What's wrong with the Black Album (Metallica)?

My oldest son was into AJFA and MOP as a new teenager. Turn it down I'd tell him. I thought the music good mind you, he just played it too loud! I began to sound like a typical parent lol. Had my own collection of music going at the same time. Thought I'd try out Metallica Black when I saw Enter Sandman on MTV and liked the song. I liked the record.-- I really wasn't very old myself, mid-30's, and had liked some Black Sabbath when younger, the father of all metal some say.... Well my son heard me playing it and was surprised - you have their music??? He did like that one; Load is the one he and his friends scratched their heads over.

 

I think because hardcore fans equated Enter Sandman with...

Mr Sandman bring me a dream
Make him the cutest, that I've ever seen

See, that's just not metal enough. So some metalheads just jumped ship. Can't be going around talking about Sandmen and cute dreams

 

Well that settles it.

If Mom likes it, The Black Album just can't be cool.

 

Lol of course it's cool!
And we all are here on this forum!!

 

\

Just don't make us eat all our vegetables before dessert, okay?

 

lyrically it was a big disappointment. AJFA has some scathing political lyrics, then they followed up with generic rubbish such as Don't Tread On Me & Of Wolf And Man.

 

It was never really gonna be taken seriously as a statement considering it was named after a Spinal Tap album

 

There's a Spinal Tap album called "Metallica"?

 

I started listening to metal with AJFA's release in 1988 - I was 13. I spent the next three years devouring every song and learning them note for note on bass. I knew their songs inside and out. My band played a lot of their material and we loved the challenge.

Then the single for "Enter Sandman" came out and I was like "that's it?". Just boring and pedestrian riffing. Sure it sounded awesome but the songs were mostly too basic for them and my taste.

I don't hate the album and I do have a certain nostalgia for it, but it sounded like a record a bunch of content millionaires would make. The fire was gone.

And I'll close with this lyric....

"No more, the crap rolls out your mouth again..."

 

It isn't like Kill Em All to Justice sold next to nothing. I'm pretty sure with a good financial plan they wouldn't have nothing to worry about based upon the sales of those 4 albums + tours.

 

Metallica is informally known as the Black Album...you know what I mean

 

Does the Black Album really sound that huge? I mean despite the subwoofer-triggered drums... does it really?

Listened to the DCC MOP and almost blew the roof of. Guitars-sound is fantastic compared to the more crunchy and washed-out tone of the Black Album. Meaner is perhaps the word i'm looking for.

I do however enjoy the Black Album.

 

Yeah, I was just being a wise guy. Sorry.

 

You rapscallion you!

 

Cmon. We all know that their popularity skyrocketed with The Black Album. Not saying anything is wrong with that, and I'm not one of those people who automatically discards something because it is popular. For example, Nevermind is by far my favourite Nirvana album.

But to say that The Black Album wasn't at least in part a deliberate attempt at widening their appeal is naive to say the least.

 

I recall some fans of Green Day didn't like them signing the major record deal - same principle here with the Black album? Sell-out fans say. Imo they all want to just get their music out there for others to hear. What's wrong with that?

 

Only if your mindset is so limited you want the artist to just churn out the same old plod.

The earlier stuff is good, I'm not quibbling over that, but the Black Album is a bona fide, genre straddling classic.

Maybe it's the fact that millions loved it that killed the niche appeal for the crowd that like to keep a band for themselves, but I've never bought into that kind of approach.

 

You can say it was popular, it was. It has a few good songs. But it is absolutely 100% not a bonafide classic.

I don't care if they wanted to be popular. I don't care if it was a sellout. I actually don't think it was, i think they just wanted to go a new direction. That is fine. I admire it actually. One of my favorite things about Neil young is his restless adventurous spirit. But that doesn't mean I like all his detours.

It's funny to me that people are raving about what a great album it is because of the production. That's nice and all but who cares if the songs don't stick?

Megadeth followed suit with "Countdown to extinction" and I look at it much the same way. It was simplified Megadeth Light. But maybe anything was going to be a disappointment after Rust in Peace.

It's not easy to continue to crank out classic album after classic album. I find progressive metal to be more rewarding than "Symphony of destruction" or "enter sandman." Give me "Call of Ktulu" and "Tornado of Souls" any day over simplified metal.

The Black Album is indeed divisive. Perhaps I'll go back and give it another listen, perhaps I've missed something.

 

If you're looking at The Black Album as "metal" in any way? That's your problem. It's a heavy, hard rock album. Very little "metal" to it.

 

I have no problem with an artist changing their sound, and, indeed, thrash had run its course by 91, but to change it in a way that it's not as heavy or watered down is another thing. They may not have sold 10 million copies, but they still would have been platinum--their sales were increasing with each album to that point. It comes down to the songs in the end, and they didn't have them. hell, they could have put out a pop album if the songs were good. In 91, I saw Death as the new standard bearer--loud, fast, complicated, brutal, heavy--Like what Metallica used to be. Death, of course didn't sell in droves, though they should have--They should have gotten the old Metallica audience.

 

Again, this is just a matter of personal opinion. It's utterly subjective. Debating whether it's a classic or not is a certain straw man. There is no objective means by which the term classic has been descriptively defined so we can't prove it one way or another. It is a classic to some, and to others it's the epitome of the sink hole that saw the band's integrity swallowed whole. This is where it gets tricky, and only the largest and most critical minds "get"it. Who's integrity precisely? How is that integrity defined, and far more importantly, who is defining that integrity? The what and the how of the alignments made that determine such an instinct driven commodity tell us much. Most don't care for the dark depths of that rabbit hole, but I can tell you that it all gets down to a width that affords those who enter it very little wiggle room.

I listened to several random cuts from the album this morning before heading off to work. Of Wolf and Man and Through the Never are just incredible songs IMO. I don't give rat's rear what anyone wants to call 'em. They are just GREAT heavy rock tunes that I seriously doubt I will tire of anytime soon. It's all subjective my friend, truly.

The band determined a powerful secret revealed with the BA. The methods of sheer genius as expressed artistically often equate with an adherence to the laws that govern process efficiency. Simply put, less is more.

 

And it's the ONLY Metallica album I own. Great songs, great production.

 

First off, it was the first record where a lot of effort went into James Hetfield's vocals. All of a sudden, he was a "singer." That took away some of the raw energy of the previous records. I think for all the criticisms that I might have about Metallica, I miss the raw quality of Hetfield's vocals from the first few records the most. They sounded perfect set back in the mix a bit. With the Black Album, they were front and center, and would remain there from that point onward.

In addition to the vocal performance, the raw energy was missing from this album because it was beautifully produced and polished to the last note. There is no question that sonically, it sounds fantastic. It was so impeccably recorded that it was jarring for longtime fans to hear them sounding that good, clean and inevitably, radio-friendly. Metallica had always been the opposite – a rebellious, cathartic sonic alternative to the "friendly" music that you heard on rock radio. Therefore, many fans felt betrayed when they arrived with such a polished collection. This was supposed to be METALLICA! \m/ Not Boston.

Nirvana suffered some of the same backlash with Nevermind. The sheen of the production made the sounds that were once alluring to a select few whom held them dearly as "their" band, palatable to the masses who would have dismissed or ignored them previously. These bands now belonged to the world, not just to the hardcore faithful.

So what was "wrong" with it? Nothing really. But I think those pivotal albums exist for many bands with a cult following - the ones that propel them in to superstardom while simultaneously alienating the core Fanbase. Achtung Baby, Nevermind, Out of Time, Mellon Collie..., etc. The fans who had been there from the beginning feel the simultaneous betrayal of having championed these bands to people who didn't want to listen until THAT record came along, as well as having THAT record not sound as much like the records that made you recognize their greatness before everybody else. So now "your" band was making music for THEM.

That said, those albums are interesting for me to revisit now with mature ears and attitudes.

 

I'd disagree by then I thought it was a winner from the get go. I think the songs are up there too. Not everybody agrees, that's fine too.

If it's not your cup of tea after 25 years, there's probably better endeavours for your listening time as well. People rave about Janis Joplin, but I've yet to find anything about the woman's music I like. I can live with that and what I might be missing out on. Plenty more out there I'll like.

 

If those are "great" songs then the songs on Ride The Lightning and Master Of Puppets are "f*^king godhead."