The weird parrallel histories of Queensryche and Metallica

[MHStrawn]

Not sure why this occurred to me but the idea somehow got in my head and I figured this would be a good outlet. But QR and Metallica's careers have exceedingly similar trajectories.

1. 1983: Both release indie records. Both capture metal fans attention and both bands seen as strong newcomers.
2. 1984: Both release critically acclaimed full-length albums. Both bands tour incessantly and build audiences despite little to no airplay (QR did have a minor hit with Take Hold of the Flame)
3. 1986: Both release their third album. Metallica's MoPuppets is arguably their critical apex and they quickly become thrash metal standard bearers. QR's RFOrder goes relatively unnoticed in comparison. At this point they are popular in underground metal circles but relatively unknown to the general public.
4. 1988: Both bands release ambitious, sprawling, unapologetic prog-metal masterpieces. Established fans enthusiastically embrace both releases and in both cases neither receive commercial upon release. Then both albums surge to commercial heights a full year later when MTV begins playing videos for One and Eyes of A Stranger.
5. 1990: Both bands release follow ups that move in dramatically different areas than the previous albums that made them enormously successful. QR goes with a pop-metal approach while Metallica goes to a more basic hard rock sound. Both albums are enormously huge commercial successes. Metallica becomes arguably the biggest rock band in the world, while Empire was a massive selling record. Both bands go on world-spanning world tours that last more than a year.
6. 1994: Both bands release new albums after long hiatuses. Both are met with indifference from both hardcore fans and more casual listeners. PromisedLand receives a mixed reaction with some thinking it's brilliant and others terrible. Pretty much everyone agreed Metallica's Load was a poor effort. Neither release received much airplay or commercial success.
7. 1997: both bands release relatively forgettable albums that do not resonate with casual fans. QR, in particular, sees their fortunes fall while Metallica still draws huge audiences mostly interested in hearing the classic 80's material.
8. 2003: Now largely legacy acts, both release albums that do not do that well commercially but at least exhibit some new blood. QR's Tribe is the best release since their glory days and Metallica's St. Anger is clearly superior to the Load / Reload fiascos.
9. 2007: both have strong rebounds by returning to their roots. Metallica goes straight to the 80's with Death Magnetic, a release widely regarded as a return to thrash form. QR mines the Operation Mindcrime catalog with OMII. I expected it to suck and degrade the legacy of the original classic but instead it's easily the band's best album in over a decade. For both bands this would be the last time they had any real contemporary appeal (meaning not relying upon their legacy catalog).
10. 2010-ish: Metallica release the ill-advised and disastrous Lulu with Lou Reed. It's rightly dismissed as nonsense by virtually everyone. QR goes through a series of sad, poor-selling albums, sparsely attended club gigs (including a truly embarrassing "cabaret" show that left audiences bewildered) and eventually have a sad, public breakup.

Since then, the bands have entered a sort of soft middle age. QR has been more active and somewhat energized with a trio of decent releases with an evolving lineup. Metallica has largely been silent but did release the fairly well-received Hard Wired to Self Destruct.

Now, Metallica was the bigger of the two bands, but in sooo many ways the careers of these two metal greats have run parrallel courses.

[425]

I sort of get what you're saying, but:

1. The years are not right for Metallica. The Black Album was released in 1991 and Load was released in 1996.

2. In what way was Load not a commercial success? It went quintuple platinum in the US! I wasn't aware of airplay at the time, but... Until It Sleeps won MTV's award for Best Rock Video that year, so... I'm guessing they played it a few times! It's also Metallica's only song to hit the top 10 of the Billboard Hot 100. That's not "indifference from both hardcore fans and more casual listeners." And it is also demonstrably false that "Pretty much everyone agreed Metallica's Load was a poor effort." Rolling Stone and Q gave it a 4 out of 5. The LA Times gave it a 3.5 out of 4. And hell, I'll disagree with you, too. Load is awesome.

3. On what planet is St. Anger "clearly superior" to Load and Reload? I mean, if you like it better, that's your opinion, but the popular view is that St. Anger is by far their worst album. It has a 1.85 on RateYourMusic and a 2 on Sputnik. (Load: 2.68/2.8; Reload: 2.43/2.5)

My own take is that the Load sessions were the most creatively fruitful of Metallica's career and there's so much diversity in that material that there should be *something* for almost anyone who has even a passing interest in heavy music to like. Anything but a "fiasco."

Edit: I realize this post may have come off too negative. I do think you're onto something with a lot of the parallels here. I just don't like it when people are dismissive of the 90s Metallica albums.

[EPICVIEW]

interesting fun read  ,...

[DoctorAction]

Me love Load

[Skeever]

Die hard fans from The '80s hating Load is so crazy to me. As somebody who was a teenager in the late 90s and early 2000s, those singles from Load and Reload are synonymous with Metallica for me, with me only the entries from The Black Album being more prevalent. To me the singles from those three albums are easily the most recognizable and commercially successful songs Metallica have written. By contrast the first four albums barely registered. So I think it might be a situation where the old guard just have to admit that times change and the band they loved changed and reached new audiences where they were just as successful, if not more successful.

[bosk1]

Yeah, I'm with 425 in that I don't agree with quite a few of the comparisons being made.  I do agree with this take:

interesting fun read  ,...

But that said, I think 425 is spot on in most of the things he pointed out.  There are definitely some parallels.  But not nearly as many as you try to sell.  And this kind of made me laugh:

sprawling, unapologetic prog-metal masterpieces.

You have a very generous definition of "prog" to put any Metallica album into that category.    That isn't a knock on Metallica at all.  But "prog" is just not the right description for their music, any more than calling them "folk-metal" because they covered Whiskey in a Jar.

[MirrorMask]

That, and also the Mindcrime / Justice comparison. If at all, you should switch Justice with Rage for Order - Yeah, they're both good albums, but the universally acclaimed album is the other one, the following one for QR (Mindcrime in 1988) and the previous one (Master in 1986) for Metallica.

Those - Mindcrime and Master - are the undisputed, heavyweight champions of critical acclaim and fan preference in the respective discographies, and they came out two years apart.

[pg1067]

Sorry, but I'm going to pick nits with a lot of the early stuff.

2. 1984: Both release critically acclaimed full-length albums. Both bands tour incessantly and build audiences despite little to no airplay (QR did have a minor hit with Take Hold of the Flame)

The Warning and Ride the Lightning were "critically acclaimed"?  I'm honestly I'm not sure I read any contemporary reviews, but going by the "professional ratings" section of the Wikipedia article for The Warning, it was anything but "critically acclaimed."  The album also seems to get a lot of crap from fans for its production.  The same section at the RTL page is much different, but I suspect those are mostly after-the-fact ratings.  Also, in terms of metal in the mid-80s, Take Hold of the Flame was more than a "minor hit."

3. 1986: Both release their third album. Metallica's MoPuppets is arguably their critical apex and they quickly become thrash metal standard bearers. QR's RFOrder goes relatively unnoticed in comparison. At this point they are popular in underground metal circles but relatively unknown to the general public.

So...this is not a parallel at all.  Also, by this point, Metallica had moved well beyond "underground metal circles."  Also also, while Metallica eventually became well-known to the general public, QR never really did.  They sort of poked their heads through the door with Silent Lucidity but were quickly ushered out.

4. 1988: Both bands release ambitious, sprawling, unapologetic prog-metal masterpieces. Established fans enthusiastically embrace both releases and in both cases neither receive commercial upon release. Then both albums surge to commercial heights a full year later when MTV begins playing videos for One and Eyes of A Stranger.

I can't say there's anything wrong with these statements, but Metallica was on a completely different level than QR at this point.  Perhaps the biggest evidence of this is that QR was Metallica's opening act on their tours for these albums (at least for the first nine months or so).

5. 1990: Both bands release follow ups that move in dramatically different areas than the previous albums that made them enormously successful. QR goes with a pop-metal approach while Metallica goes to a more basic hard rock sound. Both albums are enormously huge commercial successes. Metallica becomes arguably the biggest rock band in the world, while Empire was a massive selling record. Both bands go on world-spanning world tours that last more than a year.

The Black Album was release in August 1991, not 1990.

8. 2003: Now largely legacy acts, both release albums that do not do that well commercially but at least exhibit some new blood. QR's Tribe is the best release since their glory days and Metallica's St. Anger is clearly superior to the Load / Reload fiascos.

And now you're just expressing personal opinions.

9. 2007: both have strong rebounds by returning to their roots. Metallica goes straight to the 80's with Death Magnetic, a release widely regarded as a return to thrash form. QR mines the Operation Mindcrime catalog with OMII. I expected it to suck and degrade the legacy of the original classic but instead it's easily the band's best album in over a decade. For both bands this would be the last time they had any real contemporary appeal (meaning not relying upon their legacy catalog).

And I'm pretty sure the general consensus about O:MII is not favorable.

There are definitely some parallels.  But not nearly as many as you try to sell.

Yup.

And this kind of made me laugh:

sprawling, unapologetic prog-metal masterpieces.

You have a very generous definition of "prog" to put any Metallica album into that category.    That isn't a knock on Metallica at all.  But "prog" is just not the right description for their music, any more than calling them "folk-metal" because they covered Whiskey in a Jar.

Yeah, but the OP isn't calling Metallica "prog" or "prog-metal."  Rather, he's called AJFA a "sprawling, unapologetic prog-metal" album.  While I don't really agree with the hyperbole, it is quite accurate to use "prog-metal" to refer to AJFA.

Die hard fans from The '80s hating Load is so crazy to me. As somebody who was a teenager in the late 90s and early 2000s, those singles from Load and Reload are synonymous with Metallica for me, with me only the entries from The Black Album being more prevalent. To me the singles from those three albums are easily the most recognizable and commercially successful songs Metallica have written. By contrast the first four albums barely registered. So I think it might be a situation where the old guard just have to admit that times change and the band they loved changed and reached new audiences where they were just as successful, if not more successful.

Speaking for the segment of the "old guard" to whom you're referring (I was just shy of 17 when Kill 'Em All was released), as crazy as it is to you that "[d]ie hard [Metallica] fans from the '80s hat[e] Load," it's just as crazy to us that the band that did those 80s epics turned into the band that release (Re)Load.  The Black Album was obviously the band's most commercially successful.  There's no debating that, and that album kind of sits at the crossroads of the "old guard" and folks of your generation for whom the 90s albums were right in your wheelhouse.  Of course "times change" and, obviously, Metallica changed.  It's not a matter of not accepting it.  It's just a matter (for some of us) of not liking the way that they changed (and that's ok).

[bosk1]

And this kind of made me laugh:

sprawling, unapologetic prog-metal masterpieces.

You have a very generous definition of "prog" to put any Metallica album into that category.    That isn't a knock on Metallica at all.  But "prog" is just not the right description for their music, any more than calling them "folk-metal" because they covered Whiskey in a Jar.

Yeah, but the OP isn't calling Metallica "prog" or "prog-metal."  Rather, he's called AJFA a "sprawling, unapologetic prog-metal" album.  While I don't really agree with the hyperbole, it is quite accurate to use "prog-metal" to refer to AJFA.

No, I understand that he is referring to the album rather than the band as a whole.  But AJFA has nothing to do with "prog-metal" unless one expands the definition of that term beyond how it is traditionally used.  I mean, does it have longer, "epic" songs that defy traditional pop/metal song structures that were in common use?  Yes.  But that's about where the similarities with prog-metal begin and end.  A song isn't prog-metal just because it is longer than 3 1/2 minutes and doesn't follow the traditional verse-chorus-verse-chorus-solo-chorus (or similar) structure. 

I mean, at the end of the day, I'm not going to argue endlessly on this point.  If you want to see it as prog-metal and apply that label, it's not really any skin off my nose.  Count me as just chiming in to say "I do not think that word means what you think it means." 

[Dedalus]

I agree with those who said that it was a pleasant reading and with those who said that you took too many liberties to make the comparison.

And the most curious thing is that the main comparison (for me) was not entirely made. I was listening to Hear in the Now Frontier last week and it struck me that the record has echoes from Load, released a year earlier. I looked in the progarchives reviews and someone made the same comparison, although it was quite negative.

Personally I think Load is a much better record than HITNF.

[Skeever]

Speaking for the segment of the "old guard" to whom you're referring (I was just shy of 17 when Kill 'Em All was released), as crazy as it is to you that "[d]ie hard [Metallica] fans from the '80s hat[e] Load," it's just as crazy to us that the band that did those 80s epics turned into the band that release (Re)Load.  The Black Album was obviously the band's most commercially successful.  There's no debating that, and that album kind of sits at the crossroads of the "old guard" and folks of your generation for whom the 90s albums were right in your wheelhouse.  Of course "times change" and, obviously, Metallica changed.  It's not a matter of not accepting it.  It's just a matter (for some of us) of not liking the way that they changed (and that's ok).

Right on. I have nothing against the old guard. The crux of my issue is the idea that Load and Re:Load were not successful. They got TONS of play. Looking at wiki, Load was their highest charting album ever, by a pretty good margin. Sales were not as good as their previous records but still up there. To compare Metallica's 90s and early 00s to Queensryche's output from that period just makes no sense. I'm not even a big Metallica fan, but I know that growing up listening to rock radio in the 90s and early 00s you could not listen to any rock station for a half hour without hearing The Memory Remains or Fuel. By contrast, Queensryche were a total non-factor, nowhere to be found on radio at all - I never even knew who they were until I discovered Dream Theater and their early contemporaries.

That said, I still enjoyed reading the OP. I just disagree with it.

[Setlist Scotty]

Speaking for the segment of the "old guard" to whom you're referring (I was just shy of 17 when Kill 'Em All was released), as crazy as it is to you that "[d]ie hard [Metallica] fans from the '80s hat[e] Load," it's just as crazy to us that the band that did those 80s epics turned into the band that release (Re)Load.  The Black Album was obviously the band's most commercially successful.  There's no debating that, and that album kind of sits at the crossroads of the "old guard" and folks of your generation for whom the 90s albums were right in your wheelhouse.  Of course "times change" and, obviously, Metallica changed.  It's not a matter of not accepting it.  It's just a matter (for some of us) of not liking the way that they changed (and that's ok).

Right on. I have nothing against the old guard. The crux of my issue is the idea that Load and Re:Load were not successful. They got TONS of play. Looking at wiki, Load was their highest charting album ever, by a pretty good margin. Sales were not as good as their previous records but still up there. To compare Metallica's 90s and early 00s to Queensryche's output from that period just makes no sense. I'm not even a big Metallica fan, but I know that growing up listening to rock radio in the 90s and early 00s you could not listen to any rock station for a half hour without hearing The Memory Remains or Fuel. By contrast, Queensryche were a total non-factor, nowhere to be found on radio at all - I never even knew who they were until I discovered Dream Theater and their early contemporaries.

That said, I still enjoyed reading the OP. I just disagree with it.

Gotta agree completely with pg1067's "old guard" comments - fits me to a "T".

That said, in response to your (Skeever's) post, from the early to mid 90s, Queensryche got plenty of airplay - maybe not as much as Metallica, but definitely a significant amount. That was particularly true with the Empire album - not just Silent Lucidity, but Empire, Jet City Woman and Another Rainy Night (Without You) all got a huge amount of radio airplay where I lived. Same with I Am I. And then to a lesser degree with Sign of the Times and perhaps one or two other Promised Land tracks. Beyond HitNF, yeah, QR got very little airplay. But I would say up until 97 or so, they were a regular feature on the radio. And now that I think about it, altho from the 80s, both I Don't Believe in Love and Eyes of a Stranger got lots of radio airplay in the 90s, too.

[bosk1]

^Agreed on all counts.  And as far as the radio airplay, I don't disagree that, beginning probably with the songs from the black album, Metallica began to far surpass Queensryche.  But as Scotty pointed out, Queensryche were hardly invisible from the Mindcrime through HITNF stretch.  It could have varied regionally, but between my time between North Carolina and Northern California during that time period, I heard them a fair amount.  Interestingly, I would say that HITNF actually got more airplay in my area than PL.  I remember hearing Reach a couple of times even though it wasn't a single.  Bridge was played.  Sign of the Times, as Scotty pointed out, got a fair amount of airplay.  And You actually got quite a bit--I remember hearing that song quite frequently for a short stretch of time (although, in fairness, it didn't last all that long). 

But after that...I think I maybe heard a Q2K track once or twice on radio.  And I can't even tell you if I heard songs from any of the subsequent albums, but I don't think so.  Again, Metallica clearly dominated from the black album onward.

[pg1067]

And this kind of made me laugh:

sprawling, unapologetic prog-metal masterpieces.

You have a very generous definition of "prog" to put any Metallica album into that category.    That isn't a knock on Metallica at all.  But "prog" is just not the right description for their music, any more than calling them "folk-metal" because they covered Whiskey in a Jar.

Yeah, but the OP isn't calling Metallica "prog" or "prog-metal."  Rather, he's called AJFA a "sprawling, unapologetic prog-metal" album.  While I don't really agree with the hyperbole, it is quite accurate to use "prog-metal" to refer to AJFA.

No, I understand that he is referring to the album rather than the band as a whole.  But AJFA has nothing to do with "prog-metal" unless one expands the definition of that term beyond how it is traditionally used.  I mean, does it have longer, "epic" songs that defy traditional pop/metal song structures that were in common use?  Yes.  But that's about where the similarities with prog-metal begin and end.  A song isn't prog-metal just because it is longer than 3 1/2 minutes and doesn't follow the traditional verse-chorus-verse-chorus-solo-chorus (or similar) structure. 

I mean, at the end of the day, I'm not going to argue endlessly on this point.  If you want to see it as prog-metal and apply that label, it's not really any skin off my nose.  Count me as just chiming in to say "I do not think that word means what you think it means."

I'm pretty sure I have a good understanding of what "prog" and "progressive" mean, and I can't think of anything that "progressive metal" means that isn't true of AJFA.  It's also worth noting that the average song on AJFA isn't all that much longer than on MOP (7:17 versus 6:51).

Right on. I have nothing against the old guard. The crux of my issue is the idea that Load and Re:Load were not successful. They got TONS of play. Looking at wiki, Load was their highest charting album ever, by a pretty good margin. Sales were not as good as their previous records but still up there.

I suppose it depends on how you define successful.  Load went 5x platinum in the U.S. and hit similar sales marks in other countries.  It also went to #1 in at least 14 countries, including the U.S.
 On the other hand -- and it would be nearly impossible to quantify or verify this -- it wouldn't surprise me if (1) it lost the band more fans that it gained (it was the last Metallica album I bought, and I returned it); and (2) much of the sales and chart performance was a result of how well the Black Album did.  That said, Reload, while not performing as well, still hit #1 in the U.S. (and at least 6 other countries) and was top 10 in several others and was a 3x platinum album.  Thus, I agree that it would be virtually impossible to make a credible argument that the Load albums weren't "successful."

To compare Metallica's 90s and early 00s to Queensryche's output from that period just makes no sense. I'm not even a big Metallica fan, but I know that growing up listening to rock radio in the 90s and early 00s you could not listen to any rock station for a half hour without hearing The Memory Remains or Fuel. By contrast, Queensryche were a total non-factor, nowhere to be found on radio at all - I never even knew who they were until I discovered Dream Theater and their early contemporaries.

One can compare any two things.  To compare two things does not mean that one is concluding the two things are similar in any or many ways.  Anyway, I barely listened to music on the radio after about 1992, but I can tell you that I haven't heard a QR song on the radio since the Empire cycle and the same is mostly true for Metallica after the Black Album cycle.  The big difference is that Fuel is (and maybe one or two other post-TBA songs are) a staple at sporting events I've attended.

[Kotowboy]

I think the albums of Mastodon and Metallica follow a *similar* path up to a point.

Remission & Kill = The gnarly rough and ready debut.

Leviathan & Ride = The much more polished and focused follow up.

Blood Mountain & Master = These two maybe not so much but you can definitely hear a huge step up in the songwriting.

Crack The Skye & Justice = The technical opuses plus CTS is a concept album.

The Hunter & Metallica = The slightly more commercial sounding, more straight forward album.


Interestingly Once More Round The Sun & Load are sort of the oddball of each band. Neither album is their best or their worst by a long way but they both sort of exist.

Mastodon's next album is chronologically their St Anger - so all in all I'd say they've been way more consistent than Metallica.

[kirksnosehair]

Not sure why this occurred to me but the idea somehow got in my head and I figured this would be a good outlet. But QR and Metallica's careers have exceedingly similar trajectories.

1. 1983: Both release indie records. Both capture metal fans attention and both bands seen as strong newcomers.
2. 1984: Both release critically acclaimed full-length albums. Both bands tour incessantly and build audiences despite little to no airplay (QR did have a minor hit with Take Hold of the Flame)
3. 1986: Both release their third album. Metallica's MoPuppets is arguably their critical apex and they quickly become thrash metal standard bearers. QR's RFOrder goes relatively unnoticed in comparison. At this point they are popular in underground metal circles but relatively unknown to the general public.
4. 1988: Both bands release ambitious, sprawling, unapologetic prog-metal masterpieces. Established fans enthusiastically embrace both releases and in both cases neither receive commercial upon release. Then both albums surge to commercial heights a full year later when MTV begins playing videos for One and Eyes of A Stranger.
5. 1990: Both bands release follow ups that move in dramatically different areas than the previous albums that made them enormously successful. QR goes with a pop-metal approach while Metallica goes to a more basic hard rock sound. Both albums are enormously huge commercial successes. Metallica becomes arguably the biggest rock band in the world, while Empire was a massive selling record. Both bands go on world-spanning world tours that last more than a year.
6. 1994: Both bands release new albums after long hiatuses. Both are met with indifference from both hardcore fans and more casual listeners. PromisedLand receives a mixed reaction with some thinking it's brilliant and others terrible. Pretty much everyone agreed Metallica's Load was a poor effort. Neither release received much airplay or commercial success.
7. 1997: both bands release relatively forgettable albums that do not resonate with casual fans. QR, in particular, sees their fortunes fall while Metallica still draws huge audiences mostly interested in hearing the classic 80's material.
8. 2003: Now largely legacy acts, both release albums that do not do that well commercially but at least exhibit some new blood. QR's Tribe is the best release since their glory days and Metallica's St. Anger is clearly superior to the Load / Reload fiascos.
9. 2007: both have strong rebounds by returning to their roots. Metallica goes straight to the 80's with Death Magnetic, a release widely regarded as a return to thrash form. QR mines the Operation Mindcrime catalog with OMII. I expected it to suck and degrade the legacy of the original classic but instead it's easily the band's best album in over a decade. For both bands this would be the last time they had any real contemporary appeal (meaning not relying upon their legacy catalog).
10. 2010-ish: Metallica release the ill-advised and disastrous Lulu with Lou Reed. It's rightly dismissed as nonsense by virtually everyone. QR goes through a series of sad, poor-selling albums, sparsely attended club gigs (including a truly embarrassing "cabaret" show that left audiences bewildered) and eventually have a sad, public breakup.

Since then, the bands have entered a sort of soft middle age. QR has been more active and somewhat energized with a trio of decent releases with an evolving lineup. Metallica has largely been silent but did release the fairly well-received Hard Wired to Self Destruct.

Now, Metallica was the bigger of the two bands, but in sooo many ways the careers of these two metal greats have run parrallel courses.

No offence but Operation Mindcrime II is garbage

[EPICVIEW]

Not sure why this occurred to me but the idea somehow got in my head and I figured this would be a good outlet. But QR and Metallica's careers have exceedingly similar trajectories.

1. 1983: Both release indie records. Both capture metal fans attention and both bands seen as strong newcomers.
2. 1984: Both release critically acclaimed full-length albums. Both bands tour incessantly and build audiences despite little to no airplay (QR did have a minor hit with Take Hold of the Flame)
3. 1986: Both release their third album. Metallica's MoPuppets is arguably their critical apex and they quickly become thrash metal standard bearers. QR's RFOrder goes relatively unnoticed in comparison. At this point they are popular in underground metal circles but relatively unknown to the general public.
4. 1988: Both bands release ambitious, sprawling, unapologetic prog-metal masterpieces. Established fans enthusiastically embrace both releases and in both cases neither receive commercial upon release. Then both albums surge to commercial heights a full year later when MTV begins playing videos for One and Eyes of A Stranger.
5. 1990: Both bands release follow ups that move in dramatically different areas than the previous albums that made them enormously successful. QR goes with a pop-metal approach while Metallica goes to a more basic hard rock sound. Both albums are enormously huge commercial successes. Metallica becomes arguably the biggest rock band in the world, while Empire was a massive selling record. Both bands go on world-spanning world tours that last more than a year.
6. 1994: Both bands release new albums after long hiatuses. Both are met with indifference from both hardcore fans and more casual listeners. PromisedLand receives a mixed reaction with some thinking it's brilliant and others terrible. Pretty much everyone agreed Metallica's Load was a poor effort. Neither release received much airplay or commercial success.
7. 1997: both bands release relatively forgettable albums that do not resonate with casual fans. QR, in particular, sees their fortunes fall while Metallica still draws huge audiences mostly interested in hearing the classic 80's material.
8. 2003: Now largely legacy acts, both release albums that do not do that well commercially but at least exhibit some new blood. QR's Tribe is the best release since their glory days and Metallica's St. Anger is clearly superior to the Load / Reload fiascos.
9. 2007: both have strong rebounds by returning to their roots. Metallica goes straight to the 80's with Death Magnetic, a release widely regarded as a return to thrash form. QR mines the Operation Mindcrime catalog with OMII. I expected it to suck and degrade the legacy of the original classic but instead it's easily the band's best album in over a decade. For both bands this would be the last time they had any real contemporary appeal (meaning not relying upon their legacy catalog).
10. 2010-ish: Metallica release the ill-advised and disastrous Lulu with Lou Reed. It's rightly dismissed as nonsense by virtually everyone. QR goes through a series of sad, poor-selling albums, sparsely attended club gigs (including a truly embarrassing "cabaret" show that left audiences bewildered) and eventually have a sad, public breakup.

Since then, the bands have entered a sort of soft middle age. QR has been more active and somewhat energized with a trio of decent releases with an evolving lineup. Metallica has largely been silent but did release the fairly well-received Hard Wired to Self Destruct.

Now, Metallica was the bigger of the two bands, but in sooo many ways the careers of these two metal greats have run parrallel courses.

No offence but Operation Mindcrime II is garbage

conceptually its fine , it ends he mystery and I did enjoy it live, but musically its spotty with some great moments and some dull ones