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

[Bansidhe]

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.

Not when you're in the gym on a summer's night it's not.

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.

Kirk Hammett has certainly been using products to try and hide his thinning barnet since the 90s and Lars was receding anyway so I suppose it would have suited them. For a lad of 50, Papa Hets still has a fairly decent head of hair.

[GivenToFly]

Many fans of metal are immensely dumb. Might it have a little something to do with that?

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.

And any album gets better when you cherry pick the songs. How good would AFD be if this were the tracklist 1.WTTJ 2.Nightrain 3.SCOM 4.PC 5.RQ ? Me, I'd rather have everything they've got. You made 50 songs? I'll have them all, thank you! If there's anything I don't like I'll just skip it, it's thankfully not the vinyl era anymore.

[Guest Len B'stard]

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

I disagree, chiefly because to do that they'd first actually have to have some good tunes.

[Chinaski]

Yes but it is relative. Elvis had 'long hair' when he appeared in 1955. The Beatles had 'long hair' in 1964.

I liked when Hunter Thompson shaved his head so he could call the other guy in the Aspen elections 'my long-haired opponent'.

[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.

I disagree, chiefly because to do that they'd first actually have to have some good tunes.

Nah, they do. That's not a question. But live, you wouldn't want to follow them. Not too many bands would, and Guns just wasn't up to it.

[drtydane]

Friends don't let friends get friends haircuts.

[Guest Len B'stard]

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

I disagree, chiefly because to do that they'd first actually have to have some good tunes.

Nah, they do. That's not a question. But live, you wouldn't want to follow them. Not too many bands would, and Guns just wasn't up to it.

When something is as dreadfully corny and atypical as what Metallica were and are, its difficult to project any kind of power and Guns, for all these calamitiousness at the time, could really belt out a fuckin performance back then. Edited August 21, 2013 by sugaraylen

[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.

I disagree, chiefly because to do that they'd first actually have to have some good tunes.

Nah, they do. That's not a question. But live, you wouldn't want to follow them. Not too many bands would, and Guns just wasn't up to it.

When something is as dreadfully corny and atypical as what Metallica were and are, its difficult to project any kind of power and Guns, for all these calamitiousness at the time, could really belt out a fuckin performance back then.

But it was very hit and miss with them. When they were on, they were on, but they weren't consistent. Axl's never been the greatest live singer to begin with, and the other guys had their bad nights depending on how late they started and consequently how far they were into their pre-show cocktails. But Metallica never faltered, 100% bang on, always. Especially in the 80s and early 90s when they were young and had all that energy. Fans voting them best live act and I can't blame them. Whether their material passes Len's standards or not, their live show was untouchable back then.

Edited August 21, 2013 by moreblack

[Guest Len B'stard]

How can you have a good live show with shit matierial though? Guns had this 'we're getting through this by the skin of our teeth but God we're gonna fuckin' belt one out tonight' thing to them that was just...palpable excitement, it was amazing. I mean i've only seen videos of it but i think it's just glorious...like that Live in Indianna show, the one where he's wearing that t shirt with Marlboro down the side, i think it starts with (don't quote me on this) Right Next Door to Hell...they just fuckin' evicerate it, it was fuckin' brilliant.

[moreblack]

You can call it shit material if you want, but a lot of people feel very differently about it. And that's all we're dealing with here, feelings. I'm sure there's people that feel the same about Guns, you tell people these days that you like GNR and more than a few will snicker, as if they're some old thing that's stopped being relevant so long ago it's shocking to them that anyone still remembers them. Shit material. Other than maybe Sweet Child which everyone seems to love for some reason, whether they're into rock or not.

But a good performer is a good performer. And Metallica in concert, have been consistently deadly for decades. When you hear the bad GNR live shows, you wonder how they even got signed, or sold that many albums.

[Guest Len B'stard]

Agree with the first paragraph....ain't having the second one though It's cool though, i see what you mean.

[JONEZY]

I don't remember them cutting their hair being a 'big deal'. It was different, but they were still playing kick ass rock. As has been previously posted, I think some of the guys were starting to lose their hair. It was either wear a wig, or cut it so it wasn't as noticeable. Male pattern baldness is very common, even among rock stars.

[moreblack]

I recall even through the last bit of the Black tour, Jason chopped off his hair. He was the first one.

[ll_tj1]

I have to disagree with all the Metallica live love there getting here. I saw them for the first time on the MOP tour when they opened for Ozzy, and saw them three more times several years after that. Hetfield was a shell of the singer he used to be. To the point where Newstead was singing the majority of the KIA and RTL material. You'll never see someone sing Nightrain for Axl. Not knocking Hetfield, just stating what I saw. Metallica was very bit as sloppy as any other band just like old Guns. The current band blows both away as far as fewer mistakes. Especially if you remove DJ's standard, every show mistakes, like certain parts of TIL. And as far as Metallica blowing them off the stage on a nightly basis, well that's just not true. I was around 20/21 years old during that tour, and Metallica was more consistent, but when GNR was firing on all cylinders, Metallica couldn't touch them. But, GNR also had more poor shows than Metallica. Metallica was like a flatline. Same show every night, and while there was rarely a drop off in shows, there was also no "blow you away" type shows Guns could put up. And for whomever wants to argue about this, just remember, this is my opiniun. These were my two favorite bands at the time, (though Metallica was in steadt decline for me after the release of AJFA) so I did pay a lot of attention.