The Day That Never Comes

Well, it's finally here...

The Day That Never Comes

What do you guys think?

IM MAD!!!! 10 second previews!?! ive been waiting long and hard for this!!!

way to treat the loyal fans who have waited years to hear previews so they can see if old metallica is actually back, metallica. u blew it =p

No, The Day That Never Comes is 8 minutes long.

The album isn't out for another three weeks, I don't have a problem with just ten second previews, cos that's what they are, just previews!

I heard it on the radio (the station kept playing it, like twice within an hour, at least).

I didn't like it at first, mostly because of James' vocals made it sound like they were trying to be Nickelback or something. But once it started to get going, James' vocals got a little more intense and I started liking it. I like how around 4:15, it starts to take off a little, and get faster. The solo's alright, but it seems like they tried to make it too much like "One".

And I don't mind that it's 7-8 minutes long, since at least there's variety in it. St. Anger (the song) was soooooo monotonous. It was a drag to listen to. This one is better.

It's about as good as I expected it would be, better than St. Anger, but on par with albums like Load.

i listened 2 about 2 minutes, i wasnt impressed

yeah, but they dont show anything

i think theyre trying to hard to hide it

who cares, they've sucked since they dropped a "LOAD"

yeah, but i kept hearing theyre new stuff was like mop and black album.. from the 40 seconds they put on theyre site, it doesnt sound that way

Not bad. Maybe some of the other stuff will be better.

i'm impressed. i like it.

It was pretty good, I doubt I'll buy it but might bit torrent it. Damn i hear little lars yelling in my ear.

Heh, that bass player looks like a big monkey.

Kind of reminds me of a something from the Black Album days, that got rejected. Still not up to par with earlier metallica albums.

The first difference I noticed is that Lars' drumming seems very minimalist compared to previous albums. Secondly, and maybe it's just poor quality, but James' vocals don't seem quite as heavy as they have been in the past. The sound quality on the recording is just so bad that I really can't judge the song.

Ha, I always get a laugh out of seeing him jumping around. But apparently, he's excellent at popping and slapping on the bass. It'd be interesting to see Rob throw some slapping solos into a Metallica song. :D

His old band "Infectious Grooves":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7-0yatN1gc&feature=related
(embedding disabled by request).

james is in his forties now, thats probly y hes not so heavy

honestly... i think trujillo is as good of a bassist as burton. he's really amazing. burton was a better all around member, but trujillo is at least AS good as him on bass.

Too me sounds like a lot going on also may be I am wrong but they sound more like Maiden than Metallica

Sorry did not like it all only one bit was the solo which was mad and cool as hell sounds much like Satriani. I personally would not rush out and buy it at all

Well it's no surprise that this is bad. I don't know why anyone would have expected good things from this, these guys have proven over and over for almost 20 years that they aren't good at making heavy metal anymore.

If you like old school Metallica then don't listen to Metallica. Their 80's thrash compatriots are releasing great things still to this day though. Slayer's album Christ Illusion, Kreator's Enemy of God, Overkill's Immortalis, Megadeth's United Abominations and especially Testaments new album Formation of Damnation all have come out in the last few years. These guys all stuck to their guns and these albums I listed are all solid thrash albums, some of their best stuff.

this isn't bad, it's just you don't want to hear anything but thrash. metallica doesn't just want to make thrash... they are actual artists, not just metal heads. i like old metallica better. but this is just as good, musically. honestly, the solos from the two songs i heard from the new album are musically far more creative then many solos from the glory years.

i understand not liking their music they make now. i personally didn't like alot of st anger and the black album. but they should be commended for moving forward - not bashed, unlike other great bands like testament, who are doing the same thing they were doing years ago. they're doing it well, but it's not a badge to have a homogeneous discography.

Saying this is bad heavy metal music is like saying the new Carrie Underwood album is bad metal, wrong because it's just not heavy metal anymore, it's a different type of music. That's exactly what I meant. If people want to hear heavy metal and thrash then they shouldn't listen to Metallica because they moved on to different types of music.

But to say they are "artists" for designing their music to sell to a wider crowd is like saying a fat person is skinny, blatantly wrong.

Metallica has got so much crap for selling out and abandoning their roots that their new album has been engineered to go back to those roots, to make their fans happy, so they sell records again.

To say metal heads are not artists is offensive to a lot of people here, including me. I make heavy music to express myself, with no intention of ever selling records or being famous. I'd say that makes me an artist. Art's about expression, not record sales. An artist's work can change over time, but not to make money. Don't get that confused with what Metallica did in the 90's.

they didn't design it to sell to a wider crowd. they explored a genre that sells to a wider crowd. and they still did it better then everyone else, and still did it their own way.

if i went out and painted the most beautiful picture in the world, so i could sell it and get rich, it would none the less be the most beautiful picture in the world. asking whether a band 'sold out' is a childish way of looking at it. ask whether the music is good or bad - that's the real issue. if they can make a boatload of money doing it, good for them, thats great.

and guess what? there is no way to say that metallica is better then n'sync. there is no way to say that master of puppets is better then st anger. no one is the arbiter of good and bad art.

It's still metal for the most part, just not thrash. I mean, there's more types of metal than just thrash metal. And so what if they've included other styles of music such as blues over the years? To say you're not going to listen to them because they aren't 100% metal is a bit single-minded.

I'm not a huge metal fan but have to agree with blackholesun

the new stuff is not like their old stuff but gain metal today is very different that it was back then. back when i was growing up (gez i'm showing my age) motley crew and skid row were tagged as heavy metal and metallica, anthrax and megadeth were thrash.

I checked out slayer not too long ago and south of heavem and the new disc (i forgot the name) is different. they have evolved.

I think metallica did get softer as metal go harder and faster.

i just listened to the whole thing, it was pretty repetitive, but alright i guess

Yeah these guys are artists for venturing into the creatively challenging and relatively uncharted frontier of hard rock, I agree.

@blackholesun: I was saying that all the single-minded people shouldn't listen to Metallica because all they want to hear is thrash, and Metallica doesn't make it anymore. Don't confuse me for those people, I listen to everything from jazz to funk to classical to 80's new wave... And I am very aware of other genres of metal than thrash.