On Sept. 10 Metallica's newest album, "Death Magnetic," was released, and its critical reception, moreover it's popular reception, could either be the death knell for the metal genre or a rebirth of the genre of popular rock.
When you drop the name Metallica, people usually receive it in one of two ways. They either nod their heads, make a hardcore grimace and gutturally say, "Yeah, man," or you get the cockeyed, disdainful "Really? You like them?" The important thing here is that the name itself always provokes a big reaction. Slayer almost always gets nasty feedback, and claiming you like Whitesnake is something else entirely.
Regardless of whether or not you've studied the band religiously as some of us have, when "Enter Sandman," comes on in a stadium, the crowd knows who it is, and at some level everybody recognizes that when that riff starts, your "I-need-to-whoop-some-ass-ometer" jumps up a few notches. I'm getting excited just thinking about it.
So they wrote some good songs, what's the big deal?
The deal is that they were, and still are, the face of a genre that has been completely separated from the mainstream in nearly every way. Metal bands of today, nearly all of which feature some sort of screaming, don't get radio play, videos, any of that. They subsist on a very dedicated fan base, but without some form of popular support, they, in time, will fail. I can guarantee it.
The genre of metal has stagnated (with the exclusion of Slipknot, who is one of the most creative bands around), and it needs something to kick its ass and wake it up.
And that something is Metallica. Now, why would a revamping of a style come in the form of an old band? Because they're the only band from the genre anyone will listen to anymore. Melodic metal bands break into slight popularity all the time, but no one in the general populous of consumers thinks metal is viable as a market, so they get passed over.
Best case scenario? The album gets incredibly good reviews, tops the charts for a while, and reminds general audiences everywhere, regardless of age, that good metal doesn't necessarily need screaming over ostentatiously difficult guitar licks. Then people will go out and buy old Metallica albums, and try to see where modern metal bands went wrong.
Worst case scenario? The album gets no publicity, tanks in sales, and critics claim it's another "St. Anger" (2003). For those not in the know, "St. Anger" was Metallica's misguided attempt to fit into the new world of metal (not nu-metal, mind you).
In my professional (hahaha) opinion, if the album is ill-received and blasted in reviews, it's the end of not only Metallica, but metal as a genre. Sure, they may release an album or two afterwards, but they will be feeble attempts to resurrect the potency of a beast that lived nearly three decades ago.
Now I'm really going to go to the mattresses with popular opinion. Back in the late '90s, metal came to a fork in the road: either stay melodic or claim everyone else has gone soft and get as balls-to-the-wall as you can. The former resulted in bands such as Korn and Limp Bizkit (rap-rock issues aside), while the latter birthed Hatebreed and Dillinger Escape Plan, leaving Metallica stuck in the middle, having created, in-part, both genres.
I contend that Korn and Limp Bizkit made good rock music, and part of what's wrong with our musical society right now is that we deny the possibilities of their side of the road. Fred Durst will always be a jerk, but "Significant Other" (1999) was one of the most diverse and innovative rock albums of the '90s. That's right, I said it. Deal.
--
Grant Beighley is a senior majoring in English. He can be reached at Grant.Beighley@tufts.edu.
