Metallica - 72 Seasons - A first listen...

[WardySI]

Contributing zero to this thread I know but while I completely understand and agree in part with Samsara's OP, in that would I prefer Metallica lift the energy more often, add a little more old-school thrash? Yeah sure but do I dislike 72 Seasons and Hardwired?  No, in fact I like them both.  A lot!

And that is all 

[Stadler]

7 KEA songs in the bottom 25? 

DISPOSABLE HEROES? 

 


Disposable Heroes is such a riff-fest. 

It's sort of the paradigm of all that I don't like.  What's the technique called that Lars is doing at the 2:00 mark, where he's hitting the snare on every beat?  I don't like that technique, and I don't like the gang chant vocals ("Back to the front!").  There's no doubt that from a guitar technique - especially James' right hand - that's a fucking CLINIC.   No question. 

KEA didn't click with me until I got older and enjoyed some more of the heavier types of metal.  As a 90s kid who discovered Metallica through the black album to reload times, when I would listen to KEA I just didn't like it then.  It may have been the production or the pure thrashness of it.  But if you ask me today, I think it's necessary listening material.  The band still plays a few of those songs regularly as well. It's not like it's a forgotten first album like many bands.  But it does kind of stand alone in their catalog which makes me understand if some don't like it or others praise it. 

The one thing that stands out to me now is how young James sounds on KEA.  His voice is really high compared to that ferocious bark that he developed in the later 80's.  But the album itself is full of Metallica classics.

So that's a large part of it.   I LOVE LOVE LOVE James' voice WHEN HE SINGS (that's primarily why "Hero Of The Day" is my favorite Metallica song).  When he sounds like he's singing down a concrete pipe, not so much. 

[hefdaddy42]

So, which album was new/most recent when you first got into Metallica?

For me, it was AJFA.  Picked up RTL and MOP shortly thereafter.

[Adami]

So, which album was new/most recent when you first got into Metallica?

For me, it was AJFA.  Picked up RTL and MOP shortly thereafter.

Reload. I remember seeing Memory Remains on TV and it being my real intro to rock/metal. I have no idea what albums I got in what order though.

And count me as a weirdo who got into Alternica and loves Kill em All. Though I think it would’ve been cool to re-record that album during AJFA or MOP days since they were better at playing and recording then.

[Grappler]

So, which album was new/most recent when you first got into Metallica?

For me, it was AJFA.  Picked up RTL and MOP shortly thereafter.

The Black Album. 

I think I got into the band in late 91 or early 92.  I do know that I listened to only a tape of TBA until May 1993, when I got my first CD player.  Then I got the first 4 records. 

[cramx3]

So, which album was new/most recent when you first got into Metallica?

For me, it was AJFA.  Picked up RTL and MOP shortly thereafter.

The black album's hits were on the radio and I was familiar with them (I don't really remember much of Load though as a kid), but I didn't get my first album until Reload was released as Adami pointed out, The Memory Remains was on TV and the radio.  I remember it being such a huge song and like everyone in my grade school were listening to it.

[Indiscipline]

So, which album was new/most recent when you first got into Metallica?

For me, it was AJFA.  Picked up RTL and MOP shortly thereafter.

AJFA, but it sat on the same shelf with the whole (at the time) discography in my brother's room, so I took everything in all at once.

[Stadler]

I heard ...AJFA in real time.  But I was at college and I was getting into prog heavy at that time, so all the sort of "emotions" around it were lost on me.  I was living my best life at that point, and it was hard to relate to "Harvester Of Sorrow", for example.

The first album I liked was "The Black Album".  That was a revelation.  That was "wow, these guys are well-rounded musicians. This isn't a fad or a niche."     I loved "Enter Sandman", "Sad but True", "The Unforgiven", "Wherever I May Roam", "Nothing Else Matters"...  I later got into some - not all - of the deeper cuts, but that was where I got a respect for them and my long-distance love affair with James Hetfield started.

Load is the first one I really embraced, and to this day the Loads have a special place in the catalogue for me.

[EPICVIEW]

I was a fan since KEA, saw and met them back then and partied up with Lars who is and was a great guy and a ton of fun.

my fav is RTL as I wore it out , to me 72 Seasons is super

[LudwigVan]

As someone who got in at Ride The Lightning, I've always had mixed feelings about the direction Metallica took, beginning with Load. Looking back on it now, it's an incredibly strong album. Reload, not so much.

When DM and HW came out... again... mixed feelings, but overall I think these 2 albums have aged quite well. Very good albums that are well-executed, but as many have pointed out, they don't have that transcendent quality that one might've experienced with KEA or Puppets. One thing I do get the sense of is that Metallica somehow feels trapped by the whole idea of being a "thrash" band, like an actor who has spent most of his career playing one superhero character and then has a devil of a time getting accepted when he tries to take on a new role. They're caught in a web of their own making.

I also think there's a certain stigma, for lack of a better word, that metal as genre carries with it that makes it much harder for a band to break out of, as opposed to a band in any other genre. If it's not Metal Up Your Ass 24/7, then you're not tru-metal anymore.

[Samsara]

As someone who got in at Ride The Lightning, I've always had mixed feelings about the direction Metallica took, beginning with Load. Looking back on it now, it's an incredibly strong album. Reload, not so much.

When DM and HW came out... again... mixed feelings, but overall I think these 2 albums have aged quite well. Very good albums that are well-executed, but as many have pointed out, they don't have that transcendent quality that one might've experienced with KEA or Puppets. One thing I do get the sense of is that Metallica somehow feels trapped by the whole idea of being a "thrash" band, like an actor who has spent most of his career playing one superhero character and then has a devil of a time getting accepted when he tries to take on a new role. They're caught in a web of their own making.

I also think there's a certain stigma, for lack of a better word, that metal as genre carries with it that makes it much harder for a band to break out of, as opposed to a band in any other genre. If it's not Metal Up Your Ass 24/7, then you're not tru-metal anymore.

As I'm used to with you my friend - wonderful post. Hit the nail on the head. I agree, Load IS a strong record. It's not a metal record, but it's a really good album. I have it on as I type this. Regarding DM and HW -- right on, that transcendent quality is absolutely missing to my ears. They just sound like an older Metallica trying to be something they used to be...sorta, but kind of not sure how to do it authentically, again, to my ears. One thing I WILL give 72 Seasons, is that I do believe it truly is an authentic snapshot of where Metallica is these days, what they truly are and want to be. I hear a lot of their old influences in their music, but done in a way that is more in-line with those influences, instead of trying to be the heaviest and fastest bands on the planet.

Totally spot on about being "trapped" (under ice?) by being a "thrash" band. Absolutely. You can tell they wanted to be something else after AJFA. But I also think, when you're the originator (more or less) of a subgenre of music, and your band name was supposed to bring a certain vibe or feeling, there comes with that, an expectation to live up to that. Yes, it's a stigma, for sure. I just feel Metallica went away from what made them powerful and distinct. And to me, they've never quite found their way back for my tastes. Some good moments, but not enough.

B

[Stadler]

As someone who got in at Ride The Lightning, I've always had mixed feelings about the direction Metallica took, beginning with Load. Looking back on it now, it's an incredibly strong album. Reload, not so much.

When DM and HW came out... again... mixed feelings, but overall I think these 2 albums have aged quite well. Very good albums that are well-executed, but as many have pointed out, they don't have that transcendent quality that one might've experienced with KEA or Puppets. One thing I do get the sense of is that Metallica somehow feels trapped by the whole idea of being a "thrash" band, like an actor who has spent most of his career playing one superhero character and then has a devil of a time getting accepted when he tries to take on a new role. They're caught in a web of their own making.

I also think there's a certain stigma, for lack of a better word, that metal as genre carries with it that makes it much harder for a band to break out of, as opposed to a band in any other genre. If it's not Metal Up Your Ass 24/7, then you're not tru-metal anymore.

As I'm used to with you my friend - wonderful post. Hit the nail on the head. I agree, Load IS a strong record. It's not a metal record, but it's a really good album. I have it on as I type this. Regarding DM and HW -- right on, that transcendent quality is absolutely missing to my ears. They just sound like an older Metallica trying to be something they used to be...sorta, but kind of not sure how to do it authentically, again, to my ears. One thing I WILL give 72 Seasons, is that I do believe it truly is an authentic snapshot of where Metallica is these days, what they truly are and want to be. I hear a lot of their old influences in their music, but done in a way that is more in-line with those influences, instead of trying to be the heaviest and fastest bands on the planet.

Totally spot on about being "trapped" (under ice?) by being a "thrash" band. Absolutely. You can tell they wanted to be something else after AJFA. But I also think, when you're the originator (more or less) of a subgenre of music, and your band name was supposed to bring a certain vibe or feeling, there comes with that, an expectation to live up to that. Yes, it's a stigma, for sure. I just feel Metallica went away from what made them powerful and distinct. And to me, they've never quite found their way back for my tastes. Some good moments, but not enough.

B

To the bolds:

- it's a metal record, it's just not a THRASH record;
- I think that may be your take, or more bluntly, your expectation, but Metallica isn't the first band that blazed new ground and sort of went their own way without having to carry a "mantle":

- King Crimson
- Duran Duran
- Elvis
- Ramones
- David Bowie
- The Beatles
- The Dead

I'm sure there are others. 

[jammindude]

The difference IMO, is that Metallica were innovators of an entirely new genre of metal. They were the trend setters.

With TBA and beyond, it began to feel more like they were taking their “sound” and following those who had come before them, or as with the Loads, their contemporaries.

They went from trend setters to trend followers.

[hefdaddy42]

The difference IMO, is that Metallica were innovators of an entirely new genre of metal. They were the trend setters.

With TBA and beyond, it began to feel more like they were taking their “sound” and following those who had come before them, or as with the Loads, their contemporaries.

They went from trend setters to trend followers.

I don't think it's necessary to accuse them of being trend followers.

The kind of music they were interested in making changed.  No more, no less.  Not unlike Opeth over the last several years.

[Samsara]

The difference IMO, is that Metallica were innovators of an entirely new genre of metal. They were the trend setters.

With TBA and beyond, it began to feel more like they were taking their “sound” and following those who had come before them, or as with the Loads, their contemporaries.

They went from trend setters to trend followers.

I don't think it's necessary to accuse them of being trend followers.

The kind of music they were interested in making changed.  No more, no less.  Not unlike Opeth over the last several years.

I agree with JD. But, I also feel like it can be a little bit of both. They DID follow trends. And did starting with TBA, and then onto Load. But I think it's also true that they wanted to go someplace else with their music.

So, all of that.

As artists, Metallica felt they had nowhere else to go or explore in the thrash metal area after AJFA. They couldn't play faster, or more technical than that album. They've said that numerous times. Instead, they went elsewhere. But by doing so, they also started following trends of what others were doing, and naturally exploring other areas of their music abilities.

I think that's pretty clear. I think after the Loads, they tried their own thing with St. Anger, it bombed, and then they went back to try and replicate the more thrash/prog-thrash side of themselves with DM (which to my ears, is the most contrived record I've ever heard), and then since then, they've sort of settled into a groove with HW, and now 72 Seasons of just writing songs inspired by what they love, almost old school like, but without the need to be the heaviest band on the planet.

It suits them. But to THIS fan's ears, it sounds like old guys who are past their prime, and just playing tunes. And there's nothing wrong with that. It doesn't inspire *me* as a listener, but I am sure, as has been proven here, they still sound great to others. And that's cool. But to me, Metallica has become what Tesla sounds like, sadly, today. Music that sounds like a bunch of old dudes just jamming on stuff they like, but lacking fire. For some that works. For this old school Metallica fan, it doesn't. And that's okay. Obviously, I'm in the minority, and I'm okay with that.

[Stadler]

The irony of all of this is Metallica didn't create the genre.  They POPULARIZED it.   Venom, Motorhead, Diamond Head, Raven, and Accept are at ground zero as much if not moreso than Metallica (and I'd guess even they'd tell you that, if they weren't in "sell" mode).   

Most things, if you think about it, are popularized not by the true progenitors, but by the fast followers.   Apple/Microsoft.  Beta Max/VHS.  One estimate says that first movers only capture about 7% of the market long term, so most of the successful companies we hear about are likely fast followers. 

But I'd be curious; what trends were they following when they veered away from thrash?  "Selling 10 million copies" isn't a trend.  They STILL didn't sound like anyone else out there, they just weren't "thrash".   

[Samsara]

That's a good point. Just like Nirvana didn't invent the grunge sound, but were the poster children for it.

Going with a huge emphasis on slick, warm production, and really making sure the songs had memorable chorus melodies, and good mainstream appeal. Almost EVERY band did it. Queensryche did it with Empire. Megadeth did it with Countdown, etc.

Then Metallica followed the more loose sounding, grunge-ish fashions with the Load records. Again, not bad at all, but totally trend followers.

[Stadler]

That's a good point. Just like Nirvana didn't invent the grunge sound, but were the poster children for it.

Going with a huge emphasis on slick, warm production, and really making sure the songs had memorable chorus melodies, and good mainstream appeal. Almost EVERY band did it. Queensryche did it with Empire. Megadeth did it with Countdown, etc.

Then Metallica followed the more loose sounding, grunge-ish fashions with the Load records. Again, not bad at all, but totally trend followers.

Sorry, I'm not seeing all that much different between Metallica's interpretation of Pearl Jam on Load as I do Metallica's interpretation of Motörhead, back in '83.  I don't get how wanting better production or wanting people to hear your music is "trend following".   I think some of those adjectives, like "slick" and "mainstream" are yours (collective), not Metallica's. Bruce Springsteen seemingly took a similar tack on Born In The USA and we're not calling him a sellout.   Fair play, though, in that this is opinion; most of the industry holds Kurt Cobain in high regard and I think he sold out grunge myself.  It's no coincidence that the Seattle scene is like one big family... except for Nirvana.  I know they were technically from Aberdeen, not Seattle, but that doesn't explain why there's this community and cameraderie and Nirvana wasn't part of it.

[Samsara]

Different topic, but Nirvana's location had much to do with not being a bigger part of that whole family of bands. We can discuss off line if you want. DM me.

As for Metallica, again, good point. I think Venom, Motorhead, etc., started it. But it was Metallica that sort of took those sounds and made something uniquely different that inspired generations. Sure, I see the argument you're making. And we could go round and round about it. Honestly though Stads? I'm not in the mood. 

[Stadler]

Different topic, but Nirvana's location had much to do with not being a bigger part of that whole family of bands. We can discuss off line if you want. DM me.

As for Metallica, again, good point. I think Venom, Motorhead, etc., started it. But it was Metallica that sort of took those sounds and made something uniquely different that inspired generations. Sure, I see the argument you're making. And we could go round and round about it. Honestly though Stads? I'm not in the mood. 

That's fine.  I respect that. 

Case anyone cares, I'm ripping S&M2 to my harddrive as we speak.  It is EXCELLENT. 

[TAC]

I couldn't get through the first one...

Different topic, but Nirvana's location had much to do with not being a bigger part of that whole family of bands. We can discuss off line if you want. DM me.

No passing notes! Discuss in public! It's interesting.

[Adami]

S&M 2 was fine but a huge missed opportunity for me. I really didn’t love most of it.

[Zantera]

S&M 2 was fine but a huge missed opportunity for me. I really didn’t love most of it.

I feel like they missed the mark with the song choices for it. They should have done no repeats IMO and even without the classics that appear on S&M1 there's enough to make a great setlist for 2.

[Adami]

S&M 2 was fine but a huge missed opportunity for me. I really didn’t love most of it.

I feel like they missed the mark with the song choices for it. They should have done no repeats IMO and even without the classics that appear on S&M1 there's enough to make a great setlist for 2.

I'd been fine with a repeat or two, but I think close to 70% or something of the set was just songs from the first one.

I also wasn't thrilled with the mix, or the orchestrations to the songs that were added. Felt a bit lazy. Like they did a typical Metallica show and added in some strings for some basic support at times.

[hefdaddy42]

There are multiple bands that I would love to see and hear with a symphony, but Metallica was never one of them.

[Zantera]

There are multiple bands that I would love to see and hear with a symphony, but Metallica was never one of them.

How do you feel about S&M1? I would say it's one of those "I did not know I wanted this but it's kinda cool"

[hefdaddy42]

There are multiple bands that I would love to see and hear with a symphony, but Metallica was never one of them.

How do you feel about S&M1? I would say it's one of those "I did not know I wanted this but it's kinda cool"

I listened to it once.  I don't feel anything about it.

[Adami]

I think there are bands that sound great as is, and bands whose natural sound could be enhanced by an orchestra doing their thing.

I think Metallica was the first band, but the amazing arrangements (mostly) by Kamen, created something new. As opposed to just doing the normal symphony thing of adding some texture and doubling keys/guitar riffs. I've seen a lot of bands (at least on video) with an added symphony that added virtually nothing. Metallica did something interesting and new with it, and I loved it. S&M 2 felt like the more typical approach, so I didn't connect much.

[twosuitsluke]

There are multiple bands that I would love to see and hear with a symphony, but Metallica was never one of them.

How do you feel about S&M1? I would say it's one of those "I did not know I wanted this but it's kinda cool"

By 'kinda cool', you mean 'best live album of all time', right?

[WilliamMunny]

There are multiple bands that I would love to see and hear with a symphony, but Metallica was never one of them.

How do you feel about S&M1? I would say it's one of those "I did not know I wanted this but it's kinda cool"

By 'kinda cool', you mean 'best live album of all time', right?

That's my take...I would def put S&M1 in my top 3 fav live albums. It was (and is) so much cooler than I'd thought it'd be, and many of the above posts explain why.

I'll go so far as to say S&M1 has my definitive versions of at least half a dozen classics–"One," "Wherever I May Roam," "Hero of the Day," "Call of Ktulu," and "Outlaw Torn" immediately come to mind.

[OpenYourEyes311]

S&M 2 was fine but a huge missed opportunity for me. I really didn’t love most of it.

I feel like they missed the mark with the song choices for it. They should have done no repeats IMO and even without the classics that appear on S&M1 there's enough to make a great setlist for 2.

I'd been fine with a repeat or two, but I think close to 70% or something of the set was just songs from the first one.

I also wasn't thrilled with the mix, or the orchestrations to the songs that were added. Felt a bit lazy. Like they did a typical Metallica show and added in some strings for some basic support at times.

Massive agree. The only repeats should have been The Ecstasy of Gold, No Leaf Clover, and -Human (which didn't even get resurrected)... but to have Ktulu, Bells, Memory, Outlaw, Roam, One, Master, NEM, and Sandman all repeated was kind of lazy. And I agree that the new orchestrations were also lazy as hell. The whole reason that S&M was such a classic IMO is Michael Kamen's charts. And to remove them from Master and Sandman and replace them with what they did was criminal.

I will say that the choices of new songs was pretty incredible. The Day That Never Comes and Halo On Fire are highlights on disc one, and All Within My Hands is one of my favorite Metallica recordings. The Pulling Teeth performance is really cool too, as is Unforgiven III.

The second disc, though, is so uneven it bothers me so much. Lars and the SFS director talking for five minutes to open the disc is intolerable, only to have only the orchestra play a non-Metallica song no one has ever heard of after... then more talking... into a full band performance of a pretty mediocre classical song no one has ever heard of... into just orchestra again and James doing Unforgiven III... into an acoustic full band performance... into a cello solo... It takes until track 8 to get the whole band back out to play Metallica songs the way you know them.

So overall, a missed opportunity to make something really special and unique. There's a bit of it in there, but mostly it's a rehash of what they did 20 years ago, and less good. Doesn't take away from the first one though, which is still one of my favorite Metallica releases.

[billboy73]

I really like S&M1, and overall the set is pretty solid.  I think a few of the songs don't work that well, and I'll always wonder why a song like Fade to Black was not included.

S&M2 is not that great.  Part of it for me is that it is right before James went back to rehab, and he looks pretty rough.  The setlist is just not great either.

[Zantera]

There are multiple bands that I would love to see and hear with a symphony, but Metallica was never one of them.

How do you feel about S&M1? I would say it's one of those "I did not know I wanted this but it's kinda cool"

By 'kinda cool', you mean 'best live album of all time', right?

I don't think it's even the best Metallica live album but I do like it a lot. But more than liking the album I like what it represents - a band doing something different with their music and capturing it on a live album that will forever exist. I always felt like more bands could do something similar, not necessarily with a symphony but I think a band like Iron Maiden (for example) could do some special one off night and release as a live album where they do like 90% deep cuts.

[Stadler]

I think there are bands that sound great as is, and bands whose natural sound could be enhanced by an orchestra doing their thing.

I think Metallica was the first band, but the amazing arrangements (mostly) by Kamen, created something new. As opposed to just doing the normal symphony thing of adding some texture and doubling keys/guitar riffs. I've seen a lot of bands (at least on video) with an added symphony that added virtually nothing. Metallica did something interesting and new with it, and I loved it. S&M 2 felt like the more typical approach, so I didn't connect much.

I get this take, and don't disagree, but there are moments in S&M2 that are just... the two minutes at the end of The Memory Remains is, in and of itself, my entire argument about the idea of "thrash" and "selling out".    That's a song from ReLoad, and it had 18,000 people suspend the moment for TWO FULL MINUTES singing the outro to that song. I can't imagine a better affirmation for an artist that what they are doing is resonating.   If I ever get the chance to interview any of the members of Metallica, one of my questions would be:  "Was that sort of a validation of all the changes and twists and turns your band's career have taken?  That was sort of a communal moment; a little bit antithetical to the idea of "thrash"; how does that fit with the idea that you have some obligation to maintain the "mantle" of thrash?" I'm always the one to say "don't speculate", and I won't here, but I have my suspicions as to what the general nature of the answer would be.

As for the "repetition" and what not; maybe it should have been called something different to avoid the comparisons.  The first one WAS something different (smaller venue for one).  I think this was intended to be more of a spectacle and celebration than what S&M1 was. 

I don't think it's even the best Metallica live album but I do like it a lot. But more than liking the album I like what it represents - a band doing something different with their music and capturing it on a live album that will forever exist. I always felt like more bands could do something similar, not necessarily with a symphony but I think a band like Iron Maiden (for example) could do some special one off night and release as a live album where they do like 90% deep cuts.

This is kind of where I am.   I can imagine it's a massive undertaking to do something like that (and for all the stick that Lars takes for being a crap drummer live, he acquits himself rather well in that show.  I suppose that opens up another argument against him; he CAN do it, so why doesn't he more regularly? HAHA).   

[Adami]

I think there are bands that sound great as is, and bands whose natural sound could be enhanced by an orchestra doing their thing.

I think Metallica was the first band, but the amazing arrangements (mostly) by Kamen, created something new. As opposed to just doing the normal symphony thing of adding some texture and doubling keys/guitar riffs. I've seen a lot of bands (at least on video) with an added symphony that added virtually nothing. Metallica did something interesting and new with it, and I loved it. S&M 2 felt like the more typical approach, so I didn't connect much.

I get this take, and don't disagree, but there are moments in S&M2 that are just... the two minutes at the end of The Memory Remains is, in and of itself, my entire argument about the idea of "thrash" and "selling out".    That's a song from ReLoad, and it had 18,000 people suspend the moment for TWO FULL MINUTES singing the outro to that song. I can't imagine a better affirmation for an artist that what they are doing is resonating.   If I ever get the chance to interview any of the members of Metallica, one of my questions would be:  "Was that sort of a validation of all the changes and twists and turns your band's career have taken?  That was sort of a communal moment; a little bit antithetical to the idea of "thrash"; how does that fit with the idea that you have some obligation to maintain the "mantle" of thrash?" I'm always the one to say "don't speculate", and I won't here, but I have my suspicions as to what the general nature of the answer would be.

Hard to disagree, but don't the audiences normally do that for that song? It was really cool, but nothing I haven't seen before, and had little to do with the rest of the show. Was just a great Metallica live moment, like 10's of thousands of people screaming DIE together for Creeping Death. Not show specific, just a general live awesome thing.