I find it great. The problem with the album was that the record company tossed them a mainstream producer and took advantage by funding them a bigass tour. But I thank them because that was the album that made metal recognized, and in doing so, helped us discover metal in the first place.
But you are too arrogant and full of yourself to embrace a bands capability in having flexibility in their genre, if you think about from an actual musicians perspective and stop being a such a chapped-assed troll than you'd realized the musical brilliance of it.
Thats what I hate about metal, half of you dont get the point

It's you who miss the point as for what metal is all about. Metal is not supposed to turn commercial and mainstream and play on radio each day. People like you who believe this attitude is correct don't know the first thing about metal from a social point of view and its place in society. People like you have a commercial and mainstream mentality.

Call me an elitist as much as you want, I'm fine with it. I consider myself more as a purist than an elitist but I won't deny I'm an elitist to a certain extent.

Believe it or not, Metallica showed the way to commercialism to other metal bands with the black album. It's not a hazard that so many bands changed their style after this stinking pile of mainstream shit. It surely played a role in the fact that metal almost died in the early 90s, apart from extreme genres, and grunge took so much place. Almost all metal bands who were great in the 80s started to suck in the early 90s.

It's this kind of thing that make me proud of being an elitist. Better being an elitist than endorsing commercial crap.

Btw the label did NOT toss Rock to Metallica. metallica picked him themselves because they liked what he had done with Motley Crue and wanted to become big by playing mainstream music and thought Rock would be te best man for that job. Ffs Metallica have even said so themselves in numerous interviews. Fact remains that Metallica - Metallica remains a steaming pile of shit in the eyes of most true metallers who grew with metal in the late Seventies and early Nineties.

One of the best rock albums ever, no question. I still would put Rust in Peace (from Megadeth, duh) above this, though.

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 09.09.2010 at 15:04

Btw the label did NOT toss Rock to Metallica. metallica picked him themselves because they liked what he had done with Motley Crue and wanted to become big by playing mainstream music and thought Rock would be te best man for that job. Ffs Metallica have even said so themselves in numerous interviews. Fact remains that Metallica - Metallica remains a steaming pile of shit in the eyes of most true metallers who grew with metal in the late Seventies and early Nineties.

Not too sound too harsh, but the black album is what got me into metal. This was probably '92 or '93. In retrospect I agree that it's not very "metal", but still it was my gateway album as it was for many others. FYI

No comment Everybody knows this album as one of the best masterpieces from the 80's

Not my favorite Metallica album, but definatley an impressive album.
Also where is this UltraBoris review? I'd like to read it. It sounds like a laugh.

God Damn, such an overrated album. Battery, the title track, Disposable Hero's, and Damage In.c are all great, but the rest is just boring as shit. Leper Messiah takes my pick for worst ever song on a thrash album. Oh well, they released RTL and Killem All, so it can be forgiven; not to mention the masterpiece that was AJFA two years later. Hell, I even like the black album and Load once in a while, overrated as they are.

As far as the whole "it killed metal" dead, no it did not, but it unintentionally paved the way for the mainstream metal of the 90's. It showed the world that music that is fairly extreme can be a commercial success. Furthermore, it changed thrash from an underground subculture to a mainstream trend, and all trends are destined to die. Once thrash died, Pantera took over as the big metal band, and Pantera's influence on all that nu metal crap from the 90's is undeniable.

Written by [user id=101272] on 18.01.2011 at 01:53

Not my favorite Metallica album, but definatley an impressive album.
Also where is this UltraBoris review? I'd like to read it. It sounds like a laugh.

The Ultraboris review is on Metal Archives, (Encyclopedia Metallum) and is very much quite a hoot.

Written by [user id=111774] on 18.01.2011 at 04:59
Furthermore, it changed thrash from an underground subculture to a mainstream trend, and all trends are destined to die. Once thrash died, Pantera took over as the big metal band, and Pantera's influence on all that nu metal crap from the 90's is undeniable.

Thrash never really "died" it just got pushed underground. Pantera? A lot of people "credit" Faith No More with being a huge influence on nu-metal. The band themselves however, especially Mike Patton distance themselves from that assertion, and say they were in no way responsible for it. Both Pantera and FNM may have been influences for some nu metal musicians, but neither were nu-metal themselves.

This is the bible of heavy metal hahah it killed off all that hair metal bull shitt

MASTERPIECE!

Metallica's greatest album.
Every track is a complete masterpiece.
The best metal album of the 80's (from my point of view).
It deserves a 10 out of 10.
Brilliant!

Boring boring boring !!

Written by [user id=111774] on 18.01.2011 at 04:59

God Damn, such an overrated album. Battery, the title track, Disposable Hero's, and Damage In.c are all great, but the rest is just boring as shit. Leper Messiah takes my pick for worst ever song on a thrash album. Oh well, they released RTL and Killem All, so it can be forgiven; not to mention the masterpiece that was AJFA two years later. Hell, I even like the black album and Load once in a while, overrated as they are.

As far as the whole "it killed metal" dead, no it did not, but it unintentionally paved the way for the mainstream metal of the 90's. It showed the world that music that is fairly extreme can be a commercial success. Furthermore, it changed thrash from an underground subculture to a mainstream trend, and all trends are destined to die. Once thrash died, Pantera took over as the big metal band, and Pantera's influence on all that nu metal crap from the 90's is undeniable.

It's Ultraboris in disguise!

Written by [user id=101272] on 06.05.2011 at 22:44



It's Ultraboris in disguise!

Indeed.

Nope. Boris thinks that this album was purposely made 'more mainstream' by ars as an attempt to cash in on the undrground success of RtL, while I think it was just a band making an album which happened to have lasting effects beyond what they could have imagined. But it is an overrated album.

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 06.05.2011 at 23:30

Written by [user id=101272] on 06.05.2011 at 22:44



It's Ultraboris in disguise!

Indeed.

LOL I had no idea so many people have read his review. My opinion on this album is that it is very good, Not the be all end all of metal but it is enormously influential and holds up extremely well to this day. For ratings id give it round 8.5.

Master of Puppets is probably Metallica's biggest breakthrough in their history and definitely one of the best thrash metal albums ever, but it dosn't top ride the lightning

Greatest album ever.