...And Justice For Metallica: the prosecution

91 million Metallica fans can't be wrong, can they? Let that sink in: 91 million certified album sales over 35 years, for a band whose music has its roots in thrash metal. That' more than Fleetwood Mac, more than Rod Stewart, more than Prince and certainly more than Guns n Roses (whose 'rock legend' status seems to be based entirely on 3 songs from 1987). That's a monumental success story, but with it comes baggage. Right now, that baggage is taking the forms of countless keyboard warriors who seem intent on demolishing anything they do, often before they even do it. Metallica are gearing up to release a new album, their first in 8 long years, and it seems the internet's knives are being sharpened in preparation for skewering whatever might emerge from LA's finest. My question is this: are they right?

The Gods That Failed: The Case Against Metallica

The House That Jack Built

There's a famous line in The Dark Knight Rises where Bane taunts Batman's fading abilities, saying “Victory has defeated you.” Throughout the 1980s, Metallica were increasingly successful but hardly a household name. When they broke big, and I mean Pink Floyd in the 70s big with 1991's Metallica album, they had nowhere else to go.

If a band is successful on their first release, it can either rob them of their momentum (Bush, Feeder, Guns n Roses), or drive them to bigger and/or better things (Pearl Jam, Weezer, Linkin Park, Nine Inch Nails). When a band works for album after album to earn their success, it poses a difficult question: more of the same, back to our roots, try something new? How many bands have successfully followed up a huge album? Green Day followed Dookie with an good but not as popular album, Def Leppard followed up to world-conquering Hysteria with the appalling Adrenalize and Metallica took 5 years to follow 1991's Metallica. I'm a fan of 1996's Load, less so 1997's Re-Load, but they represent a further progression away from their thrash roots and a dilution of the slower, more low-end groove-based rock that made them huge. While both feature strong songs they also feature absolute turkeys ('Slither', 'Bad Seed', 'Ronnie', anyone?), producer Bob Rock's influence perhaps coming through more than it should have. The accompanying band image, never previously a consideration, seemed contrived at the time, and is now best forgotten.

While all of their 'Big Four' contemporaries strayed from their original paths and endured 'challenging' 90s (although Anthrax' 90s output is actually brilliant, it's hardly thrash), Metallica, the biggest, strayed the furthest and for some have yet to find it again. There is a lack of focus here Kirk Hammett's leads are too restrained and Hetfield's vocals, while stronger than they ever had been before, had lost some bite and menace.

Holier Than Thou

While none of us really know what Metallica are like, they certainly haven't done themselves any favours when it comes to public image. Such is the erosion of public trust that the supposedly naked honesty of the Some Kind Of Monster film (for the record, one of my favourite documentaries) has been perceived as the opposite: a vanity project, attempting to humanise their public persona. They key piece of evidence: the scene where Hetfield graciously gives new bass player Rob Trujillo a 25% stake in the band, against their lawyer's suggestion. I like this scene, but it's been turned into a stick to beat them. Admittedly vanity projects like this, the poorly-received Through The Never, staging their own festivals, and bizarre collaborations with Lou Reed, have made them seem out of touch with anything but their own dicks. Owning original art by Basquiat does somewhat separate you from your average fan, I suppose.

Leper Messiah

There is always going to be a strongest personality in any group, and a main creative influence in any band; you rarely hear Chris Novoselic getting much credit for Nirvana's songs, nor Charlie Watts for the Stones. While every Metallica song is a James Hetfield joint, Lars Ulrich's influence on the band is huge. And people hate him. Justified or not (none of us really know him), he rarely does himself any favours: when people watch your film and end up sympathising with Dave Mustaine, you are clearly doing something wrong. Since Cliff Burton's death, Lars' influence on production has been vast. On a sonically balanced album, one instrument should not immediately jump out at you as dominant; the drums on Metallica albums have become more and more prominent and unless you're as good as Dave Lombardo or Brann Dailor, they really shouldn't. Lars definitely isn't.

Broken Beat & Scarred

Sad but true, Metallica are just not the live band they once were. Time waits for no man and Metallica are no exception. When you consider how well their staple live songs are known by the fans, any deviation or error will be noticeable. Some years back, I saw all-female Metallica tribute band Misstallica play. They were better than the real thing back then, and clearly very drunk while doing it. These days, there would be no contest. Metallica, to use a football analogy, have lost a yard of pace and this is at times painfully obvious. It will come to a point where people go to their shows purely for familiarity rather than quality.

Consider Metallica's influences and the big rock bands that preceded them: Kiss, Iron Maiden, Thin Lizzy, Motorhead, Black Sabbath. Not as fast, not as tight, often more bluesy and loose. Music that is arguably less demanding to play. But if you're in front of 20,000 people and you're expected to play 'Master Of Puppets' or 'Battery' at full tempo, it's a different proposition than having to play 'Paranoid' or 'Iron Man' (I can play those songs and I suck). If one of the four musicians is ever so slightly off, it's going to tell. Lars is not the greatest drummer, and James Hetfield's powers are fading. Hell, even Slayer were losing their touch before the tragic loss of Jeff Hanneman forced them to replace him with an admittedly better guitar player. Don't get me wrong, Metallica are still a commanding live act but considering how good they used to be, that extra yard of pace makes all the difference.

The Thing That Should Not Be?

With the weight of expectation, largely placed on their own shoulders, Metallica will surely be expected to tour, play festivals and be very very public once the new record finally arrives. Will they be able to physically pull this off? Emotionally, they have very publically struggled with this but the expectation from their huge fanbase is that they will be an all-conquering heavy metal juggernaut. Will they attempt another fast, modern thrash album like Death Magnetic or push things in another direction that might make things easier for them. Or does the fact that I'm asking these questions suggest that they should give it up before they start damaging their considerable legacy? Maybe these keyboard warriors are right when they suggest that whatever they do next just won't be good enough.