Metallica Thread

[mikeyd23]

Just copying this post from the Maidenfans forum as it perfectly describes the transition from 80s to 90s Metallica.

Look at it this way — the standard bearers of complex, melodic thrash metal had been finding success on their own terms, playing music that wasn’t really structured for the radio at all, and they had still built up enough of a following to be headlining arena shows. Then they do their first-ever music video and it gets a surprising amount of attention. Good for them.

Now fast forward a couple of years and what happens? The band known for complex song structures, lots of riffs per song, varied tempos, epic harmonized sections, and fairly technical drumming puts out an intentionally radio-friendly album with simplistic song structures, one riff per song, everything pretty close to 120 bpm, wanky solos with too much wah pedal, and simplistic, boring drumming, then churns out the music videos left and right, after saying over and over again back in the day that they’d never do such a thing. They explode on radio and MTV, sell a ridiculous number of albums, and become the darlings of frat houses everywhere. How does that not come off as a sellout?

Then you follow them down the rabbit hole with Load and Reload where they abandon their previous image entirely (logo, physical appearance, etc.), give interviews where they say they’re not a metal band anymore and joke that they should be called “Rockatallica”, put out 160 minutes of music that probably only had about 40-50 minutes of worthwhile material across both albums, and do things like blatantly rehash “Enter Sandman” in the form of “King Nothing”, and do “The Unforgiven II” which rehashes the original song and has Hetfield literally singing “now you’re unforgiven too” in it. Is this ironic performance art? Do they not give a shit? Are they just trolling their casual fans to see what happens? Whatever the interpretation, it sure didn’t look like a creatively inspired band at that point. It looked like they were phoning it in for a payday.

And don’t get me started on St. Anger. That was a bridge too far for most of their fans, including me.

I get that the black album has its fans. It has some really good pop metal songs on it. But if you were already a Metallica fan at that time, it felt like “Metallica For Dummies” — and guess what, a lot of dumb-ass frat boys immediately fell in love with it. Mission accomplished...?

I think I disagree with almost every point made there. Fun 

[TAC]

I think I disagree with almost every point made there. Fun 

How can you disagree with that? It is the truth. How big of a Metallica fan were you when TBA came out?

[DTA]

Not sure how seriously I can take anyone’s opinion who dismisses Load/Reload as only having 40-50 minutes of good music. Megadeth also simplified considerably with CTE/Youth/CW and nobody seems to call them out on it the same way Metallica is called out. Without TBA, they would’ve treaded water in the 90’s and probably disbanded. Musical landscapes evolve and if you don’t change with them, you’re going to be left behind. If Rush released Xanadu in 1981, they probably would not have survived either.

[TAC]

Not sure how seriously I can take anyone’s opinion who dismisses Load/Reload as only having 40-50 minutes of good music. Megadeth also simplified considerably with CTE/Youth/CW and nobody seems to call them out on it the same way Metallica is called out. Without TBA, they would’ve treaded water in the 90’s and probably disbanded. Musical landscapes evolve and if you don’t change with them, you’re going to be left behind. If Rush released Xanadu in 1981, they probably would not have survived either.

So, I certainly noticed the change in Megadeth on CTE. At the time, I thought they were copying Metallica's formula on TBA. I quit on  Megadeth when Youthanasia came out. Now it has aged well, but at the time, it was a huge turn off.

You're right about Metallica treading water if they didn't change direction, so at least you're honest about it. Some people call that selling out. That's OK. It is what it is.

[MirrorMask]

I'm not the biggest fan of Load and definitively not of Reload, but it could be said that the real sellout move would have been to capitalize on the Black Album and release another disc in the same vein and style. After having sold gazillion of records with the Black Album, it was risky to change once again style.

[TAC]

I respected what they did on Load.

[bosk1]

I can pretty much agree with this:

Look at it this way — the standard bearers of complex, melodic thrash metal had been finding success on their own terms, playing music that wasn’t really structured for the radio at all, and they had still built up enough of a following to be headlining arena shows. Then they do their first-ever music video and it gets a surprising amount of attention. Good for them.

Now fast forward a couple of years and what happens? The band known for complex song structures, lots of riffs per song, varied tempos, epic harmonized sections, and fairly technical drumming puts out an intentionally radio-friendly album with simplistic song structures, one riff per song, everything pretty close to 120 bpm, wanky solos with too much wah pedal, and simplistic, boring drumming, then churns out the music videos left and right, after saying over and over again back in the day that they’d never do such a thing. They explode on radio and MTV, sell a ridiculous number of albums...

I mean, yeah, it was a change in direction.  But it wasn't quite the huge one he is making it out to be.  I think the bigger problem with the post is indirectly revealed here:

...and become the darlings of frat houses everywhere. How does that not come off as a sellout?

I think "become the darlings of frat houses everywhere" is a big tell.  He's putting down people that liked that era of the band.  Why?  Because he subjectively thinks that the change in direction was somehow objectively bad or a dumbing down of the band.  And that's where his view goes off the rails.  He couches it in terms of opinion.  But there is enough there to infer that what he is really arguing is that he thinks he is somehow objectively right and that Metallica from 1990 onward is objectively inferior.

Same thing when he goes on about Load and Reload:

Then you follow them down the rabbit hole with Load and Reload where they abandon their previous image entirely (logo, physical appearance, etc.), give interviews where they say they’re not a metal band anymore and joke that they should be called “Rockatallica”, put out 160 minutes of music that probably only had about 40-50 minutes of worthwhile material across both albums, and do things like blatantly rehash “Enter Sandman” in the form of “King Nothing”, and do “The Unforgiven II” which rehashes the original song and has Hetfield literally singing “now you’re unforgiven too” in it. Is this ironic performance art? Do they not give a shit? Are they just trolling their casual fans to see what happens? Whatever the interpretation, it sure didn’t look like a creatively inspired band at that point. It looked like they were phoning it in for a payday.

[Stadler]

Just copying this post from the Maidenfans forum as it perfectly describes the transition from 80s to 90s Metallica.

Look at it this way — the standard bearers of complex, melodic thrash metal had been finding success on their own terms, playing music that wasn’t really structured for the radio at all, and they had still built up enough of a following to be headlining arena shows. Then they do their first-ever music video and it gets a surprising amount of attention. Good for them.

Now fast forward a couple of years and what happens? The band known for complex song structures, lots of riffs per song, varied tempos, epic harmonized sections, and fairly technical drumming puts out an intentionally radio-friendly album with simplistic song structures, one riff per song, everything pretty close to 120 bpm, wanky solos with too much wah pedal, and simplistic, boring drumming, then churns out the music videos left and right, after saying over and over again back in the day that they’d never do such a thing. They explode on radio and MTV, sell a ridiculous number of albums, and become the darlings of frat houses everywhere. How does that not come off as a sellout?

Then you follow them down the rabbit hole with Load and Reload where they abandon their previous image entirely (logo, physical appearance, etc.), give interviews where they say they’re not a metal band anymore and joke that they should be called “Rockatallica”, put out 160 minutes of music that probably only had about 40-50 minutes of worthwhile material across both albums, and do things like blatantly rehash “Enter Sandman” in the form of “King Nothing”, and do “The Unforgiven II” which rehashes the original song and has Hetfield literally singing “now you’re unforgiven too” in it. Is this ironic performance art? Do they not give a shit? Are they just trolling their casual fans to see what happens? Whatever the interpretation, it sure didn’t look like a creatively inspired band at that point. It looked like they were phoning it in for a payday.

And don’t get me started on St. Anger. That was a bridge too far for most of their fans, including me.

I get that the black album has its fans. It has some really good pop metal songs on it. But if you were already a Metallica fan at that time, it felt like “Metallica For Dummies” — and guess what, a lot of dumb-ass frat boys immediately fell in love with it. Mission accomplished...?

Yeah, I've been clear that I'm not the hugest Metallica fan on the planet.  I'm, I guess, that "dumb-ass frat boy", because while my roommate was hardcore - sleeping out for the vinyl release of ...And Justice For All at the time - and I knew the material, I thought then and still do that they wanted to be Iron Maiden and didn't have the horsepower.   When I heard The Black Album, and bought it (my first Met album), it showed me they WEREN'T one-dimensional.  That James could actually SING.   That Lars could actually drum to the SONG as opposed to sounding like a machine gun.   That there WAS a bass player in the band.   That Kirk could - barely, let's not get crazy - do something other than this trebly 'weedly weedly" noise where the solo should be.  That they could write songs that weren't just "acoustic intro, bangin' riff, vocals that sounded like they were coming over two cans and a string, more riff, weedly weedly solo, more riff, end."  That they could talk about real things I could relate to; that's on me (I had just graduated college, and moved sight unseen to California, so felt kinship with "Wherever I May Roam" and "Nothing Else Matters", in a way I didn't with things like "Master of Puppets".)

Yeah, some of that is hyperbolic, but it's getting a little tired hearing about how the "pure" Metallica fans got so fucked over because "their" band wanted to make an album that didn't sound like the two they made before ("two" because to me, RtL and MoP were the same album and to this day I don't think I've ever heard Kill 'Em All in it's entirety, straight through, though I know most of the songs).   TBA was the album that told me that James was the real deal, that he had vision and ambition and that artistic need to follow his muse as opposed to doing what was expected of him.  Sure, some of it was uncomfortable, but that's sometimes what art should be.   Some of the best art is made when there's conflict.

I personally think that calling TBA a "sellout" is revisionist history; there was no guarantee that was going to be a success, and they were HEAVILY invested in it, both in time and money (what, something like four remixes and a $1M recording tab?).  I also know that they CONNECTED with people, and what artist doesn't want to connect with people?  I've noted this before, but their performance of "Enter Sandman" on "Later...with Jools Holland" is a must see (I tried to find a yootoob link but couldn't; google "Metallica Ender Sandman Later Jools Holland" and you'll get it, though the first link the video and audio were not in sync).  They CRUSHED it.  For those that don't know, it's the old Squeeze keyboard player and he hosts a sort of "musical roundtable" where 4 to 6 acts are in a circle and they all take turns playing.  99% of the time (even with Sir Paul McCartney, Elton John, Noel Gallagher, Robert Plant) the other acts sit respectfully and listen.  Here, they cut to VV Brown (a UK indie singer), and she's dancing away, and Nicole Atkins (American indie/singer songwriter from Jersey) and she's smiling, singing along and dancing.  Later they cut to one of the other bands, and they are literally playing along, jamming to the music.   I used to tape that show (and boot the sound to my iPod) and that is far and away the most riveting, energetic performance I've seen on that show (only one close, Rival Sons). 

I don't mean any of this to be argumentative, confrontational, or demeaning to anyone's opinion.  I respect those that feel left out, the same way I feel about Def Leppard in a sense.  This post is only meant to provide an alternate way of looking at this without resorting to bashing the band, bashing the fans that like what the band did, or dividing between "B.C." ("Before Commerciality") and "A.D." ("After Disloyalty"). 

[Ruba]

I love Load and ReLoad. Only filler track from those two albums is Better Than You.

The Black Album was my gateway album to metal, but it has aged rather badly for me.

[Samsara]

The Metallica debate, for me, can be summed up like this.

After AJFA, they realized they couldn't go anywhere different with thrash metal. They took it as progressive and technical that they could do with Justice (which is the reason its my favorite from them), and they also realized that by sticking to that high-speed, technical blitz, they'd do well, but not explode. Someone at the time, or perhaps it was within the band members, realized that if they got a warmer, fatter, less technical sound, they could be worldwide icons across both metal and hard rock. They saw the success other bands were having going that route (they absolutely saw the success GnR had with Appetite, and I have to imagine they saw Queensryche sell 3.5 million with Empire, since they had the same management company at the time, among others).

So, they did exactly what everyone accuses them of doing -- they "sold out," or more accurately, they simply "slowed and dumbed down" the music, and polished a bit. Took off some of the edge. In all honesty, I totally understand WHY they did it. And, like they knew it would, it worked in a huge way, and they became global icons and rich as one could possibly be. And they've sort of tried to navigate that ever since, trying to morph their sound into what's accepted at the time, to build on what became a multi-million dollar empire.

As a fan, I'm not mad at them, but realize the band I loved stopped with ...And Justice for All. Yeah, there are songs I love from all Metallica records, including St. Anger (even though it sounds like dog shit). But the vibe of the band is what I sort of refer to as "corporate hard rock/metal." It's all about the BRAND, as opposed to the BAND. Sure, they talk a good game, but when it comes down to it, I don't believe for a second anything they have done post-Justice has been purely artistic. It all has a business-bent to it.

Luckily for them, a lot of people love what they've done, artistically. I mean hell, most of post-Black album stuff doesn't even sound like the same band that did Puppets, but there are still some really good songs on it. Bleeding Me comes to mind immediately. And you give them credit for writing some really good songs after Justice (the Black album is OK, its just too polished for my tastes, for a thrash band).

And that last statement brings me to my final point, which I have said quite a few times over the years. Like it or not, when you name your band METALLICA, and you spend the first four albums of your career literally defining the sub-genre of thrash metal, seeking to play faster and heavier than everyone, you're pigeon-holed. Thrash bands, for me personally, have very little leeway in deviating from their sound. You expect a thrash band, well, to thrash. Heavy. Aggressive. All of that. Even Metallica's ballads were heavy through the Justice record.

That's why when I look at bands like Metallica, Megadeth, Testament, Death Angel, etc., when they get softer and less aggressive, I like them less. That doesn't mean some of it doesn't work. For example, I think Megadeth really sounded pretty damn good with Youthansia, but everything felt almost at the same tempo, which was a tick slower, and a bit of a bummer. Countdown to me, was acceptable, because the songs were still fast and heavy, just a little more polished. But after Youthanasia...Megadeth spiraled for a bit.

Simply put, for me, thrash bands need to always thrash. They don't have (again, this is all personal opinion on how I view music) the leeway of progressive metal bands like Dream Theater, Fates Warning, and the original lineup of Queensryche; or the other sub-genres to deviate greatly. I don't know why I feel that way. But thrash bands, particularly Metallica, who defined the genre, to me, need to stay heavy and aggressive. And when they don't, it raises eyebrows, big time.

And if you go back to 1991, looking at it in retrospect, coming off of Justice, no band in the world was as heavy as Metallica. Sure, you had Slayer, you had Anthrax, and other thrash bands and the death metal movement, and lots of stuff happening. But Metallica in 1988-1989 was the most bad ass band on the planet in terms of speed and brutality. I don't blame fans (who Metallica groomed up to the Black album as more family, and that they were "a part" of things) for revolting, and feeling betrayed -- they were. And some fans were ok with it, and accepted it. But a lot of the hardcore ones really had a hard time with it.

It was a normal reaction, but much, much bigger, because of Metallica's incredible rise to fame.

To a lesser extent, Queensryche did it with Empire. But then again, Queensryche was never playing brutality fast thrash metal, so while there was some push back, it was generally accepted. Metallica...not so much.

I still call myself a Metallica fan. But I always qualify it by saying "I'm a fan of the band's work through ...And Justice for All. After that, it is hit and miss for me." Because that's simply the truth. To deny the quality of some of their work after they stopped being a thrash band would be foolhardy, IMO. But the reaction of people to such an abrupt change is understandable.

[Stadler]

That's why when I look at bands like Metallica, Megadeth, Testament, Death Angel, etc., when they get softer and less aggressive, I like them less. That doesn't mean some of it doesn't work. For example, I think Megadeth really sounded pretty damn good with Youthansia, but everything felt almost at the same tempo, which was a tick slower, and a bit of a bummer. Countdown to me, was acceptable, because the songs were still fast and heavy, just a little more polished. But after Youthanasia...Megadeth spiraled for a bit.

And for me, when [bands] "get softer and less aggressive", I like them more; so how do I get stuck with derogatory terms like "sellout" and "dumbed down"?    I don't mean this personally to you, but as debate, how do YOU get to clarify what's legit and what's not?  And by your standard you've trashed literally ALL the output of bands like Pink Floyd, which ditched the blues/psychedelia (for which they were named) after literally an album and a half, THEN ditched the space-rock/psychedelia after about four albums, then put out four of the most iconic records by any band EVER.    Even better example:   THE BEATLES (who mispelled "Beetle" to incorporate "beat", because they viewed themselves as a "beat" group and even contributed to the "Mersey Beat" sound) who ditched their origins after about album four and became, well, the FUCKING BEATLES.   

Why would you WANT your band to be limited?   Why would you WANT James to continue thrashing out the same riffs and same ideas over and over?  What's the point of that?   Isn't "art" about self-expression, growth, progress, and digging deep? 

Simply put, for me, thrash bands need to always thrash. They don't have (again, this is all personal opinion on how I view music) the leeway of progressive metal bands like Dream Theater, Fates Warning, and the original lineup of Queensryche; or the other sub-genres to deviate greatly. I don't know why I feel that way. But thrash bands, particularly Metallica, who defined the genre, to me, need to stay heavy and aggressive. And when they don't, it raises eyebrows, big time.

I totally get that it's your opinion but why can't you (collective, not you personally) at least express your opinions without slagging off ("dumb-ass frat boy") those whose opinions differ from yours?  I'm almost 180 degrees from you on this - respectfully, always, because I have a high regard for your personal musical viewpoint - but why does that make me a "dumb-ass frat boy", who, apparently, can't tell the difference between authentic genre-creating work and shallow commercial pandering?

And if you go back to 1991, looking at it in retrospect, coming off of Justice, no band in the world was as heavy as Metallica. Sure, you had Slayer, you had Anthrax, and other thrash bands and the death metal movement, and lots of stuff happening.

And in contrast? I think Slayer is a joke.  A cartoon.  Seriously.   A couple internet radio guys (Joe and Brad from Used Bin Radio) used to always sing the "Entrance of the Gladiators" (the circus theme, for those that don't know) whenever they talked about Slayer, and I thought that was so spot on.   Tom Araya can't distance himself enough from the lyrical content, and so to me there's no heart there.  No emotion, certainly no personal searching, whereas you can literally hear the angst of James as he "never opened [himself] that way" and proclaimed that "live is ours we live it our way!" 

[bosk1]

Way to completely miss the point of his post, Stadler.

[goo-goo]

Way to completely miss the point of his post, Stadler.

There's no chart!

[Samsara]

Stads, nothing taken personally. But to make sure its clear, I did in no way label you a "dumb-ass frat boy" nor did I say that specifically. I would never do that. And I don't feel that way. Someone else said that. So you're mixing my thoughts in with an insult I never said.

In addition, while you were obviously offended by the comment from the person who posted that, you went ahead and just insulted Slayer fans by saying:

I think Slayer is a joke.  A cartoon.  Seriously.

Was that really necessary?

As to your points quoting me, I'm just sharing my own way of looking at the whole Metallica "thing." I really don't care if people agree or disagree. I'm just adding my own thoughts on a topic that has been discussed for 30 years.

[Stadler]

Stads, nothing taken personally. But to make sure its clear, I did in no way label you a "dumb-ass frat boy" nor did I say that specifically. I would never do that. And I don't feel that way. Someone else said that. So you're mixing my thoughts in with an insult I never said.

In addition, while you were obviously offended by the comment from the person who posted that, you went ahead and just insulted Slayer fans by saying:

I think Slayer is a joke.  A cartoon.  Seriously.

Was that really necessary?

As to your points quoting me, I'm just sharing my own way of looking at the whole Metallica "thing." I really don't care if people agree or disagree. I'm just adding my own thoughts on a topic that has been discussed for 30 years.

No, you're right, you didn't.  But - and I tried to show this with the repeated "nothing personal's" - generally speaking the vibe - collective, not just from you - is that Metallica were an authentic, to-the-bone, band with heart, integrity, and legitimacy, and then all of a sudden they weren't, and I don't understand that.   And the repeated reference to "dumb ass frat boy" wasn't to mix insults, or to attribute that to you (and I apologize for that confusion) but rather to point out that to many, Metallica's fall from grace was aided and abetted by a certain kind of fan.  A LESSER fan, both in terms of authenticity and knowledge.   

As for Slayer, well, self-editing hurt me there; I was commenting on the authenticity of the band, and how it's dicey to speculate on that based simply on whether they "stick to a pattern" or not.   It was really meant in comparison to Metallica more than anything.   Neil Young and AC/DC are both lauded for being "authentic" and avoiding selling out, and in literally the exact opposite way.   I in no way insulted any fans of theirs (a good friend of mine here actually sent me a video from his attendance at a Slayer show only a couple months ago).  I'm a Kiss fan for god's sake (and one who supports the Tommy/Eric lineup to boot), so I certainly get that people can like things for various reasons or no reason at all. 

[Stadler]

Way to completely miss the point of his post, Stadler.

Well, I probably did, but that's nothing new.  I tried to explain where I was coming from.  It's not personal; I have a very deep respect for Samsara and his musical opinions.  I just think the term "sell out" implies negative intent on the part of the band, and casts aspersion on the fans that like that direction.   Just pointing that out. 

(And we haven't even mentioned the time period yet; if you want to talk "sell out" I think talking about all the bands that hopped on the grunge bandwagon - can you say "Carnival Of Souls"? - is more fertile ground.)

[Samsara]

No, you're right, you didn't.  But - and I tried to show this with the repeated "nothing personal's" - generally speaking the vibe - collective, not just from you - is that Metallica were an authentic, to-the-bone, band with heart, integrity, and legitimacy, and then all of a sudden they weren't, and I don't understand that.

What's so hard to understand, Stads? Metallica were a band hungry for success, angry at the world, poor, just riding the wave. They finally got legit success and money during the JUSTICE tour. That changed them. Happens with many bands. And then they made artistic decisions that deviated from that to maximize what they and their team thought would lead to even further success. It did. In a huge way. It just left a sour taste in the mouth of some fans, and that taste is still there, 30 years later.

I think I explained why I am in that category, all these years later, as best I can above. For me personally, its just the type of music they played. For some reason, I just don't give thrash bands as much latitude as some others in the rock and metal world. Particularly Metallica. They basically invented a genre, and then walked away from it, and expected people to follow. And yes, they gained LEGIONS of diehards by doing so. But they left people like me behind a bit for all the reasons I said above. And I realize those reasons aren't quite logical. But that doesn't mean they aren't still legitimate. It's how I feel. And in music, how you feel is how you go. So...

And the repeated reference to "dumb ass frat boy" wasn't to mix insults, or to attribute that to you (and I apologize for that confusion) but rather to point out that to many, Metallica's fall from grace was aided and abetted by a certain kind of fan.  A LESSER fan, both in terms of authenticity and knowledge.   

Apology accepted, but there you go again. Would *I* be considered a "lesser" fan, just because I think Metallica's fall from grace is absolutely legitimate? I don't take offense personally, because I know you aren't trying to attack ME, but your comment slags on people that...don't agree with you. Even if that's not your intent, that's what you're doing with comments like that. I know you can see that, and maybe you're just having an off day in terms of writing, but I think your comment is uncalled for, because you're slagging others for not thinking the same way YOU do. And that's one of your biggest pet peeves -- when people do the same thing you're doing here. I know that's probably not what you're trying to convey, but you sorta ARE conveying that with what you're writing.

Using myself as an example (again, I personally have taken no offense), I am in no way a "lesser" fan, and have a ton of knowledge about music from both a fan and business standpoint (I'm a hack singer, not a musician, so I won't say artistic). So, I could see why someone who perhaps shares my opinion would really take issue with what you said.

[jammindude]

I get what they are both saying.

The difference here is that it IS possible to change and grow without losing your edge or dumbing down.  Sepultura were at a similar artistic crossroads. They had just released two iconic thrash albums (Beneath the Remains and Arise) But were in danger of repeating themselves. But rather than following everyone else’s trend, they sought out slower and more tribal influences and released the amazing (and critically praised) Chaos AD. Now....if Metallica had done something akin to that, they probably would not have sold a gajillion albums, but they would have continued a slow build on their existing fan base rather than trading them out for a different fan base.

Stadler....your Beatles reference misses the mark because they were never trend followers. They remained trend SETTERS. Which was my problem with Metallica and the black album. They ceased being trend setters, and started a course of being trend followers.

[pg1067]

Just copying this post from the Maidenfans forum as it perfectly describes the transition from 80s to 90s Metallica.

Look at it this way — the standard bearers of complex, melodic thrash metal had been finding success on their own terms, playing music that wasn’t really structured for the radio at all, and they had still built up enough of a following to be headlining arena shows. Then they do their first-ever music video and it gets a surprising amount of attention. Good for them.

Now fast forward a couple of years and what happens? The band known for complex song structures, lots of riffs per song, varied tempos, epic harmonized sections, and fairly technical drumming puts out an intentionally radio-friendly album with simplistic song structures, one riff per song, everything pretty close to 120 bpm, wanky solos with too much wah pedal, and simplistic, boring drumming, then churns out the music videos left and right, after saying over and over again back in the day that they’d never do such a thing. They explode on radio and MTV, sell a ridiculous number of albums, and become the darlings of frat houses everywhere. How does that not come off as a sellout?

Then you follow them down the rabbit hole with Load and Reload where they abandon their previous image entirely (logo, physical appearance, etc.), give interviews where they say they’re not a metal band anymore and joke that they should be called “Rockatallica”, put out 160 minutes of music that probably only had about 40-50 minutes of worthwhile material across both albums, and do things like blatantly rehash “Enter Sandman” in the form of “King Nothing”, and do “The Unforgiven II” which rehashes the original song and has Hetfield literally singing “now you’re unforgiven too” in it. Is this ironic performance art? Do they not give a shit? Are they just trolling their casual fans to see what happens? Whatever the interpretation, it sure didn’t look like a creatively inspired band at that point. It looked like they were phoning it in for a payday.

And don’t get me started on St. Anger. That was a bridge too far for most of their fans, including me.

I get that the black album has its fans. It has some really good pop metal songs on it. But if you were already a Metallica fan at that time, it felt like “Metallica For Dummies” — and guess what, a lot of dumb-ass frat boys immediately fell in love with it. Mission accomplished...?

I think I disagree with almost every point made there. Fun 

Wow...notwithstanding the generalized insults directed at certain classes of persons, I think what DT wrote (or, if I understood correctly, quoted from another site) is about as succinct and accurate as possible.  We waited a full three years after AJFA (a long time at the time) to get the black album?!  It was ok, but the best songs on the black album are on the same level as second or third tier songs on RTL and MOP.  And Load was so bad that I returned it to the record store after only one or maybe two listens (40-50 minutes of "worthwhile material" on Load and Reload is being excessively generous -- I'd peg it at more like 4:30).

I don't really get wrapped up in the whole "sellout" thing, but I can't think of a single argument that that's not what happened.  As for me, they just stopped making music I wanted to listen to, and I moved on, but it was highly disappointing since Metallica was the one "thrash" band that I really loved, and the change happened just as they were starting to get even more interesting.

Stadler....your Beatles reference misses the mark because they were never trend followers. They remained trend SETTERS. Which was my problem with Metallica and the black album. They ceased being trend setters, and started a course of being trend followers.

Spot on.

[Setlist Scotty]

I can't speak for Samsara, but I know for me, the band strayed too far from their core sound so that they were no longer the band that I had an interest in, and I speak as someone who became a fan in late '86. Personally, I was able to deal with TBA, because while it was more streamlined than their last few albums, it still sounded like Metallica overall, if a bit more straight forward. But when Load dropped, and especially that first single (Until It Sleeps), I was aghast and lost all interest in following them further.

As for Slayer, well, self-editing hurt me there; I was commenting on the authenticity of the band, and how it's dicey to speculate on that based simply on whether they "stick to a pattern" or not.   It was really meant in comparison to Metallica more than anything.

But here's the thing, there is evidence that Metallica wasn't necessarily being "authentic" in their progression to Load and ReLoad. I know there are quotes of James stating that Load and ReLoad were all Lars and Kirk's doing, and that he simply went along with it, and that especially now (altho I think to a degree even back then), he regrets what happened. A lot of that had to do with their image (cutting their hair and wearing make up, etc. as flipping the finger to their old-school hard core fans) but you can be sure that the mentality bled into their actual musical output too. Doesn't sound very "authentic" to me.

[Adami]

But here's the thing, there is evidence that Metallica wasn't necessarily being "authentic" in their progression to Load and ReLoad. I know there are quotes of James stating that Load and ReLoad were all Lars and Kirk's doing, and that he simply went along with it, and that especially now (altho I think to a degree even back then), he regrets what happened. A lot of that had to do with their image (cutting their hair and wearing make up, etc. as flipping the finger to their old-school hard core fans) but you can be sure that the mentality bled into their actual musical output too. Doesn't sound very "authentic" to me.

But that's what happens to most bands. Is every member of every band 100% on board with every decision on every album? Nah. James is not a push over. I doubt he'd be like "I am 100% against this idea and thinks it's awful, but because that little Dane and a guitarist who would say yes to anything I asked told me to do this, I will concede." He was obviously on board enough. Honestly, he may not have been 100% on board with everything, which is fine, but I get the feeling a lot of those statements are because he recognized the back lash and is trying to speak to the fans who didn't like it.

As far as selling out, I don't see Black album or Loads as sell outs. I see them as trying new things.

I see Death Magnetic as closer to selling out. It felt like they said "fans want fast and heavy, so let's just do that" and that's what they did.

Hardwired felt like a more authentic heavy Metallica album. And say what you want for St. Anger (still think it's mostly awful) it was pretty damn authentic to the weird space they were at at the time.

[mikeyd23]

But here's the thing, there is evidence that Metallica wasn't necessarily being "authentic" in their progression to Load and ReLoad. I know there are quotes of James stating that Load and ReLoad were all Lars and Kirk's doing, and that he simply went along with it, and that especially now (altho I think to a degree even back then), he regrets what happened. A lot of that had to do with their image (cutting their hair and wearing make up, etc. as flipping the finger to their old-school hard core fans) but you can be sure that the mentality bled into their actual musical output too. Doesn't sound very "authentic" to me.

Those quotes from James were in regards to artwork and band image, not the music.

Lots of posts here, my easy summary is this - if anyone here thinking TBA and Loads weren't authentic, then you frankly don't know much about James Hetfield. Like him or not, his music is as authentic as it gets. As Adami mentioned, their least authentic record wasn't from the 90's (it was DM) and even that, James generally wanted to go that direction anyway. Their "Producer" just pushed it a little far.

[Samsara]

I'm aware of Hetfield's leanings. I'm just saying after Justice, they made a conscious effort to morph the band's sound. And that's what they did. On purpose. That's not just a natural progression. It was a conscious effort to do so.

I think jammindude summed it up nicely when he said Metallica were always trendsetters. And starting with TBA, they became trend followers. That's exactly on-point. They aren't the first, and the aren't the last. It's almost expected to a degree. But from my perspective, when your name has METAL in it, and you started basically an entire subgenre of thrash metal, there are, to a degree, expectations. Again, as Jammindude said, if they would have expanded from Justice by adding other elements to their sound, that would be one thing. But they didn't. They dumbed down their sound. On purpose. For money.

And again, many bands do it. Most do. But with Metallica, for the reasons above, at least for me, was the worst offender. They took their thrash flag and torched it. Just always sits wrong for me.

[Adami]

Of course they made a conscious decision to change their sound. They felt like they pushed it as far as they could.

Again, most bands have done this. If it's a internal decision for reasons other than "well...we don't like this but it will make us more money" then it's not selling out. I don't think they could have predicted that TBA would have been so big. It's easy to look back with 20/20 and say they planned it all out, but I don't think that's true. I think they took a huge gamble and it paid off.

Dream Theater made a decision to change their sound multiple times. ToT was a conscious effort to sound a certain way. No one said it was a sell out.

The fact that TBA hit it big doesn't make it a sell out.

[bosk1]

Yeah, I mean not every band stays 100% true to their original sounds.  Those that do practically stand out for doing that.  AC/DC has maintained that same core sound through thick and thin.  Sons of Apollo appear to be headed that same direction, judging from how similar Viper King sounds to their first album. 

[Stadler]

No, you're right, you didn't.  But - and I tried to show this with the repeated "nothing personal's" - generally speaking the vibe - collective, not just from you - is that Metallica were an authentic, to-the-bone, band with heart, integrity, and legitimacy, and then all of a sudden they weren't, and I don't understand that.

What's so hard to understand, Stads? Metallica were a band hungry for success, angry at the world, poor, just riding the wave. They finally got legit success and money during the JUSTICE tour. That changed them. Happens with many bands. And then they made artistic decisions that deviated from that to maximize what they and their team thought would lead to even further success. It did. In a huge way. It just left a sour taste in the mouth of some fans, and that taste is still there, 30 years later.

It's hard for me to understand because it runs afoul of what the band themselves said.  They didn't have any fun on the "...And Justice" tour.  They wanted to progress. They were feeling inadequate as musicians.   They wanted to put more personal ideas in their songs.   When James says "I don't care what other people think, I have to write for myself", I'm not sure how that translates into searching for "success".   I'm not sure how spending $1M on remixes, and having three of the four members go through divorces during recording translates into "selling out".   

I think I explained why I am in that category, all these years later, as best I can above. For me personally, its just the type of music they played. For some reason, I just don't give thrash bands as much latitude as some others in the rock and metal world. Particularly Metallica. They basically invented a genre, and then walked away from it, and expected people to follow. And yes, they gained LEGIONS of diehards by doing so. But they left people like me behind a bit for all the reasons I said above. And I realize those reasons aren't quite logical. But that doesn't mean they aren't still legitimate. It's how I feel. And in music, how you feel is how you go. So...

Well, let me be very clear:  I do not at all think your reasons are illegitimate.  Everyone's reasons for liking a band are unique to them. And in case you care, I have bands like that as well.  Scorpions.  LOVE the Roth years, LOVE the '80's Rarebell years.   Literally do not listen to anything after "Winds Of Change".  Michael Schenker; guitar god, and one of my favorites, but if Gary Barden isn't singing, I'm not interested.  Kiss; it shouldn't matter, because "makeup" doesn't play notes, but I far far prefer the music made with the makeup on (even the post-reunion stuff) than with it off.  Ritchie Blackmore:  my favorite musician of all time; do I wish he would call Joe Lynn Turner and fire up the Rainbow again?  Sure thing.  But that's not his nature.   I can dream, but that doesn't mean that his Renaissance music (or the Ronnie Romero incarnation) is any less his expression, nor are the fans that crave that any less qualified to weigh in.

Apology accepted, but there you go again. Would *I* be considered a "lesser" fan, just because I think Metallica's fall from grace is absolutely legitimate? I don't take offense personally, because I know you aren't trying to attack ME, but your comment slags on people that...don't agree with you. Even if that's not your intent, that's what you're doing with comments like that. I know you can see that, and maybe you're just having an off day in terms of writing, but I think your comment is uncalled for, because you're slagging others for not thinking the same way YOU do. And that's one of your biggest pet peeves -- when people do the same thing you're doing here. I know that's probably not what you're trying to convey, but you sorta ARE conveying that with what you're writing.

No, I think you might have misunderstood the "lesser"; I wasn't calling anyone a "lesser" fan, and CERTAINLY not you.   I was noting that OTHERS have been using that to describe certain Metallica fans, mainly ME.  I personally try very hard to not qualify fans that way.   I went to Maiden a couple months ago (met up with Cram and his friend, who are hard core Maiden fans) and we hung with some people that barely could name three songs.  So what?  Join the party!  I think I'm clean here, because I've written about this before with regard to my daughter:  she LOVES Taylor Swift and Panic! At The Disco.  And I've been pretty clear with her: you like what you like, but like what you like with PASSION, and don't apologize.  If Taylor Swift puts goosebumps on your arm, then so be it, OWN IT.   And she does.   (And to her credit, she has actively searched out the influencers of her music, namely Queen and Fleetwood Mac, and she likes that too). 

Let's take this out of the personal for a second.   If the conversation was "hey, Metallica put out three thrash albums, and because I love thrash I find them stellar.   Then they put out three hard rock albums, and because I'm not the hugest fan, they do little for me", I wouldn't even have replied.  That, in fact, is how I feel about Metallica (but in reverse).  I am not objecting to you or your opinion, nor am I casting aspersions on your fandom.  AT ALL.   I am merely pointing out that when words like "sell out" and "dumb ass frat boy" get thrown in, it takes on a different meaning and changes the argument. 

[mikeyd23]

I'm aware of Hetfield's leanings. I'm just saying after Justice, they made a conscious effort to morph the band's sound. And that's what they did. On purpose. That's not just a natural progression. It was a conscious effort to do so.

Of course they made a conscious decision to change the band's sound, nothing wrong with that.

I think jammindude summed it up nicely when he said Metallica were always trendsetters. And starting with TBA, they became trend followers. That's exactly on-point. They aren't the first, and the aren't the last. It's almost expected to a degree. But from my perspective, when your name has METAL in it, and you started basically an entire subgenre of thrash metal, there are, to a degree, expectations. Again, as Jammindude said, if they would have expanded from Justice by adding other elements to their sound, that would be one thing. But they didn't. They dumbed down their sound. On purpose. For money.

TBA did not make them trend followers. That created a new trend with metal band that MANY bands followed. And how is TBA "dumbed down". Because some of the songs have less riffs and slower tempos? That does make it dumbed down. If you actually sit down with good headphones and listen to Nothing Else Matters, you'll hear a band stretching themselves in new ways, vocally, instrumentally, etc... There is a ton of tact and nuance, that's not dumb, that's really hard to do.

And again, many bands do it. Most do. But with Metallica, for the reasons above, at least for me, was the worst offender. They took their thrash flag and torched it. Just always sits wrong for me.

That's a really extreme way to look at a band that changed up their sound dude.

[Adami]

Personally, I think anyone who prefers the 90's output more than the 80's output are deplorable.

[kaos2900]

Can someone please explain to me how The Black Album made Metallica a trend follower? Was there any other album released in 92 or shortly before or after that sounded like the Black Album? If anything The Black Album created the trend of bringing heavy metal to the main stream which makes them innovators. As much flack that Load and Re-Load gets I still don't know any other albums that sounds like them. Same with St. Anger. I think the less thrashy Metallica got made them even bigger innovators.

[Anguyen92]

Why can't people just make the music they feel like making in that certain part of time?  Why are bands have to be confined to the music, fans feel like they need to make?

I recall an article from someone in Cypress Hill where he praised Led Zeppelin's Houses of the Holy.  For this reason below.

"That record really blew my mind. Led Zeppelin was not just a rock band; they were country, they were funk, they were rock, they were blues.

"When I first got turned on to Zeppelin, I couldn't believe that every record they put out was good from beginning to end. Those guys could do no wrong every time they put out an album. They were incredible.

"That album pretty much stays on rotation in my car. They challenged their fans to move on with them, and the fans accepted that. I believe that is a true mark of greatest. Zeppelin are my number one rock band of all time."

That bolded text there is something that I wish more bands can do and I think the industry would be better for it if bands continuing to challenge their fans to move on with the direction of their recent music, especially if it is good music in the end anyway (you know, be there along for the ride.  I can't stop using that pun, it's too dang relevant).  That right there is why I will always defend The Astonishing.

Just because The Black Album became the biggest friken rock album in our modern times, it pulled new fans that got into Metallica.  Are those fans' opinions less valid than those that were fans pre-Black Album?  I wouldn't think so.

[mikeyd23]

Personally, I think anyone who prefers the 90's output more than the 80's output are deplorable.

  I might be deplorable....

Can someone please explain to me how The Black Album made Metallica a trend follower? Was there any other album released in 92 or shortly before or after that sounded like the Black Album? If anything The Black Album created the trend of bringing heavy metal to the main stream which makes them innovators. As much flack that Load and Re-Load gets I still don't know any other albums that sounds like them. Same with St. Anger. I think the less thrashy Metallica got made them even bigger innovators.

BINGO

Why can't people just make the music they feel like making in that certain part of time?  Why are bands have to be confined to the music, fans feel like they need to make?

It's funny too, because if Metallica just kept making the first 4 records over and over (cough, Megadeth, cough) it would have be disingenuous. I'd prefer it if they made the music they wanted, not what a portion of their fan base wanted.

[Samsara]

Of course they made a conscious decision to change the band's sound, nothing wrong with that.

Never said there was!

TBA did not make them trend followers. That created a new trend with metal band that MANY bands followed. And how is TBA "dumbed down". Because some of the songs have less riffs and slower tempos? That does make it dumbed down. If you actually sit down with good headphones and listen to Nothing Else Matters, you'll hear a band stretching themselves in new ways, vocally, instrumentally, etc... There is a ton of tact and nuance, that's not dumb, that's really hard to do.

You are very mistaken. A ton of bands did the same thing at the same time, and didn't follow Metallica. Almost EVERYONE went for a more polished sound.

Queensryche released Empire a YEAR before Metallica followed the very same trend they did -- polishing up their sound, and making it less complex. That had a lot of fans in an uproar too. For me personally, and knowing their world pretty well, it was a very natural progression for DeGarmo. So it didn't bother me as much as MEtallica.

But no, Metallica did not set the trend, other bands, including QR, did it before them.

Again, however, a point that is missing from many people replying -- its just a personal thing FOR ME that a THRASH band, particularly the one band that started it all, basically, went and RADICALLY changed its sound. And the timing of it was...suspect...for it to be all about "art."

I happen to like TBA. I just don't particularly think it was an entirely authentic "for the art" change, and I think Metallica, as big as they were, and again, as them being the fathers of thrash metal, really were held (for me) to a higher standard. And they caved. It doesn't mean the music that followed is bad. It isn't.

That's a really extreme way to look at a band that changed up their sound dude.

Not really. Not to me. Not when you consider Metallica basically invented thrash metal. But again, this is all just how I personally feel. I don't really hold it against them. I've bought every Metallica album. But I'll still maintain they were the ultimately let down after Justice.

It's ok though, its music. We all hear it differently. And those take my comments personally, sorry. Nothing to do with you however, its just how I hear it.

Stads - all good. I don't want to go around in circles.

[mikeyd23]

Of course they made a conscious decision to change the band's sound, nothing wrong with that.

Never said there was!

Cool

TBA did not make them trend followers. That created a new trend with metal band that MANY bands followed. And how is TBA "dumbed down". Because some of the songs have less riffs and slower tempos? That does make it dumbed down. If you actually sit down with good headphones and listen to Nothing Else Matters, you'll hear a band stretching themselves in new ways, vocally, instrumentally, etc... There is a ton of tact and nuance, that's not dumb, that's really hard to do.

You are very mistaken. A ton of bands did the same thing at the same time, and didn't follow Metallica. Almost EVERYONE went for a more polished sound.

Queensryche released Empire a YEAR before Metallica followed the very same trend they did -- polishing up their sound, and making it less complex. That had a lot of fans in an uproar too. For me personally, and knowing their world pretty well, it was a very natural progression for DeGarmo. So it didn't bother me as much as MEtallica.

But no, Metallica did not set the trend, other bands, including QR, did it before them.

Again, however, a point that is missing from many people replying -- its just a personal thing FOR ME that a THRASH band, particularly the one band that started it all, basically, went and RADICALLY changed its sound. And the timing of it was...suspect...for it to be all about "art."

I happen to like TBA. I just don't particularly think it was an entirely authentic "for the art" change, and I think Metallica, as big as they were, and again, as them being the fathers of thrash metal, really were held (for me) to a higher standard. And they caved. It doesn't mean the music that followed is bad. It isn't.

So, QR made a polished album and that means the most influence metal album in the world copied off them? Honestly, that's beside the point for me. My bigger issue is with you assuming their intent. The band has gone on record in many ways discussing the sound change, none of it was for "sales", so why wouldn't you believe them? Just cause the record was a hit?

That's a really extreme way to look at a band that changed up their sound dude.

Not really. Not to me. Not when you consider Metallica basically invented thrash metal. But again, this is all just how I personally feel. I don't really hold it against them. I've bought every Metallica album. But I'll still maintain they were the ultimately let down after Justice.

It's ok though, its music. We all hear it differently. And those take my comments personally, sorry. Nothing to do with you however, its just how I hear it.

Stads - all good. I don't want to go around in circles.

I understand where you are coming from as a thrash fan, I respect you opinion, I just can't get on board with some of the assumptions you're making about intent. That's all. All good!

[Anguyen92]

The band has gone on record in many ways discussing the sound change, none of it was for "sales", so why wouldn't you believe them? Just cause the record was a hit?

Unfortunately, almost no bands in the world would say that "we changed our sound to get better sales."  A little honestly would go a long way if bands would just admit that they changed their sound for the money.

[Adami]

The band has gone on record in many ways discussing the sound change, none of it was for "sales", so why wouldn't you believe them? Just cause the record was a hit?

Unfortunately, almost no bands in the world would say that "we changed our sound to get better sales."  A little honestly would go a long way if bands would just admit that they changed their sound for the money.

So the assumption is "The band did XYZ, I know it to be a fact, the band denies it, and therefore they are lying because my assumption, by default, is correct"?

Seems fishy.