Thrash and "selling out"

And I fail to believe that "Until It Sleeps" and "Hero" were really being true to themselves without the MTV audience in mind.  "King Nothing" was the only single from Load that really sounded like true Metallica (at least the black album), yet it was the third single released, not the first.  I know that's not under the band's control, but that shows the collective mindset at the time. 

While I listened to Metallica they were never one of my favourites so I didn't have a problem when they changed with the Black album. Plenty of others were still playing the music I really liked and could have also changed track but thankfully they didn't. Whether they sold out is an argumnent you could never win but Metallica do deserve recognition for their success and what they have done for the genre.

Grivu

Progmetalman


Dude....



It's thrash. Not trash. And yes, maybe I am a thrash metal fan boy; but that is my favorite genre of music or metal if you will. I'm allowed to like what I like. I'm allowed to be disappointed in a band like Metallica. Just because they are a house hold name doesn't hold them to some higher standard that I have to think all of their music is brilliant. And you're allowed to disagree with me, which you obviously do. But you don't have to act like I'm narrow minded or my opinion is wrong, foolish, and that thrash is some immature thing to be ashamed of.

...so why are we having this discussion again?
I mean, you obviously metallica sold out and people should ''deal with it'', but if I try to argue otherwise, I'm being an big old meanie that doesn't respect your opinion?
yup ok
oh and sorry about the trash thing. My english is not that good and I'm sure it's not the only mistake I made in that massive walltext.

I never said you were a "big old meanie that doesn't respect" my opinion. I felt like your statement was more of less writing off how I feel because I enjoy thrash metal to a greater degree than most of the forum which are probably only casual listeners save for a handful of us. Like I said, you have your opinion and I have mine. I like my Metallica thrashy and you like yours commercial. That doesn't make either of our opinions more or less valid than the other. Okay, so maybe I was a bit harsh with the whole "people should deal with it" comment. Next time I'll try to use a little more tact and say "IMO, Metallica sold out, because they changed their sound to get more popular and filthy stinking rich!" That better for ya?

Progmetalman


I'll try to use a little more tact and say "IMO, Metallica sold out, because they changed their sound to get more popular and filthy stinking rich!" That better for ya?

And that is exactly why the "Metallica sold out" argument fails, because no one, other than James, Lars, Kirk, and Jason (and possibly Bob) know this for sure.  And only they are in a position to make that determination.
 
I've said this before:  Ask Mike.  He's in a position to do this.  Ask him how easy it is to sell 5 million copies of a record, assuming that is your only goal.  As much as I love Kiss (top 3 favorite bands of all time) in this sense they are big sellouts, because Gene and Paul have been candid about wanting to reach people, and these are - whether you like them or not - in about as good a position to actually sell 5 million copies of a record as anyone in rock, but they can't do it.  So to say that "TBA sold 5 million copies, therefore Metallica intended to do so, and therefore sold out" is wrong on almost every level. Logical, practical, realistical (is that even a word??).
 

I disagree, Stadler. The song "One" off of AJFA was the first in which Metallica made an accompanying video for. The success of that video led to Metallica writing an album that was more accessible. The songs were more radio friendly, the production was extremely slick and there were ballads. Not to mention more MTV videos. Did the band figure this would be the best selling record of the past 20 years? I doubt that, but they clearly intended to reach the masses. IMHO, this is a perfect example of selling out, but again, I'm a big fan of "The Black Album".

^^^ I mean this nicely, and with respect, but can you point to anywhere where the band members have stated this intention?  Because while I am not the most hardcore of Metallica fans, I am enough of a fan to follow them, and I am only aware of Lars' recent comments and the ones that centered around the band's tiredness with the direction of ...AJFA, including the sound of the record and the length/complexity of the material.  Kirk in particular was very vocal about how he was just flat out bored with the ...AJFA material.
 
I'm not arguing with your facts, I am arguing with the conclusions from the facts.  That they made a video doesn't mean "sellout".  That they sold a ton of records doesn't mean "sellout".  I personally don't think it is so "clear".  The conclusion is not in any way logically sound.  If they made TBA because they didn't want to have five songs in a set anymore, they wanted 10, or because they wanted to have a more structured approach to songwriting (I'd put Rush in this category, by the way, or King Crimson in the '80's, neither "sellouts") that isn't a sellout.  "Unforgiven" is the logical (but not only) target for this, but James has been clear about his love for Skynyrd.  Why is "Unforgiven" such a stretch for a professed fan of Lynyrd Skynyrd, especially for a band a) tired of their current musical direction, and b) now at a point in their career where they can assert these influences.  I don't see this as ANY different from any of these examples:
- Permanent Waves following Hemispheres
- Signals following Moving Pictures
- Tormato following Going For The One
- Afraid of Sunlight following Brave
- Zeppelin IV following Zeppelin III
- Trick of the Tail following The Lamb

Sellout does NOT always translate to sales. Also, sometimes an artistically pure album ends up selling a bazillion copies. (more than one Pink Floyd release comes immediately to mind) So at the end of the day...one has NOTHING to do with the other.

Heck, Raven turned into a glam metal band and sales *tanked*!

Selling out has to do with compromise. If you compromise your principles in the ATTEMPT to appeal to a wider audience...you have sold out.

Stadler


^^^ I mean this nicely, and with respect, but can you point to anywhere where the band members have stated this intention?  Because while I am not the most hardcore of Metallica fans, I am enough of a fan to follow them, and I am only aware of Lars' recent comments and the ones that centered around the band's tiredness with the direction of ...AJFA, including the sound of the record and the length/complexity of the material.  Kirk in particular was very vocal about how he was just flat out bored with the ...AJFA material.

I'm not arguing with your facts, I am arguing with the conclusions from the facts.  That they made a video doesn't mean "sellout".  That they sold a ton of records doesn't mean "sellout".  I personally don't think it is so "clear".  The conclusion is not in any way logically sound.  If they made TBA because they didn't want to have five songs in a set anymore, they wanted 10, or because they wanted to have a more structured approach to songwriting (I'd put Rush in this category, by the way, or King Crimson in the '80's, neither "sellouts") that isn't a sellout.  "Unforgiven" is the logical (but not only) target for this, but James has been clear about his love for Skynyrd.  Why is "Unforgiven" such a stretch for a professed fan of Lynyrd Skynyrd, especially for a band a) tired of their current musical direction, and b) now at a point in their career where they can assert these influences.  I don't see this as ANY different from any of these examples:
- Permanent Waves following Hemispheres
- Signals following Moving Pictures
- Tormato following Going For The One
- Afraid of Sunlight following Brave
- Zeppelin IV following Zeppelin III
- Trick of the Tail following The Lamb

No disrespect/offense taken Stadler. I guess I'm just not as trusting as you are with the bands stated intentions. People lie sometimes (LOL). I remember when TBA was released, there was a huge backlash with their "tr00" fans and Metallica had to do some MAJOR damage control, which their still doing 20 years later (see: Metal Evolution - Thrash). To me, just because they never mentioned an intent to reach the masses, or they claim "The Unforgiven" was a Lynard Skynard tribute more than an attempt at an MTV/radio hit doesn't mean they're being honest.
 
Now, I grew up in the MTV generation, so my first tastes of bands like Rush, Genesis and Yes were in their "sellout" phases. Let's face it, these guys all started as young'ins looking to prove something to the world, then got a little older and had wives and kids and needed more money, hence the "accessibilizing" of the music. I hold NOTHING against these guys and in most cases, liked the "sell out" records of the early 80's prog bands, and I dig TBA.

Is 90125 a sell out record due to Trevor Rabin's writing style being totally different than Steve Howe?
 
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder on these issues.

I don't think trying to write more accessible poppy songs necessarily makes them sellouts. If they were more into those kinds of songs at that point in their life, then why not try to write those kind of songs. It's not like it's easy to make pop music. It was a real risk to put out the black album, that happened to pay off. A band like slayer puts out the same album every album because they know they're going to sell a certain amount every time. It's being safe, which is not what being a true artist is about in my view. It's much more selling out imo.

I'm betting there is a direct correlation between being a non musician and utilizing
the term "sellout" or "selling out"

AdRock18


No disrespect/offense taken Stadler. I guess I'm just not as trusting as you are with the bands stated intentions. People lie sometimes (LOL).

 
Oh, no doubt!  And I'll give you that a guy like Lars who is so all about the credibility (he flies his influence flag like a badge of courage!) is not abuot to cop to something like that (whereas a Gene Simmons would in a heartbeat).  So it sounds like we agree on the criteria, but not on whether Metallica fits it, and that's fair, since we'll probably never know (or at least not until the tell-all books start coming out).
 

Now, I grew up in the MTV generation, so my first tastes of bands like Rush, Genesis and Yes were in their "sellout" phases. Let's face it, these guys all started as young'ins looking to prove something to the world, then got a little older and had wives and kids and needed more money, hence the "accessibilizing" of the music. I hold NOTHING against these guys and in most cases, liked the "sell out" records of the early 80's prog bands, and I dig TBA.

As did I; and when Geddy went to that short poofy hair cut, and there were keyboards all over those Rush albums, I was ok, and I sort of grew up trusting these artists to be sticking with the plan.  it was only later I learned that it wasn't always that "pure". :)
 
 

IDK....with Rush...they were so far out of the loop.   IDK...
 
Maybe I'm diluting myself, but to me even "the synth era" didn't sound "commercial" to my ears.   When I hear some of the *SICK* patterns in songs like Grand Designs and Lock and Key (and the list could go on and on) I can only think that while the songs are synth driven, they are not "simplistic" or "commercial" in any way.     I can't dance to it...
 
Enter Sandman on the other hand...

Stadler


^^^ I mean this nicely, and with respect, but can you point to anywhere where the band members have stated this intention? 

Dude. Of course they aren't going to admit that was the intention. Do you think they want to be called sell outs? I'm sure it annoys them/pisses them off to hear people say they sold out.
 

damageinc


I don't think trying to write more accessible poppy songs necessarily makes them sellouts. If they were more into those kinds of songs at that point in their life, then why not try to write those kind of songs. It's not like it's easy to make pop music. It was a real risk to put out the black album, that happened to pay off. A band like slayer puts out the same album every album because they know they're going to sell a certain amount every time. It's being safe, which is not what being a true artist is about in my view. It's much more selling out imo.

 
People need to quit being butt hurt over Slayer being better than Metallica and accusing them of making the same album over and over just because they kick ass and never sold out.

Progmetalman


Dude. Of course they aren't going to admit that was the intention. Do you think they want to be called sell outs? I'm sure it annoys them/pisses them off to hear people say they sold out.

 
And obviously you are right (as I've conceded elsewhere), they probably won't admit to it, but that's sort of my point, in a backasswards way.  We don't know.  And the fact that an album sold a bazillion copies isn't in and of itself evidence of anything.
 
I think this discussion is more about sour grapes that Metallica somehow changed when many of their hardcore fans didn't, than anything else.  Otherwise we should be talking about Kiss, Yes, Rainbow, Def Leppard, Aerosmith, Scorpions, Marillion, and Cheap Trick in this conversation, and we're not.
 

People need to quit being butt hurt over Slayer being better than Metallica and accusing them of making the same album over and over just because they kick ass and never sold out.

Joe from Used Bin Radio said it best when they were talking about Slayer, and he broke into the carnival tune to describe them.  Classic.  But I respect you for sticking to your guns (and I'll admit to not really being willing to say any of this to Kerry King's face).

Ya...Slayer have definitely stuck to their guns.  You could almost call them the AC/DC of thrash.   I suppose the one exception could be the obvious nu-metal smatterings on Diabolus in Musica.   Other than that, they havn't strayed a bit.  You know what you're getting when you buy a Slayer record.  
 
But they have almost become a caricature of themselves.  
 
But this is good time for me to reiterate that I was NOT wanting Metallica to become like Slayer and just redo the same thing over and over again.   I did NOT want Ride the Lightning PART 4!!!  But I feel that they needed to reinvent themselves and blaze a NEW trail.  Do something original.   After the buzz that had been created with Ride going Gold and then MoP and  AJFA going platinum, they were on the cusp of something huge.   
 
I'm not saying there wasn't some risk to it.   If anything, it was a brilliant balancing act.  How can we create the heaviness of Metallica and yet have it appeal to a wider range of people and possibly even get pop radio airplay?   And at the same time, not piss off *too* many of our original core (of course, some insurgents were to be expected...but they could be sacrificed for the greater good...which of course is...$$$$$)   So from a marketing balance act aspect, it was absolutely BRILLIANT.  
 
But they could have done anything they wanted, and I feel like they took the safe route.  The one that was practically a guarantee with the buzz that had been generating over the previous 7 years.  SEVEN YEARS!!   RtL = selling out large theaters.  Mop = Blowing Ozzy off the stage and eventually getting your own headlining tour selling out small arenas.  AJFA = Selling out HUGE arenas and in some cases (like Seattle) having to do two nights because of overwhelming demand.  (see the binge and purge box set for proof)
 
The good ol' fashioned grass roots hype was all in place...so it wasn't exactly as much of a "risk" as it seems on the surface.   They were at a crossroads.   They could move forward and make RtL a fourth time (and most likely continue selling records in the short term until everyone got bored and moved on...eventually to be thrown into the 'where are they now' bin)....they could turn one way and make a very risky album with no commercial viability and take the risk of alienating EVERYONE for the sake of artistic integrity (this is my favorite)...OR you can bring in Bon Jovi's producer, polish your sound and write some catchy songs that are still heavy enough to maintain your audience, and still bring in more people (and thus more $$$$).
 
Nothing in life is a sure thing.  ANYTHING is a risk.  But of the options they had in front of them, they took the safest one...the one that was the MOST likely to bring them money.   THAT, IMO, is selling out.

For the record. Change isn't ALWAYS bad. Some changes can be good. I just dislike Metallica's change from AJFA to the Black album. Example of change that is good? 70's Rush Vs. 80's Rush. I prefer 70's Rush slightly more, but I still enjoy 80's Rush very much. I think that would be a good example of change that I enjoy and don't consider selling out either. I thought I would throw that out there because I've probably been coming off as the guy who says all change in a band's sound is bad, which isn't the case. I just have to like it. But odds are like in the case of Metallica, if you're going in a more commercial direction, I'm probably going to crucify you for it.

Even the most hardcore musicians get tired of playing their same "genre" over time, they need to change the way the compose, otherwise they start hating it, this explains every single musician aproach, including the Post Black Album era.

dparrott
 

And I fail to believe that "Until It Sleeps" and "Hero" were really being true to themselves without the MTV audience in mind.  "King Nothing" was the only single from Load that really sounded like true Metallica (at least the black album), yet it was the third single released, not the first.  I know that's not under the band's control, but that shows the collective mindset at the time. 

  A lot of people judge their more radio friendly songs as a simple way to push record sales and not for the songs themselves.  Until it Sleeps is about James' dad suffering with cancer.  Even one of their most hated songs, Mama Said, is about James dealing with his mother dying when he was a teenager.  Alot of these songs James wrote from a deep place and didn't just pull them out of his ass to make a quick buck.
Except King Nothing, which is literally the exact same song as Enter Sandman. He even makes fun of it at the end.
 
With the black album, it just became a natural progression for them after Justice.  Have you ever tried playing Justice from start to finish? It's exhausting.  I really can't blame Lars for wanting some simple drum parts to help break up setlists in shows.  Plus, they didn't only listen to metal, and narrowing yourself into one genre for 8 years with the amount of touring they did probably got tiring and boring.
 
And for the money part, well, if I reached the point in my career where I was selling out arenas and had the chance to make a song that would give me a permanent retirement fund, I probably would.  You probably would too.

jammindude


The good ol' fashioned grass roots hype was all in place...so it wasn't exactly as much of a "risk" as it seems on the surface.   They were at a crossroads.   They could move forward and make RtL a fourth time (and most likely continue selling records in the short term until everyone got bored and moved on...eventually to be thrown into the 'where are they now' bin)....they could turn one way and make a very risky album with no commercial viability and take the risk of alienating EVERYONE for the sake of artistic integrity (this is my favorite)...OR you can bring in Bon Jovi's producer, polish your sound and write some catchy songs that are still heavy enough to maintain your audience, and still bring in more people (and thus more $$$$).

Nothing in life is a sure thing.  ANYTHING is a risk.  But of the options they had in front of them, they took the safest one...the one that was the MOST likely to bring them money.   THAT, IMO, is selling out.

I don't question your facts at all, but your conclusions lose me completely.  I understand them, I just dont' see how they follow.  You're looking at this from YOUR perspective.  YOU like the big "fuck you" to everything safe.  I hate that.  I think THAT is the easy way out, because there is no risk.  There was far less risk in the Lou Reed confab than there was in TBA, because you've got a built in excuse if it fails.  Kiss is STILL apologizing for "I Was Made For Loving You" and "Shandi" but NOT The Elder, because there is no excuse for IWMFLY and Shandi.  There is physically, realistically, metaphorically, or spiritually ANY possible way for any third party to say whether an artist is being "true to their roots".  ONLY the artist can say that.  None of the things we are talking about are proof or even evidence of selling out.  If anything, given your time line, I can actually see someone like James being very challenged and uncomfortable with the approach of TBA (he's actually said this in interviews).  There is no "anger" to hide behind, no obscure lyrics rooted in mythology or whatever to hide behind, and no twin-guitar thrash instrumental barrage for James to do his metal chant over.  He actually had to SING!
 
I guess I don't understand the threshold question:  why is it so bad that a band that has dedicated their lives to their art might want to have their music heard??  And more importantly, why does wanting your music to be heard necessarily mean "we're doing it for the cash!"   I don't necessarily think any band that has played stadia actually likes it, but I can't name a band that has a platinum album (or better) that has said "wow, I wish we didn't sell that many records!  I wish I didn't hear my song on the radio!!" 
 
 

I don't feel any exhaustion after listening to AJFA. If any thing I feel kind of bummed to know that the black album is next, if I'm listening to Metallica discography in order.

Progmetalman

Next time I'll try to use a little more tact and say "IMO, Metallica sold out, because they changed their sound to get more popular and filthy stinking rich!" That better for ya?

Nop!
That is my single problem with your argument, dude. Look, Metallica made a progression to a simpler, poppier sound. That's a fact. I could make my grandma listen to TBA and she would like it.(well okay maybe not so much) Did they get richier because of this? No doubt about it.
Was making pop music to get rich the whole plan since the start? Not necessarily.
Dude, you like your music thrashy. I don't. The thing is, neither of our personal tastes are a valid argument to why they make they music they make.
I am going quote myself here.

Grivu

Before you say anything about how poppish they sound, go look at what kind of music the Metallica guys like nowadays. No, seriously, do it. Here. See if you can find any thrash metal record.

Once again, the thing here is to see that Metallica doesn't like thrash metal. You do. They don't. They don't make music for you. They do music for them. Poppish, accessible, diverse music.
 

Progmetalman

People need to quit being butt hurt over Slayer being better than Metallica and accusing them of making the same album over and over just because they kick ass and never sold out.

Dude, I'm sorry but... seriously, read this sentence again. Pretend that you don't know that you wrote that and see how it makes you feel.
1)No one is ''butt hurt'' here. We are having a discussion about a valid subject, and we disagree with a lot of points.
2)They're not better or worse then Metallica. That's not how music works.
3)YOU think they kick ass. I think Slayer is absolutely garbage. But once again, read point number 2.
4)Slayer has made what every fan wanted them to and never changed their sound because of that(well except that one album). I would think that's a perfectly valid way of ''selling out''. Not saying that they did, but they have about as much evidence for selling out as Metallica does.

Let me put it another way Stadler....
 
I think I probably put it a little too harsh.  I don't anyone should just throw their careers away completely...but I think it could have gone down a route that would have satisfied BOTH ends (artistic and monetary) but it would have required quite a bit more work than it did.  
 
For instance, what if they would have streamlined the songs, taken on some tribal influences and come out with something more along the lines of Sepultura's Chaos A.D.  That would have been different...not as commercial...and (assuming they beat Sepultura to the punch by two years) it would have been totally original and different.    I think an album *like that* would have been different enough to satisfy artistic integrity, taken on different influences so you weren't repeating yourself, challenging yourself and your audience with new ideas...and STILL coming out the other end with something that was solid enough to translate to bigger sales (but maybe not the *bazillions* that TBA did, because you're not just pandering to the masses).  
 
Now *THAT* would have been something that would have earned them far more respect than what they have now, IMHO.

Metallica made the music they wanted to make. Whether you like it or not, or think its original or not, it came out the way they wanted it. The sales the TBA got were in no way guaranteed. It's easy to look back and say they should of done this or that. IMO they took a huge chance and it payed off hugely. Some people respect the change of direction and some don't, but saying they did it just for the money is silly IMO. TBA could of totally flopped and ruined their career. They should be respected for going in a radically different direction and it still working in my view.

...you know what...  I just pulled Chaos A.D. out of my butt as a fart in the wind idea.   But that prompted me to go back and listen to it.   And it made me imagine what it would have sounded like with a 25 yr old James Hetfield singing it, and how it would have been even that much better....
 
Can anyone imagine if Amen would have been the single in 1991 instead of Enter Sandman?  That would have kicked some serious ass....   The more I use my imagination, the more kick ass it sounds in my mind.   Now *that* would have been an AMAZING follow up to AJFA, and probably would have been regarded even higher than MoP.   

Progmetalman


I don't feel any exhaustion after listening to AJFA. If any thing I feel kind of bummed to know that the black album is next, if I'm listening to Metallica discography in order.

  I meant playing the album with instruments.  It's tiring as hell and often a mindfuck, more so than any other album.  I'm actually surprised that Lars can still keep up with some of these songs live (even if it is sub par).  It's a full on workout, and for that I can totally see why they wanted to bring it down a  notch for the black album.

damageinc


Metallica made the music they wanted to make. Whether you like it or not, or think its original or not, it came out the way they wanted it. The sales the TBA got were in no way guaranteed. It's easy to look back and say they should of done this or that. IMO they took a huge chance and it payed off hugely. Some people respect the change of direction and some don't, but saying they did it just for the money is silly IMO. TBA could of totally flopped and ruined their career. They should be respected for going in a radically different direction and it still working in my view.

Exactly. If they were just interested in money, they would've just continued turning out the same stuff they had previously. I think people are forgetting Metallica had platinum albums and arena tours before TBA. But, somehow people who dislike TBA just chalk it up to selling out.

I've already said....sales have NOTHING to do with "selling out"....they could have sold 10,000 instead of 10,000,000 and still sold out.   I've known bands who sold out and sold NOTHING....  Conversely, you can also have artistic merit and sell tons of albums.   The two things are completely unrelated...

Yeah, I agree (it was a point I made before as well), but it seems that many people are working backwards, even if it is implicit. 
 
I stand by my statement:  you value "different" as some kind of badge of artistic merit, and I flatly and totally disagree.  With possibly one exception (Neil Young) I find that artists that purposefully do the opposite of what is expected put out work that is just as formulaic and just as forced as those that try to recreate the magic of past albums.  The best artists are, in my view, epitomized by Paul McCartney: the man has spent the better part of 50 years simply trying to create a melody that sticks in your head.  Each song doesn't have to be a meeting of 17 genres, doesn't have to be 97 minutes long, doesn't have to have a 81 piece orchestra.  It just has to grab you and stick in your head.  Period.

And I've heard Sepultura's Chaos A.D.  They were much further out on the limb with TBA than if they had made that album, by a long shot. 

Stadler


And I've heard Sepultura's Chaos A.D.  They were much further out on the limb with TBA than if they had made that album, by a long shot. 

 


Wow Stadler.  You know I absolutely love you, bro...but this is just a stunning statement.     Chaos AD (to my ears) was extremely different and original when it came out in '93.   I think one of the reasons it stands out as a classic is because A) it was such a "left turn" for Sepultura in the first place, and B) in '93, no one had heard anything like it before.  
 
Where as TBA (to my ears) had been done before.   It's not terribly unlike Defenders of the Faith, actually.  (only DotF was better)...and several other metal albums that had come before it.   
 
I guess we will just have to respectfully agree to disagree.

jammindude

Stadler


Wow Stadler.  You know I absolutely love you, bro...but this is just a stunning statement.     Chaos AD (to my ears) was extremely different and original when it came out in '93.   I think one of the reasons it stands out as a classic is because A) it was such a "left turn" for Sepultura in the first place, and B) in '93, no one had heard anything like it before.  

 
Well, that's where you got me, because I didn't hear it in context.  I didn't hear it until much later, and candidly, a lot of the thrash/death metal is lost on me.  I'm not ignorant to it, but not as versed in it as in, say, TNWOBHM.
 

Where as TBA (to my ears) had been done before.   It's not terribly unlike Defenders of the Faith, actually.  (only DotF was better)...and several other metal albums that had come before it.   

I guess we will just have to respectfully agree to disagree.

And we can; no hard feelings here.  I am passionate about music and can talk about it until I am blue in the face.  I always saw TBA as being different, because I was familiar with (and listening to) a lot of Metallica's influences.  And it wasn't like they sucked; they were very good and they took it to a new level.  But I always compared TBA to bands like Motorhead and Diamondhead and so on, so the slower, more rich, more... I don't want to say "melodic" because that is too pretty a term... but I thought it actually MORE dark than the old stuff. 
 
Anyway, even if we don't agree 100% I always look forward to what you say.