Not my words...
_______________________
I've never really disliked *Hardwired... to Self-Destruct*. There are some genuinely great songs on it, and it proved that Metallica could still write strong material decades into their career. But I think it's also an example of a band that would have benefited from being much more ruthless with the editing.
One of the reasons Metallica's classic albums are so highly regarded is that they were relatively concise. *Ride the Lightning*, *Master of Puppets* and *...And Justice for All* all have around eight or nine songs, and the vast majority of them are absolute bangers. There isn't much that feels like filler. Every song has a reason to be there.
I'd argue the *Black Album* has a little more filler, although that obviously didn't stop it from becoming one of the most successful albums in heavy metal history. But from *Load* and *Reload* onwards, I think Metallica increasingly fell into the habit of putting everything they had recorded onto the album.
That's not necessarily a bad thing for the individual songs. I'm not saying the tracks I'm removing shouldn't have been released. I just don't think they all needed to be on the main album. They could have been released as B-sides, bonus tracks or rarities, where fans could discover and appreciate them without bringing down the overall quality of the record.
So, if I were editing *Hardwired... to Self-Destruct*, the first thing I'd do is cut four songs: **“Dream No More,” “ManUNkind,” “Here Comes Revenge” and “Murder One.”**
That takes the album from roughly **77 minutes down to 51 minutes**.
I'd also completely change the opening. **“Spit Out the Bone”** is easily one of the strongest songs on the album, and I think it would have made a killer opener. I'd then put what I consider the second-best song, **“Moth Into Flame,”** at number two.
My revised track list would be:
1. **Spit Out the Bone**
2. **Moth Into Flame**
3. **Now That We're Dead**
4. **Atlas, Rise!**
5. **Halo on Fire**
6. **Confusion**
7. **Am I Savage?**
8. **Hardwired**
That's a much stronger listen to me. It's concise, there's very little downtime, and you get eight songs where I think the quality is considerably more consistent.
The cut that probably disappointed me the most was **“Murder One.”** This was Metallica's tribute to Lemmy Kilmister, so I really wanted to like it. I almost wish they'd gone in a completely different direction. A proper Motörhead-inspired song would have been a fantastic tribute, or they could have gone back to the fast, punk-influenced thrash style of *Kill 'Em All*. Either would have been a really cool way of honouring Lemmy.
Unfortunately, I just don't think “Murder One” is a particularly good song. I don't like saying that considering what it was intended to represent, but it is what it is.
There are also some production issues I'd change. I think the production on *72 Seasons* is considerably better overall, and Hetfield's voice sounds stronger on that album. I'm not sure whether he'd simply improved as a singer by then or whether it was primarily the production, but I wish they'd achieved something similar on *Hardwired*. Hetfield's vocals aren't terrible here, but they are one area where I think the album could have been improved.
Then there's Lars Ulrich.
Lars gets criticised constantly these days for playing boring or simplistic drum parts, but I actually think he's underrated in certain respects. Particularly in Metallica's early years, he understood how to play for the song. The drum intro to **“Sad but True”** is incredibly simple but iconic, and the build-up in **“Enter Sandman”** is another example of knowing exactly what a song needs.
I'm not going to give Lars too much grief for the relatively straightforward drumming on *Hardwired*. It does the job. But I do think some more interesting beats and arrangements could have taken certain songs to another level.
The same goes for **Kirk Hammett**. Kirk has been criticised for being sloppy and relying too heavily on his wah pedal, and there is some justification for that. But I think his early work is often unfairly overlooked. On the first five Metallica albums, his solos were an essential part of the songs. He wasn't necessarily the most technically impressive guitarist, but he understood how to play for the song.
That's an important skill. The best guitarist isn't always the one who can play the most notes.
On *Hardwired*, though, I think Kirk could have pushed himself a little further. Some of the solos could have been cleaner, more adventurous and less reliant on the wah. A few more attempts at developing them could have made a noticeable difference.
I'd also consider changing the title and artwork. *Hardwired... to Self-Destruct* isn't a terrible name, but I don't think it's one of Metallica's strongest album titles. **“Halo on Fire”** or **“Spit Out the Bone”** could potentially have worked, although I'm not convinced either is perfect.
The artwork is similar. The distorted faces of the band merging together aren't terrible, but I've never been particularly impressed by it. As nostalgic as it might be, I'd almost have preferred something closer to the visual style of their 1980s records.
None of this means I think *Hardwired... to Self-Destruct* is a bad album. I actually like the record. I just think it could have been significantly better.
Metallica already demonstrated with their classic albums that **less can be more**. Give me eight or nine great songs over twelve songs with a few weaker tracks every time.
With four songs moved to the B-sides and rarities pile, a 51-minute running time, a stronger running order, better production, stronger vocals, more adventurous drumming and guitar solos, and perhaps a better title and cover, I think *Hardwired... to Self-Destruct* could have gone from an okay Metallica album to a **fairly great one**.
Metallica
#metallica
