Hesher

I just think that the Black Album was sort of the final chapter in the life of Metallica before they began to make big changes in terms of their sound, their production, their lineup, their relationships with each other and etc. I think after that it became a different band that should have been something other than Metallica, which I daresay would have been healthier for them musicially/creatively if they mixed it up with some other musicians. It's almost at the point where you have to identify yourself as an "old" fan or a "new" fan, because the demographic of people who listen to Metallica's modern music as opposed to the kind of people who would have gone to see them play songs off Kill 'Em All is radically different. I didn't expect "new groundbreaking innovative stuff", although that's how high the bar is set for other musicians... I just didn't expect albums like Load to be attributed to the Metallica of Ride The Lightning days. IMO, it sounds like Theory of a Deadman covering Venom or something ridiculous.

I fail to understand how it's greedy or short-sighted "to demand of 40-year olds, the sounds they made when they were 20, with different members"... Many bands are perfectly capable of that, and I think it's an indication of Metallica's limitations as musicians that they apparently aren't capable of that (in your estimation). I'm also kind of offended to be called "greedy". But it's irrelevant, because I don't expect them to make music like they did in their 20s - that was the problem with Death Magnetic, to me. It sounds exactly like 40-year-old Metallica covering 20-year-old Metallica, which is not what I expect from a band with 20 years experience. To use Josh Homme as an example again, he's been making music in bands for 20 years and if anything he's become a better and more creative musician than he was in Kyuss (as much as I goddamn love Kyuss and hate Era Vulgaris). I have no doubt that he will keep making amazing music until he dies, because that's who he is, and he doesn't need billions in merchandising or blanketing radio play to do it either. Another example would be Bolt Thrower... Around since 1986, releasing nine albums in that time with their final one, Those Once Loyal, released in 2005. Again, 20 years later, great music at least as good as their first album (if not better), and in this case, they are going on an indefinite recording haitus as they feel they have released "the perfect Bolt Thrower album" and don't have to keep creating in that vein. In comparison, Metallica kicked ass from 1981 to 1990 (nine years) and released only five studio albums in that time before starting to suck hard - much less improving in the areas of creativity or technical skill. I don't think artists should pander to their fans in the slightest, but there is a difference between releasing material that is a departure from previous works and releasing material that is technically less complex, less creative, rather derivative, and bland and naming it the same in the hope that the brand identity will carry a shiitty record.

Metallica died to me after 1991, and nothing made that more clear than attending their recent show at GM Place on the Death Magnetic tour. It was fun to sing along and watch the pyrotechnics, but the performance and new tunes were lacklustre (Lamb of God put them to shame), not to mention how 1 in 10 of people attending were wearing shirts they hadn't bought at the show or the day before. Real metal fans know where the good stuff is, and it wasn't there that day. No amount of discussion is going to dissuade me otherwise.