All things Metallica

The problem with Metallica, is the audience had an exceptions of what the band should sound and look like, when they changed their image and their sound, the fans cried fowl.

The thing about those two albums, is despite the gnawing of the teeth of their hard core fans those albums were successful.

I can't think many bands that can change their sound, image, or play music outside their genre where commerically and artistically it is successfully accepted by their fanbase, at the moment only two bands come to mind who can do that, one was Queen and the other one is Rush.

manny wrote:

The problem with Metallica, is the audience had an exceptions of what the band should sound and look like, when they changed their image and their sound, the fans cried fowl.

I'm not ashamed to admit I was one of them.

manny wrote:

The problem with Metallica, is the audience had an exceptions of what the band should sound and look like, when they changed their image and their sound, the fans cried fowl.

The thing about those two albums, is despite the gnawing of the teeth of their hard core fans those albums were successful.

I can't think many bands that can change their sound, image, or play music outside their genre where commerically and artistically it is successfully accepted by their fanbase, at the moment only two bands come to mind who can do that, one was Queen and the other one is Rush.

Actually, Metallica's sales dropped precipitously from the Load album on with each one selling half of the previous album. Now, that's still a ton of albums but the band and management were quite worried by this and thus their mad scrambling trying to figure out which musical direction to pursue.

Metallica are now, and always have been, very concerned with the business side of music and act accordingly. It's no surprise that every move they make seems calculated to curry favor with a particular audience.

Honestly I was already pretty burnt out on Metallica well before Load and/or ReLoad even made the scene. (Five years of hearing "Enter Sandman" on the radio every five minutes will do that to ya, especially if you never liked it much in the first place).

By the time Load came out and their fan base was freaking about the hair cuts, the change in sound, etc., I'd already moved on to other things so my reaction was more or less "Meh. Whatever."

Fat Freddy wrote:

Honestly I was already pretty burnt out on Metallica well before Load and/or ReLoad even made the scene.

Exactly.

S.D. wrote:

Fat Freddy wrote:

Honestly I was already pretty burnt out on Metallica well before Load and/or ReLoad even made the scene.

Exactly.

Funny, tho, is that if you'd told me in 1988 or '89 "You're going to be totally sick of this band in a couple of years" I would've said "NO WAY!" They were my favorite band on Planet Earth at the time and I would've willingly taken a bullet for any of the band members.

...and yet, despite having had it up to here with'em by 1992 or so, I eventually bought both Load and ReLoad, out of some weird sense of duty. They didn't get much play back then, they still don't get much play now, but on the other hand I didn't sh*tcan them like I did St. Anger, either. So that must count for somethin'.

I bought Load when it first came out and listened to it about three times to see if it grabbed me. Not really terrible but nothing to really get excited about. Reload was dookie though.

From a recent interview with James (during promtion of their 3d movie)

Quote :

How does Hetfield respond to fans who want Metallica to make an album that sounds like their old stuff like Master Of Puppets?

"Let's not do that shall we," he laughs. "It's a catch-22 because I completely understand what people want. It's like they're asking you to recreate a memory in their past and you cannot do that. It's a moment of time.

"We're one of those bands that doesn't really care what people want," he laughs.

"We have been artists since day one. We're not going to roll over for anyone and, you know, we're Metallica for a reason and we're going to keep doing that."

Pretty much what we've come to expect from them at this point, isn't it?

MetalGuy71 wrote:

From a recent interview with James (during promtion of their 3d movie)

Quote :

How does Hetfield respond to fans who want Metallica to make an album that sounds like their old stuff like Master Of Puppets?

"Let's not do that shall we," he laughs. "It's a catch-22 because I completely understand what people want. It's like they're asking you to recreate a memory in their past and you cannot do that. It's a moment of time.

"We're one of those bands that doesn't really care what people want," he laughs.

"We have been artists since day one. We're not going to roll over for anyone and, you know, we're Metallica for a reason and we're going to keep doing that."

Pretty much what we've come to expect from them at this point, isn't it?

That statement is kind of hilarious, since it was Rick Rubin, who told the band to go listen to their old stuff before entering the studio for that of Death Magnetic. As much as Rick Rubin seems to be washed up, I think he was right, and the band didn't seem to mind the idea of doing this five years ago...

"It's like they're asking you to recreate a memory in their past and you cannot do that".

That part is a pretty good summation though of the unrealistic expectations rock fans often have regarding artists that have been around for 30+ years.

Artists who place their art in the stream of commerce are idiots if they don't understand that their customers will place a demand on them. By not meeting that demand they will lose customers for their art. It's that simple. Many artists will whine about fan expectations while holding their hands out for some cash from the same fans. They want it both ways and whine when they don't get it. Artists are free to create the art they want, and I am free to not buy it and complain about it.

Quote :

Artists are free to create the art they want, and I am free to not buy it and complain about it.

The HoM motto.

I thought our motto was "Endlessly Arguing About Sub-Genres Without Actually Discussing The Music"

Every time a metal fan complains about a metal band changing their look, I tell them to look in the mirror, then step back and look at the sandals on their feet.

Eyesore wrote:

Every time a metal fan complains about a metal band changing their look, I tell them to look in the mirror, then step back and look at the sandals on their feet.

Its really easy to say that looking back in retrospect. Metallica made a calculated business decision with millions of dollars at stake. "IF" the black album didn't sell the number of copies that it did and place Metallica into that very lucrative "mainstream" market. We'd have no "Load" or "Re-Load", much less a drastic "designed" image change to even complain about.

If the black album would of sold in the numbers that "Justice" did, I'd wager the next album would of been way different than what we got.

Personally I think if they just made one album with the best songs from Load and Reload, it would have been a better album.

Would anyone's opinion have been different if they released it as a double album instead of partt two a year later?

Metallica fans have been bleating on about the band selling out, since at least Ride The Lightning! Give it a rest, Metallica will continue releasing whatever the heck they wan't. If you like it buy it. If you don't then don't, this seems to be what has happened over the years (more and more folk don't) and I've never really heard Metallica complain, they get most of their income from live performances anyway.

I'd really love to know how Devin Townsend gets away with changing his style of music on an hourly basis and manages to keep his fans.

I really don't agree that bands have to meet fan expectation, I think that bands have to have the freedom to explore or records like Pet Sounds or Revolver would never have been made. Metallica's woes have more to do with the fact that they lost the ability to write a decent song, not that they explored a new style or got a haircut.

James B. wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

Every time a metal fan complains about a metal band changing their look, I tell them to look in the mirror, then step back and look at the sandals on their feet.

Its really easy to say that looking back in retrospect. Metallica made a calculated business decision with millions of dollars at stake. "IF" the black album didn't sell the number of copies that it did and place Metallica into that very lucrative "mainstream" market. We'd have no "Load" or "Re-Load", much less a drastic "designed" image change to even complain about.

If the black album would of sold in the numbers that "Justice" did, I'd wager the next album would of been way different than what we got.

That's all irrelevant, though.

Boris2008 wrote:

I really don't agree that bands have to meet fan expectation, I think that bands have to have the freedom to explore or records like Pet Sounds or Revolver would never have been made.

A band is free to do whatever they want. If commercial suucces is achieved, wonderful. There is a diffference between a "natural" (subjective) change and a calculated one. You cannot compare either "Revolver" or "Pet Sounds" to "Load" or "Re-Load" (IMHDO) because A)The Beatles change came from the decision to become a studio band and not a touring band anymore. (a definite change in dynamic) and B)The creative force in The Beach Boys (Brian Wilsn) chose to somewhat deviate from the usual songwriting style. In both those cases, the style change wasn't made so to a marketing campaign to further commercial success. You can read countless published articles/interviews as to the contrary by members of The Beatles, Brian Wilson, and other Beach Boy members.

Quote :

Metallica's woes have more to do with the fact that they lost the ability to write a decent song, not that they explored a new style or got a haircut

That is subjective. When you "force" what isn't natural for the sake of selling a product to a "fickle" mainstream audience. Then continue to do so...the concept of what is good can change and you chase that proverbial carrot on a stick. It becomes more important to write what you think/assume is gonne be deemed good by the mainstream (the most money) and not what you may think is good in your opinion as a musician or songwriter. And....I don't care much about a band getting a haircut (Zeppelin members did it ALOT in the decade they were relevant...1969-1980) except they didn't ever do it as part of a marketing campaign coinsiding with musical direction and a wardrobe. If you don't think it was an overall contrived packaged plan and say it all was natural, that is your perogative (or anyone's for that matter) It just makes a guy wonder why anybody would say or think that ?

Eyesore wrote:

James B. wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

Every time a metal fan complains about a metal band changing their look, I tell them to look in the mirror, then step back and look at the sandals on their feet.

Its really easy to say that looking back in retrospect. Metallica made a calculated business decision with millions of dollars at stake. "IF" the black album didn't sell the number of copies that it did and place Metallica into that very lucrative "mainstream" market. We'd have no "Load" or "Re-Load", much less a drastic "designed" image change to even complain about.

If the black album would of sold in the numbers that "Justice" did, I'd wager the next album would of been way different than what we got.

That's all irrelevant, though.

Yes it really is, I was merely attempting to make a comparative illustration to base by opinion that most of what Metallica did after the black album wasn't a natural progression for them.

James B. wrote:

Boris2008 wrote:

I really don't agree that bands have to meet fan expectation, I think that bands have to have the freedom to explore or records like Pet Sounds or Revolver would never have been made.

A band is free to do whatever they want. If commercial suucces is achieved, wonderful. There is a diffference between a "natural" (subjective) change and a calculated one. You cannot compare either "Revolver" or "Pet Sounds" to "Load" or "Re-Load" (IMHDO) because A)The Beatles change came from the decision to become a studio band and not a touring band anymore. (a definite change in dynamic) and B)The creative force in The Beach Boys (Brian Wilsn) chose to somewhat deviate from the usual songwriting style. In both those cases, the style change wasn't made so to a marketing campaign to further commercial success. You can read countless published articles/interviews as to the contrary by members of The Beatles, Brian Wilson, and other Beach Boy members.

Quote :

Metallica's woes have more to do with the fact that they lost the ability to write a decent song, not that they explored a new style or got a haircut

That is subjective. When you "force" what isn't natural for the sake of selling a product to a "fickle" mainstream audience. Then continue to do so...the concept of what is good can change and you chase that proverbial carrot on a stick. It becomes more important to write what you think/assume is gonne be deemed good by the mainstream (the most money) and not what you may think is good in your opinion as a musician or songwriter. And....I don't care much about a band getting a haircut (Zeppelin members did it ALOT in the decade they were relevant...1969-1980) except they didn't ever do it as part of a marketing campaign coinsiding with musical direction and a wardrobe. If you don't think it was an overall contrived packaged plan and say it all was natural, that is your perogative (or anyone's for that matter) It just makes a guy wonder why anybody would say or think that ?

Where did I ever say that Pet Sounds or Revolver were a result of a marketing campaign? I didn't. I merely stated that if they had made the records that the fans wanted at the time, it wouldn't have been those records, of course I'm not putting Load in that bracket, it wasn't really a great record, I was just stating that bands do not have a duty to do what the fans are clamoring for all of the time.

When did I say that Metallica's image/musical change wasn't contrived? Far from it, Metallica's image has ALWAYS been contrived! Mustaine talks about it in his book that Lars wanted the band to have an image like Diamond Head and what they ended up with was a compromise. (although I'll admit that Cliff must have told Lars to take a running jump ) All bands do this including street clothes bands like Metallica and Megadeth (check out the early Megadeth pics to see how un metal Chris Poland looked before Mustaine started telling him how to dress, same with Jeff Young).

You talk about what is natural for Metallica, now I really don't have any idea how anyone but them could know what that is, they obviously wanted to change how they were perceived and change things around, but if it was such a contrived plan to achieve maximum record sales then it was a lousy one. The commercially sensible plan would have been 'more of the same' You quite simply do not get money men sitting in an office saying 'This product has surpassed our wildest hopes, people love it, can't get enough of it, we're sitting on a goldmine! Let's completely change it' It doesn't happen. I also think that Death Magnetic is the most contrived record they have ever done (Please metal fans, love us again, everyone else has lost interest, we'll even tour with Anthrax, Slayer and that guy we kicked out, just love us!!)

No-one would like Metallica to release an album as great as RTL or MOP again but 50 year old multi millionaires don't make records like that, so you either judge what they do now on it's merits and buy only if you like, or you drive yourself mad with what could have been.

Eyesore wrote:

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?

In my opinion Load/Reload were Metallica's answer to the Alterna/Grunge scene and were crafted very consciously into that direction. The band image, all those Lollapalooza tours mingling with the new bands of the moment, and especially the videos like that old harpy swinging on the cradle and na-na-naking was total alterna and fit perfectly on MTV among Alice in Chains, Smashing Pumpkins, Stone Temple Pilots, and so on. They have been jumping the band wagon ever since, but sadly now as followers and not the leaders anymore.

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.

The only reason I ever gave Load and Re-Load another shot was because someone downloaded copies of it for me (after I introduced him to a number great metal bands). So in my case, I didn't sacrifice any music on my wantlist to get those. At the time I was listening to 8-9 hours of music a day so I had the more than enough time to set aside for them.

MetalGuy71 wrote:

manny wrote:

The problem with Metallica, is the audience had an exceptions of what the band should sound and look like, when they changed their image and their sound, the fans cried fowl.

I'm not ashamed to admit I was one of them.

So was I (at Load-TBA was my first introduction to Metallica-metal).

stormspell wrote:

In my opinion Load/Reload were Metallica's answer to the Alterna/Grunge scene and were crafted very consciously into that direction. The band image, all those Lollapalooza tours mingling with the new bands of the moment, and especially the videos like that old harpy swinging on the cradle and na-na-naking was total alterna and fit perfectly on MTV among Alice in Chains, Smashing Pumpkins, Stone Temple Pilots, and so on. They have been jumping the band wagon ever since, but sadly now as followers and not the leaders anymore.

Grunge (or whatever you want to call it) was already on the way out in 1996, the peak years for sales had already passed. Alice In Chains released their last album (at the time) in 1995, Soundgarden broke up in 1996, Stone Temple Pilots was disintegrating, etc. If that was the bandwagon they were supposedly jumping on then they missed it by a good year or more.

You forget Metallica always have been a slow band, taking about 4 years on average to conceive and record and album. Load may be released 1996, but it was conceived and written in the first part of the 90s when alternative (or grunge, whatever it is called) still ruled supreme.

Besides, once you start following the market, you are always late to the party. It is an inevitable lag, a consequence of the time your team of marketing experts need to gather and compile the data for your next "masterpiece". It happened to them with St. Anger too, arriving even later to the groovy/angry party. Although in that case they still managed to influence the corporate music biz with taking the loudness war to an extreme new levels...