More Details

I can't get on board the excitement train. Yes, Metallica re-releasing their demo "No Life Till Leather" on cassette on April 18th as part of the 2015 edition of Record Store Day should be exciting, but it would be even more exciting if they stuck on a demo (or two) of the material they are writing now. After all, "No Life Till Leather" came out prior to "Kill 'em All" so why not be non-nostalgic and release a cassette of songs no one has heard previously? That would be Metallica doing something crazy. Yet, after reading countless interviews over the years with Lars Ulrich, I am guessing that when he describes that demo from 1982 as "effortless", it's an indication of where his head is at when it comes to the new material. Maybe he feels that some of the new material is too calculated or too cerebral.

Personally, I can't imagine the pressure the four members of Metallica must be feeling. They are scrutinized for every thing they say or do; the haters are always waiting for the next reason to badmouth Lars' drumming ability or James' voice or Kirk's guitar tone or Robert's walking around the stage in a crouched position. As a band, they are criticized (still) for the Napster thing, for working with Bob Rock, for St. Anger, & for recording "Lulu" with Lou Reed.

How do they win?

If the next release has material that is even vaguely close to sounding like "Master of Puppets", they'll be accused of pandering to their fans that have been with them since 1986ish. If the new release has material that is even vaguely close to sounding like "St. Anger" or "Load" or "Re-Load", all the hatred that has been spewed about those releases will be drudged up.

What does it even mean to win?

Perhaps the best part of the criticisms that are thrown at Metallica, though, is that they are corporate sellouts - that they just want to live in the past and not write new material. How the hell is that different from any band at any level? I would love to think that they perk of recording classic albums is that you don't, really, have to go and record new classic albums because the set list is already full. Over time, songs have dropped out of the set list because there are new songs to replace old ones. The day that Metallica doesn't play "their classics" is the day there is a fan riot. Imagine going to a Metallica concert and not hearing "Creeping Death" or "For Whom the Bell Tolls" or "Master of Puppets" or "One" or "Enter Sandman" or "Nothing Else Matters"? That's crazy talk.

Yet, I argue that if Metallica does continue creating albums that are extraordinary, that crazy talk may become a reality. Already, they have dropped what used to be a given in the set list - "Harvester of Sorrow" - in favor of a tune like "The Memory Remains" or even "Fuel." At what point does Metallica think to themselves, "Aren't we done writing new material? Isn't the set list full? What songs are we going to can't play the new songs because we would have to do a 2 hour set, take a 30 minute break and then do another 2 hour set." That's simply not feasible. The other option is to do a two night stand in cities, but just how practical is that? I dread the day when Metallica is only playing concerts in LA, Chicago, and New York. They built their following by touring relentlessly and continuously and already fans are complaining when they are playing more shows in Europe and South America than they are in the USA. Personally, I'm okay with that - I'd love to have the opportunity to go to another country and play music - but I get where the negativity is coming from when I read those types of comments.

The bottom line is that Metallica can't win by any definition of the word win - there's no way. It is in a genuine pickle. They can't run forward or they are criticized; they can't stay where they are or they're criticized. Is it a time in their career when they simply pick the lesser of two evils? If they choose to go that route, which is the lesser evil? That is up to them.