Metallica Thread

[Stadler]

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.

I disagree on both counts.  The Beatles very much followed Dylan, on record (Help!, Rubber Soul, Revolver) and off (weed, later LSD).  Paul McCartney has been crystal clear that Sgt. Pepper was a response to the Beach Boys' "Pet Sounds" (itself a reaction to the Beatles "Rubber Soul").  McCartney and Lennon both, in their own ways, were VERY in tune to the way the wind blew around them, they were just way better at incorporation than a lot of the bands around them. 

I think The Black Album was less "following" than it was "leading to the point forging a brand new road".  I think there was a real powerful statement by that band with the Black Album, and I think it changed the game for bands that shared the roots of the grunge bands but maybe not the irony and aloofness.   I think there was real power in how successfully Hetfield (in particular) channeled the "introspection" and made it legit.   Anthrax's first post-TBA album was radically different for them (not least because of John Bush) and Megadeth's first post-TBA album was stripped back, and like with Hetfield, showed Mustaine relinquishing his iron grip on the band.  Those I know from experience, but I have reason to understand Overkill's first post-TBA album showed a similar step back from "pure thrash", and only Slayer seemed immune to the influence. 

[MrBoom_shack-a-lack]

Honestly I don't care one bit if TBA was considered a sellout or that Metallica changed their sound because for me still to this day sonically it's one of the beefiest metal sounding albums ever. When you blast it in PA, the slow song just sounds sooo huge and in your face and Of Wolf And Man, come on now!

My favourite part on TBA is 3:11 in Holier Than Thou, when the bass kicks in and later 1, 2 and 3 layers of guitars joins the riff!

[mikeyd23]

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.

What Adami said.

The band has seriously addressed this many times from many angles. TBA is the direction they wanted to go as artists.

[Stadler]

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.

See, this is all that needs to be said.  Nothing in there alludes to other listeners, or their mental state, or the mental state of the band; just a simple "it wasn't for me".   BOOM. 

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.

Fiar point.  I hadn't gotten that far ahead in the chronology, I was still back on TBA.  You're right; James later expressed real discomfort with the Load/Re-Load eras, though even he didn't go so far as to say it was anyone outside the band.   To me, at best, it's "Fogerty's Revenge" more than anything else.   (Google it). 

[Stadler]

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.

To me too.  This is a large part of what I'm pushing back on.

Same story with Genesis and their progression.  By all accounts in the band, they didn't put a single note to tape that Tony Banks wasn't at least on board with at the time it was recorded.   And yet... because they didn't make ten albums singing about giant Hogweeds and Lamia they were "sellouts".   

[Samsara]

Honestly I don't care one bit if TBA was considered a sellout or that Metallica changed their sound because for me still to this day sonically it's one of the beefiest metal sounding albums ever. When you blast it in PA, the slow song just sounds sooo huge and in your face and Of Wolf And Man, come on now!

My favourite part on TBA is 3:11 in Holier Than Thou, when the bass kicks in and later 1, 2 and 3 layers of guitars joins the riff!

No doubt about how it sounds. TBA sounds MASSIVE. IMO, its the best sounding Metallica record, period. A lot of money, time and thought was put into the sound of that album, and it shows.

[jammindude]

Everyone here has already hinted at it without really getting it.

They dumbed it down. And in the process, hired the producer of the multi-platinum Dr Feelgood. Those two things alone really show that they were shooting for a bigger market (more money) as opposed to putting the artistic vision first.

Before it even got released, I heard interviews hinting and shorter simpler songs, less speed, and the guy who produced Motley Crue.  I had a bad feeling right away.

But in retrospect...the album grew on me. It’s decent.

[Adami]

They dumbed it down. And in the process, hired the producer of the multi-platinum Dr Feelgood. Those two things alone really show that they were shooting for a bigger market (more money) as opposed to putting the artistic vision first.

No.

[jammindude]

 

[Zantera]

I like Load more than Black Album. 

[mikeyd23]

They dumbed it down. And in the process, hired the producer of the multi-platinum Dr Feelgood. Those two things alone really show that they were shooting for a bigger market (more money) as opposed to putting the artistic vision first.

No.

Adami is so on point in this thread 

Like I mentioned before, the only way it really makes sense to say they dumbed their music down is by only valuing elements of their music they moved away from and devaluing elements of their music they added from TBA on.

In terms of getting Bob Rock (one of the best decisions the band ever made for so many reasons) once again, they have discussed many times the thought process that went into it. Him being the Dr. Feelgood guy did have something to do with it, but not because that record sold well, more because they liked specific elements of the mix, namely the kick sound. Remember, Metallica's initial offer to Bob was only to mix the record, not produce. Bob's counter to them was that he wanted to produce them.

[Anguyen92]

Everyone here has already hinted at it without really getting it.

They dumbed it down. And in the process, hired the producer of the multi-platinum Dr Feelgood. Those two things alone really show that they were shooting for a bigger market (more money) as opposed to putting the artistic vision first.

Before it even got released, I heard interviews hinting and shorter simpler songs, less speed, and the guy who produced Motley Crue.  I had a bad feeling right away.

But in retrospect...the album grew on me. It’s decent.

Let me ask this question.  Why does slowing things down and keep it simple have to equal "dumbed it down"?  Some bands can find making that sort of music to be as creatively rewarding as playing the fastest and most complex stuff, depending on how much they care about it and clearly, Metallica cared about the craft that went into making the Black Album.

[Samsara]

Let me ask this question.  Why does slowing things down and keep it simple have to equal "dumbed it down"?  Some bands can find it as creatively rewarding as playing the fastest and most complex stuff, depending on how much they care about it and clearly, Metallica cared about the craft that went into making the Black Album.

Why are you taking things on this so personally?

Saying that they "dumbed it down" is not insulting you. And the meaning behind that simply means they took a lot of the technicality out of the playing and emphasized melody more. And yes, they clearly cared about that. But generally speaking, every time I have ever heard someone comment about a record using "they dumbed it down," to explain it, that's exactly what they meant.

I get it, you liked the Black album and the 90s stuff. That's totally cool. But why can't you just accept that Metallica very purposefully took their fast, technical sound, and slowed it up and made it more streamlined (aka "dumbed it down") so that they could appeal to a broader audience (and thereby cross over and bring in more album sales)?

Why is accepting that so difficult? Because that IS what they did. And it worked, beautifully. There's no shame in loving that material at all.

But as someone said above, call a spade a spade.

[jammindude]

 Samsura Kind of touched on it, but it’s more than just simplifying. You can simplify music, and still maintain a more raw edge. My earlier example of Sepultura fits. They simplified and got more aggressive not less.

 Basically, when you go for the lowest common denominator and homogenize everything so that it has the broadest appeal, you are looking for the biggest audience above a personal statement.

[Adami]

 Basically, when you go for the lowest common denominator and homogenize everything so that it has the broadest appeal, you are looking for the biggest audience above a personal statement.

No.


Unless you meant Death Magnetic. In which case, yes.

[Adami]

But why can't you just accept that Metallica very purposefully took their fast, technical sound, and slowed it up and made it more streamlined (aka "dumbed it down") so that they could appeal to a broader audience (and thereby cross over and bring in more album sales)?

How about...

Metallica very purposefully took their fast, technical music, and matured their sound to better appeal to their artistic sensibilities which happened to appeal to a broader audience.

That good?

[Samsara]

But why can't you just accept that Metallica very purposefully took their fast, technical sound, and slowed it up and made it more streamlined (aka "dumbed it down") so that they could appeal to a broader audience (and thereby cross over and bring in more album sales)?

How about...

Metallica very purposefully took their fast, technical music, and matured their sound to better appeal to their artistic sensibilities which happened to appeal to a broader audience.

That good?

If that makes you feel better, sure. I'll stick with my original. 

[Anguyen92]

Let me ask this question.  Why does slowing things down and keep it simple have to equal "dumbed it down"?  Some bands can find it as creatively rewarding as playing the fastest and most complex stuff, depending on how much they care about it and clearly, Metallica cared about the craft that went into making the Black Album.

Why are you taking things on this so personally?

Saying that they "dumbed it down" is not insulting you. And the meaning behind that simply means they took a lot of the technicality out of the playing and emphasized melody more. And yes, they clearly cared about that. But generally speaking, every time I have ever heard someone comment about a record using "they dumbed it down," to explain it, that's exactly what they meant.

I get it, you liked the Black album and the 90s stuff. That's totally cool. But why can't you just accept that Metallica very purposefully took their fast, technical sound, and slowed it up and made it more streamlined (aka "dumbed it down") so that they could appeal to a broader audience (and thereby cross over and bring in more album sales)?

Why is accepting that so difficult? Because that IS what they did. And it worked, beautifully. There's no shame in loving that material at all.

But as someone said above, call a spade a spade.

I'm willing to accept that they streamlined their sound to appeal to a larger audience, but I personally don't think the phrase "dumbing it down" feels correct and it feels like it presents a tone of asserting superiority (like "ha, ha, I know better than you know about this thing and I was there when they were blah, blah, blah, and you were only here after they become famous") if it's phrased like that even though I know that is certainly not the tone of people here are presenting.

I don't know why I take things like this so personally.  I guess I'm tired of reading certain comments like "they sold out" or whatever or rock communities treating bands like Creed, Nickelback, and Linkin Park as butt monkeys of the rock/metal world when it's just unwarranted since they just have a sound that's different than what certain people that typically listens to rock/metal wants.

How about...

Metallica very purposefully took their fast, technical music, and matured their sound to better appeal to their artistic sensibilities which happened to appeal to a broader audience.

That good?

Yes, I would like it personally if people perceive it like that instead of "they sold out!"

[Adami]

But why can't you just accept that Metallica very purposefully took their fast, technical sound, and slowed it up and made it more streamlined (aka "dumbed it down") so that they could appeal to a broader audience (and thereby cross over and bring in more album sales)?

How about...

Metallica very purposefully took their fast, technical music, and matured their sound to better appeal to their artistic sensibilities which happened to appeal to a broader audience.

That good?

If that makes you feel better, sure. I'll stick with my original. 

Ditto.

But I was trying to show that you (and others here) are trying to assert your experience of the situation as the objective truth that we should all just accept. I posited an alternative perspective, which was largely dismissed. See the issue?

[Samsara]

Ditto.

But I was trying to show that you (and others here) are trying to assert your experience of the situation as the objective truth that we should all just accept. I posited an alternative perspective, which was largely dismissed. See the issue?

Oh, I see what you were doing. I was responding mostly for entertainment value. 

At the end of the day, we're going to hear things as we hear it. People can believe what they want.

[jammindude]

I will say this.... you can call it a personal statement, as long as that personal artistic statement is “We want to sell a bajillion records and make as much money as we possibly can.”

But *if* that is any “artists” personal mission statement, it taints their output in my eyes. Even in the case of Kiss. The idea that THE GOAL was to become humongous, and filthy rich lowers my opinion of them as people, and the art they produce. Even if I do really like some of it.

[Adami]

I will say this.... you can call it a personal statement, as long as that personal artistic statement is “We want to sell a bajillion records and make as much money as we possibly can.”

But *if* that is any “artists” personal mission statement, it taints their output in my eyes. Even in the case of Kiss. The idea that THE GOAL was to become humongous, and filthy rich lowers my opinion of them as people, and the art they produce. Even if I do really like some of it.

I agree!

And I see no evidence that Metallica had such a statement.

[jammindude]

I will say this.... you can call it a personal statement, as long as that personal artistic statement is “We want to sell a bajillion records and make as much money as we possibly can.”

But *if* that is any “artists” personal mission statement, it taints their output in my eyes. Even in the case of Kiss. The idea that THE GOAL was to become humongous, and filthy rich lowers my opinion of them as people, and the art they produce. Even if I do really like some of it.

I agree!

And I see no evidence that Metallica had such a statement.

As the old saying goes, “actions speak louder than words”

[jammindude]

 Besides, Jason’s famous quote during that time. Kind of hinted that that’s exactly what the goal was.

[TAC]

I personally think that calling TBA a "sellout" is revisionist history;

No it isn't. I bought TBA on its release day and that's what I thought immediately.

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.

Brian, I'm with you on all that you said.

And I like you noting Empire. At that time, both albums seemed to shift to a more mainstream sound.

[TAC]

Honestly I don't care one bit if TBA was considered a sellout or that Metallica changed their sound because for me still to this day sonically it's one of the beefiest metal sounding albums ever. When you blast it in PA, the slow song just sounds sooo huge and in your face and Of Wolf And Man, come on now!

My favourite part on TBA is 3:11 in Holier Than Thou, when the bass kicks in and later 1, 2 and 3 layers of guitars joins the riff!

No doubt about how it sounds. TBA sounds MASSIVE. IMO, its the best sounding Metallica record, period. A lot of money, time and thought was put into the sound of that album, and it shows.

And I think it has really help that album age. I was honestly in shock when it came out, but I really like it a lot now.

[jammindude]

Agreed with all of the above.

I was in a thrash band when the Black album came out.   The band all gathered to listen to it on the day it was released.....there was a collective WTF.   

Somebody even said, "What the **** is this?   I can DANCE to this!!!"   

[MrBoom_shack-a-lack]

I can only speak for myself but I was 9 in 1991 and didn't discover Metallica until a few years later and TBA was the first album I heard from them. Not until later did I explore their older disc. Anyway had I been older and into Metallica in the 80s i'm sure I would've been salty about the change of direction. It's much easier to have an opinion when you haven't experienced something first hand if you know what I mean. The change was a BIG deal back in the day, not so much today.

[mikeyd23]

I will say this.... you can call it a personal statement, as long as that personal artistic statement is “We want to sell a bajillion records and make as much money as we possibly can.”

But *if* that is any “artists” personal mission statement, it taints their output in my eyes. Even in the case of Kiss. The idea that THE GOAL was to become humongous, and filthy rich lowers my opinion of them as people, and the art they produce. Even if I do really like some of it.

I agree!

And I see no evidence that Metallica had such a statement.

As the old saying goes, “actions speak louder than words”

What if Metallica had made TBA exactly as it exists now, but it wasn't a huge commercial success? What if it sold just as many units as Justice? Metallica's "actions" would be the same in that situation. Would you still consider them "selling out"?

Their actions also reflect a band that realized they had pushed a certain sound as far as they wanted to take it, and wanted to do something different to satisfy their artistic vision. Why can't that be the case?

[bosk1]

Why can't that be the case?

Because it doesn't fit the narrative some have built up.

[mikeyd23]

Why can't that be the case?

Because it doesn't fit the narrative some have built up.

  For real. I'm baffled by this topic, I always have been.

[Samsara]

Honestly I don't care one bit if TBA was considered a sellout or that Metallica changed their sound because for me still to this day sonically it's one of the beefiest metal sounding albums ever. When you blast it in PA, the slow song just sounds sooo huge and in your face and Of Wolf And Man, come on now!

My favourite part on TBA is 3:11 in Holier Than Thou, when the bass kicks in and later 1, 2 and 3 layers of guitars joins the riff!

No doubt about how it sounds. TBA sounds MASSIVE. IMO, its the best sounding Metallica record, period. A lot of money, time and thought was put into the sound of that album, and it shows.

And I think it has really help that album age. I was honestly in shock when it came out, but I really like it a lot now.

It has such a huge sound. I love records that have that. Empire, TBA, Saraya's When the Blackbird Sings, all have these big sounds, which just envelope you. Fates Warning had it on Parallels too, just not quite as warm as the three I just mentioned.

And I like TBA more now, I just don't listen to it as much. It's just such a start deviation, that when I'm listening to Metallica (KEA-Justice), I just have no desire to go further to TBA. I have to just put TBA on by itself, without having listened to Metallica  for awhile (and it will be a bit before I do that, since I've been going through the Puppets and Justice box sets)

[Stadler]

Let me ask this question.  Why does slowing things down and keep it simple have to equal "dumbed it down"?  Some bands can find it as creatively rewarding as playing the fastest and most complex stuff, depending on how much they care about it and clearly, Metallica cared about the craft that went into making the Black Album.

Why are you taking things on this so personally?

Saying that they "dumbed it down" is not insulting you. And the meaning behind that simply means they took a lot of the technicality out of the playing and emphasized melody more. And yes, they clearly cared about that. But generally speaking, every time I have ever heard someone comment about a record using "they dumbed it down," to explain it, that's exactly what they meant.

I get it, you liked the Black album and the 90s stuff. That's totally cool. But why can't you just accept that Metallica very purposefully took their fast, technical sound, and slowed it up and made it more streamlined (aka "dumbed it down") so that they could appeal to a broader audience (and thereby cross over and bring in more album sales)?

Why is accepting that so difficult? Because that IS what they did. And it worked, beautifully. There's no shame in loving that material at all.

But as someone said above, call a spade a spade.

Let me ask you this:  why use "dumb it down" - which CLEARLY has negative connotations - over, say, "streamlined", or"distilled" or "refined"?   It's like me saying to someone "Hey, bro.  That's dumb. But don't take it personally; I mean that as a compliment, in the nicest of possible ways."

And for me, I reject that the second half of your sentence necessarily follows from the first:   why does "streamlining" necessarily mean "targeting a broader audience"?  Why can't it be to "be a better songwriter"?   To "better accomplish achieving that sound I hear in my head"?   Why can't it be a personal challenge to "hone my/our/their craft"? 

[Stadler]

Samsura Kind of touched on it, but it’s more than just simplifying. You can simplify music, and still maintain a more raw edge. My earlier example of Sepultura fits. They simplified and got more aggressive not less.

 Basically, when you go for the lowest common denominator and homogenize everything so that it has the broadest appeal, you are looking for the biggest audience above a personal statement.

I disagree with that.   COMPLETELY.   Bruce Springsteen just did 145,632 straight sold out shows on Broadway that absolutely refutes - nay, CRUSHES - that very notion. 

[Stadler]

Ditto.

But I was trying to show that you (and others here) are trying to assert your experience of the situation as the objective truth that we should all just accept. I posited an alternative perspective, which was largely dismissed. See the issue?

Oh, I see what you were doing. I was responding mostly for entertainment value. 

At the end of the day, we're going to hear things as we hear it. People can believe what they want.

To a point (assuming that you are not forgoing basic things like "truth", "credibility", "rationality", and "logic").  I see none of those things in the logic that says "Huh, not one song over 7:00; therefore they put sales and dollars over personal statement and integrity".   

(And that's another point:  we're basically calling a heavy metal album, a quarter of the songs of which are over 6:00 in length, a "SELL OUT".  All things ARE relative.  This isn't exactly Def Leppard here.)