Some people have more money than brains

The one thing that really use to irk me in the mid 90's was when Lars Ulrich stated in so many words (and I will paraphrase the statement), how you (the fans) are either with us or you're against us. He suggested we could either continue to take the ride or get off. And to an extent those comments are fine, as fans we should allow our favorite bands to experiment within the realm of musical creativity. BUT, I believe Lars/Metallica really started to alienate his/their core fan base when they went down that road. What's the old adage? Don't forget where you came from... In other words there was no middle ground or gray area when it came to the core fans and their apathy towards not only a trendy sound, but that of a trendy look, accoring to Lars. Mr. Ulrich's attitude was like, feel what you want to feel, and take a hike...

What was wrong with that type of statement by Lars? Well, let me draw upon a sports analogy. I love the Green Bay Packers. I was born in the state of Wisconsin, so my rooting interests were instilled in me from a very early age. No matter what the Packers record is, who is coaching them, who their players are, who the G.M is, I will ALWAYS root for the Packers. With that being said, because I'm a fan boy of the Packers, does that preclude me from being an arm chair Q.B on Sundays by questioning the play calls of Mike McCarthy, or by questioning the decision making of Ted Thompson (the G.M) in his drafting decisions/the re-signing of players/signing of free agents??? The answer: Absolutely NOT!!! The funny thing is, people like Ted Thompson (the G.M) and Mike McCarthy (the coach) understand when the INTELLIGENT fan questions some of the moves a team makes over a given Sunday or a given year. Even if they don't accept the fans assertion, they don't feel the urge to come out in the press and state such things like; "You're either with us or against us". They ultimately realize that the fans complaints or worries are designated under the guise of devotion and loyalty. Hence, Metallica's core audience probably care more about the band than the others who latched on later in their careers. Why do I know this? Because, the core audience is not afraid to speak up and be impassioned by what they felt during those years in the 90's and early 2000's. It's easy to sit on your hands and give back slaps and throw out praise and adulation, it's much harder to deliver constructive criticism to the those things you love in life!

One other thing, if the core audience was so wrong about the direction of Metallica in the mid 90's, why has Metallica seem to come full circle in their career? Why did James Hetfield find the need to admit that the image thing involving the pimp suits/Cuban cigar/androgynous thing in the "Load" sleeve looks embarrassing after all these years and was a calculated mistake? Why does Metallica's set list these days not recognize much of anything from Load/Re-Load/St.Anger? Why did Metallica come out with an album like Death Magnetic? Why did Metallica find it in their best interest to rediscover their roots by headlining The Big 4 Festival?

It probably looks like I'm trying to assess blame on Lars and Metallica (regarding the direction they took), and to be honest I'm not. They did what they did, and that period seems to be put to rest. I guess what I'm suggesting is, the core audience who helped make Metallica great seem to be vindicated, and their views of 15 years ago and beyond don't seem to be so nonsensical all these years later....


***During the "Load" press junket, there was a picture of both Lars and Kirk sticking their tongues out and essentially kissing each other. First off, I have no problem with people of other sexual orientations, in fact I support ga-hey rights. With that being said, when you have two heterosexual men who are trying to play the role of Madonna just to get a rise out of their fan base, then I have a problem with that. Not because it's offensive for two men to be kissing, but because neither of these guys are ga-hey, and they're doing this just to push the envelope. Talk about disingenuous to both heterosexuals and homosexuals....

...which leads me to my all time favorite quote by Dave Mustaine. After "Load" and just before "Cryptic Writings" came out Lars Ulrich was quoted as saying how "Dave needs to learn how to take chances". Dave's retort (after catching the pic of Lars and Kirk), "If by taking chances, Lars means I have to tongue F*CK my lead guitarist, no thank you".

I'm not sure that Metallica have come full circle in the way suggested - i.e. listening to what older fans want. I think Metallica, since at least the Load era have been following various trends.

The Load/Reload albums - despite being stylistically very eclectic - were attempting to capture the mood and style of the Alice in Chains albums. AIC is one of the bands Metallica idolized during that period. I thought it was rather funny however when AIC made a joke / gaffe about Metallica during a live set in which Metallica was present "Don't let your friends get 'Friends' [referring to the television sitcom] haircuts". Neither Load albums turned out anywhere near as a good as what Alice in Chains had done in the early-mid 90s; not to mention that neither albums were even able to come close to the Black Album and at best ended up sounding very much like watered down versions of TBA.

Skipping ahead a few years, St Anger and the Some Kind of Monster documentary. Reality shows were becoming big at the time. Ozzy was making a bumbling idiot out of himself with the Osbournes show, so what do Metallica do... jump on the reality tv bandwagon. They released the Some Kind of Monster movie which in many ways overshadowed St Anger completely. They most likely made more money with the movie than they will ever make with the album itself. They were able to sell that whole dysfunctional image.

More recently, with so many of their older peers reuniting in the mid-late 00s, Metallica changes gears again and starts going for a heavier sound. St Anger was essentially a nu-metal album that's what they were going for at the time. All the bands they toured back then were nu-metal. It was sort of the in thing (although it was slowly fading by that stage), and alternative and grunge music is now pretty much dead. The "in" thing right now are the heavier bands - whether it's the mainstream / trendy metalcore or the other side, 'retro thrash' or something in between.

So I'm not sure how accurate it is to say that Metallica are doing it for the fans. It's a conjuncture more than anything else.

Alex Dee Rokket wrote:

I'm not sure that Metallica have come full circle in the way suggested - i.e. listening to what older fans want. I think Metallica, since at least the Load era have been following various trends.

If not full circle, then it is certainly a 180, as nothing they did on the Black album through Re-Load resemble what they did on Death Magnetic (w/ the exception of Unforgiven III, which came off as ridiculous). Whether they were trying to placate to Ric Rubin (who told them to go back and listen to their older work), or whether they were inspired by what their contemporaries were doing, I think my point has been established.

Alex Dee Rokket wrote:

Skipping ahead a few years, St Anger and the Some Kind of Monster documentary. Reality shows were becoming big at the time. Ozzy was making a bumbling idiot out of himself with the Osbournes show, so what do Metallica do... jump on the reality tv bandwagon. They released the Some Kind of Monster movie which in many ways overshadowed St Anger completely. They most likely made more money with the movie than they will ever make with the album itself. They were able to sell that whole dysfunctional image.

I didn't have a problem with this in the least, as I like to know about the in house relationships of band members. I'm an amateur psychologist by nature, so I find this type of stuff riveting. I thought the Dave/Lars moment was an eye opening experience, and it put Dave in a whole different light for me. I thought he came off as sincere, and it made me feel bad for what he thought was an opportunity missed in his life. Then again, Dave is finally coming to the realization that what spawned from his firing from Metallica, was his great band. One of his quotes from last summer was, "I'm proud of the fact that I'm the only person who can say that they've been in both bands". That's how he should have always viewed it, but then again it's easy for me to say that being an outsider. Prior to Some Kind of Monster (the doc), I always felt bad for Jason Newsted, but after the documentary, it was evident that Jason could be a real douche bag (Ex: The stupid phone calls he left the band, Jason exiting the back door on Lars/Bob Rock who went to go see Echobrain perform one night, his asking to be let back in the band after he left them, etc...) I loved finding out what I clearly already seemed to understand about Kirk's position within the band, which is, he will always be the third wheel. The entity which is Metallica is controlled by two men, and Kirk sits their in silence. I think we learned that there was a real love/hate relationship between Lars and James (dysfunctional). Metallica fans learned that the band band wasn't the "Be all, End all" for one James Hetfield. Clearly, sobriety and family were at the forefront, whereas Lars seemed to be dealing with a midlife crisis. He sold all of his art work that had been a huge part of his life during the Load years, he seemed less engrossed in family (which was evident by the fact that he and Skylar divorced shortly after the doc was released), and most of all Lars seemed to be troubled with the real thought of what his life might be without Metallica. I could go on and on, but I won't...I thought "Some Kind of Monster" was brilliant, because I don't think their was any playing up to the cameras, it was real and for that, I salute them...It's too bad the album wasn't as good as the doc!

Alex Dee Rokket wrote:

So I'm not sure how accurate it is to say that Metallica are doing it for the fans. It's a conjuncture more than anything else.

I'm guessing you're referring to my comments, except, I never once mentioned that Metallica were doing this for the fans. They would be breaking new ground by establishing such a precedence. I have no idea who they're doing it for. All I said was, I think it's ironic how the core fan base was thrown under the bus for positions they took regarding the sound and image the band went with in the mid 90's and the early 2000's, and how the band has now adopted something so polar opposite to what was going on 15 years ago. And you're right Alex, it's purely conjecture (not sure conjuncture is a word) on my part.

I actually meant conjuncture and not conjecture.

Conjuncture = a combination of circumstances i.e. that Metallica has gone back to their heavier sound (as a result of either other bands they know doing it, or a new trend sweeping the metal world) and fans getting what they've wanted from Metallica for a long time - an album that resembles their older sound.

Conjecture = expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence of proof (almost like, hearsay) which makes sense in terms of your earlier post since as you said, you are unsure why Metallica went back to a heavier sound, whether or not for the fans or what exactly for...

Fair enough, I stand corrected on what you were establishing in your previous post.

I find it interesting what a wealth of information and discussion a thread on Metallica can generate. It goes to show that whether one likes the band or dislikes what the band has such a strong presence in metal that it's impossible to escape or ignore their all-encompassing influence if you listen to this style to music.