All things Metallica

James B. wrote:

Rami Airola wrote:

In my opinion Lars was the one who brought a certain type of energy and punk attitude to the band. Without him the band would've been a lot less energetic

If you mean "punk" as in not really knowing how to play your instrument then you'd be correct. At least in their formative years.

Yeah, I mean it almost exactly like that. Just add "and not giving s*it" into that and there you go.
Lars pounded those drums with an amazing enthusiasm without a need to show off how technically able he is (not that he would've been able to do that anyway). It was all about the energy.

Not being good to play the instruments is in no way a bad thing, especially when the style of music is heavily depending on the energy it brings. A musician can be technically very talented but still lack any kind of a soul or charisma.

Quote :

and of course there was "punk" elements to Metallica and every other thrash band in the early years. Thrash was a combination of punk, NWOBM, and traditional heavy metal stylings.

True. I didn't mean Metallica had some special punk-quality to their music when compared to others. In fact for example early Sodom was way more "punk" (not exactly meaning the music style but the attitude) than Metallica has ever been. I just said that it was Lars who brought the most of the "punk" attitude to the band.

Maybe it's because I'm in more of a Rock rather than Metal place right now but I decided to revisit 'Load', I hated this record when it came out but it really does have some fantastic songs on it and I enjoy the feel of the album. It still has quite a few filler tracks but it's not the terrible record that I remember.

ReLoad still sucks though!

Boris2008 wrote:

Maybe it's because I'm in more of a Rock rather than Metal place right now but I decided to revisit 'Load', I hated this record when it came out but it really does have some fantastic songs on it and I enjoy the feel of the album. It still has quite a few filler tracks but it's not the terrible record that I remember.

ReLoad still sucks though!

I kind of feel the same way about Load these days. I still think it's too long. Cut out about 3-4 songs and you got a pretty decent album.

I think Load and Reload are great albums. Some tunes aren't amazing, but I don't think there are any truly bad songs. I've always enjoyed these two albums.

Eyesore wrote:

I think Load and Reload are great albums. Some tunes aren't amazing, but I don't think there are any truly bad songs. I've always enjoyed these two albums.

Those two albums are quite good, however, they're like some food on the table that you'd likely to grab last (or the least palatable so to speak)

it's always the First 5 albums that define the Metallica sound

compared to St. Anger, those are really good albums.

EmoElmo wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

I think Load and Reload are great albums. Some tunes aren't amazing, but I don't think there are any truly bad songs. I've always enjoyed these two albums.

Those two albums are quite good, however, they're like some food on the table that you'd likely to grab last (or the least palatable so to speak)

it's always the First 5 albums that define the Metallica sound

For me, nothing touches the first three but I don't blame them for changing things up a bit, people get older and tastes change. Looking back on it Load was a brave album and it's pretty hilarious that people accused them of selling out for commercial success, they had just had more commercial success than any metal band in the history of metal and the safe thing to do would have been to release The Black Album II, but they didn't, they made the record that they wanted to make and I respect them for that.

It's by no means a perfect record, for me they could have lost the last few songs with no ill effects but it really has it's moments and was perhaps the last Metallica album to feature more than one or two great songs (Death Magnetic has some great moments but there's something missing)

Load is okay I guess, I haven't owned a copy since 1997. I listened to it again a year or so ago and there are a few songs that aren't bad but nothing I ever need to own again. I also listened to Reload but that one was just as terrible as I remembered.

I have always liked the " Load" album and at the time I was such a Metallica fanboy I bought its first week of release.

As far as "Reload" I have to agree with S.D. just not very good album.

Boris2008 wrote:

Maybe it's because I'm in more of a Rock rather than Metal place right now but I decided to revisit 'Load', I hated this record when it came out but it really does have some fantastic songs on it and I enjoy the feel of the album. It still has quite a few filler tracks but it's not the terrible record that I remember.

ReLoad still sucks though!

I agree bout Reload but since Load has come out Ive been a fan of it I would seriously put it at my top 2 favs by Metallica (bear in mind im not a big fan of theirs as Im more of a megadeth kind of dude) but I love Load....

Reload was a collection of b-sides and unused stuff from the Load sessions so I can see why its nto very good. I remember buing Reload expecting Load II and all I got for my hard earned money was a cup coaster hehe

I'm not sure how people can like Load and say Reload isn't very good. I don't get it. To me, both albums are pretty equal in quality and style. I would say, however, that Load is the better of the two, but only barely.

manny wrote:

I have always liked the " Load" album and at the time I was such a Metallica fanboy I bought its first week of release.

As far as "Reload" I have to agree with S.D. just not very good album.

It's not as good as Load but nonetheless, good...it's a 'left-over' album so what would you expect

...and I still don't get the "Black Album" hate, it's the most musically-diverse, beautifully crafted Metallica album ever....it easily tops as my ultimate "grower" album (in any genre) ever.

Eyesore wrote:

I'm not sure how people can like Load and say Reload isn't very good. I don't get it. To me, both albums are pretty equal in quality and style. I would say, however, that Load is the better of the two, but only barely.

Equal in style, yes, since they were made at the same time, but " Load" the songs and they way they are sequenced are much better.

I like the Load and Re-Load albums better now than when they were new, but they're still not frequent spinners for me. I don't think they're bad, but they just don't sound like Metallica to me. When I want to hear something from those guys, I'll go to the first 4 albums everytime.

If it was any other band name on there, they'd probably rank higher in my mind. The sound and even the look of the band was too radical of a change for me. It wasn't what I wanted Metallica to be and it had negative effects on the whole listening experience. I've gotten over that part of it now, but they're still not frequent spinners.

Geez, it just occurred to me that it's been seventeen years since Load was released .... and thirty years since Kill'Em All. Goddammit we're getting OLD!!!

Eyesore wrote:

I'm not sure how people can like Load and say Reload isn't very good. I don't get it. To me, both albums are pretty equal in quality and style. I would say, however, that Load is the better of the two, but only barely.

Easy I believe the songs in Reload to be of sub par quality, theres a reason they were unused in Load

EmoElmo wrote:

manny wrote:

I have always liked the " Load" album and at the time I was such a Metallica fanboy I bought its first week of release.

As far as "Reload" I have to agree with S.D. just not very good album.

It's not as good as Load but nonetheless, good...it's a 'left-over' album so what would you expect

It's not a leftover album, nor are they b-sides or songs left off Load because they were considered sub-par. It was supposed to be a double album but the band couldn't get it finished in time, so they split it into two separate releases over the course of a year or so.

Eyesore wrote:

EmoElmo wrote:

manny wrote:

I have always liked the " Load" album and at the time I was such a Metallica fanboy I bought its first week of release.

As far as "Reload" I have to agree with S.D. just not very good album.

It's not as good as Load but nonetheless, good...it's a 'left-over' album so what would you expect

It's not a leftover album, nor are they b-sides or songs left off Load because they were considered sub-par. It was supposed to be a double album but the band couldn't get it finished in time, so they split it into two separate releases over the course of a year or so.

It sounds like a leftover album. The songs just aren't there.

Whatever anybody calls them both, I can't get into it. Sounds like a group of musicians "trying" to believe that this is what they really want to do music wise. (yet it still sounds like them doing what others are telling them to do)

What I cannot get is why people try so desperately to get into those Load and Re-load things... There is so much music out there worth discovering, a 1000 life-spans won't be enough to check it all... why waste time on such derivative products (and I specifically avoid using the word album here) conceived with the "expert help" of a special marketing team... I really don't get it.

stormspell wrote:

What I cannot get is why people try so desperately to get into those Load and Re-load things... There is so much music out there worth discovering, a 1000 life-spans won't be enough to check it all... why waste time on such derivative products (and I specifically avoid using the word album here) conceived with the "expert help" of a special marketing team... I really don't get it.

James B. wrote:

Whatever anybody calls them both, I can't get into it. Sounds like a group of musicians "trying" to believe that this is what they really want to do music wise. (yet it still sounds like them doing what others are telling them to do)

See, I think Load and Reload are the complete opposite. Those albums were the band doing what they wanted to do. St. Anger and Death Magnetic, on the other hand, are albums that, to me, sound like a band doing things others were telling them to do. And to an extent, the black album can be put it that category, too.

But Load and Reload? I don't buy it. The albums aren't in a style that was popular at the time, so who were they trying to please? You can easily pinpoint the demographic and market the black album, St. Anger, and Death Magnetic were specifically aimed at. Was bluesy rock with slight metal overtones popular when Load and Reload came out?

Eyesore wrote:

James B. wrote:

Whatever anybody calls them both, I can't get into it. Sounds like a group of musicians "trying" to believe that this is what they really want to do music wise. (yet it still sounds like them doing what others are telling them to do)

See, I think Load and Reload are the complete opposite. Those albums were the band doing what they wanted to do. St. Anger and Death Magnetic, on the other hand, are albums that, to me, sound like a band doing things others were telling them to do. And to an extent, the black album can be put it that category, too.

But Load and Reload? I don't buy it. The albums aren't in a style that was popular at the time, so who were they trying to please? You can easily pinpoint the demographic and market the black album, St. Anger, and Death Magnetic were specifically aimed at. Was bluesy rock with slight metal overtones popular when Load and Reload came out?

You touched base on how I feel everything has been since they stepped into the studio for the first time after Cliff Burton passed away. You make a valid point about "bluesy rock with metal overtones" being popular or not, but from where I sit the music was secondary to the other things that were constructed by a marketing firm. Metallica could of done "anything" after the success of the black album and it would of been succesful on some level or another. Which is pretty much what they did. I have a hard time buying it was what they really wanted to do music wise when the drastic image change came along with it. When ya start bringing in boatloads of cash like happened with the black album, there are ALOT of people who are not only gonna wanna dip into that gravy train but tell ya how to keep it comin in. Of course, there isn't anything thing wrong with success and making money. I just think it shows in the music that everything was contrived in a board room before any song was ever written.

The thing I didn't like about the Load/Relaod albums is sorta what James was talking about. They were certainly no longer a thrash band and by that time, they were barely a heavy metal band. The music on Load/Reload had a hard rock feel with some groove to it. And since heavy metal wasn't popular at the time, Kirk seemed to play more reserved. No shredding solos. I missed that. The songs didn't have that frantic, fast-paced controlled mayhem that I liked in their earlier albums. The music didn't sound like the Metallica I knew.

And then the look. It wasn't that they just cut their hair. They hired "stylists" that told them how to look and dress. That irked me. And around that time, they toured with bands like Linkin Park and Deftones, which irked me as well. It seemed to me that they hit that successful plateau with the Black Album and then turned their backs away from the stuff that got them there.

I've since been able to seperate all that stuff from the music and listen to it for what it is and those albums aren't all that bad. And if some other unknown band at the time put them out, I'd probably like them more. But they just don't sound like Metallica albums to me.