...And Justice for Metallica: the defence

Damage Inc.: The Case For Metallica

Better Than You

There's a reason Metallica have done a lot better than the other 'Big Four' bands (Anthrax, Megadeth and Slayer), and certainly those that didn't quite make it (Exodus, Testament, Overkill): songs. Less prolific than any of the others (even Anthrax, who seem intent on replacing at least one band member between releases), Metallica take time and care over their releases. All of them struggled through 'challenging' 1990s: Megadeth shat out the lamentable Risk and Cryptic Writings albums, Slayer compromised for once with Diabolus In Musica. Anthrax arguably fared best with Volume 8; a fine album but hardly representative of their former sound. All has been forgiven for those, but Metallica remain (pun intended) unforgiven in the eyes of many. Load and Re-Load have irrevocably damaged their status for many. Choose the best 14 songs from the 27 on offer and you'd have a better album than any of the others mentioned above. Compare this to Megadeth's approach of throwing lots of shit at a wall and releasing the results, yet nobody was out there decrying this year's Utopia album before it even came out. For every 'Peace Sells', Metallica have a 'Master of Puppets', a 'Blackened', a 'Fade To Black'. For every 'Reigning Blood', a 'Damage Inc' and a 'Struggle Within'. Songs trump heavy every time.

Fight Fire With Fire

Is there another band that does what Metallica do, with the same presence or size? Many have come and gone during their impressive tenure as biggest metal band in the world. Guns n Roses vanished up their own arses, having released 3 good songs 30 years ago. Several 'grunge' bands came and went, leaving only Pearl Jam in the same league, and only really Soundgarden and Alice In Chains embracing the metal. Pantera came, blew it, and went. Likewise, Sepultura. Of the nu-metal crop, Korn take the prolific Megadeth approach and as such are never as good as they should be; Slipknot can comfortably fill arenas are are probably the only band I can think of to compete. Linkin Park? I might as well suggest Bon Jovi. Avenged Sevenfold have graduated from ripping off Guns n Roses to ripping off Metallica, but do neither especially well. I would make an argument for Machine Head or Mastodon, but they're never going to sell even a quarter of what Metallica does.

Iron Maiden, once Metallica's idols, are now their peers, and one of the few with the same cultural presence. Maiden's music, while incredible, is easier on the wrists (more chords and melodies, less palm-muted riffs and speed), and they don't exactly stretch themselves musically. With five albums on the bounce produced by Kevin Shirley, I can almost predict what their next record will sound like. Don't get me wrong, I'll still buy it, but wouldn't you rather have a band that can surprise you, even if it is with Saint Anger?

The Outlaw Torn

From 1984's Ride The Lightning onwards, Metallica have steadfastly refused to take the easy option. Adding acoustic sections and mid-paced songs when the scene demanded ferocious speed was a brave move and they have always had something their peers lacked (or took a while to catch up with): artistic freedom. Following Ride with the genre-defining Master Of Puppets and the crushing but complex ...And Justice For All (the best album/worst production combination you'll ever hear), they were comfortably the best, most consistent thrash band. Collaborating with Bob Rock, they slowed things down and beat Kurt Cobain to the punch with the biggest album of 1991. The point being, they had the balls to try something other than 'let's just play as fast as possible'. It's no coincidence that Megadeth's Countdown To Extinction and Anthrax's Sound Of White Noise were slower and more groove-oriented than their predecessors.

Fast forward and they again had the guts to express some influences other than Iron Maiden and Motorhead with Load and Re-Load. And I should really address the furious elephant in the room that is Saint Anger. I liked this album on its release, the rough, unfinished production an extension of the wounded animal emotion of the songs. Yes, there are concessions to trends and the album is a criminal waste of Kirk Hammett's talent but pick through the drum sound and fury-over-focus approach and you'll find some gems: 'Frantic', 'Some Kind Of Monster', 'Invisible Kid', 'Sweet Amber' and the title track are absolute beasts. To bring us up to date, it's my contention that Death Magnetic is one of the finest metal albums of the last decade. Metallica don't like to repeat themselves and I'm excited to hear what they do next. There aren't many bands I can say that about.

Hero Of The Day

Even considering the bands that didn't make it to Metallica's level of success, few are subject to the same degree of scrutiny. How many bands follow up a career-defining album with another classic? Pantera followed A Vulgar Display of Power with the patchy Far Beyond Driven, Rage Against The Machine couldn't match their debut with the minor Evil Empire, Alice In Chains (probably because of heroin...) followed Dirt with the filler-filled Tripod album, and can anyone say that Tool's Lateralus is as good as Aenima? It happens but it's rare that bands can repeat the trick. So why, then, are Metallica written off when they don't release a new Master of Puppets every two years? How come Iron Maiden can get away with churning out four patchy-to-poor albums on the bounce (No Prayer for The Dying through to Virtual XI) and still be considered legends every time they make good but interchangeable records? Can you name the album Fleetwood Mac made after Rumours? (it was Tusk, but I had to look that up). And who can honestly tell me that they'll go see Black Sabbath on their upcoming farewell tour and hope to hear any songs written after 1975? That's only 5 years of songs taken from a 46-year career. So how come Metallica suck if they can't write another 'Seek And Destroy'? They probably could, it's just already been done.

Eye Of The Beholder

Do they deserve the pre-emptive, almost forensic scrutiny they're subjected to? Look at it this way: any band who puts their music out there will do so with the intention of selling at least some records. If you set out making heavy, aggressive music, you might naturally expect to sell fewer records but the hope would still be there. Metallica have been phenomenally successful at making heavy, aggressive music so the question should be whether they have compromised or 'sold out' by becoming so. Yes, their music has changed, but bands get bored and change. Yes, they have made music videos, played massive stadia and put themselves out there but success in their industry dictates that this happens. The only major bands I can think of that don't actively promote their own stuff are Pink Floyd and Pearl Jam; everyone else tows the line. So the only suggestion I can make for people who don't like what Metallica do to promote their own music and thus keep heavy metal in the pubic eye, is don't buy it. The Master Of Puppets days are not coming back. If you want 1986 over and over again, by all means listen to Slayer churn out the same album every few years. They didn't build the pedestal they're on; you did when you bought the Black Album. Don't begrudge them enjoying the spotlight you put them in. For me, it's good to know that there's one rock band out there that eats all the others for breakfast.