Yeah but despite all what you just said, doesn't disprove anything I've said does it?
All that proves is that they now make music you don't like. It doesn't prove that they've done anything wrong. Which was, of course, the point I made.
If With Teeth is shit, it doesn't mean Trent has done anything wrong. Because he hasn't. Like Metallica haven't by making music you dislike.
-AC
My uncle was the biggest Metallica head in history, to the point he wouldn't mention James Hetfield's name without making the cross sign over himself. He, of all people, despises everything Metallica have done post Justice For All, even the black album (which I like). You don't lose a massive percentage of your fanbase if you're doing nothing wrong.
And don't jinx With Teeth ❌
Metallica haven't done anything wrong, factually. They started making music that a large percentage of their fanbase don't like. They also started making music that alot of their fanbase liked. What happened was unfortunate for them, not wrong. Radiohead weren't wrong when they made Kid A, APC weren't wrong when they made eMOTIVe. Alot of people hated Kid A and alot hated eMOTIVe. That's just their choice, doesn't mean the bands are doing anything 'wrong'.
-AC
Originally posted by Korri
I would also like to remind you all you that your judging this on one album out of what eight studio albums..?Hello, get over it people...
But in retrospect, speaking on behalf of those who think/thought they had sold out, it's been a natural progression/degression, depending on how you look at it. They've taken the liberty of experimenting with their music in an EXTREMELY touchy genre, being metal. There are plenty of heavy metal elistists, myself included, who are creatures of habit, and don't take too well to change in things that were fine they were they were. That said, apparently Metallica themselves didn't want to be stuck in one "form", and the change is apparent.
"Black Album" was just beefy, slowed down, and James really focused on vocals on that album. It was a pretty big departure from their thrash days. As much as I love "AJFA" it was a really "thin" album, especially considering Newsted's bass tracks were recorded around 1 or 2 decibels, lol.
"Load" was their first album in 5 years, and a lot had changed since then. Grunge broke, gangster rap all but died, alternative/college rock was big. It was more of a "mature" Metallica. Hard to digest after 12-13 years of speed metal and really pretentious, deep lyrics. "Reload" was more of the same thing, and I like them both immensely.
"S&M" was just genius, and anyone who can't appreciate the artistic merit behind the whole gimmick shouldn't consider themselves a fan of music. It was almost seamless musical integration.
"Garage Inc." There was nothing wrong there, either. The old $9.98 cassette with new covers. Awesome set.
Then came more fuel for the haters when their first 5 albums were re-released as "Gold Discs", and retailed at $50 a pop. That, even today, is ridiculous. I don't know if that's Elektra's doing or what, but $40 over retail for a slightly better, digitally remastered version of their albums? Give me a break. "Summer Sanitarium", and their touring partners only could have made old school fans even more pissed. Metallica w/ Linkin Park? I'm an L.P. fan, personally, and I guess it's just a sign of the times. It's almost like seeing Metallica as an opening act, god forbid we ever see that day.
Finally, "St. Anger". Like I said before, it's a very confused sounding album. The title track can be picked apart and you can find three easily identifiable directions for the band, and none of them mesh. A metal opening, twangy, alternative verses, rap-metal choruses, and a punk/metal bridge. Did you see their outfits, too? I think it was Metallica trying a little too hard to say "Hey! We're back!", dressed up like they're going to see Limp Bizkit.
The whole feel of the album sounded cheap. From the open of "Frantic", it sounds like the whole thing was produced in a cardboard box, and no care even went into the acoustics. Another thing, it seems like Lars had A LOT of pull in it, because his experimental drumming really ruined a lot of otherwise great tracks, IMO. They entered the studio to make an album, totally unprepared. James I'm sure had some lyrics, but they didn't step in and just hammer it all out like they used to. But, I said before, suggesting they sold out with "St. Anger" is ridiculous, and I hope that people don't have that opinion.
Some people just can't accept change, evolution, a personal conviction to mix things up, and until they do, if ever, they'll just harbor the same uninformed opinion, and it's a shame. Hell, even The Beatles went wayward towards the end, as did The Doors.
The times, they are a'changin'.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Metallica haven't done anything wrong, factually. They started making music that a large percentage of their fanbase don't like. They also started making music that alot of their fanbase liked. What happened was unfortunate for them, not wrong. Radiohead weren't wrong when they made Kid A, APC weren't wrong when they made eMOTIVe. Alot of people hated Kid A and alot hated eMOTIVe. That's just their choice, doesn't mean the bands are doing anything 'wrong'.-AC
I understand wrong is a very strict term to be used on an opinion-based subject like music, but surely making music your fans, the people that like your music, dislike is wrong to some extent? I mean if an album is badly recieved by the fans, the people you are trying to connect with, it can hardly be called a success.
Fans have to realize the music is made to please the band themselves, first and foremost. I think Metallica has more so been about pleasing themselves first, musically, then fans will latch on. Their fanbase is steady, regardless of the turn over, because as mediocre as the new album is, it's still (IMO) better than 3/4's of the shit on the radio.
The whole "sell-out" issue has two sides to take into consideration. Side A, with "Load", did they change their style knowing that no matter how different, they can rely on their own namesake to make money? Side B, did they just honestly feel compelled to make different music, look to please themselves first, fans second, throw caution to the wind and see what happens?
Tapping into the alternative/adult rock market wasn't a stretch. 1/2 of Metallica's fanbase when they started are mostly parents/adults now, anyway. I don't think they consciously made their music more accessible by toning it down, but I do see where some might think that, then try and get back their old fans with "St. Anger".
Like I said though, I can understand their changes in attitudes and approach to their own music. It's like re-arranging a bedroom in a house you've lived in all your life. You're not going to keep a Cindy Crawford poster or your old Van Halen tour shirt tacked up in your room when you're 28 and married.
Maybe they outgrew their own genre? Face it, they aren't 18 anymore, lol.
Originally posted by Deathblow
I understand wrong is a very strict term to be used on an opinion-based subject like music, but surely making music your fans, the people that like your music, dislike is wrong to some extent? I mean if an album is badly recieved by the fans, the people you are trying to connect with, it can hardly be called a success.
You're continually missing the point. Success or not, Metallica haven't done anything wrong. They made some music their fans don't like, that's not wrong, it's just that the music was different enough that they didn't like it. Making music and having your FANS not like it, isn't wrong, just unfortunate. However, considering that having your fans like it isn't the primary goal, I don't consider it wrong or bad at all. St. Anger has sold ALOT of records, alot of people like it, including the band themselves. So as well as being a commercial success (which doesn't matter really), the album to many, is a success also.
-AC
Oh please, missing the point how? I know exactly what you're trying to say, and i just gave an alternative answer.
Fact of the matter is, losing half your fans isn't right, is it? So it kind of leaves us with one option here. Wrong may be a strict word, but seeing as you're the one who brought it up in the first place, I'll just go with fallen from grace.
They did something "wrong", in the marketability sense, by changing their tune, so to speak. Maybe that speaks even stronger for those who argue that they did it for themselves, and not money, in the first place.
I don't think someone's personal conviction to do something is wrong, if it makes them happy in the end?
Originally posted by Deathblow
Oh please, missing the point how? I know exactly what you're trying to say, and i just gave an alternative answer.Fact of the matter is, losing half your fans isn't right, is it? So it kind of leaves us with one option here. Wrong may be a strict word, but seeing as you're the one who brought it up in the first place, I'll just go with fallen from grace.
What do you mean losing half your fans isn't right? It's neither right nor wrong. In this case the two options are fortunate and unfortunate. Fortunate would be keeping them, unfortunate would be losing them. They achieved the latter.
Wrong and right don't enter into it. They haven't committed any wrong. They made choices with unfortunate results, mostly in a marketing sense. No 'wrong' involved.
-AC