Why was Metallica cutting their hair [back in '96] such a big deal?

[Vincent Vega]

I've read how when Metallica all cut their hair in 1996, a few months before Load came out, it was a pretty big deal, both among Metallica fans and rock/metal music fans in general. That it was a sign of them selling out--even before Load came out. Can someone explain to me why it was such a big deal in 1996 that they cut their hair? It's not like it was the 60s or 70s where having long hair put you as being against The Establishment......

[Dazey]

Probably to make Lars feel better for being a baldy.

[DieselDaisy]

It was a combination of things...

- they cut their hair

- they wore make up (on the until it sleeps video)

- they put out soft music (loads)

If they cut their hair and put out a heavy thrash album, nobody would have cared. Kerry King is afterall bald as a coot.

[The Sandman]

Just as a change?

[Vincent Vega]

Just as a change?

Still, like I said, it's not like it was the 60s or 70s anymore...What did it really matter? It's not like it was just some cursory thing, like "Oh, Metallica cut their hair", from what it seems people were shocked and felt it was almost a betrayal of sorts that they got hair cuts.

[ll_tj1]

It was a big deal because it was shocking. Plain and simple. It was shocking because at that time, you either had long hair or you didnt. and if you did you were this nd that, and if you didnt, it meant you were omething else. pretty stupid looking back on it. it was like your personalit was being profiled by the length of your hair. all of us that grew up on RTL and Masters, had had our hair long since grade school. now here we were 12/14 years later and they made a change no one was ready for. To that point I really think the only high profile single member of a rock band to have short hair was Phil Anselmo. And his was more of an unspiked Mohawk. But this was an entire rock band, and not just any band, it was Metallica. Imagine GNR taking the stage in 1996 and every member had a crew cut. It was just shockihg, that's why it was a big deal.

Edited August 19, 2013 by ll_tj1

[Rovim]

People like to overreact sometimes. It's not a big mystery. Long hair was a big part of what Metallica was selling for years to some people, and when the band members decided it was time for a change, it didn't go well.

Metallica tried something different and I think they thought it was a good idea their image would reflect whatever they were doing musically at the time, but it was also an effort to kinda try to fit with what was cool at the time.

Like when Lars didn't think it was appropriate for Kirk to play solos on St. Anger. Trying to stay relevant. They were always sellouts after And Justice For All. They wanted it all, and they were willing to adjust their image and sometimes more to get it.

Maybe people recognized that in the band's actions, and it was their way of saying: 'just stay true to yourselves', but it was probably an impulsive thing cause they looked so different compared to their long hair days and a lot of people don't respond well to change anyway.

Edited August 19, 2013 by Rovim

[Estranged Reality]

because there's a lot of metalheads who are very much into the image aspect of heavy metal, and one of the pioneering bands had cut off their locks...and also, this coincided with a poorly-received album. it was a one-two combo and people were just like, who are these guys pretending to be metallica?

[Vincent Vega]

because there's a lot of metalheads who are very much into the image aspect of heavy metal, and one of the pioneering bands had cut off their locks...and also, this coincided with a poorly-received album. it was a one-two combo and people were just like, who are these guys pretending to be metallica?

Which leads me into:

Do you (and others here) feel the reception to Load was justified?

If we view it as say just an album, not specifically a Metallica album, how would you guys say it ranks?

[alfierose]

Surely in part it was just an aging man thing. I know a fair few metalheads now well into their forties and all of them bar a follicle blessed couple have cut or shaved their hair off. When male pattern baldness strikes it's often the preferable option.

Disclaimer. I don't know if this was the case with Metallica as I haven't studied them closely but it may have been a factor.

[Tater Totts]

because there's a lot of metalheads who are very much into the image aspect of heavy metal, and one of the pioneering bands had cut off their locks...and also, this coincided with a poorly-received album. it was a one-two combo and people were just like, who are these guys pretending to be metallica?

Which leads me into:

Do you (and others here) feel the reception to Load was justified?

If we view it as say just an album, not specifically a Metallica album, how would you guys say it ranks?

Okay, not terrible but nothing special. Take the best songs from Load and Reload and you get a good album, instead we have two albums with a handful of greatsongs and lots of filler.

And it was not just them cutting their hair, they started wearing eyeliner, nail varnish and completely changed the way they dressed.

[Vincent Vega]

because there's a lot of metalheads who are very much into the image aspect of heavy metal, and one of the pioneering bands had cut off their locks...and also, this coincided with a poorly-received album. it was a one-two combo and people were just like, who are these guys pretending to be metallica?

Which leads me into:

Do you (and others here) feel the reception to Load was justified?

If we view it as say just an album, not specifically a Metallica album, how would you guys say it ranks?

Okay, not terrible but nothing special. Take the best songs from Load and Reload and you get a good album, instead we have two albums with a handful of greatsongs and lots of filler.

And it was not just them cutting their hair, they started wearing eyeliner, nail varnish and completely changed the way they dressed.

That sounds familiar.

And the second part of your post, that truly does sound like selling out. You don't just up and change everything about who you are, especially a whole band. That does sound like an utterly corporate, calculated move. It'd be very gay if GN'R had stuck together in the '90s and changed everything, from the way they wore their hair to the way they dressed. Not very "Rock N' Roll."

[Estranged Reality]

because there's a lot of metalheads who are very much into the image aspect of heavy metal, and one of the pioneering bands had cut off their locks...and also, this coincided with a poorly-received album. it was a one-two combo and people were just like, who are these guys pretending to be metallica?

Which leads me into:

Do you (and others here) feel the reception to Load was justified?

If we view it as say just an album, not specifically a Metallica album, how would you guys say it ranks?

I've honestly never been very keen on Metallica, so I couldn't tell you.

[Johnny Drama]

Sorry Load and Reload don't compare to the Illusions. They're very ordinary albums in comparison to the first five albums.

[Vincent Vega]

Sorry Load and Reload don't compare to the Illusions. They're very ordinary albums in comparison to the first five albums.

Same idea, two albums with amazing material mixed with not so great material that would've been better as a single album. And both were basically just a double album split in half.

[Rovim]

Sorry Load and Reload don't compare to the Illusions. They're very ordinary albums in comparison to the first five albums.

Same idea, two albums with amazing material mixed with not so great material that would've been better as a single album. And both were basically just a double album split in half.

But the songs on Load and Reload were weak as shit compared to the best songs on UYI that are considered classics and up there with some of the material from the band's masterpiece which is AFD.

You can't really compare any song from Load and Reload with songs from Master Of Puppets or their best albums cause the songs are not really there, and it doesn't even sound like proper Metallica to a lot of fans.

Edited August 20, 2013 by Rovim

[Johnny Drama]

Yes but the Illusions were still great albums on their own. The Loads were mediocre with the exception of stuff like Bleeding Me, The Memory Remains, The Outlaw Torn etc

[Randy Lahey]

It was only a big deal to the metalheads. Their mainstream audience didn't care.

[wasted]

I think bcos thrash was all about long hair, fuck the system. I think realized its not that important.

Funny thing is Load is pretty heavy, some songs start soft but in the end get much heavier than most stuff. I was listening to Hero for the Day in the park. It was all good passerbys didnt noticed but towards the end where james is growling moms with strollers were moving away.

[machinegunner]

I've read how when Metallica all cut their hair in 1996, a few months before Load came out, it was a pretty big deal, both among Metallica fans and rock/metal music fans in general. That it was a sign of them selling out--even before Load came out. Can someone explain to me why it was such a big deal in 1996 that they cut their hair? It's not like it was the 60s or 70s where having long hair put you as being against The Establishment......

If you see Some Kind Of Monster it will explain a lot - http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200407/rock-around-the-doc-metallica-in-therapy

[moreblack]

It was a very clear visual of their selling out. It matched the music they put out at the time.

[Guest Len B'stard]

Fuckin' bullshit band anyway. And from the few interviews i've seen from the members they ain't the brightest of buttons either. But quite apart from anything their music is just fuckin' boring, Guns n Roses could blow em off any stage in the fuckin' world on any given day. The real Guns n Roses that is.

[moreblack]

Which is weird to think, because live, in concert, Metallica was blowing Guns away all night, every night on that tour they did together.

[Val22]

Because long hair has always been one of the marks of being a rock star or being in a rock band since the 60's, so cutting their hair back in the 90's sucked because it was like end of metal and made way for the horrible Seattle boring bands to come along.

I think long hair is way cooler than short hair.

Even M. Shadows from A7X has finally grown his hair after years of having a buzz cut. I think long hair should come back again. It's way cooler than short hair, at least to me.

[DieselDaisy]

Yes but it is relative. Elvis had 'long hair' when he appeared in 1955. The Beatles had 'long hair' in 1964. Personally I think the teddy boy look is the coolest look in rock n' roll (whether you regard that as long or short is another matter). If I could have been one musical fad (e.g. teds, mods, rockers, hippies, punks) I would be a ted. Just so I can get one of those flick knives.