Metallica Superthread -All Metallica discussion goes in here

Ash.J.Williams

Yeah cliff was probably the least metal of them all

slavetothegrind

i have to say i am a fan since the age of 16 myself and first hearing a bootleg of the four horsemen and hit the lights, loved all the albums up to and including the black album, after that i didn't think the songwriting was as good but that's just my opinion

i still don't get a lot of peoples rejection of the black album, it is a great album and on first hearing it i thought the same! It took me a lot longer to get into Justice after getting the harvester 12" , that scared me a bit with the lack of bass and clicky kick drum!

Tony's right about the feel of the scene at 16, was a great time to go to gigs!

This sellout idea i never bought into, it's not like they produced a commercial disco album ala KISS?

So i guess what i'm saying is Bob rock did a good job on that album! Furthermore i put to you he earned every penny dealing with Lars!

happyoutscan

I just don't like the Black Album, with the exception of a couple numbers I think it's very weak. Upon first listening to it all those years ago I can remember being very disappointed with the lack of double bass drums on it in comparison to AJFA and this probably influenced my initial negative thoughts. I recently gave it a couple of full spins and my thoughts hadn't changed.

However I like the feel of Load and a few on Reload.

Each to their own I guess.

briany

Tony EH wrote: »

Heavy metal music, at least the more extreme forms, has a certain iconoclastic nature to it. It's supposed to be about rejecting options you find objectionable to a large degree. This, of course, hinges on the listener being of a certain age and "discovering" that type of music in a sea of, what they would consider, drivel and most fans come to this type of music early in life. It's generally not something they latch onto in their 30's.

It's very difficult now to express what it was like in the 80's when thrash metal appeared. Like a lot of art forms, a given genre is birthed with an extension or revolt against what came before it. So, like Dada rejected what came before it and was extended by Surrealism, thrash rejected the staleness of "heavy rock", but was an extension of heavy metal/punk. Sure, one could say it's all just music and it is. But, when you're 16 that doesn't apply.

To me, the thrash metal scene was the last great scene to reach a huge audience entirely on its own steam, through tape trading and the listener taking chances on bands. It made absolute sense to the people that listened to it and it allowed for a lot of offshoots to be explored. But, the important thing is, is that it appeared without the dubious help of major record companies, who by and large, rejected the music outright until they cottoned on in the late 80's that their were a lot of people actually listening to it. Such a thing was always fine with metal fans. They were very happy with "their" bands being on small indie labels that wouldn't interfere with the bands and how they wanted to make their music and all was rosy in the garden.

One of the cornerstones of the thrash metal scene was Metallica, who were pioneers. The big two (Metallica and Slayer), subdivided from the "big four" (Metallica, Anthrax, Megadeth and Slayer), were the ambassadors of thrash metal in the 80's. It was those bands that inspired a generation to pick up an instrument and try to copy and better what they had laid down, just as they had copied and bettered what came before them.

But they did it without the want of radio play or chart position and their fans didn't want to see them on America's Top 40 or Top of the Pops either. It may be "crab in a bucket", but that's the way the genre had set out its stall in many ways and that's the way the fans, specifically, wanted it.

So, when one of those cornerstones of a musical type that seduced you in your youth start desiring to appear on Top of the Pops and goes looking for radio play, it inevitably leaves a bad taste in the mouth of the (former) fan and casts the band themselves in a lesser light to some.

Metallica's open desire for radio play and big time commerciality in general struck a lot of their fans in a bad way. But such things have always followed them. There were some people that thought 'Ride the Lightning' was a "sell out" and that will always happen. But, there is a huge difference between that and the deliberate effort to achieve mass market appeal that the 'Black' album (and their working with Bob Rock) represents to a lot of people. With that record, Metallica declared that that was the direction they desired and it inevitably turned people against them, while at the same time appealing to huge number of new fans, a lot of whom would have turned their nose up at the likes of 'Master of Puppets' or 'Ride the Lightning'. The writing was on the wall of course with '...And Justice for all' and its singles, but the 'Black' album was Metallica's effort to "forget" their past and head off down a different road. A road on which many of their listeners didn't want to go down. To me, 'Enter Sandman' was the T junction where Metallica went left and I went right. I occasionally see them driving along adjoining roads, but I can't wait for my turn off to come along.

At the end of the day though, it's all just tunes, as Cardiacs front man, Tim Smith would say and he's right. But, it's inevitable that some tunes people will find appealing and others they will find appalling.

I've often wondered what Cliff Burton would have made of it all.

By the end of the 80s, Thrash Metal was becoming pretty stale itself. It was no different from any other form of Rock or Metal music that came before in that it springs up, it's vital, it's organic, but then certain aspects of the music become refined, some principles of the sound become dogmatic and entrenched, and eventually the whole thing becomes a parody of itself.

Like any other scene, Thrash had reached its apex and its saturation point and a point where new ideas were less forthcoming than a refinement and rehash of old ones. Sure, the riffs got faster, the solos got shreddier and the guitars got pointier. So what?

To me, The Black Album was a reaction to this. A reaction to the bloat of Thrash that they had spearheaded, and the overlong songs of Justice. A way to challenge themselves in a different direction. It would have been far, far easier for Metallica to continue cutting records like they had been doing and it would have taken less time and thought, too. Very few bands, if any, from the Thrash scene were interested in making the effort like Metallica did to actually broaden their horizons, in taking a step into the unknown, in taking a risk. Sure, they did so afterwards, but again only when Metallica created the slipstream to follow.

That they made a conscious decision to sell out is a very dubious assumption. For one thing, they'd been with Elektra since Puppets, so they essentially released two 'underground' records as part of the WB family. I didn't hear the cries of sell out ring out so highly around those. Secondly, if they were intent on selling out, they needn't have waited 10 years to do so.

Tony EH

I agree with a lot of what you say, but you're missing my point on the labels issue.

I was referencing more the attitude that fans had in general towards big labels and bands in general, not really just Metallica. Thrash/Death metal bands were usually free to operate on their own terms, free of the (usually seen as negative) influence of big labels. The big labels were always seen as a de facto death knell, rightly or wrongly, by fans of bands in this type of music. I'm talking about a period where labels told bands what songs they could put on an album.

But, let me clarify, I have never really cared for the term "selling out". To me it was an American term that meant nothing to my little self here. But, my point there was that it had followed Metallica for years, long before the 'Black' Album.

I think with the 'Black' Album, many fans just saw it as a definite demarcation from what had come before. It's just a demarcation that a lot of people who had been there since 82/83/84 weren't that chuffed with.

Ash.J.Williams

once metallica got going the labels did tell the other thrash bands what to do eg ballads became manditory

jack presley

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

once metallica got going the labels did tell the other thrash bands what to do eg ballads became manditory

I'm not really a big thrash fan outside of Metallica (let's not have the are Metallica really thrash debate?) and I have a head like a sieve but I don't remember too many thrash ballads. Who was doing them back in the early 90's?

Go back to the 80's and sure, every rock band was doing them but that was way before Metallica.

briany

Tony EH wrote: »

I agree with a lot of what you say, but you're missing my point on the labels issue.

I was referencing more the attitude that fans had in general towards big labels and bands in general, not really just Metallica. Thrash/Death metal bands were usually free to operate on their own terms, free of the (usually seen as negative) influence of big labels. The big labels were always seen as a de facto death knell, rightly or wrongly, by fans of bands in this type of music. I'm talking about a period where labels told bands what songs they could put on an album.

But, let me clarify, I have never really cared for the term "selling out". To me it was an American term that meant nothing to my little self here. But, my point there was that it had followed Metallica for years, long before the 'Black' Album.

I think with the 'Black' Album, many fans just saw it as a definite demarcation from what had come before. It's just a demarcation that a lot of people who had been there since 82/83/84 weren't that chuffed with.

To be honest, I think the label issue sounds like a hangup of the fans more than anything else. I think the thing about Metallica is that they never really had to listen to labels because they always had enough stroke, enough credibility on their own terms with the fans that the backing of a major label wasn't as much of a concern. The only time, that I've heard of, where they really allowed an outside party to dictate to them on their creative direction was 'Escape'. So, in actuality the fans never had to worry about the labels shaping them. They shaped themselves the way they were on TBA, Bob Rock only helped them attain the vision they already had, so the only question that remains is whether people believe their direction was part of a conscious effort to grab worldwide mainstream appeal or if Metallica's musical direction just happened to be on course with something a little more palatable to mainstream tastes or, indeed, if they pulled the world along with them.

You kind of wonder if some of the distaste towards TBA from Metallica's peers in the Thrash scene was more of a bitterness that Metallica had suddenly pulled the rug out from under their collective feet and shifted the heavy music paradigm. Who believes a single one of them wouldn't have taken the same opportunities that Metallica created and took for themselves?

As an additional thought, what, exactly, were fans expecting in the lead up to TBA? What evolutions in sound did they envisage, based on what had gone before? What were the rumours going about that the album would sound like?

Wrongway1985

jack presley wrote: »

I'm not really a big thrash fan outside of Metallica (let's not have the are Metallica really thrash debate?) and I have a head like a sieve but I don't remember too many thrash ballads. Who was doing them back in the early 90's?

Go back to the 80's and sure, every rock band was doing them but that was way before Metallica.

^^This Exactly ,ones that spring to mind are "The Legacy" by Testament and "Cemetery Gates" by Pantera but they were released before The Black album.

Preist, Maiden, Sabbath amongst others were at Ballady songs long before Metallica "took off".

As for thrash bands; Slayer, Anthrax, Sepultura, Kreator etc. all signed to widely known labels if there is evidence to suggest they were told ballads were mandatory they must have said no!!

Ash.J.Williams

jack presley wrote: »

I'm not really a big thrash fan outside of Metallica (let's not have the are Metallica really thrash debate?) and I have a head like a sieve but I don't remember too many thrash ballads. Who was doing them back in the early 90's?

Go back to the 80's and sure, every rock band was doing them but that was way before Metallica.

testament for a start, and they have stated there was pressure from the label because of metallicas successful formula.

StaticAge11

Friend of mine found the No Life Til Leather record store day release for me. Can't wait to check it out!

Motley Crue

StaticAge11 wrote: »

Friend of mine found the No Life Til Leather record store day release for me. Can't wait to check it out!

I have one myself, it's a lovely looking item. I'd feel guilty to play it to be honest haha

I'm curious as to whether Side B is just empty or whether they recorded a secret message on it - that would have been brilliant....still, you never know....

briany

Motley Crue wrote: »

I have one myself, it's a lovely looking item. I'd feel guilty to play it to be honest haha

I'm curious as to whether Side B is just empty or whether they recorded a secret message on it - that would have been brilliant....still, you never know....

Use the blank side to make a sweet NWOBHM mix or to record the premiere of Dire Straits new album on 2FM.

Mental Mickey

happyoutscan wrote: »

I just don't like the Black Album, with the exception of a couple numbers I think it's very weak. Upon first listening to it all those years ago I can remember being very disappointed with the lack of double bass drums on it in comparison to AJFA and this probably influenced my initial negative thoughts. I recently gave it a couple of full spins and my thoughts hadn't changed.

However I like the feel of Load and a few on Reload.

Each to their own I guess.

They went completely left-field on The Black Album. It was a totally different sound to ANYTHING they'd done previously. That's what I liked about it. They had the balls to try something new(for them). There's more to rock/metal than just double bass drumming too.

happyoutscan

Mental Mickey wrote: »

They went completely left-field on The Black Album. It was a totally different sound to ANYTHING they'd done previously. That's what I liked about it. They had the balls to try something new(for them). There's more to rock/metal than just double bass drumming too.

I wouldn't necessarily agree that they went completely left-field with the Black Album, the songs are just unbelievably weak with the exception of a couple. They went completely left-field with Load and Reload if anything, both these are better - imo - because of this.

With regards to the double bass, I was a young aspiring drummer at the time hence my disappointment with the lack of kick on this album as up until this point Lars was one of my favorites.

And yes, I know there's more to rock/metal than just double bass, but thanks for assuming that I didn't know that.

briany

happyoutscan wrote: »

I wouldn't necessarily agree that they went completely left-field with the Black Album, the songs are just unbelievably weak with the exception of a couple. They went completely left-field with Load and Reload if anything, both these are better - imo - because of this.

With regards to the double bass, I was a young aspiring drummer at the time hence my disappointment with the lack of kick on this album as up until this point Lars was one of my favorites.

And yes, I know there's more to rock/metal than just double bass, but thanks for assuming that I didn't know that.

Which songs are weak and how so? I have a hard time hearing one weak song on the album, let alone a bunch.

Motley Crue

briany wrote: »

Use the blank side to make a sweet NWOBHM mix or to record the premiere of Dire Straits new album on 2FM.

Not a chance, but if I ever get to interview Lars I might bring my tape recorder and record the interview on Side B

lord lucan

Motley Crue wrote: »

Not a chance, but if I ever get to interview Lars I might bring my tape recorder and record the interview on Side B

Don't forget to cover the holes with tape if the tabs have been removed.

briany

lord lucan wrote: »

Don't forget to cover the holes with tape if the tabs have been removed.

And add in black marker to the label, '....those who touch will be prosecuted (skull and crossbones).

Mental Mickey

briany wrote: »

Which songs are weak and how so? I have a hard time hearing one weak song on the album, let alone a bunch.

The only weak song(s) IMO on TBA, are Struggle Within and Don't Tread On Me. ReLoad is a terrible album, nothing on it is better than TBA

Motley Crue

lord lucan wrote: »

Don't forget to cover the holes with tape if the tabs have been removed.

I haven't even opened it from the plastic so couldn't tell you, but will remember that handy hint

Mental Mickey

happyoutscan wrote: »

I wouldn't necessarily agree that they went completely left-field with the Black Album, the songs are just unbelievably weak with the exception of a couple. They went completely left-field with Load and Reload if anything, both these are better - imo - because of this.

With regards to the double bass, I was a young aspiring drummer at the time hence my disappointment with the lack of kick on this album as up until this point Lars was one of my favorites.

And yes, I know there's more to rock/metal than just double bass, but thanks for assuming that I didn't know that.

I didn't assume anything!!??? I wouldn't say that ALL the songs on TBA are weak either??? Maybe a couple....?

briany

Mental Mickey wrote: »

The only weak song(s) IMO on TBA, are Struggle Within and Don't Tread On Me. ReLoad is a terrible album, nothing on it is better than TBA

Struggle Within, I get that somewhat. It's weak in comparison to other songs on the album, but the other songs are classic. On it's own, though, I still think it's pretty good. Don't Tread on Me is one I don't get the hate for. The solo on that is a killer.

Mental Mickey

briany wrote: »

Struggle Within, I get that somewhat. It's weak in comparison to other songs on the album, but the other songs are classic. On it's own, though, I still think it's pretty good. Don't Tread on Me is one I don't get the hate for. The solo on that is a killer.

That's about it for DTOM - a killer solo.

jack presley

Mental Mickey wrote: »

That's about it for DTOM - a killer solo.

James' grunt just after the 3 minute mark is pretty cool too I think.

briany

Mental Mickey wrote: »

That's about it for DTOM - a killer solo.

Rhythm guitar is pretty cool, too.

Say Your Number

I know it wouldn't be the most popular song with hardcore fans but the solo on Nothing Else Matters is brilliant.

happyoutscan

briany wrote: »

Which songs are weak and how so? I have a hard time hearing one weak song on the album, let alone a bunch.

Sad but True, Nothing Else Matters, Unforgiven, God that Failed are decent. Don't like anything else on it.

briany

Say Your Number wrote: »

I know it wouldn't be the most popular song with hardcore fans but the solo on Nothing Else Matters is brilliant.

Sometimes a solo is superfluous, like it's just put there because that's what you do, but NEM's solo is a real part of the song and the logical climax. That little mellow part afterward is a nice comedown, too. A perfect, succinct musical statement.

jack presley

The fact that it's done by James adds a bit of uniqueness to it.