Metallica - 72 Seasons

[GoatmasterGeneral]

On 4/24/2023 at 1:54 AM, AlSymerz said:

You're giving Metallica more credit than Lars is. He did once say he wanted to be playing into his 70's but there was an interview 3 weeks ago where he said he reckons Metallica have one more album in them.

Yeah OK, that might very well be what he said 3 weeks ago, but haven't we all heard this so many times before from dozens of bands? This will be our last album and/or tour and then that's it...but then several years later they almost always announce another one because they just can't resist the lure of easy money. All their enablers and hangers on and of course their fans encourage them to keep going. A mainstream band on the level of Metallica generates enough revenue to fund a small to medium sized company. If they were to retire, how many people would that put out of work? That said, they've only managed to get out 11 albums now in 40 years of existence, so maybe 3 more over the next 17 years is a bit too ambitious for them. Time will tell. 

 

Time will also reveal if Tom Araya's family will pressure him to revive Slayer from the dead. He's only reportedly worth about $14 million (a mere pittance compared to Hefield's $300 million) and I wonder if that will be enough to keep his wife and kids in the comfortable lifestyle they've become accustomed to? You know Kerry would be game. If Gary Holt and Lombardo or Bostaph are all too busy then maybe when Zach Wylde and Chuck Benante finish their fake Pantera thing they could help Tom & Kerry do a fake Slayer thing.

[Dead1]

23 minutes ago, GoatmasterGeneral said:

 

Yeah OK, that might very well be what he said 3 weeks ago, but haven't we all heard this so many times before from dozens of bands? This will be our last album and/or tour and then that's it...but then several years later they almost always announce another one because they just can't resist the lure of easy money. All their enablers and hangers on and of course their fans encourage them to keep going. A mainstream band on the level of Metallica generates enough revenue to fund a small to medium sized company. If they were to retire, how many people would that put out of work? That said, they've only managed to get out 11 albums now in 40 years of existence, so maybe 3 more over the next 17 years is a bit too ambitious for them. Time will tell. 

 

During Hardwired promotion period, Hetfield admitted Metallica were doing another album because so many people relied on Metallica doing an album for their living.  I suspect that was a diplomatic manner of saying "contractual obligations."

Tom Araya openly admitted Repentless was done because of contractual obligations.

[AlSymerz]

Metallica own their music, their label (which is then on licensed to a distribution label) and a vinyl company. I'm pretty sure the people James was referring to were the large number of people employed by Metallica Inc, as opposed to any record label deals they may or may not have. When Lars spoke to Brian Johnson in that show of Brian's where he talked to rock personalities about being on the road Lars also spoke about the large number of people Metalica Inc employ who wouldn't have a job if Metallica stopped touring and or recording.

[markm]

I'm curious now how many people at Metallica Inc. corporate HQ are employed and exactly what they are doing in between the numerous years separating releases and tours. I mean if there's a six digit job pushing paper with Metallica letterhead and sending emails, I want in. 

[Dead1]

Thanks for clarifying the situation.

[AlSymerz]

Metallica Inc (Blackened) apparently employees 70 people (some family), but that wouldn't included managers, road crew, tour mangers and all the other bits and pieces from bog roll changers to accountants

[GoatmasterGeneral]

1 hour ago, markm said:

I'm curious now how many people at Metallica Inc. corporate HQ are employed and exactly what they are doing in between the numerous years separating releases and tours. I mean if there's a six digit job pushing paper with Metallica letterhead and sending emails, I want in. 

I'm sure they have a whole multi-member team soley devoted to scheduling their photo shoots, and another team of publicists dedicated to organizing their press appearances. You should send them your résumé. Make sure to mention the Bill Paxton gum incident.

[RelentlessOblivion]

Some of those staff are probably also involved in their KISS level marketing ploy masquerading as a whiskey distillery…

[AlSymerz]

Possibly. I don't know if they own the distillery or that's just a name on a bottle. Iron Maiden did own the brewery that made their beer once so it is possible

[Dead1]

2 hours ago, GoatmasterGeneral said:

I'm sure they have a whole multi-member team soley devoted to scheduling their photo shoots, and another team of publicists dedicated to organizing their press appearances. 

Don't forget the pre-gig fluffers.  🤪

[GoatmasterGeneral]

52 minutes ago, AlSymerz said:

Possibly. I don't know if they own the distillery or that's just a name on a bottle. Iron Maiden did own the brewery that made their beer once so it is possible

Looks like the Blackened brand is co-owned by the band with the master distillers, and the product is distilled and bottled in upstate NY. But it is unclear who owns the factory. Since they own their own pressing plant to press their albums I would assume they own the bottling company which was founded in 2018 and only makes ther Blackened whiskey as far as I can tell. With only 10 or 11 employees involved making the whiskey it would definitely make sense that the band would own it outright or jointly with the distillers who are the ones actuaslly coming up with the recipes.

"Blackened Whiskey comes from Metallica, the band, and Dave Pickerell, the late, great master distiller behind other brands like Whistle Pig and Hill Rock Estate. The whiskey is a marriage of bourbons, ryes, and other whiskeys that were hand-selected by Dave himself.

After aging in American oak casks, Blackened Whiskey is finished in black brandy casks, which add notes of apricot to the caramel and vanilla flavors imparted by the American oak barrels.

After the whiskeys have been combined in those black brandy casks, they go through a unique process. Basically, the whiskey is pummeled by sound—the music of Metallica. They call this "sonic-enhancement" system "Black Noise," and it causes the whiskey to seep deeper into the barrel, where it picks up additional character from the wood."

 

The original master distiller Dave Pickerell died and they have two new guys making it now, Rob Dietrich and Wes Henderson. Seems bourbon was just the start, they're coming out with more varieties.

https://metalplanetmusic.com/2022/09/metallicas-blackened-whiskey-debuts-second-release-in-masters-of-whiskey-series/

[AlSymerz]

It does fit with the Metallica brand to own as much of the product as they can and then control as much of it as they can. They no doubt employ people more adept than them to oversee and advise on these brands, but owning them means more profit.

It's probably a nightmare to work out where everything and everyone sits. The Blackened Inc name that employs 70 odd people related to controlling the Metallica name and brand on a daily basis. Then there will be the Whiskey employees. Then there will be lawyers and accountants etc, possibly even cross continent lawyers. Then the record pressing employees. It's not hard to see why both James and Lars have suggested that a lot of people reply on Metallica earning a dollar.

16 minutes ago, GoatmasterGeneral said:

Dude on the right looks like a cross between John Goodman and Jason Newstead

 

[markm]

And just imagine what their multinational corporate profits would be if they somehow released a really good album on par with AJFA or even The Black Album capturing the minds and imaginations of a worldwide audience inspiring legions of young guitarists as Metallica, Soundgarden and GnR did when I was in college when every young mainstream rock fans with a guitar and cheap dorm room  amp secretly and simultaneously memorized every riff to Appetite for Destruction, Badmotorfinger  and "One" while publicly embracing lame alternative rock.  Nah, never gonna happen.  

[Sheol]

Ok, so I'm not gonna read all 5 pages of this since I last visited the site, but from what I skim-read.

GG is not qualified to talk about the quality of post-TBA Metallica if he hasn't actually heard them, that's just silly.

Waht constitutes "good songwriting" is obviously very arbitrary; I think TBA has a number of really good songs. Roam, The God that failed nails the midtempo rock swagger that Load had trouble with, Of wolf and man are fantastic, Don't tread on me has a great twin-melody in the intro, My friend of misery is also great. So obviously YMMV.

I think 72 Seasons are pretty good, compared to post-ReLoad albums, but as many have said, too long and unedited. But the main redeeming factor for me is that my daughter has really latched on to it and this weekend we'll go to the record shop so she can buy her first very own CD to play in the car. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out to be her gateway band into heavier stuff, and I couldn't be happier.

[AlSymerz]

What is the general consensus about longer songs?

Is it Metallica shouldn't do longer songs or no one should?

I feel 72 Seasons drags, I'm not sure it's any one song, or all of them. But I've never felt this way about TBA and AJFA. TBA and AJFA are about 75 min and 65 mins each, but I've never really felt the same at the end of those albums as I did at the end of 72 Seasons.

Power Metal is big on long songs, thrash metal not so much, but there are definitely longer songs I like, such as many of Maiden's songs. I also like many rock songs like the songs Jim Stienman wrote which are longer power ballad type songs. But this is the first Metalllica album I've really felt dragged to the end.

[GoatmasterGeneral]

42 minutes ago, Sheol said:

Ok, so I'm not gonna read all 5 pages of this since I last visited the site, but from what I skim-read.

GG is not qualified to talk about the quality of post-TBA Metallica if he hasn't actually heard them, that's just silly.

Waht constitutes "good songwriting" is obviously very arbitrary; I think TBA has a number of really good songs. Roam, The God that failed nails the midtempo rock swagger that Load had trouble with, Of wolf and man are fantastic, Don't tread on me has a great twin-melody in the intro, My friend of misery is also great. So obviously YMMV.

I think 72 Seasons are pretty good, compared to post-ReLoad albums, but as many have said, too long and unedited. But the main redeeming factor for me is that my daughter has really latched on to it and this weekend we'll go to the record shop so she can buy her first very own CD to play in the car. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out to be her gateway band into heavier stuff, and I couldn't be happier.

I've heard enough Bruv. I'll have you know I kept buying their stupid records all the way up through the awful Magnetic Vagina album (2006) before I finally gave up on them. So it wasn't until Hardwired that I only just checked out a few tracks, 3 or 4 of them I guess on Youtube back when it first came out, but I never bothered actually listening to the whole thing all the way through. Because how much do you have to hear to know something sucks? It's this newest one where I've only listened to maybe 30 seconds of about 3 different tracks because again, how much do I really need to hear to know I think it sucks? It just sounds like more modern Metallica drivel and I already know I don't like modern Metallica drivel.

All those songs you mentioned from TBA that you think are great or really good I think are shit. Sad But True, My Friend of Misery, Wolf and Man, Tread on Me, God that Failed...these songs all fucking suck, every last one of them. So yeah, looks like my mileage has varied. Their songwriting just doesn't work for me. What they do, I'm not into it. But I mean it's totally cool if you like them, I don't care what any of you guys listen to, you can make 72 Suckers your album of the year and TBA the album of the century for all I care. To each his own.

As for me I'm gonna stick to my opinion that Reload has been the best Metallica album after the first 4. Which is kinda sad since it's not a great album by any means, it's uneven and too commercial and has some really shitty songs on it, I'm talking total cringe, and I've had absolutely no desire to listen to it for the last 20 years. But there were a handful of half decent tracks on it that I liked which is a lot more than I can say for any of their other ones, so to me it's the most listenable album of all the ones they've done since '88. Because TBA only had two decent tracks on it and all the rest of their albums have been complete and utter dog shit. Total failures in my book. But knowing my taste in music would you really expect me to feel any differently?

 

1 hour ago, AlSymerz said:

What is the general consensus about longer songs?

Is it Metallica shouldn't do longer songs or no one should?

I feel 72 Seasons drags, I'm not sure it's any one song, or all of them. But I've never felt this way about TBA and AJFA. TBA and AJFA are about 75 min and 65 mins each, but I've never really felt the same at the end of those albums as I did at the end of 72 Seasons.

Power Metal is big on long songs, thrash metal not so much, but there are definitely longer songs I like, such as many of Maiden's songs. I also like many rock songs like the songs Jim Stienman wrote which are longer power ballad type songs. But this is the first Metalllica album I've really felt dragged to the end.

Longer songs are fine if they have a reason to be longer. I mean this for any band in general. If they're just gonna repeat the same two or three riffs over and over for 7 or 8 minutes then I think that's too long. But it depends on the sub-genre and even then it differs from band to band. Type O Negative for instance has quite a few 10 minutes songs that don't drag for me at all. Atmo-black tracks can run into the 8 -10 minutes or longer range and that's fine because with that sub-genre I'm not listening to individual songs I'm looking at the whole album as one piece of music. Overkill has a lot of 5-6 minute tracks that are great. But they have some shorter 3 and a half minute songs that are great too. But for most of the typical black and death metal I'm listening to daily 4 or 5 minutes seems to be a good length. For punky blackened speed metal, or war metal, or hardcore, or crust, or Motorhead and stuff like that I think 2 to 4 minutes is plenty long enough.

[AlSymerz]

I heard/read someone on another forum the other day suggesting that Metallica can't write longer songs and therefore it made the new album suck. As I've said I do think 72 Seasons a tad long but I didn't think that was because Metallica can't write a long song.

Puppets was 8 minutes, AJFA was 9, Disposable Heroes was 8, (to name a few) they are decent songs to me. I'm less familiar with stuff from TBA onwards, but I'm less inclined to think Metallica can't write a longer song, or that this album suffers from that problem alone, and more inclined to think older fans just prefer their older songs.

[JonoBlade]

3 hours ago, GoatmasterGeneral said:

Longer songs are fine if they have a reason to be longer. I mean this for any band in general. If they're just gonna repeat the same two or three riffs over and over for 7 or 8 minutes then I think that's too long. But it depends on the sub-genre and even then it differs from band to band. Type O Negative for instance has quite a few 10 minutes songs that don't drag for me at all. Atmo-black tracks can run into the 8 -10 minutes or longer range and that's fine because with that sub-genre I'm not listening to individual songs I'm looking at the whole album as one piece of music. Overkill has a lot of 5-6 minute tracks that are great. But they have some shorter 3 and a half minute songs that are great too. But for most of the typical black and death metal I'm listening to daily 4 or 5 minutes seems to be a good length. For punky blackened speed metal, or war metal, or hardcore, or crust, or Motorhead and stuff like that I think 2 to 4 minutes is plenty long enough.

This. Long songs are a great addition to an album if they make sense in context...and so long as the album as a whole is concise.

The style of Type O lends itself to long songs/album and its not noticeable because they is more awesome than every other band.

The best Sabbath album Sabotage has two long/epic side-closing tracks: Megalomania and The Writ. The variety of track lengths/interludes etc on this album makes it a masterclass in album construction, albeit for an experimental band. An AC/DC album wouldn't work so well with a 7 minute track*; their sin in the past has been exceeding the magic ten sub 4-minute tracks.

Metallica writes long songs just fine but, like Maiden, they now make too many of them such that the standout epicness is weakened.

 

EDIT: * Let There Be Rock excepted. AC/DC stopped taking any risks with song structure in 1978 and, despite commercial success, no latter album surpasses TNT (AU), Dirty Deeds (AU), Let There Be Rock or Powerage for album pacing/structure.

[GoatmasterGeneral]

10 hours ago, AlSymerz said:

I heard/read someone on another forum the other day suggesting that Metallica can't write longer songs and therefore it made the new album suck. As I've said I do think 72 Seasons a tad long but I didn't think that was because Metallica can't write a long song.

Puppets was 8 minutes, AJFA was 9, Disposable Heroes was 8, (to name a few) they are decent songs to me. I'm less familiar with stuff from TBA onwards, but I'm less inclined to think Metallica can't write a longer song, or that this album suffers from that problem alone, and more inclined to think older fans just prefer their older songs.

Puppets was a bit too long, that song could have cut out at least one verse and chorus and been all the better for it. Great song that didn't need to be 8 minutes 36 seconds. Disposable Heroes arguably the best song on the album and was fine at 8 minutes 17. AJFA title track I personally would have left on the cutting room floor.

I do think many people of a certain age make a distinction between Metallica's pre TBA and post TBA bodies of work. So when they say Metallica can't do this or that there's an implied "anymore." Shortest song on MoP is Battery at 5:13 with 3 tracks over 8 minutes which in the era of heavy metal bands who generally wrote 3 and 4 minutes songs stood out as being notably long songs. AJFA exacerbated this trend with the shortest song Dyer's Eve also clocking in at 5:13 and 4 of its 9 tracks being in excess of 7 and a half minutes. Nowadays there are tons of bands who write 7, 8, 9 minute or longer songs so it's not out of the ordinary like it was in the mid 80's.

From old interviews it's clear to see they always saw themselves as "more" than just a thrash band, they definitely wanted to be more progressive and be able to go outside of the "thrash metal" box many of their fans wanted to keep them in. They always pushed back on the question "Are you a thrash band?" because they felt like owning that thrash label would limit them. Lars' standard answer was that they were a band with more to offer than just going 100 miles an hour like some other bands in the scene at the time. They wanted to stand apart from the crowd.

This became problematic for them when their main musical force/mind died in 1986 and the rest of them while competent musicians just didn't have the songwriting chops or musical theory backgrounds to be the "progressive" metal band they really wanted to be. AJFA love it or hate it had some problems. So they had a meeting, shifted gears and became radio friendly hard rock/heavy metal instead with only a slight nod toward progressivism every now and then.

And there'd be absolutely nothing wrong with that if like our Swedish friend you happen to genuinely enjoy the songs they write now. But in many older fans' opinions these newer (post 1991) songs on the whole just aren't very good. I believe if they had been really great songwriters their hard rock/heavy metal stuff would have totally won many of their older fans over.

As it is I guess it doesn't really matter that many of the older fans became disgruntled with their 90's direction because they picked up a legion of new fans and became the dominant mainstream heavy metal band in the world. Which despite Lars' recent claims to the contrary was actually their main objective all along from the beginning as we can plainly see from the old 80's interviews.

[AlSymerz]

I need to spend more time with their later catalogue to decide how songs long and short actually work for me. But I honestly don't see that happening in the short term.

[Sheol]

On 4/27/2023 at 10:58 AM, GoatmasterGeneral said:

As for me I'm gonna stick to my opinion that Reload has been the best Metallica album after the first 4.

You amy have mentioned this before, but which ReLoad songs did you enjoy? I remember Devils's Dance being particularily interesting when I was a wee lad scouring the internet for song snippets played live. I think... Carpe diem baby and Where the wild things are, were the other two that stood out. Never liked Fuel or Memory...

Quote

Longer songs are fine if they have a reason to be longer. I mean this for any band in general. If they're just gonna repeat the same two or three riffs over and over for 7 or 8 minutes then I think that's too long.

In Metallica and Iron Maiden's case, this is exactly the problem. They stretch out ideas (even the good ones), for way too long so they loose their punch.

[GoatmasterGeneral]

2 hours ago, Sheol said:

You may have mentioned this before, but which ReLoad songs did you enjoy? I remember Devils's Dance being particularily interesting when I was a wee lad scouring the internet for song snippets played live. I think... Carpe diem baby and Where the wild things are, were the other two that stood out. Never liked Fuel or Memory...

No, I'm unable to listen to either Fuel or Memory.

Let me look up the track list here...I liked Devil's Dance, Better Than You, Slither, Low Man's Lyric and Attitude. Not that these are all time great songs or anythjng but I thought they were at least enjoyable. That's 5 out of the 13 tunes I liked from Reload vs just 2 out of 12 good songs from TBA, and of course 0 from Load, St. Anger or Magnetic. I'm really not familiar enough with their last two albums to say exactly how many tracks I think are good from each, but I suspect in both cases the number would probably be more than 0 but definitely less than 5.

[AlSymerz]

I won either Load or Reload in some radio comp in the late 90's, was either that or tickets to Motley Crue. I don't remember which one because I listened to it once or twice then threw it in the box with all the other albums I didn't listen to and I don't think it's ever come out.

[AlSymerz]

So after realising that I couldn't remember anything from a Metallica album since the Black album, over the last week I went back and listened to Load, Reload, St Anger, Death Magnetic and Hardwired. They aren't terrible albums, although Load does come close, and each one does have some reasonable songs let down by some stinkers. Lyrically I don't think they've improved much over the years, and between James' grunts and Kirk's wah wah the songs often do sound similar. Overall in 5 albums I can't honestly think of anything that stands out, even the songs I didn't mind have kind of slipped into obscurity already. 72 Seasons really is a step up from the last 5 albums and I can see why some older fans are talking it up as a bit of a come back for the band.

[Skittler]

Was a fan when I was a teenager and first picked up guitar but I havent really listened to much after St. Anger. I may listen to the newer stuff one day but I seriouly got burned out on Metallica. I havent listened to a full album by them in 20 years.