Death Magnetic

[JMincemoyer]

It seems you have "missed it." Bands do this all the time, instead of "group therapy" though it is called a "performance video." Whatever you may feel about Metallica you must admit that it was fascinating watching the band melt down, especially when dealing with Hetfield's drinking issues. They presented, in essence, an "all access" pass into the band's interworkings: the studio, hiring a new bassist, the creative process, or non-creative process if you want to look at it in a different light, in the studio, etc. Yes, they, at times, came off as extremely self-absorbed, but how do you (we) think we would be if we were in their shoes?

[JMincemoyer]

Furthermore, I do not find it embarrassing, even if I do not care for Metallica's more hard rock leanings, that they were shown performing in Russia, I believe, in front of a MILLION plus Metallica fans. That scene alone gave me chills. Admittedly, it was hard to watch Lars at times, especially during the art auction section, but if anything it further stripped away personal veneer that people had placed upon the band, especially him.

Being older, I think a lot of the issue is that Metallica once stated that they "did it for the fans" and that it would always be that way. But then they went, after growing older (wiser, maybe?), and changed their direction. Then the Napster issue blew up. Honestly, they do play for fans, but they create the music they want to hear for themselves.

[JMincemoyer]

What is truly amazing about this whole topic is how much personal stock people took, and still have, in Metallica. No other band can claim this. Maybe Slayer, but even Slayer is dwarfed by Metallica. I can hear an argument brewing, but putting scene credibility aside, sales figures in the multi-multi-millions, for a metal band, is not something easily ignored.

[AmoebicDysentery]

If I were Metallica's record label, I would hold all the funds in their bank accounts, take control of all their properties, give them $250/week each to live on and tell them to make a record. Lars doesn't like having to sleep on the floor of the studio? Tough shit.

When "Load" came out, metal wasn't exactly doing too well...So Metallica cuts their hair, stars wearing eye liner, and starts playing hokey blues-rock. "Re-Load" comes out and is marketed as "The heavier songs from the 'Load' sessions". I remember this well because I fell for it. It was the same shit.

So, in the meantime the nu-metal thing has come and gone but aggressive music (I'm not calling it metal) is on the rise in 2002-2003. Metallica drop tune their guitars, take off the eyeliner, play chugga chugga riffs, get a "raw" production, and film the whole entire debacle and show the whole world how to create an absolute shit record that even makes their previous shitty records seem good in comparison. The marketing machine is in full swing with "Metallica is heavy again!! This record sounds like '...and justice for all".

So, of course this record flops more than a pair of 32GG tities. Metal is now popular again in 2007-2008. There are new bands out that sound like Metallica did in 1983, so of course Metallica decides to make a heavy metal record again!

But, can middle-aged men who have more money than they'll ever know what to do with make a good metal record?

[JMincemoyer]

You are correct about the marketing machine. The pre-release reviews I read spoke of "...aggressive song-writing and Slayeresque dive-bomb soloing..." That got me, regretfully. Still, I think "Some Kind of Monster" is interesting and entertaining. The scene where Lars' father basically tells them that what he's listening to is "crap" and they should scrap it and start over...or when Kirk Hammett finally says something, "What do you mean no guitar solos." Classic....

But in light of "Load" of "Re-Load" either would be considered "flops" coming off the release of the "Metallica" album. This same thing happened to AC/DC after the release of "Back In Black."

I wonder why the band felt that their "appearance" mattered so much, when in reality it was always the music. It wasn't like Metallica's sound was image-dependent. Would Cliff Burton have cut his hair? I want to think not.

Regarding the middle-aged question...I guess we will see. Motorhead seems to be kicking along quite well.

[Metalfreak]

This is a great discussion! All I can really say is I hope the new record isn't another St. Anger. That was terrible for the most part.

[Knucklehead]

[url=mms://wm.elektra.com/metallica/metallica_com/2008/de/Track04.asf]The Day that Never Comes[/url].

Not impressed so far, but I'm only half-way through the song. Sort of Sanitarium/One/Unforgiven.

EDIT: Better on the second listen, I think.

[Brian]

new song was meh for the first 4 minutes or so
then it turned into holy batshit awesome

[Vhyle]

Man, I hope it's just the sound of the bad quality of that mp3 I'm hearing. Because those guitars sound like complete shit.

[samsara]

Someone made a great point by noting that they really started following what was marketable in music at the time. It'll be interesting to see the direction in which this record goes, because both of the genres you mentioned have come and gone for sure.

I do my best to seperate Metallica into two bands. There's the band that put out Kill 'Em All, Ride the Lightning, "Puppets", and "Justice", but as far as I'm concerned, once The Black Album came out they were a new band. I think the Black Album and to a lesser extent, Load, are good albums for what they were. Re-Load and St. Anger followed a similar formula, but made be want to take a baseball bat to the stereo. Are we ever going to see the comeback of the old Metallica? Absolutely not. It's just impossible. Even if they put out another record like the first four, it wouldn't be accepted as the same, because once you stop creating magic with your music, it's virtually impossible to start again. Especially when you're a vehicle for a corporate mechanism. Even if they <i>wanted</i> to go back to the old ways, the record company would prevent that from really happening.

Look at another classic metal band, Iron Maiden. The first seven albums are regarded as classics, and every album that has followed is not, despite the fact that the past three albums have been attempts to re-create the sound they achieved back in the day. I think that's a best-case scenario for Metallica.[/i]

[Knucklehead]

new song was meh for the first 4 minutes or so
then it turned into holy batshit awesome

I wish that I felt the same way. Maybe on a couple of more listens.

[BlazeTSU]

unless i missed it, how come no one has pointed out what an embarassment 'some kind of monster' is? i just can't respect a band that a) needs group therapy and b) releases it as a dvd. i was too young to grow up with metallica and i got into metal pretty late in the game, but i enjoy metallica's first 5 albums and i agree with blaze that s&m is a cool concept that turned out well. i just think their time has passed. they will always be enormously important and i think it's good they still tour (although i hear lars needs to re-learn how to play) but any new music they put out is going to feel like a lame attempt to recapture past glory or an even lamer attempt to remain relevant and influential musically.

i actually enjoyed "some kind of monster". maybe its just b/c i'm that big of a fan that watching them on the big screen for three hours was great.....no matter what the context.

and it has to be pointed out that they started playing together and taking over the world at a very young age. younger than the majority of us here and playing music in Metallica is basically all that they know. its very hard to stay together for 1 year, much less 25+ in a band setting. its basically like a marriage and there are tons of married folk in counseling so i guess i can understand it.

also, its not uncommon at all for musicians to have to "relearn" their material before they tour. matter of fact, i'd say that well over 90% of bands do that.

i'm by no means trying to argue with you here, just offering my take.

[BlazeTSU]

i thought that the new song was great! (but y'all knew that already)

honestly, i think its sounds like what Metallica should sound like in '08. it sounds like load, and justice for all and a little bit of maiden slammed together. the best part about it is that it sounds like something they would write. St. Anger sounded like 12 year olds wrote it and 5 year olds recorded it.

the production and arrangements are very much ....and justice for all but with the bass up in the mix.

it sounds like Rubin left them alone and let them write their own damn music instead of Bob Rock thinking he was a part of the band and writing their songs for them.

i hope the entire album is as good as "the day that never comes" but no matter what its 100 times the album St. Anger was based off this one song.

[BlazeTSU]

and another thing.........

everyone hates on metallica and says that they are the biggest sell-outs in metal history BUT is that really true? is that just based on the fact that they were successful? a lot of the older bands put out at least one "what they hell?" album. does anyone remember Kreator's run through the 90's? Megadeth's "Cryptic Writings"(megadeths "black album attempt) "Risk"(megadeths load attempt)? the last three Slayer albums? Sepultura and Soulfly anyone?

i think its most impressive that Metallica became one of the biggest bands on the planet doing what they wanted to but so many bands tried to follow trends and fell flat on their faces.

[AmoebicDysentery]

I had trouble making it through the first 4 minutes. Several times during the song a part would make me think of a direct part in an older song. It's definitely the best thing they've done in a while, but damn I wish James didn't try so hard with the vocals. Once it gets going it's kinda rockin' but it's realy unfocused.Trim all the fat off this song and make it 3-4 minutes long. Seems like they are going out of their way to try to be "epic", but they just aren't the songwriters they used to be.