Metallica Thread

[Setlist Scotty]

That brings to mind what MP said in an interview back in 2002. I'll include the previous question and response for context which was about QR:

SH: There also has been a lot of talk about Queensryche's next album, which they are working on right now. With the failure of Q2K, Michael Wilton is doing all the guitars and they are bringing in outside writers and-

MP: Icchhhhhh! I think that's a big mistake. We did it once, for one song with Desmond Child and it was a huge mistake for a band like ours, or a band like Queensryche. I think it's ridiculous. I think the only possibility for them to rekindle that flame would be to get back with Chris and rethink the direction. Because even Chris's last album with them was disappointing to me.

SH: Do you think it had more to do with the mix?

MP: No, I don't think it had anything to do with the mix - I think it had to do with the songs. They were trying to be Stone Temple Pilots. For me, as a Queensryche fan, I wanna hear Rage for Order and Operation: Mindcrime; I don't want them to repeat those albums, but I want that style. Same goes for Metallica. I wanna hear Master of Puppets or And Justice For All; I wanna hear them grow within those kind of boundaries. With Dream Theater, we always want to progress every album we make, we want to go in new places. But we never want to go in those new places at the expense of what is the style and sound of the band. Does that make sense? It's one thing to expand your horizons, to experiment and try different things, but you gotta keep one foot in the ground where your roots are. As long as you can keep one foot in the ground and grow from there, I think that's the key. I think both Queensryche and Metallica went too far off on a tangent, and it was at the expense of what made them so unique and special.

I agree with what he said - no problem experimenting, but don't go off on too far of a tangent so that the music becomes something completely separate from what the band is known for. I'd even venture MP was starting to do that with the "angry" vocals in latter-day DT, but I digress....

[Adami]

Totally disagree with Stadler MP.

[TAC]

Grapp, I understand, but all bands say that -- that they are moving forward creatively. The thing is, all bands also get to a point where they deviate from what they are good at, and then stumble and find their way back to the "pocket" for lack of a better term. The fact they don't want to write in a thrash metal style, specifically, is fine. But quite honestly, that is what they are best at. If I want to hear a mid-tempo, grungy song, I'll look at Soundgarden or Alice in Chains, who are better than Metallica. If I want to hear a slow ballad, there's plenty of bands that are superior to Metallica on that. But if I want this technical thrash fest, well, to me, that screams Metallica, because very few do it as well as them.

I am all for experimentation and growth. But when you get too out of the pocket, and think you're better than you really are with whatever you are experimenting with, it helps to get back to what you are good at, and reset who you are. Metallica, at least to my ears, has never quite done that, and as a result, the ride with them has been severely unrewarding over the last 25 years. There are bits that keep getting me back on the train for a quick ride or two (for example, Atlas Rise, Spit Out the Bone). But when you're only liking one or two songs per record, instead of liking almost an entire record, it is what it is.

Sam. I love you! That's a great post.

I actually like a ton of Death Magnetic. But it still pales to their abilities. I shouldn't have to wait 7 years to have to drop my Metallica standards just to accept a new album.

They work hard I'm sure. They tour a lot and do very well. But I cannot go on tour with them. But I can buy new albums every couple of years.

I mentioned in the QR thread that QR does the minimum. Well, Metallica does as well.


They have done NOTHING to justify their popularity other than live off of 1983-1991. Not that that doesn't make them different than a lot of other bands.


HOW MANY FUCKING TIMES CAN I LISTEN TO LIVE VERSIONS OF SEEK AND DESTROY?

[Stadler]

There are so many parallels of Metallica's album arc to other bands, so its not a unique story in the slightest. But I guess for me, I always give thrash bands less leeway to make those changes, because if you're a thrash band, I expect you to THRASH. Eventually, Megadeth came around, and Death Angel got back to it, and Testament got even heavier. But Metallica still has never QUITE returned to the pre-BLack album sound.

That's purely by their design.  Metallica are always moving forward creatively and never looking backward, and Justice was that turning point.  Sometimes things fail (Lulu, their movie) and sometimes it works well (the live Metallica downloads of every show), but they're always trying to do something new.

Rick Rubin was the first one to get them to try and relive their early feelings on tape with Death Magnetic, which is why it seems so contrived.  It was purposely an exercise to try and recapture the old style, yet still trying to keep the creative element moving forward.  They couldn't self-edit for shit, so the songs just went on and on.  One song was truly a cut and paste job - this section from this new song and that section from that new song.  That self editing was rectified with Hardwired and they were more concise with the song lengths.

To me, they don't see themselves as a thrash band, though they were part of the movement.  So why limit themselves from a creative standpoint and box themselves in that thrash box, when they have the money and freedom to be unlimited?  Can they write thrash, sure?  Do they want to?  Not specifically.

Grapp, I understand, but all bands say that -- that they are moving forward creatively. The thing is, all bands also get to a point where they deviate from what they are good at, and then stumble and find their way back to the "pocket" for lack of a better term. The fact they don't want to write in a thrash metal style, specifically, is fine. But quite honestly, that is what they are best at. If I want to hear a mid-tempo, grungy song, I'll look at Soundgarden or Alice in Chains, who are better than Metallica. If I want to hear a slow ballad, there's plenty of bands that are superior to Metallica on that. But if I want this technical thrash fest, well, to me, that screams Metallica, because very few do it as well as them.

I am all for experimentation and growth. But when you get too out of the pocket, and think you're better than you really are with whatever you are experimenting with, it helps to get back to what you are good at, and reset who you are. Metallica, at least to my ears, has never quite done that, and as a result, the ride with them has been severely unrewarding over the last 25 years. There are bits that keep getting me back on the train for a quick ride or two (for example, Atlas Rise, Spit Out the Bone). But when you're only liking one or two songs per record, instead of liking almost an entire record, it is what it is.

But you can't say "quite honestly"; there's no "honest" in there, it's just your opinion.  "Honestly" (just kidding with you), I think their high point is TBA.  The earlier stuff is good, I like it, but it's one dimensional compared to TBA.   Not everyone is "angry".  THEY aren't angry, and their music has to reflect that.  I get it, my opinion only, and I understand that, but since TBA seemed to connect with more people - and a more varied cross section of people - I think it's an opinion with some factual backup. 

I don't mean this to rag on you personally, far from it, but what keeps YOU on the train may or may not be what is honest and pure for THEM.  I feel like Metallica is one of the few bands that deserves kudos for, as the kids say, keeping it real.  I think they'd be a tired joke if they were trying to recreate MoP every album out. 

[TAC]

But Stadler, "Keeping it real" is NOT releasing a new album every 7 years, with 90% (slightly exaggerated) of their live show is from the first 3rd (also slightly exaggerated) of their career.

Metallica got comfy at some point....around 1995.  TBA has aged wonderfully, and it is well executed.



But Metallica doing another stadium tour in South America does NOTHING for me as a fan. Who fucking cares?

Can they still make good music? Do they care to still make good music?


They were groundbreakers and genre leaders at one point in their career.  Only my memory proves that to be true.

[Stadler]

Oh, I won't argue any of that.   I was really more focused on the period from, say, "...And Justice..." through "Re-Load", and the stylistic changes.  I like Metallica, but I don't love them.  I've never seen them live (one of the few bands I haven't) and I wouldn't feel even a second of regret over that if it wasn't for the fact that I love Hetfield and want to see him once.   I'd much rather see Iron Maiden any day, honestly.

(Though having said that, Hatfield is number one on my list of guys that I would love to hear a solo album and tour from; I can imagine an album akin to "Year Of The Tiger" and would buy that immediately.)

[Adami]

God dammit Stads, don't say things like a Hetfield solo album. It's the musical equivalent of blue balls.

[mikeyd23]

Can they still make good music? Do they care to still make good music?

Yeah they do. Their last record was really good.

If you don't think so, that's cool, but you and Samsara are basically just saying that you like their thrash stuff best. That's more a conversation about you guys than it is Metallica. I know people that prefer the 90's stuff more than the 80's stuff.

[TAC]

I do like the Death Magnetic and Hardwired. They are good. They are just not "waiting 7 f'n years for it" good. Couple that with the balance of songs in their setlist, apparently, I (or Samsara) am not the only one who prefers their thrash era.

[bosk1]

I could be off here, but I think one of the problems Metallica faces with its post-TBA (and you can include TBA if so inclined) is that a huge component of their pure thrash sound was anger.  They were an angry band that sounded like an angry band.  But...to put it bluntly, they had success.  And they grew up.  And there wasn't really anything left to them that resembled that early, hungry, angry band.  You could kind of hear on SKOM that they were looking for that.  When they came up with the idea of St. Anger as a title, James was just giddy over that.  But...despite that there was anger during those sessions, it was a much different type of anger.  And trying to sound like they did on their '80s output without that '80s mindset sounds a bit empty and contrived.  That is why, to me, although DM and Hardwired had some good moments, as TAC said, they definitely were not "good" in levels commensurate with how long we had to wait for them.

[Adami]

I could be off here, but I think one of the problems Metallica faces with its post-TBA (and you can include TBA if so inclined) is that a huge component of their pure thrash sound was anger.  They were an angry band that sounded like an angry band.  But...to put it bluntly, they had success.  And they grew up.  And there wasn't really anything left to them that resembled that early, hungry, angry band.  You could kind of hear on SKOM that they were looking for that.  When they came up with the idea of St. Anger as a title, James was just giddy over that.  But...despite that there was anger during those sessions, it was a much different type of anger.  And trying to sound like they did on their '80s output without that '80s mindset sounds a bit empty and contrived.  That is why, to me, although DM and Hardwired had some good moments, as TAC said, they definitely were not "good" in levels commensurate with how long we had to wait for them.

Agree on all of that, except about Hardwired. I think Hardwired was them finding ways to do heavy and stuff but in their current mindset. It felt much more authentic. DM though, totally. Contrived, forced, fake, etc.

[bosk1]

I hate to use "fake" because, to me, that goes just too far into being criticism.  To me, it just is what it is.  For your point on Hardwired, I'll buy that.  I haven't invested much time listening to really dig into it.

[TAC]

Honestly, my biggest issue is the lack of output.

I didn't care for where they went for TBA or Load. But at least they feel like sincere efforts.
To me, Reload blows chunks, and I just don't understand St. Anger.

I really enjoy Death Magnetic and Hardwired.

[mikeyd23]

I could be off here, but I think one of the problems Metallica faces with its post-TBA (and you can include TBA if so inclined) is that a huge component of their pure thrash sound was anger.  They were an angry band that sounded like an angry band.  But...to put it bluntly, they had success.  And they grew up.  And there wasn't really anything left to them that resembled that early, hungry, angry band.  You could kind of hear on SKOM that they were looking for that.  When they came up with the idea of St. Anger as a title, James was just giddy over that.  But...despite that there was anger during those sessions, it was a much different type of anger.  And trying to sound like they did on their '80s output without that '80s mindset sounds a bit empty and contrived.  That is why, to me, although DM and Hardwired had some good moments, as TAC said, they definitely were not "good" in levels commensurate with how long we had to wait for them.

Agree on all of that, except about Hardwired. I think Hardwired was them finding ways to do heavy and stuff but in their current mindset. It felt much more authentic. DM though, totally. Contrived, forced, fake, etc.

Yeah I agree with pretty much all that. James famously told Bob Rock during the Load sessions while struggling to come up with lyrics for the remaining songs - "don't worry, I still have a lot of hate left in me". The fact that he had to say that was probably a good indicator he was needing to re-learn how to really approach lyrics.

Honestly, my biggest issue is the lack of output.

I didn't care for where they went for TBA or Load. But at least they feel like sincere efforts.
To me, Reload blows chunks, and I just don't understand St. Anger.

I really enjoy Death Magnetic and Hardwired.

I totally get taking issue with the gap between albums, that I'm on board with. For me, the only Metallica album I don't really enjoy in some way is SA. I like the Loads, DM annoys me in the ways Adami mentioned above, but overall I still like the album a fair amount.

[TAC]

They released their first 5 albums within 8 years. It has took them 25 years to release the next 5.

I'm sorry. That's a band that's not trying too hard.

[Grappler]

They released their first 5 albums within 8 years. It has took them 25 years to release the next 5.

I'm sorry. That's a band that's not trying too hard.

I disagree.

They toured for about 4 years on TBA (1991/1992/1993/1994).  1995 had sporadic shows, then Load/Reload came out in 96/97 each.  More tours, Garage Inc/Symphony releases and respective tours - you can't really blame them for the delay in between the black album and Load.  The demand was there to tour for the black album extensively, and they worked that one hard.  They did put out the big live box set after that tour too.

Even when Jason quit, it was only a 2 year delay until we got St. Anger.  The long delays really happened after St. Anger (5 years to Death Magnetic and another 8 to Hardwired).  But they were still very active - they put out Lulu, they put out the 3D movie, they did the 30th anniversary fan club shows with tons of guests and rarely played material.  They did the puppets anniversary tour, by request tour, they played in Antarctica, they did a Black Album anniversary tour, they put together and hosted a few Orion music festivals.

So we didn't get true Metallica albums during those long breaks between records, but they were constantly working and touring, and not just standard European tours - each one was generally unique.  The premier of a new song, an album anniversary, requests. 

I actually agree with Stadler - these guys should be respected for always moving forward, whether fans like the product or not.  Believe me, I'd love for them to put out thrash record after thrash record.  But if they're not being true to themselves, what's the point (i.e., did anyone really believe that James was angry when he was singing "I'M MADLY IN ANGER WITH YOU!", especially after seeing the new happy-go-lucky version of James in the SKOM movie?).

[TAC]

They released their first 5 albums within 8 years. It has took them 25 years to release the next 5.

I'm sorry. That's a band that's not trying too hard.

I disagree.

They toured for about 4 years on TBA (1991/1992/1993/1994). 

I skipped that to skew my point!


Saying they're not trying hard might be a bit strong. They certainly work hard and put in the time.

But to me, as a music fan, it's about making music. I don't care about them going to Anatartica, European tours, etc... That does nothing for me. They swoop into my area every half dozen years to collect their $100+ per head, and off they go.

[mikeyd23]

They released their first 5 albums within 8 years. It has took them 25 years to release the next 5.

I'm sorry. That's a band that's not trying too hard, to do the things I want them to do.

I fixed it for you.

[cramx3]

Was there ever any real reason for them to make music at that point?  It seemed they weren't in a place inspired to make something they would want to release.  It sucks for the fans who want to hear new music, but would you rather them force something and get another potential St. Anger?  I think if we know they didn't have juice in the tank to make a new album then we should be happy they toured and did other things to still be productive vs. just taking a hiatus. 

At the end of the day, I feel like those years are where I lost my fandom.  But I blame it more on what they did release than what they didn't release.  I'm still a fan, but Metallica haven't been one of my favorite bands since high school where they released Garage Days and S&M which were great, but that's where the fun seemed to end for me and my relationship with them as being a hardcore fan.

[Adami]

They released their first 5 albums within 8 years. It has took them 25 years to release the next 5.

I'm sorry. That's a band that's not trying too hard.

Totally, however, as you pointed out, their live show setlists almost exclusively ends at 1991 or so. So, from their perspective, what's the point of making a new album? To add 2 songs to a set list?

I always want more Metallica, but if their live shows are 90% KEA - TBA, then there's not a whole lot of a point.

[Stadler]

I do like the Death Magnetic and Hardwired. They are good. They are just not "waiting 7 f'n years for it" good. Couple that with the balance of songs in their setlist, apparently, I (or Samsara) am not the only one who prefers their thrash era.

We can both be right though; meaning, I agree with you on the lack of output, so there's that, and just because they are literally the best thrash band on the planet (IMO) that doesn't mean that a) they shouldn't grow, and b) they shouldn't do other things.  I'm not at all a thrash fan (I listened to the Anthrax greatest hits a couple weeks ago, and literally laughed out loud) but Metallica makes even ME like it a little bit.  I'm not ragging on them; quite the opposite.  I just don't think it's fair to say  that they all of a sudden in 1991 decided to suck and carried through on the promise. 

[TAC]

I don't mind them doing other things. I respect the hell out of Load, even though I only like 4 songs from it. It feels sincere, so I'm cool with that.

They released their first 5 albums within 8 years. It has took them 25 years to release the next 5.

I'm sorry. That's a band that's not trying too hard.

Totally, however, as you pointed out, their live show setlists almost exclusively ends at 1991 or so. So, from their perspective, what's the point of making a new album? To add 2 songs to a set list?

I always want more Metallica, but if their live shows are 90% KEA - TBA, then there's not a whole lot of a point.

Right. Not a whole lot of point to it...

[mikeyd23]

To be fair, on their current tour they are playing 18 songs. They have been doing on average at least 5 songs off their new record (pretty good representation of their new material). They will routinely do at least one song off of the Loads, and they have mixed in one DM song here and there. So that's like 7 songs post TBA.

Their sets have been a little heavy on TBA material, but that's kinda understandable, that's their most successful, well known record and Metallica is one metal band that does pull in a lot of casuals to their shows, definitely not all die-hards. They have been doing like 5 songs off TBA.

So that's on average around 12 songs out of 18 that are TBA and newer.

[cramx3]

They've got a rotation going on their current set lists.  I can't complain.  Saw them twice between this tour and last year and saw 4 different songs.  I feel like for a band with as many hits and classic tracks, it's hard to get a rotation in while still representing the new album.  They did a decent job IMO.  Below are the songs they rotated between the shows I saw. 

Holier Than Thou - The Unforgiven
Blackened - Fight Fire with Fire
Creeping Death - Wherever I May Roam
Hit the Lights - Whiplash

[Adami]

To be fair, on their current tour they are playing 18 songs. They have been doing on average at least 5 songs off their new record (pretty good representation of their new material). They will routinely do at least one song off of the Loads, and they have mixed in one DM song here and there. So that's like 7 songs post TBA.

Their sets have been a little heavy on TBA material, but that's kinda understandable, that's their most successful, well known record and Metallica is one metal band that does pull in a lot of casuals to their shows, definitely not all die-hards. They have been doing like 5 songs off TBA.

So that's on average around 12 songs out of 18 that are TBA and newer.

Sure, but those sets also rarely change in years and years and years. So of those 12 songs, 1 song is representing two whole albums. That has not really changed since they toured for those albums specifically. St. Anger has been removed from the setlists (fine by me) and they usually play the same 1-2 songs from DM every tour. So they really keep their setlists to lowest common denominator style. "What are the songs the most amount of people will react to?" Turns out those songs are the same every time. It just gets....boring. As someone else said, how many 18 minute renditions of Seek and Destroy do we need?

[mikeyd23]

Sure, but those sets also rarely change in years and years and years. So of those 12 songs, 1 song is representing two whole albums. That has not really changed since they toured for those albums specifically. St. Anger has been removed from the setlists (fine by me) and they usually play the same 1-2 songs from DM every tour. So they really keep their setlists to lowest common denominator style. "What are the songs the most amount of people will react to?" Turns out those songs are the same every time. It just gets....boring. As someone else said, how many 18 minute renditions of Seek and Destroy do we need?

I too am cool with SA not showing up. I'd like it if they did more songs from DM and the Loads too. I think the important thing to remember is that the set is for the ticket buyer at the show. Not the guys sitting on YouTube watching the show. I know you know this, but I feel like sometimes in this internet age we slide into this thinking that if it's not exciting to watch on my phone because I've seen them play that song before, it's bad. The reason they play those songs is, like you said, they get a huge reaction in the room. Shouldn't that be a good enough reason to keep playing them?

That all said, I'm not saying they are making perfect sets. Like I said, I'd love more Load and ReLoad and DM thrown in. I'd also love more deep cuts. At some point on this tour, they randomly threw in The Unforgiven III and No Leaf Clover... and then didn't play them again. I'd love if they did more songs like those.

[Adami]

I 100% understand why Metallica do what they do. 100%

I still think it's boring.

[mikeyd23]

I 100% understand why Metallica do what they do. 100%

I still think it's boring.

  I totally get that, generally I do too. Like I said, they gave us a taste of some rarities and then didn't go back to them again, which sucks.

[cramx3]

I think there were more fans seeing metallics for the first time last month when I saw them than people who had seen them before (including my friend). While it's boring to play a lot if the same songs, I dont fault them when that's what the fan base generally wants to see. And they do rotate and even through in a rare song here and there for the hardcore fans. I dont think you fan realistically ask for much more. And that's on top of them already sounding pretty sloppy live.

[Adami]

Yup. Like I said. I completely understand the reason. I wouldn't argue the logic for a second. And I expect nothing more from them at all.



Still think it's boring.

[Samsara]

Whoever said above that myself and TAC basically said WE prefer the thrash years of Metallica, moreso than Metallica itself, is (speaking for myself) absolutely correct. But I think it stretches down to a point I made earlier that Metallica was the pioneer thrash metal band. When your name is METALLICA, and you built a reputation playing thrash metal, the expectation from fans that became a fan in that initial era (say 82-88), is that you'll stick to your guns. Sorta like that MP quote Scotty put above.

Now, is that a personal preference --- absolutely. But I don't think you can get around that in music. 

But I guess when you make four records (KEM, RTL, MOP, AJFA) that are all thrash, that progress stylistically in that same thrash genre, and you pioneer the thrash genre, and then you make a huge artistic shift (which the Black album, and then continuing from there each album), it is jarring. Maybe because thrash is just so brutal, that the right-hand turn to hard rock just doesn't FEEL right.

It's all personal perspective, and I don't mean at all to disparage fans who love that Black album (which I like, but not love) and later material. You connect when you connect, ya  know? But I just feel that thrash bands, because of the genre itself, and particularly the band that really started the movement, shouldn't evolve so far away from it.

Totally personal, but that's how I feel.

[Stadler]

But here's the thing.  You ARE, of course, correct that your opinion is your opinion, and when it comes to "what you like" that's unassailable.  I won't ever question that, except maybe to offer a counter, just for discussion purposes.  For me, though, the discussion changes when you say "thrash bands... shouldn't evolve so far away from it".  That SOUNDS like an opinion, but it's really not.  You're basically telling Metallica what's an appropriate level of development, personal growth, and exploration.  We can comment as to whether we like it or not, but only Hetfield, Ulrich, Hammett, and Trujillo (well, Newsted at the time) can tell you what's appropriate.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if there wasn't extra-musical reasons for their evolution (meaning, maybe Hetfield, in particular, couldn't emotionally, physically or psychologically have continued down that path) and so at that point, "opinion", while technically, I suppose, correct, becomes something more than that and doesn't really get to be "protected" by an "IMO" at the end.   

[Samsara]

But here's the thing.  You ARE, of course, correct that your opinion is your opinion, and when it comes to "what you like" that's unassailable.  I won't ever question that, except maybe to offer a counter, just for discussion purposes.  For me, though, the discussion changes when you say "thrash bands... shouldn't evolve so far away from it". That SOUNDS like an opinion, but it's really not.  You're basically telling Metallica what's an appropriate level of development, personal growth, and exploration.  We can comment as to whether we like it or not, but only Hetfield, Ulrich, Hammett, and Trujillo (well, Newsted at the time) can tell you what's appropriate.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if there wasn't extra-musical reasons for their evolution (meaning, maybe Hetfield, in particular, couldn't emotionally, physically or psychologically have continued down that path) and so at that point, "opinion", while technically, I suppose, correct, becomes something more than that and doesn't really get to be "protected" by an "IMO" at the end.

That's where you're wrong, Stads. I'm not telling "Metallica" anything. I'm saying that in how I feel, thrash bands have a harder sell to someone like me, or metal fans in general, when making big shifts in artistic direction. That's my opinion. I'm not telling Metallica they have to do anything. LOL.

And yeah, there probably are non-musical reasons for the evolution away from thrash. In fact, I'd bet my last dollar it had all to do with money, and striking a crossover audience while the iron was hot and acceptance of heavier music was at a high point. IMO, the Black album is what it is because of one thing -- CA$HING IN. And that's OK. It is their band. They just lost me a little after that, when they kept going down that road, as opposed to gearing back up to thrash again.

[Stadler]

But here's the thing.  You ARE, of course, correct that your opinion is your opinion, and when it comes to "what you like" that's unassailable.  I won't ever question that, except maybe to offer a counter, just for discussion purposes.  For me, though, the discussion changes when you say "thrash bands... shouldn't evolve so far away from it". That SOUNDS like an opinion, but it's really not.  You're basically telling Metallica what's an appropriate level of development, personal growth, and exploration.  We can comment as to whether we like it or not, but only Hetfield, Ulrich, Hammett, and Trujillo (well, Newsted at the time) can tell you what's appropriate.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if there wasn't extra-musical reasons for their evolution (meaning, maybe Hetfield, in particular, couldn't emotionally, physically or psychologically have continued down that path) and so at that point, "opinion", while technically, I suppose, correct, becomes something more than that and doesn't really get to be "protected" by an "IMO" at the end.

That's where you're wrong, Stads. I'm not telling "Metallica" anything. I'm saying that in how I feel, thrash bands have a harder sell to someone like me, or metal fans in general, when making big shifts in artistic direction. That's my opinion. I'm not telling Metallica they have to do anything. LOL.

Well, you're words betray you; when you say someone "shouldn't"... you're basically telling them what to do.  Sorry; I'm not looking to pick a fight with you - just the opposite - but why is selling "you" important? That's really what I'm getting at; an artist's job is to sell THEMSELVES.    I'm a metal fan, so your opinion about "metal fans in general" is provably wrong:  it wasn't a hard sell at all, and in fact, I loved the change.   I thought it elevated them from a one-dimensional, one-trick pony to a real band.  For all the criticism here, I don't think Anthrax - just by way of example - could make a "Black Album".  I don't think they have it in them. 

And yeah, there probably are non-musical reasons for the evolution away from thrash. In fact, I'd bet my last dollar it had all to do with money, and striking a crossover audience while the iron was hot and acceptance of heavier music was at a high point. IMO, the Black album is what it is because of one thing -- CA$HING IN. And that's OK. It is their band. They just lost me a little after that, when they kept going down that road, as opposed to gearing back up to thrash again.

Except that almost everything said by the band at the time points AWAY from "cashing in", and in fact it was a big risk at the time.  I think they spend some ungodly amount ($1M sticks in my head) and actually remixed it something like three times.  I think "cash in" is the one thing one CAN'T claim about the record.  That it sold a bazillion isn't evidence that it was a cash in.   And this goes back to what I said:  selling "you" and sticking to thrash is as much a cash-in as selling a million copies of a less thrash album.  The only thing that's not a cash-in is the band doing what they want, not what any segment of their fanbase wants. 

Again, I'm sorry, I'm not trying to pick on you, but "in my opinion" is not sacred. I just had a similar discussion about REM; a friend of mine was like "They were great for the first three albums, then sold out and sucked!"  Wha?   Not only did they NOT "sell out", they actually look back on the next couple of (very popular) albums as the best in their career, and the most polarizing because of the political content (I'm talking about Lifes Rich Pageant, Document, Green, Out of Time and Automatic for the People).    Hetfield has been on record as saying that the lyrics on TBA are the most introspective and personal lyrics he'd done up to that point; how can that be a sellout?   

[Samsara]

LOL. Dude, I don't take this shit personally. Catch me 10 years ago, sure. But you're not offending me in the slightest.

"In my opinion" IS sacred. I am saying that "this is what I feel." NOT "the band must do this because I decree it so."

If you can't distinguish that in your own mind, then honestly, I don't know what to tell you. Because I'll keep posting what I think, because, well, this is a discussion forum, and what they are meant for. Metallica obviously doesn't give a rat's ass what anyone thinks. They do what they do because they want to do it, and vet it between themselves and their people. I'm just a fan with my own thoughts, same as you. But what I am tired of is you shitting on people for giving an opinion of what they feel about a band or its direction, or what they feel a band should have/should do. That's THE POINT of a music discussion forum -- to do that. Again, no offense is taken (and none meant), but that always seems to be your beef with me, and with others, and honestly Stads, while I get what you're saying, that's your own hang-up, and will make discussion forum conversations troublesome with people.