• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

30 years!?

Discussion in 'Singles (Only*)' started by radhead, Aug 9, 2008.

  1. radhead

    radhead Contributor

    +548
    Seeker
    Single
    I can't believe that in just a couple of years, bands like U2 and REM will have been going strong for 30 years.

    30 years! When I was growing up the 30-year status was reserved for oldies acts like Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee Lewis, Ray Charles, Johnny Cash, etc.

    But this seems unreal.
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. radhead

    radhead Contributor

    +548
    Seeker
    Single
    30! That's like the amount of time between WW2 and Woodstock. Unthinkable...
     
  3. radhead

    radhead Contributor

    +548
    Seeker
    Single
    That's like the amount of time between James Dean and Michael J Fox.
     
  4. Apollo Celestio

    Apollo Celestio Deal with it.

    +1,257
    Christian Seeker
    Single
    US-Green
    Not that old, don't understand. CAN'T UNDERSTAND! j/k, good for them.
     
  5. Tinkerbell33

    Tinkerbell33 Well-Known Member

    +678
    Private
    Well I knew that U2 have been going on for at least 20 years because they performed in the 1984 Liveaid.
     
  6. Quoth

    Quoth Guest

    +0
    Two words:

    Aero.

    Smith.
     
  7. Fremdin

    Fremdin Contributor

    +581
    Christian
    Private
    The difference between Aerosmith and a band like U2 or R.E.M. is that I can remember them being the definition of cutting edge and R.E.M. was such an esoteric band in the 80's liking R.e.M. really meant that you were cool because they were so left of the dial. And U2 totally changed the game with Achtung Baby in my opinion. Here you had the biggest band in the world making fun of being rockstars on the ZooTV tour. Also it was such a departure from their earlier work, it was dark and sexual and conflicted. In short it was awesome. ANd R.E.M. was the definition of American Alternative. They didn't change for anybody, people changed for them.
     
  8. radhead

    radhead Contributor

    +548
    Seeker
    Single
    Aerosmith had actually broken up for quite a while. At least 5 years. They reformed around the time of "Janie's Got a Gun."
     
  9. Fremdin

    Fremdin Contributor

    +581
    Christian
    Private
    That's true, both R.E.M. and U2 have never broken up, though U2 came close and R.E.M lost a drummer in I think 1998
     
  10. ImperialPhantom

    ImperialPhantom Guest

    +0
    Metallica is getting pretty close as well - give 'em about four years or so, I think.
     
  11. oncewaslost

    oncewaslost owl

    +129
    Calvinist
    Single
    wow, really... i never really thought about how long they'd been going.
     
  12. radhead

    radhead Contributor

    +548
    Seeker
    Single
    But if you take out their sucky "Bob Rock" era, it's only about 15 years.
     
  13. Fremdin

    Fremdin Contributor

    +581
    Christian
    Private
    Bob Rock? You mean Load? I kind of liked Load
     
  14. radhead

    radhead Contributor

    +548
    Seeker
    Single
    Not only that. The first album he did with them was the untitled Black album. I always hated "Enter Sandman" and after watching the documentary of that album (Year In the Life of Metallica) I immediately understood why. Bob Rock made them change the way they played, the way they wrote their music. I would have loved to have heard "Enter Sandman" the way they originally wrote it. Bob was a failed new wave pop star who had no business producing a real metal band.

    "And Justice For All" was the last REAL Metallica album.

    A few years ago a group of Metallica fan-club members wrote an open letter to Metallica, asking them to get rid of Bob Rock. Metallica agreed.
     
  15. Fremdin

    Fremdin Contributor

    +581
    Christian
    Private
    Oh, See I'm not a huge Metallica fan, or a "metal" fan so I quite like the untitled album as well as Load. I don't try and rock very hard :p Though, I rock "Enter Sandman" in the face on Rock Band
     
  16. radhead

    radhead Contributor

    +548
    Seeker
    Single
    Wikipedia...
    Metallica
    Main article: Metallica

    Bob Rock produced Metallica's multiplatinum self-titled album (known as The Black Album) in 1991 and subsequent followups Load (1996), ReLoad (1997), Garage Inc. (1998) and S&M (1999). Metallica once again tapped Rock to produce their 2003 album St. Anger.

    Rock played bass guitar for the recording of St. Anger.

    A petition that over 20,000 fans signed was posted online. The petition called for Metallica to dump Rock as producer, claiming he had too much influence on the band's sound and musical format. Rock claimed the petition was hurtful for his children. He was also quoted as saying "Sometimes, even with a great coach, a team keeps losing. You have to get new blood in there." It is often said that Rock "Ruined the greatest metal band in history."

    In February, 2006, Metallica chose producer Rick Rubin to produce their next album, ending the group's long-time relationship with Rock.

    ...Personally, I wouldn't go so far as to say he "ruined" Metallica. They were millionaires by the time he came along. I'm sure they all wanted to do something new. I couldn't expect them to keep that same anger and energy of a metal band, you know, after they were able to afford yachts?
     
  17. Fremdin

    Fremdin Contributor

    +581
    Christian
    Private
    That's one way to look at it, or maybe they were tired of doing the same thing over and over again so they wanted to grow artisically. I have a friend who thinks Nine Inch Nails has ruined themselves n the past couple of years. But I think that keeping up that kind of anger and intensity is unfair to the artist. A person can't live their live without evolving so one shouldn't ask a band to do the same thing.
     
  18. ImperialPhantom

    ImperialPhantom Guest

    +0
    Metallica has every right to go in any musical direction that they so choose. Rock might have given them a sound that the purists and original fans disliked, but they did what they set out to do: to sell massive amounts of albums and win millions of new fans. They've got families to feed, they've grown up a lot since they were kids playing their old style of music, and heck, they like nice houses and nice cars just as much as we all do. If they want to make millions and live the dream, as far as I'm concerned, they should seize the chance. I don't believe in "selling out". Yeah, now Rock's time as come, but they still did what they did with him as a producer, and now they want to go in a different direction with their sound. And Rubin's not exactly an underground hardcore metal producer himself.
     
Loading...