Music Banter - View Single Post - Load

JGuy Grungeman · 02-25-2016, 10:19 PM

You may know that Load is a generally despised album by Metallica fans. Why? Well, blues, southern rock, and other oddities to thrash are experimented upon in this album, making for a weird sounding addition to the Metallica discography.

But does that mean it's bad? No. In fact, Metallica does a fairly good job at trying some new things out, even though they are clearly better as a metal band. At first, the album sounded weird to listen to for the bluesy sound. This was a thrash band writing blues rock. But I kept in mind that Metallica was attempting to reinvent themselves for the mainstream since their success with The Black Album. So it's not fair to compare this to thrash. In fact, some of the greatest band ever are great because of diversity. Look at the Beatles. They started with mod/merseybeat music, and then steered into psychedelia drugged up music where they collaborated with Indian classical musician Ravi Shankar. And they ended their band with pop rock. They had more, though. And what about Eno? He's famous for art rock and ambient. And lets not forget piano blues/experimental/singer songwriter man Tom Waits who enjoyed mainstream success forever.

So Metallica's attempt at reinventing themselves only shows they are trying to be more creative and more suitable for changing audiences. But the thing is... did they succeed? In my opinion, it's not that bad. The album was just shortly after they hit the mainstream, so they can't change too much within one album's time, even though this and Black are 5 years away. The album starts out weird with the blues sound, but getting used to it was easy. I think if people keep in mind this is new Metallica, then it should be easier to like. Sure, the die hard Metallica fan may not want to hear new Metallica, but the thrash scene was ending. Metallica made a smart move. They are widely renowned for their songwriting abilities. There is a lot of thrash out there, but when mentioning the big four of thrash, the first is usually Metallica since they reached mainstream success faster ans easier than the others due to their radio-friendly sound on The Black Album.

So, the album's sound is basically nerfed Metallica. By that, I mean it's definitely Metallica, but a couple of exceptions. First of all, this is a hard rock album. Second of all, it's not very solo based despite it's heavy sense of rhythm which Metallica is known for. Third of all, it takes a new turn. Some songs have a bluesy undertone. A couple have a Southern undertone. Actually, that reminds me of Rolling Stones. The album managed to pull these sounds off without Metallica flat-out embarrassing themselves. And even if they did embarrass themselves a little, their reputation is not somewhat tarnished like Peter Frampton's reputation once he released the Sgt. Pepper movie, or Lou Reed's Metal Machine Music (he later went on to collaborate with Lulu, Metallica's supposedly worst album). And sure, Metallica released that, but that was long after they could really damage there reputation forever. One could easily say Metallica's golden days are over, and that's really all I see in this album. They were going into new territory for money, and that would go for better or for worse. I think it went somewhere in the mid. And if one still doesn't think going for a more mainstream audience was good, keep this in mind... they weren't a grunge band. Imagine that. Metallica as a grunge band.

As a reiteration, the album wasn't really a "hit" or "miss." It was in the middle.

85/100

8.5/10

02-25-2016, 10:19 PM	#1 (permalink)
JGuy Grungeman Primo Celebate Sexiness Join Date: Apr 2014 Posts: 2,662	Load - Metallica You may know that Load is a generally despised album by Metallica fans. Why? Well, blues, southern rock, and other oddities to thrash are experimented upon in this album, making for a weird sounding addition to the Metallica discography. But does that mean it's bad? No. In fact, Metallica does a fairly good job at trying some new things out, even though they are clearly better as a metal band. At first, the album sounded weird to listen to for the bluesy sound. This was a thrash band writing blues rock. But I kept in mind that Metallica was attempting to reinvent themselves for the mainstream since their success with The Black Album. So it's not fair to compare this to thrash. In fact, some of the greatest band ever are great because of diversity. Look at the Beatles. They started with mod/merseybeat music, and then steered into psychedelia drugged up music where they collaborated with Indian classical musician Ravi Shankar. And they ended their band with pop rock. They had more, though. And what about Eno? He's famous for art rock and ambient. And lets not forget piano blues/experimental/singer songwriter man Tom Waits who enjoyed mainstream success forever. So Metallica's attempt at reinventing themselves only shows they are trying to be more creative and more suitable for changing audiences. But the thing is... did they succeed? In my opinion, it's not that bad. The album was just shortly after they hit the mainstream, so they can't change too much within one album's time, even though this and Black are 5 years away. The album starts out weird with the blues sound, but getting used to it was easy. I think if people keep in mind this is new Metallica, then it should be easier to like. Sure, the die hard Metallica fan may not want to hear new Metallica, but the thrash scene was ending. Metallica made a smart move. They are widely renowned for their songwriting abilities. There is a lot of thrash out there, but when mentioning the big four of thrash, the first is usually Metallica since they reached mainstream success faster ans easier than the others due to their radio-friendly sound on The Black Album. So, the album's sound is basically nerfed Metallica. By that, I mean it's definitely Metallica, but a couple of exceptions. First of all, this is a hard rock album. Second of all, it's not very solo based despite it's heavy sense of rhythm which Metallica is known for. Third of all, it takes a new turn. Some songs have a bluesy undertone. A couple have a Southern undertone. Actually, that reminds me of Rolling Stones. The album managed to pull these sounds off without Metallica flat-out embarrassing themselves. And even if they did embarrass themselves a little, their reputation is not somewhat tarnished like Peter Frampton's reputation once he released the Sgt. Pepper movie, or Lou Reed's Metal Machine Music (he later went on to collaborate with Lulu, Metallica's supposedly worst album). And sure, Metallica released that, but that was long after they could really damage there reputation forever. One could easily say Metallica's golden days are over, and that's really all I see in this album. They were going into new territory for money, and that would go for better or for worse. I think it went somewhere in the mid. And if one still doesn't think going for a more mainstream audience was good, keep this in mind... they weren't a grunge band. Imagine that. Metallica as a grunge band. As a reiteration, the album wasn't really a "hit" or "miss." It was in the middle. 85/100 8.5/10 __________________ I'm a pretty nice troll if you ask me.