Metallica - 72 Seasons - A first listen...

[Samsara]

I looked around and searched for a Metallica thread, knowing that there was one, and for the life of me, can't find it. So I started a new one. Sorry mods, if I missed it. Please move this, if so.

I sat down today and finally listened to the entirety of 72 Seasons. I listened to some tracks when it first came out, and just walked away feeling like it was “okay.” After this full listen to the album (which was spurred by Mrs. Samsara and I listening to “Chasing Light” yesterday), I have to say, I understand what they are doing, but it’s still just an “okay” release to me.

The entirety of the record just plods, with the exception of some tunes like Lux AEterna that crank up the tempo. All I am really hearing is a band riffing off of shades of the Black album, Load, and Hardwired, along with some nods to Thin Lizzy and Iron Maiden. It’s like they are stuck in fourth gear, not willing to bring it to fifth and take off.

My perspective is, of course, biased, as everyone’s is. I still stand by that Metallica was at their best during their thrash period (KEA through AJFA). They clearly aren’t in that headspace. They haven’t really been except once in a great while (SOME of DM and “Spit Out the Bone”). But I think that’s just where I can’t get into this record. It would sound, to me, so much better if they kicked up the tempos and got away from this warm, tangy-sound and went to a metal crunch. I’ve seen some of the videos out there – people playing these songs in that way, with that sound, and THAT sounds like Metallica to me.

Look, I’m not trying to harsh the mellow of any fellow Metallica fans who have truly dug the band over the last 30 years. I love songs on TBA, the Loads, etc. There usually is always something I like on a Metallica record ("Bleeding Me" is one of my favorites from the band's catalog, as an example). And truth be told, I understand where they went musically in their evolution and why. They appeal more broadly, and don’t feel like they need to be the “face” of metal any longer, like they were in the 80s and early 90s. And that’s fine. I’ve moved on…somewhat. I don’t like giving up on old favorites.

But when I look at bands like Megadeth (who put out some major crap themselves over the years), Testament, Death Angel, etc. all who put out records that are arguably just as thrashy and metal as back in the day, I keep saying – why has Metallica never really gone back there? Why did the band who wanted to be the heaviest band on the planet, just stop being aggressive? They sorta did return on Death Magnetic, but that was really contrived to my ears. It was them purposefully trying to be “metal” with long songs again. I hate listening to anything off that album, because it sounds so inauthentic. It's like they made that on purpose to say they could, as oppose to actually "feeling" that way.

Which brings me back to 72 Seasons. I truly feel this album is an honest to goodness candid representation of where they are musically now. They hang back a bit, don’t push too hard, prefer letting things just groove. For me though, while that vibe has its place, I really wish there would be most instances of thrash back in the band on a regular basis.

A good analogy to me is Tesla. I loved Tesla. This bluesy hard rock/metal band with attitude. And then…I listened to their record called Simplicity, and I just…it was like it was a bunch of old dudes bitchin’ about life. And their follow up, Shock, was just awful. Again, all personal opinion, obviously. But I can’t help but listen to 72 Seasons and think Metallica sounds…old. And I really wish they didn’t sound that way. Testament doesn't sound old. Death Angel doesn't either. Hell, the latter's output over the last decade is way superior to their early stuff.

I’m thankful that Metallica are still around playing live and that folks that haven’t seen them, or still love them, get a chance to. I’m glad Metallica is still around. But 72 Seasons, while an okay record, really just tells me that what defined Metallica over their first five albums, is truly over. And it makes me sad.

[ProfessorPeart]

It's here:

https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=42713.3045

In the A-Z pinned band thread.

[Adami]

I’m thankful that Metallica are still around playing live and that folks that haven’t seen them, or still love them, get a chance to. I’m glad Metallica is still around. But 72 Seasons, while an okay record, really just tells me that what defined Metallica over their first five albums, is truly over. And it makes me sad.

And it has been over for the last 30+ years.

The large majority of Metallica's career has not been as a pure thrash band, or even a mostly thrash band.

[TAC]

Sam, it's funny you made this post. I busted out 72 Seasons last week for the first time since it came out. I've wanted to comment on some of the things that I was thinking as well, but a lot of it is a mouthful and I started running in circles in my head.

The word I kept coming back to my ultimate issue with 72 Seasons is that it's...soulless.

It sounds great. James sounds great. Kirk sounds great.  But there is something missing.
It's like they have made some songs and they're playing them well and all, but it just comes off as empty.

I don't find Death Magentic "contrived", but it's not without its issues.
*side thought*- try and imagine John Bush singing Broken Beat And Scarred. That song was made for his vocal.*

I actually like a lot of Hardwired too, as I do this album. 


In the 80's there was an authenticness in their music. It dripped out of the speakers.  I'm not calling them fake or cheap or not honest now..no way...but their music used to translate something to me.


Looking at the other thrash bands.. Megadeth has put together an amazing discography, and I think Dave Mustaine has (not so) quietly laid claim to being one of metal's greatest musicians. He hits way more than he misses, and his muic is still effective, relevant, and..translative of feeling.
Testament. they've done Metallica in reverse. I never cared for Testament. I thought of them as a second rate Metallica. Now, Metallica is a second rate Testament.
And for you it's Death Angel..for me it's Flotsam & Jetsam. Both bands making music just as authentic and as good as ever.


But going back to Metallica.. yeah, there's something missing, and I don't blame them or are labelling them anything like disingenuous. It just feels like a band without a calling resulting in music without a ..soul.

[emtee]

Tastes.

72 is my favorite of theirs followed by Hardwired and TBA.

Still spin 72 once a week. Every song kicks ass.

So glad they're still creating new and exciting music.

And I think I remember you basically saying the exact same thing in the Metallica thread after 72 was released.

[Adami]

The word I kept coming back to my ultimate issue with 72 Seasons is that it's...soulless.

It sounds great. James sounds great. Kirk sounds great.  But there is something missing.
It's like they have made some songs and they're playing them well and all, but it just comes off as empty.

You know, there's something to that. It's odd though. I don't feel the music itself is soulless. But a lot  of the playing does. I wonder if this is because they all wrote/recorded it seperately and not together as a band like they usually do. I wonder what it would sound like if they banged it out in the room a lot before recording it.

Also, I think the guitar tones are awful. So thin and muddy at the same time.


As far as authenticity goes, I think all of their music except for Death Magnetic was authentic. At least to me. Even St. Anger. It was authentically confused, lost, and a mess.

[emtee]

I looked around and searched for a Metallica thread, knowing that there was one, and for the life of me, can't find it. So I started a new one. Sorry mods, if I missed it. Please move this, if so.

I sat down today and finally listened to the entirety of 72 Seasons. I listened to some tracks when it first came out, and just walked away feeling like it was “okay.” After this full listen to the album (which was spurred by Mrs. Samsara and I listening to “Chasing Light” yesterday), I have to say, I understand what they are doing, but it’s still just an “okay” release to me.

The entirety of the record just plods, with the exception of some tunes like Lux AEterna that crank up the tempo. All I am really hearing is a band riffing off of shades of the Black album, Load, and Hardwired, along with some nods to Thin Lizzy and Iron Maiden. It’s like they are stuck in fourth gear, not willing to bring it to fifth and take off.

My perspective is, of course, biased, as everyone’s is. I still stand by that Metallica was at their best during their thrash period (KEA through AJFA). They clearly aren’t in that headspace. They haven’t really been except once in a great while (SOME of DM and “Spit Out the Bone”). But I think that’s just where I can’t get into this record. It would sound, to me, so much better if they kicked up the tempos and got away from this warm, tangy-sound and went to a metal crunch. I’ve seen some of the videos out there – people playing these songs in that way, with that sound, and THAT sounds like Metallica to me.

Look, I’m not trying to harsh the mellow of any fellow Metallica fans who have truly dug the band over the last 30 years. I love songs on TBA, the Loads, etc. There usually is always something I like on a Metallica record ("Bleeding Me" is one of my favorites from the band's catalog, as an example). And truth be told, I understand where they went musically in their evolution and why. They appeal more broadly, and don’t feel like they need to be the “face” of metal any longer, like they were in the 80s and early 90s. And that’s fine. I’ve moved on…somewhat. I don’t like giving up on old favorites.

But when I look at bands like Megadeth (who put out some major crap themselves over the years), Testament, Death Angel, etc. all who put out records that are arguably just as thrashy and metal as back in the day, I keep saying – why has Metallica never really gone back there? Why did the band who wanted to be the heaviest band on the planet, just stop being aggressive? They sorta did return on Death Magnetic, but that was really contrived to my ears. It was them purposefully trying to be “metal” with long songs again. I hate listening to anything off that album, because it sounds so inauthentic. It's like they made that on purpose to say they could, as oppose to actually "feeling" that way.

Which brings me back to 72 Seasons. I truly feel this album is an honest to goodness candid representation of where they are musically now. They hang back a bit, don’t push too hard, prefer letting things just groove. For me though, while that vibe has its place, I really wish there would be most instances of thrash back in the band on a regular basis.

A good analogy to me is Tesla. I loved Tesla. This bluesy hard rock/metal band with attitude. And then…I listened to their record called Simplicity, and I just…it was like it was a bunch of old dudes bitchin’ about life. And their follow up, Shock, was just awful. Again, all personal opinion, obviously. But I can’t help but listen to 72 Seasons and think Metallica sounds…old. And I really wish they didn’t sound that way. Testament doesn't sound old. Death Angel doesn't either. Hell, the latter's output over the last decade is way superior to their early stuff.

I’m thankful that Metallica are still around playing live and that folks that haven’t seen them, or still love them, get a chance to. I’m glad Metallica is still around. But 72 Seasons, while an okay record, really just tells me that what defined Metallica over their first five albums, is truly over. And it makes me sad.

I think your 1st post for your first listen is on pg 72 of the Metallica thread. Odd coincidence.

[Indiscipline]

Wouldn't say soulless, but maybe we all have a different definition of soul as far as music is concerned.

Surely, to my ears and heart, 72 Seasons (as the two albums before it) sounds like Metallica, but it doesn't feel like Metallica. It's hard to explain.

The big 5 (yes, it took me 30 plus years to realise it but The Black album deserves to be there) obviously informed the way Metallica music sounds and feels; Load and Reload sound like Metallica searching for something and definitely feel right (and there's a lot of soul there), and St Anger may not sound but sure as heck feels like a Metallica album (in such ways maybe only Kill'Em All did).

The last 3 albums sound (and feel to me) not like a band searching for something, but trying to recapture something. Maybe that thing we're calling "soul". Or life, youth, a kind of fearless innocence.

I don't know. I love them and always have, but can't help feeling a bit like Samsara and Tim about the last couple of decades. 

[TAC]

Wouldn't say soulless, but maybe we all have a different definition of soul as far as music is concerned.

Surely, to my ears and heart, 72 Seasons (as the two albums before it) sounds like Metallica, but it doesn't feel like Metallica. It's hard to explain.

Well, I explained it by lacking soul, and I don't mean that to come across negatively. I'm still enjoying their last three albums a lot, but they used to have a way of grabbing me by the guts and not they only grab me by my ears.


Still, their lack of output is my biggest problem with them. I can still find 5 or 6 songs that I really like on each of the last three albums.

[Indiscipline]

Wouldn't say soulless, but maybe we all have a different definition of soul as far as music is concerned.

Surely, to my ears and heart, 72 Seasons (as the two albums before it) sounds like Metallica, but it doesn't feel like Metallica. It's hard to explain.

Well, I explained it by lacking soul, and I don't mean that to come across negatively. I'm still enjoying their last three albums a lot, but they used to have a way of grabbing me by the guts and not they only grab me by my ears.


Still, their lack of output is my biggest problem with them. I can still find 5 or 6 songs that I really like on each of the last three albums.

There, perfect. That was the concept I had a hard time conveying.

[jammindude]

To be fair, that might just have something to do with the fact that neither you nor them are 20 year olds full of piss and vinegar. 

[TAC]

To be fair, that might just have something to do with the fact that neither you nor them are 20 year olds full of piss and vinegar. 

I am full of shit though.

[jammindude]

To be fair, that might just have something to do with the fact that neither you nor them are 20 year olds full of piss and vinegar. 

I am full of shit though.

Your take on hamburger vs meatloaf made that abundantly clear. 

[Samsara]

To be fair, that might just have something to do with the fact that neither you nor them are 20 year olds full of piss and vinegar. 

I am full of shit though.

This is true.

But in some ways, we always will be full of piss and vinegar - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUKEwndo8BE

[TAC]

To be fair, that might just have something to do with the fact that neither you nor them are 20 year olds full of piss and vinegar. 

I am full of shit though.

Your take on hamburger vs meatloaf made that abundantly clear. 

 

To be fair, that might just have something to do with the fact that neither you nor them are 20 year olds full of piss and vinegar. 

I am full of shit though.

This is true.

But in some ways, we always will be full of piss and vinegar - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUKEwndo8BE.

It was a day to remember 

[King Postwhore]

To be fair, that might just have something to do with the fact that neither you nor them are 20 year olds full of piss and vinegar. 

I am full of shit though.

Your take on hamburger vs meatloaf made that abundantly clear. 

 

His ass is chapped.

[Grappler]

Years ago, I just let it go.  Metallica will be Metallica, not who I or other fans want them to be.  That's just the best way to explain it - they went from being a thrash metal band to artists, creative guys that don't want to limit themselves or repeat the past.  I actually admire it - the sky is the limit.  I won't always like everything they do (Lulu sucks, the movie was silly), but I still enjoy their albums and they're a great live band.

I think 72 Seasons rocks, though I agree with the guitar tone not being the Metallica CRUNCH that I want to hear, and the fact that their later albums do have some slog-fest moments where the songs just kinda blur together.  We still have the old albums which still knock my socks off 30 years after originally hearing them.

[hefdaddy42]

I guess I look at it differently.

No band that has been around that long and managed to thrive still makes the exact kind of stuff they did in the beginning. They aren't the same people now that they were then. They are still making what they authentically want to make, but what they authentically want to make now isn't exactly what it was then. And to me, it would be a little weird if it was.

[Zantera]

I guess I look at it differently.

No band that has been around that long and managed to thrive still makes the exact kind of stuff they did in the beginning. They aren't the same people now that they were then. They are still making what they authentically want to make, but what they authentically want to make now isn't exactly what it was then. And to me, it would be a little weird if it was.

I agree. And I also look at 72 Seasons and while it's not on par with the band's early stuff, I honestly don't think it's any worse than what their contemporaries are putting out these days.

[emtee]

Maybe I've just reached a zen period of life when it comes to music. I have zero expectations when I hear a new album. The newest albums from Megadeth, Metallica and Testament have all been outstanding. I also sense in my tastes that I might be moving further away from the proggier stuff than I have in years.

[Samsara]

I think some are misinterpreting what I was saying.

I'm not expecting Metallica to repeat themselves and sound exactly like they did years prior. Far from it. If you're an artist, you create art. I get it. That said, I feel like they've strayed so far from their core sound, they don't sound like themselves any longer. And when you cut your teeth and establish yourself as a certain kind of band, which they did THROUGH TBA, plus served as the poster child for METAL (both in sound AND in their name), I feel like they've abandoned what got them there.
 
What if, for the sake of what ifs, Pantera continued after Reinventing the Steel, the brothers were still here, etc. Would Pantera fundamentally alter their sound and become this band that sounds like their old...even if they were old? Of course not. Pantera would continue to broaden their sound, but they wouldn't leave behind the qualities that made them the statement in the 90s they were. Metallica however, DID do that. And I just keep coming back and listening to what they're doing, and while I like some of it, it just doesn't sound like them. It sounds like old guys who are bored are jamming on new tunes that sound like bands they loved from back in the day...instead of being METALLICA. There's no fire, no anger, no intensity. It's all...mid-tempo and twangy.

Again, I'm not saying it's BAD, it's not. But it doesn't sound like THEM. All the elements that made Metallica the kind of band that blew people away, are gone. The fire, the aggression, the snarl, the danger in their music. It's been gone since Load. And while the logical side of me gets why (they became rich, fat, happy, and content), how do you call yourselves METALLICA if you aren't playing the style of music that the band essentially started (thrash metal)?

It's baffling. You can still break new ground, be true to yourself, all of that. They choose not to. And that's their right. But what a disappointment. At least to this fan.

72 Seasons is an okay album. But it sounds exactly how you'd expect old guys with no fire to play. And that's so disheartening from Metallica.

[Stadler]

I looked around and searched for a Metallica thread, knowing that there was one, and for the life of me, can't find it. So I started a new one. Sorry mods, if I missed it. Please move this, if so.

I sat down today and finally listened to the entirety of 72 Seasons. I listened to some tracks when it first came out, and just walked away feeling like it was “okay.” After this full listen to the album (which was spurred by Mrs. Samsara and I listening to “Chasing Light” yesterday), I have to say, I understand what they are doing, but it’s still just an “okay” release to me.

The entirety of the record just plods, with the exception of some tunes like Lux AEterna that crank up the tempo. All I am really hearing is a band riffing off of shades of the Black album, Load, and Hardwired, along with some nods to Thin Lizzy and Iron Maiden. It’s like they are stuck in fourth gear, not willing to bring it to fifth and take off.

My perspective is, of course, biased, as everyone’s is. I still stand by that Metallica was at their best during their thrash period (KEA through AJFA). They clearly aren’t in that headspace. They haven’t really been except once in a great while (SOME of DM and “Spit Out the Bone”). But I think that’s just where I can’t get into this record. It would sound, to me, so much better if they kicked up the tempos and got away from this warm, tangy-sound and went to a metal crunch. I’ve seen some of the videos out there – people playing these songs in that way, with that sound, and THAT sounds like Metallica to me.

Look, I’m not trying to harsh the mellow of any fellow Metallica fans who have truly dug the band over the last 30 years. I love songs on TBA, the Loads, etc. There usually is always something I like on a Metallica record ("Bleeding Me" is one of my favorites from the band's catalog, as an example). And truth be told, I understand where they went musically in their evolution and why. They appeal more broadly, and don’t feel like they need to be the “face” of metal any longer, like they were in the 80s and early 90s. And that’s fine. I’ve moved on…somewhat. I don’t like giving up on old favorites.

But when I look at bands like Megadeth (who put out some major crap themselves over the years), Testament, Death Angel, etc. all who put out records that are arguably just as thrashy and metal as back in the day, I keep saying – why has Metallica never really gone back there? Why did the band who wanted to be the heaviest band on the planet, just stop being aggressive? They sorta did return on Death Magnetic, but that was really contrived to my ears. It was them purposefully trying to be “metal” with long songs again. I hate listening to anything off that album, because it sounds so inauthentic. It's like they made that on purpose to say they could, as oppose to actually "feeling" that way.

Which brings me back to 72 Seasons. I truly feel this album is an honest to goodness candid representation of where they are musically now. They hang back a bit, don’t push too hard, prefer letting things just groove. For me though, while that vibe has its place, I really wish there would be most instances of thrash back in the band on a regular basis.

A good analogy to me is Tesla. I loved Tesla. This bluesy hard rock/metal band with attitude. And then…I listened to their record called Simplicity, and I just…it was like it was a bunch of old dudes bitchin’ about life. And their follow up, Shock, was just awful. Again, all personal opinion, obviously. But I can’t help but listen to 72 Seasons and think Metallica sounds…old. And I really wish they didn’t sound that way. Testament doesn't sound old. Death Angel doesn't either. Hell, the latter's output over the last decade is way superior to their early stuff.

I’m thankful that Metallica are still around playing live and that folks that haven’t seen them, or still love them, get a chance to. I’m glad Metallica is still around. But 72 Seasons, while an okay record, really just tells me that what defined Metallica over their first five albums, is truly over. And it makes me sad.

I don't offer this to be a dick, to argue, or to be a contrarian, but only to give an alternative view.

For me, that grew up on the BNWOHM, I heard Metallica back in the day, but it wasn't where my head was at.  I had already watched Maiden mature from Killers to Powerslave, and for me - FOR ME - the "thrash" aspect of Metallica was lost on me.  it was a gimmick that I had sort of heard already, and it was - TO ME - just one aspect of metal that was taken to an extreme, but it wasn't the most enticing aspect for me.  The precursors of thrash - the faster songs from the metal bands I liked - were always the least appealing.   I didn't care for the sound of James' singing; compared to Halford and Dickinson and Dio and Turner, he sounded like he was singing down a concrete pipe (and I used to install concrete pipe drainage lines, so I know what that sounds like!!!).   

FOR ME, ...AJFA was the first sort of mature record, and that only progressed to The Black Album.  TBA wasn't a sellout to me, because  they weren't "abandoning" anything to me.  They were growing.  This was an advancement, a refinement.  This was "Moving Pictures" or "Powerslave" or "Screaming For Vengeance".  "Sgt. Pepper".   I thought this was what the first three, four records was SUPPOSED to sound like but they couldn't get there.  This was "there".   And for me, the Loads were simply the next iteration of that growth.  Their "White Album" but in pieces (I can make a case that ReLoad is my favorite Metallica album, and their most "advanced" in the sense of artistic stretch).   

I won't torture you with stretching the rest of the catalogue out, but I think the last three are a band that is comfortable in their skin, have gone through the fire of personal searching that all true artists go through, and are in the "let's just have fun together as a band and see what comes up, with no preconceived notions" phase.   I get they aren't hungry any more, and aren't worried about their next tour, or record deal, or whatever, but neither is Maiden.   Their "reunion" albums are a source of controversy for the fan-base, some of whom haven't progressed past Killers.  For me - FOR ME - I think I now prefer the reunion era over the classic era.  I reserve the right to rethink that (I was even surprised myself that the highlight of one of the last shows I saw was actually "The Number Of The Beast", a song that isn't my favorite even on that album). 

Because the "thrash" element doesn't mean anything to me - admittedly - I hear some of the conversations about the "first four records" and I can't help but think that it sounds like the Maiden fan that is stuck on TNOTB, or the U2 fan that says "they haven't done shit since The Joshua Tree" or the Springsteen fan that thinks Sprinsteen crossed the rubicon with "The River".  And every one of those artists is who they are BECAUSE they didn't rest on those records.

[Zantera]

I think the idea of "selling out" means different to different people. I agree with the idea that changing music styles by itself isn't necessarily selling out, because some bands grow. Some of my favorite examples include Anathema who started off as a doom metal band with harsh vocals but evolved into one of the finest progressive rock bands of the last 30 years IMO. Radiohead is another famous example of leaving rock overnight to go electronic, and another example is Ulver who started as black metal and became a weird experimental electronic band. Metallica similarly have also evolved. While you could debate the increase in ballads and radio friendly songs on Black Album and whether that's the band being passionate about it, wanting to appeal to more people or producers trying to push them that way, in the end they did something different that worked. Load/Reload are highly controversial albums but I love them because to me they feel like genuine albums made with passion from a band wanting to try new things.

On the flip side, if I had to pick 1 album in their discography that I would put the "sell out" stamp on, maybe surprisingly I would say Death Magnetic. I'm not saying it's bad, but it's the one time I felt they made an album with the intention of appealing to the fans again.

[Samsara]

To be clear, I absolutely don't think Metallica "sold out." I applaud and agree they should stretch. But there has to be a point where a band, in my view, remembers what made them really distinct.

[EPICVIEW]

Tastes.

72 is my favorite of theirs followed by Hardwired and TBA.

Still spin 72 once a week. Every song kicks ass.

So glad they're still creating new and exciting music.

And I think I remember you basically saying the exact same thing in the Metallica thread after 72 was released.

THIS ^

[Samsara]

Tastes.

72 is my favorite of theirs followed by Hardwired and TBA.

Still spin 72 once a week. Every song kicks ass.

So glad they're still creating new and exciting music.

And I think I remember you basically saying the exact same thing in the Metallica thread after 72 was released.

THIS ^

No need to pile on. I did say something similar, after listening to a couple songs. I went back and listened in-full based on hearing something my wife and I both liked, and wanted to see what I was missing. Turns out, at least for me, it was an anomaly.

[hefdaddy42]

I mean, you feel how you feel, and no one can tell you that you're wrong for what you feel. I just don't get it.

To me, the only definition of "what Metallica sounds like" is whatever Metallica produces. RTL sounds like Metallica, TBA sounds like Metallica, and 72S sounds like Metallica.

[Samsara]

I mean, you feel how you feel, and no one can tell you that you're wrong for what you feel. I just don't get it.

To me, the only definition of "what Metallica sounds like" is whatever Metallica produces. RTL sounds like Metallica, TBA sounds like Metallica, and 72S sounds like Metallica.

I hear you, hef. I guess for me, and this is totally my own personal hang-up, I have a more narrow space for expansion from thrash bands, given their aggression. That's what thrash is for. For Metallica, for ME, that is doubly so, because they are synonymous with establishing the genre, and their name, Metallica, gives off an image that suits the music they used to write.

I fully admit that is all subjective (isn't all music subjective)?

But akin to the op, Metallica just sound tired and old to me on 72S.

[twosuitsluke]

The surprising thing for me, was that I enjoyed Kirk's solo EP infinitely more than the last two Metallica records.

I'm just longing for the day (and I know Stadler will back me on this one) that Metallica stop worrying about trying to be Metallica, and Hetfield releases a solo country record.

[EPICVIEW]

Tastes.

72 is my favorite of theirs followed by Hardwired and TBA.

Still spin 72 once a week. Every song kicks ass.

So glad they're still creating new and exciting music.

And I think I remember you basically saying the exact same thing in the Metallica thread after 72 was released.

THIS ^

No need to pile on. I did say something similar, after listening to a couple songs. I went back and listened in-full based on hearing something my wife and I both liked, and wanted to see what I was missing. Turns out, at least for me, it was an anomaly.

my apologies... was just trying to say that pretty much summed up my view on 72 Seasons...  I wrote about in other threads.  I loved it and hit all my expectations ..

[Stadler]

To be clear, I absolutely don't think Metallica "sold out." I applaud and agree they should stretch. But there has to be a point where a band, in my view, remembers what made them really distinct.

In the spirit of discussion, isn't it important to know what it is that made them distinct though?

Look at the greatest bands of all time: The Beatles, Floyd, Zeppelin, the Dead, Queen, U2.  If you take the first two or three records (maybe less with Zeppelin; the first two), EVERY ONE of those bands have evolutions where they left key parts of their sound behind.  I'm probably the wrong guy to ask, because I just don't really follow Metallica close enough, but I think that pointing JUST to the "thrash" as what is the essence of Metallica is selling them short.   Just for arguments sake, if you look at "thrash" not as a thing in itself, but rather what was the result of their artistic spin on what came before, and then sort of look at where THEY applied their artistic spin to what THEY had done before - which is what good bands do - I think it paints their catalogue in a different light.  I could be wrong here, because again, I'm not enamored with the "thrash" part of things; I don't give it the epic creedence that others do.  I just look at it as a technique or a variation.

[TAC]

To be clear, I absolutely don't think Metallica "sold out." I applaud and agree they should stretch. But there has to be a point where a band, in my view, remembers what made them really distinct.

In the spirit of discussion, isn't it important to know what it is that made them distinct though?

Look at the greatest bands of all time: The Beatles, Floyd, Zeppelin, the Dead, Queen, U2.  If you take the first two or three records (maybe less with Zeppelin; the first two), EVERY ONE of those bands have evolutions where they left key parts of their sound behind.  I'm probably the wrong guy to ask, because I just don't really follow Metallica close enough, but I think that pointing JUST to the "thrash" as what is the essence of Metallica is selling them short.   Just for arguments sake, if you look at "thrash" not as a thing in itself, but rather what was the result of their artistic spin on what came before, and then sort of look at where THEY applied their artistic spin to what THEY had done before - which is what good bands do - I think it paints their catalogue in a different light.  I could be wrong here, because again, I'm not enamored with the "thrash" part of things; I don't give it the epic creedence that others do.  I just look at it as a technique or a variation.

Bill, this is a very thought inducing post, and it helps shape some thoughts for me on the subject. Bringing up the all time classic bands you mentioned, and how Metallica's catalog relates.

First though, you mention not following Metallica through the thrash era as opposed to Samsara touting it as their best era.
What I would say is that it doesn't necessarily have to do with the fact that it was thrash. Metallica in the 80's was boundary stretching and genre defining. Metallica had the creativity and originality that put them on a completely separate plane than pretty much every HEAVY metal band at the time. While Sam likely pines for the thrashiness, as do I, what they really achieved and built had more to do with music in general than specifically thrash. Remember, in the mid 80's some people even referred to them as Alternative, because they were so unlike what metal was at the time.


Metallica is not unlike Rush to me. To me, Rush was defined by their 75-81 output. To me, I was so inspired by their music. And like Metallica with the Load Era, Rush had their 80's synth Era.
A music direction doesn't have to resonate with me for me not to respect it. And I respect the Load Era and Rush's Synth Era.

But Rush would make albums in the second half of their career that to me, simply lack drive, or even more so, it lacks the feeling that they were challenging themselves. Not speaking for Sam, but I feel like he's feeling something like that with 72S. I feel it too, and I generally like the album.


Now I normally don't get all tied up in eras of long term bands, but Rush and Metallica both had Eras at the beginning which were essential to my music foundation. Metallica less so, but they solidified it for sure, so that leads me to be more focused on them and their continued output.

[Stadler]

But Rush would make albums in the second half of their career that to me, simply lack drive, or even more so, it lacks the feeling that they were challenging themselves. Not speaking for Sam, but I feel like he's feeling something like that with 72S. I feel it too, and I generally like the album.

I think it's this thought or idea that made me write what I did.  I don't see how we jump from "this era" and "that era" to intangible things like "drive" and "ambition".  I don't know how we say that Rush or Metallica did or did not have "drive" when creating the latter day stuff.  If you believe Some Kind of Monster, St. Anger might have been THE most challenging record they ever made.  And it sucked!  Haha.

It's INFINITELY harder to make an album that sells 10 million records than it is to make a "thrash" record.  I didn't read Ged's book yet, but he talks of smoking weed and doing coke on tour during the 70's, and talks about having too much responsibility with singing, playing bass, playing keyboard, triggering samples, etc. in later years.  I think what WE see as 'drive' or 'challenge' is subjective, and may not be what ACTUALLY 'drives' or 'challenges' the artist.

I play guitar, albeit poorly. I find that it's WAY harder now to do new things on the guitar than it was when I was 20 and EVERYTHING was new.   I think we forget that by the time "Hold Your Fire" or "ReLoad" came up, those bands have been playing "Working Man" or "Hit The Lights" hundreds of times.  That's at a point where they could do that in their sleep, literally.  A challenge is a whole new way of writing; taking three and a half minutes to get a point across that they could have or did use a half an album side (or a WHOLE album side in the case of Rush) to do previously.

[TAC]

Yeah, and that's what makes following music both fun and frustrating. There's always a balance of expectations and acceptingess.  As a fan, it's on you how you feel. Sometimes with long term bands..and I'm going to get to UFO here in a minute.. sometimes albums feel like they were just banged out.
I always felt there was effort put into the Load Era, even though I didn't care for most of it, and that's what I respect.

I mean, we're just talking about music over a few beers here.


I mention UFO, because they're about as important a band to me as there is, and they sure have some spotty output.
I remember when Vinnie Moore joined, I thought it'd give them a huge shot in the arm. It did, but not in the way I was expecting. I found the music was way more restrained, and they kind of turned into the Rolling Stones. Once I recalibrated, the shot in the arm he did give them was the ability to put out 5 more albums, and if I let the music wash over me, it's really very enjoyable. Heck, I'd put the Top 10 Vinnie songs up against the Top 10 Chapman songs.

It's INFINITELY harder to make an album that sells 10 million records than it is to make a "thrash" record. 

I don't know about this. A lot of it is timing, promotion, etc.

[Samsara]

re: Stads and "thrash"

To me, it is clearly a subgenre. Not a technique. Metallica, with all apologies to Motorhead, who influenced Metallica, were really the band that defined that genre, that all bands seemed to stem from.  At least in how I listen to and evaluate music, when you're in that sort of position, there's an expectation. Which flows into what Tim said.

re: "expectation" vs. "acceptance." 

You're right Tim, it is really how you feel. I agree that I think there was effort put into Load. I think Metallica was very influenced by what they heard. But just like any band that is around for a long time, you go from being influenced, to becoming an influencer, to being influenced again. And at some point, most bands find their own cool middle ground, where they push a bit, sound like themselves, etc. And then, perhaps it's on the listener to decide if it still works.

For Metallica, I felt like once they hit Ride the LIghtening, Puppets, and And Justice For All, they were influencers. THEY were "METAL." "thrash," per se, but the epitome of metal. Then they...rode the commercial wave. And I just feel like Metallica have never truly found their way back to what made them distinct and "influencers." Other bands have, find a middle ground, etc. But Metallica...at least to my ears, have never quite "made it back."

Again, it's all taste and subjectiveness, but it's incredibly frustrating if you're a fan that doesn't just "accept" what a band does because the band does it.