Why Metallica Lost its Cred...
I've heard more than one pithy one-liner where Lars would decry, "Of course we sold out, we sold out every concert hall we've ever been in!"
But he has ignored the reason that Metallica is considered as corporate as it gets when it comes to rock.
It's not because they spent time fighting Napster.
It's because they really did ignore their fans!
I don't mean this in an "old Metallica vs. New Metallica" kind of way. I mean this in its sincerest sense.
Metal fans tend to be those kids who want to feel a part of something more powerful--bigger than themselves. They want to belong to something that is shared by few others...
And Metallica used to be that. I remember... back in junior high, it was still an underground thing to like Metallica, even though the black album was 4 or so years old at that point. Load was being buzzed about. Metallica was still underground.
I'll never forget the interview... it was either Leno or Letterman...
Lars was shown the video for "Enter Sandman."
"God we looked like hippies then..."
...
Okay... somehow within 4 years, it became 'hippie' to have long hair. In one fell swoop, Lars became our father...
Whereas previously, he was part of a band that our parents were banning us from hearing????
I understand the need to 'cross over.' To become huge.
But I would like some modicum of honesty.
Metallica decided to take their sound and water it down... to make it palatable for mom and dad... to become the hard rock version of U2.
There's no other way to sugar-coat it. I'm 100% for bands to experiment. But to call anything after the "Black Album" 'experimental' is identical to stating that the cock sliding down your throat isn't making you GAG.
And applause for you if you can manage such a feat. I haven't joined such a club, however.
Vulgar metaphor aside however, Metal music is about being direct and confrontational. And a part of me has always wondered what Metallica fans would have done had Lars admitted that they did in fact, 'sell out.' Of course, I laugh heartily any time candy is ripped from the mouths of babes.
But to stay on target, Metallica had become the most popular band in the Bay Area Thrash scene... and they made national success with such classics as "Master of Puppets" and "...and Justice for All."
But they did stab metal fans in the back after the Black Album. They made the decision to make records that had the barest resemblance of their original sound.
In some respects I can also start to understand the similar rage with In Flames... its just that I actually enjoy their new music as much as their old.
Metallica was a refuge for metal fans... a place in the wind they could call their own. But the band decided that devotion wasn't good enough, that they wanted the shallow masses to be their endgame...
So be it.
I've never owned a legal copy of a Metallica album to begin with...
But he has ignored the reason that Metallica is considered as corporate as it gets when it comes to rock.
It's not because they spent time fighting Napster.
It's because they really did ignore their fans!
I don't mean this in an "old Metallica vs. New Metallica" kind of way. I mean this in its sincerest sense.
Metal fans tend to be those kids who want to feel a part of something more powerful--bigger than themselves. They want to belong to something that is shared by few others...
And Metallica used to be that. I remember... back in junior high, it was still an underground thing to like Metallica, even though the black album was 4 or so years old at that point. Load was being buzzed about. Metallica was still underground.
I'll never forget the interview... it was either Leno or Letterman...
Lars was shown the video for "Enter Sandman."
"God we looked like hippies then..."
...
Okay... somehow within 4 years, it became 'hippie' to have long hair. In one fell swoop, Lars became our father...
Whereas previously, he was part of a band that our parents were banning us from hearing????
I understand the need to 'cross over.' To become huge.
But I would like some modicum of honesty.
Metallica decided to take their sound and water it down... to make it palatable for mom and dad... to become the hard rock version of U2.
There's no other way to sugar-coat it. I'm 100% for bands to experiment. But to call anything after the "Black Album" 'experimental' is identical to stating that the cock sliding down your throat isn't making you GAG.
And applause for you if you can manage such a feat. I haven't joined such a club, however.
Vulgar metaphor aside however, Metal music is about being direct and confrontational. And a part of me has always wondered what Metallica fans would have done had Lars admitted that they did in fact, 'sell out.' Of course, I laugh heartily any time candy is ripped from the mouths of babes.
But to stay on target, Metallica had become the most popular band in the Bay Area Thrash scene... and they made national success with such classics as "Master of Puppets" and "...and Justice for All."
But they did stab metal fans in the back after the Black Album. They made the decision to make records that had the barest resemblance of their original sound.
In some respects I can also start to understand the similar rage with In Flames... its just that I actually enjoy their new music as much as their old.
Metallica was a refuge for metal fans... a place in the wind they could call their own. But the band decided that devotion wasn't good enough, that they wanted the shallow masses to be their endgame...
So be it.
I've never owned a legal copy of a Metallica album to begin with...