METALLICA's KIRK HAMMETT Says GUNS N' ROSES Has 'Turned Into Somewhat Of A Nostalgia Act'

[DieselDaisy]

11 minutes ago, wasted said:

Most bands do become nostalgia acts to a degree. It's natural. But when you start recycling riffs from old albums they are nostalgia albums.

I do not remember any riffs that were recycled on Death Magnetic? Some songs (and riffs) have a similar feel - obviously, most glaringly on 'Unforgiven III' - but they're completely original songs and riffs.

11 minutes ago, wasted said:

Metallica shows are based on old hits. Not many go for Fuel or a ballad off Load. They are touring off nostalgia. Yet Kirk wants to point the finger. A little hypocritical. It's a minor thing I would say. Hardly anyone cares these bands are living off nostalgia. 

They are already playing three songs from an album that isn't even out yet!! Presumably, if they follow a similar pattern to the World Magnetic Tour, that total will increase to five - six. Please get your facts right.

11 minutes ago, wasted said:

Your mixing up nostalgia with a retro thing.

I think you're doing a pretty good job of that yourself.

Why is The Stones returning to their blues roots (Beggars Banquet) any different from Metallica reprising thrash (Death Magnetic). Laying all elements of subjectivity aside, what is the difference? They were both genre practiced at then beginning of each band's career to a degree of success, both being put aside controversially, The Stones in favour of British music hall psychedelia, Metallica in favour of mainstream metal/hard rock. Both are genre which fans see as putting forth most clearly the essential 'essence' of the band.

Edited November 16, 2016 by DieselDaisy

[wasted]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

I do not remember any riffs that were recycled on Death Magnetic? Some songs (and riffs) have a similar feel - obviously, most glaringly on 'Unforgiven III' - but they're completely original songs and riffs.

They are already playing three songs from an album that isn't even out yet!! Presumably, if they follow a similar pattern to the World Magnetic Tour, that total will increase to five - six. Please get your facts right.

I think you're doing a pretty good job of that yourself.

Why is The Stones returning to their blues roots (Beggars Banquet) any different from Metallica reprising thrash (Death Magnetic). Laying all elements of subjectivity aside, what is the difference? They were both genre practiced at then beginning of each band's career to a degree of success, both being put aside, The Stones in favour of British music hall psychedelia, Metallica in favour of mainstream metal/hard rock.

I think Beggars evolved those blues elements, Sympathy for the Devil. Whereas DM was a pastiche, it was a step back creatively, the only interesting thing was the compressed production. Both have a retro feel but only DM was a nostalgia remake. 

You can play new songs but your set is basically still a nostalgia fest. Fans go for the old stuff and they know it. There's a nostalgia aspect to that, not that it's that bad a thing. Oh no, Metallica are a nostalgia act like just about every other big touring band. 

[EvanG]

Just now, wasted said:

It's just my take, that you disagree with.

I could say you are stating Metallica aren't a nostalgia act as fact.

Which you don't know for sure. It's just your opinion. 

No, I'm sure they are not a nostalgia act for me, in my definition of that word. If in your book they qualify as nostalgia because they play a lot of their older stuff, then by all means... that's cool. I don't agree because they keep releasing new stuff, but if for you that still makes them a nostalgia act, then so be it.

But that's not what I was calling you out for. You've made comments on here like ''they only did it for the money'' and ''DM was a conscious effort to recapture the past'' and that's more an accusation which you can't even possibly know unless you're part of the band. You're allowed to say that obviously, but don't make it sound like a fact because unless you can prove it, it just comes off kind of ignorant.

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, wasted said:

I think Beggars evolved those blues elements, Sympathy for the Devil. Whereas DM was a pastiche, it was a step back creatively, the only interesting thing was the compressed production. Both have a retro feel but only DM was a nostalgia remake. 

You can play new songs but your set is basically still a nostalgia fest. Fans go for the old stuff and they know it. There's a nostalgia aspect to that, not that it's that bad a thing. Oh no, Metallica are a nostalgia act like just about every other big touring band. 

Pertaining to nostalgia, a band that releases five albums, one of which is upcoming, cannot conceivably be included in the same bracket as someone who released one six years ago.

[wasted]

1 minute ago, EvanG said:

No, I'm sure they are not a nostalgia act for me, in my definition of that word. If in your book they qualify as nostalgia because they play a lot of their older stuff, then by all means... that's cool. I don't agree because they keep releasing new stuff, but if for you that still makes them a nostalgia act, then so be it.

But that's not what I was calling you out for. You've made comments on here like ''they only did it for the money'' and ''DM was a conscious effort to recapture the past'' and that's more an accusation which you can't even possibly know unless you're part of the band. You're allowed to say that obviously, but don't make it sound like a fact because unless you can prove it, it just comes off kind of ignorant.

It's just my opinion.

Same could be said about the idea that just releasing albums means you aren't a nostalgia band. I wouldn't say it sounds ignorant. 

I just think it's more interesting than that. Even with Metallica they had albums like St Anger that were fresher, a different spin than DM which seems more formulaic and looking back. 

So they have a nostalgia tour and some albums/songs that are looking back. Is that so bad? 

[EvanG]

4 minutes ago, wasted said:

It's just my opinion.

Same could be said about the idea that just releasing albums means you aren't a nostalgia band. I wouldn't say it sounds ignorant. 

I just think it's more interesting than that. Even with Metallica they had albums like St Anger that were fresher, a different spin than DM which seems more formulaic and looking back. 

So they have a nostalgia tour and some albums/songs that are looking back. Is that so bad? 

No, that's not bad at all. But you can have a difference of opinion on what a nostalgia act means to someone. Obviously to you it means something different than to me.  And that's ok.

But when you question a bands motivation for releasing an album or for exploring a different sound, as you have done on here, then it's not even really an opinion but, like I said, more an accusation. Because it's not like you can prove that Metallica released Load only to sell more records, or that they released DM to recapture a sound, as you so eloquently described on one of the previous pages. Because you can't know that for sure, but the way you make those statements it sounds like you do. You catch my drift?

[wasted]

19 minutes ago, EvanG said:

No, that's not bad at all. But you can have a difference of opinion on what a nostalgia act means to someone. Obviously to you it means something different than to me.  And that's ok.

But when you question a bands motivation for releasing an album or for exploring a different sound, as you have done on here, then it's not even really an opinion but, like I said, more an accusation. Because it's not like you can prove that Metallica released Load only to sell more records, or that they released DM to recapture a sound, as you so eloquently described on one of the previous pages. Because you can't know that for sure, but the way you make those statements it sounds like you do. You catch my drift?

I see what you mean. I didn't mean that's the only reason they made music. It's more like their retro tendency just happened to make them more commercial at the time. As I remember they were pretty honest about what they were doing. Bringing in Bob Rock does have it's connotations. Maybe I am presuming things here though. It's conspicuously commercial. 

The retro and nostalgia still stands based on the actual records though. The influences or even presentation aren't forward looking. Not that it has to be. It's more just a change of style for Metallica. Which was interesting and enjoyable at the time. 

But should a band with such retro and nostalgia elements be calling out GNR as a nostalgia act? 

They are on shaky ground in my opinion. I wasn't like sure Metallica can say that, look at them: the anti-nostalgia touring machine, albums full of invention, blazing a trail for rock bands in the 21st century. Oh, wait. Er, not really. 

I guess it's Guns' fault for having such an erratic career and not keeping the fans and  critics happy. 

Edited November 16, 2016 by wasted
Conspicuously

[EvanG]

14 minutes ago, wasted said:

I see what you mean. I didn't mean that's the only reason they made music. As I remember they were pretty honest about what they were doing. Bringing in Bob Rock does have it's connotations. Maybe I am presuming things here though. 

The retro and nostalgia still stands based on the actual records though. The influences or even presentation aren't forward looking. Not that it has to be. It's more just a change of style for Metallica. 

It is, after trying some different things on Load and St. Anger, they might go back to their roots now a little bit more, as a lot of bands do in the autumn of their career. What the reason for that is, we can all guess about, but at the end of the day we don't know. I'm not so cynical, so I think it's just a natural evolution.

Same thing with their change of sound during the mid 90s. You think they did it to sell more records. Personally I think they just wanted to try something else, flirt with different dynamics, and that's also a natural evolution in a band, at least for most bands. I don't think they had insincere motivations.

Edited November 16, 2016 by EvanG

[wasted]

10 minutes ago, EvanG said:

It is, after trying some different things on Load and St. Anger, they might to back to their roots now a little bit more, as a lot of bands do in the autumn of their career. What the reason for that is, we can all guess about, but at the end of the day we don't know. I'm not so cynical, so I think it's just a natural evolution.

Same thing with their change of sound during the mid 90s. You think they did it to sell more records. Personally I think they just wanted to try something else, flirt with different dynamics, and that's also a natural evolution in a band, as how it is for most bands. I don't think they had insincere motivations.

Just because it's the done thing doesn't mean it's not nostalgia. People get nostalgic for they youth as they get older. Nostalgia isn't a hate crime. 

I could be a little less cynical. But I almost see that as a given. All bands are trying to find ways to survive the times. U2 and INXS were talking about it. Achtung Baby was a hail mary. All art is contrived. All the bands changed at the same time too. Call me paranoid...

Edited November 16, 2016 by wasted
We savior the nostalgia

[EvanG]

11 hours ago, wasted said:

Just because it's the done thing doesn't mean it's not nostalgia. People get nostalgic for they youth as they get older. Nostalgia isn't a hate crime. 

I could be a little less cynical. But I almost see that as a given. All bands are trying to find ways to survive the times. U2 and INXS were talking about it. Achtung Baby was a hail mary. All art is contrived. All the bands changed at the same time too. Call me paranoid...

Like I said, maybe we have a different definition of nostalgia. When someone goes to a Metallica show and rocks out to One or Enter Sandman and gets sentimental because those songs remind them of their youth, then obviously there is some nostalgia attached, maybe even a lot, but does that automatically make them a nostalgia act? Then any band older than 20 years that still enjoys playing old songs will be a ''nostalgia act''.

Maybe going back to their roots musically is a natural evolution and it's not done for nostelgic reasons, but obviously it will remind people of their beginning days, so does that automatically make them a nostalgia act? They aren't doing it for those reasons in the first place, I don't think they are feeding people's nostalgia on purpose. And to me that's the difference between a real nostalgia act and an ''old'' band like Metallica.

Purposely going back to the ''old days'', like all those bands who are doing this LP tour from 20+ years ago. Or all those ''back to the 90s'' parties where 90s bands get booked just to perform their big 90s hit. Or bands doing a reunion tour without releasing new music, and only playing the songs from 30 years ago. All of that is a nostalgia act by my defintion. Not a band releasing new music. The fact that some of the fanbase gets nostalgic when they play an old song is beyond their control, it's inevitable when you have so many old songs. The only way to avoid it then is to only play new songs and completely ignore your old material just so that people won't accuse you of being a nostalgia act.

I agree that most bands change, but I think that most of the time they change and evolve for the right reasons. People often say that when a band goes soft and becomes more radio friendly, like Metallica did, that they are selling out, but I think in most cases they are just progressing and evolving musically and are not doing it to sell more records. They're not the Backstreet Boys. I'm not saying they don't want to sell a lot of records, most bands do, but that is not their motivation for change. They started to make music out of passion, and I'd like to think that they kept that integrity throughout their career.

 

 

Edited November 16, 2016 by EvanG

[wasted]

1 minute ago, EvanG said:

Like I said, maybe we have a different definition of nostalgia. When someone goes to a Metallica show and rocks out to One or Enter Sandman and gets sentimental because those songs remind them of their youth, then obviously there is some nostalgia attached, maybe even a lot, but does that automatically make them a nostalgia act? Then any band older than 20 years that still enjoys playing old songs will be a ''nostalgia act''.

Maybe going back to their roots musically is a natural evolution and it's not done for nostelgic reasons, but obviously it will remind people of their beginning days, so does that automatically make them a nostalgia act? They weren't doing it for those reasons in the first place.

I said this before, purposely going back to the ''old days'', like all those bands that go out and only play old songs or are doing this LP tour from 20+ years ago, or even all those ''back to the 90s'' parties where all those old 90s bands get booked only to perform their big 90's hit, all of that is a nostalgia act by my defintion. Not a band releasing new music. But agree to disagree.

I agree that most bands change, but I think that most of the times they change and evolve for the right reasons. People often say that when a band goes soft and becomes more radio friendly, like Metallica did, that they are selling out, but I think in most cases they are just progressing and evolving musically and are not doing it to sell more records. They're not the Backstreet Boys. I'm not saying they don't want to sell a lot of records, most bands do, but that is not their motivation for change. They started to make music out of passion, and I'd like to think they kept that integrity throughout their career.

 

 

Of course undercutting the whole discussion is what the band's motivations or creative process is. GNR could be using playing mainly old material to get in the zone to start the next project. There could be a multitude of reasons. But we just say "nostalgia act". So this is the game we are playing. 

I'm just coming at it as a fan. My impression of each album etc. Like my opinion that Black album, Load were driven a lot by commercial aspects. Some might say no they are pure artists. 

Fan expectation shapes it too. When I go to the Metallica show they played 1 song off DM and I'd been listening to that record a lot. I'm just not a nostalgia guy at all. Even at GNR shows old stuff somehow depresses me. I like the new stuff. Like new Manics album, new Blur album. Sometimes they come up with a fresh take, sometimes they rehash it. 

So the whole nostalgia act game is determined by how the fan approaches it and their personal relationship with that band. 

Maybe the nostalgia record is about recharging batteries, consolidating your career before you kick on to the next thing. 

Maybe Death Magnetic and Hardwired are like the Beggars Banquet and Let it Bleed of Metallica. There will be 2 more big records from them that really change the landscape of rock so that in 10 years there's a new wave of bands  that are heavily influence by 21st century Metallica. 

[Good, Fuck'n, Night.]

Call me nostalgic, but I would love some Bluesy, southern rock, honky-tonk piano sounding tunes, mixed with some climatic ballads & hard rocking punk edged songs with slash shredding over it all & Axl wailing like a man possessed. That's what I want from a new album, I want to hear GNFNR.  

Do what you do do well. If I want to listen to progressive rock mixed with electronica I will listen to Radiohead. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 16, 2016 by Good, Fuck'n, Night.

[Free Bird]

I don't want to add anything to the topic, I just wanna spam

https://youtu.be/KHR9gVJTiHU

 

Edited November 16, 2016 by Free Bird

[Apollo]

Wasted is a good dude. But when you somehow twist logic around to make it sound like a good thing that our favorite band doesn't release music while meanwhile criticizing other bands that do release music......then you just have to shake your head and slowly walk away.

And to constantly blame Axl's lack of musical release on other people - it just seems silly. 

Bon Jovi just released yet another album. It debuted at number one. 

Metallica is in semi-retirement mode. But they still occasionally share music with their fans. 

Axl Rose and GnR is a nostalgic band. One album in the last 25 years. It doesn't matter why a band releases an album. At the end of the day you judge a song by whether or not you like how it sounds.

"well I really think song X is awesome. But they only released it because the band was broke and the label forced them to put it out. So now I'm not going to like it." Wtf?

Hammet was 100% correct. He is also a grown man and allowed to share his opinion. 

You can't love Axl's rants and "not give a f*ck attitude" but then criticize anybody that says something about Axl that isn't 100% positive. 

1 hour ago, Good, Fuck'n, Night. said:

Call me nostalgic, but I would love some Bluesy, southern rock, honky-tonk piano sounding tunes, mixed with some climatic ballads & hard rocking punk edged songs with slash shredding over it all & Axl wailing like a man possessed. That's what I want from a new album, I want to hear GNFNR.  

Do what you do do well. If I want to listen to progressive rock mixed with electronica I will listen to Radiohead. 

 

Great post 

[Apollo]

On November 15, 2016 at 9:12 PM, wasted said:

One was retro sell out, the other desperate nostalgia. 

Last time they did anything good was Black album. Without it they'd be as big as Megadave. 

You are confusing your opinion with fact, though. 

Just because you think Metallica sucks doesn't mean their millions of fans agree with you. 

Their albums sell millions. Their tours almost always sell out. 

You think their last albums suck? Great. Millions of fans disagree. 

Lots of people think Chinese Democracy sucks. Does that mean GnR shouldn't ever release music again or that they should retire?

On November 15, 2016 at 5:36 AM, DieselDaisy said:

You are simply setting your own personal parameters to define 'nostalgia' in order to chastise Metallica and exonerate Guns, parameters which allow you to dismiss four whole albums from the Metallica discography!!

Home run!

[EvanG]

1 hour ago, wasted said:

Of course undercutting the whole discussion is what the band's motivations or creative process is. GNR could be using playing mainly old material to get in the zone to start the next project. There could be a multitude of reasons. But we just say "nostalgia act". So this is the game we are playing. 

I'm just coming at it as a fan. My impression of each album etc. Like my opinion that Black album, Load were driven a lot by commercial aspects. Some might say no they are pure artists. 

Fan expectation shapes it too. When I go to the Metallica show they played 1 song off DM and I'd been listening to that record a lot. I'm just not a nostalgia guy at all. Even at GNR shows old stuff somehow depresses me. I like the new stuff. Like new Manics album, new Blur album. Sometimes they come up with a fresh take, sometimes they rehash it. 

So the whole nostalgia act game is determined by how the fan approaches it and their personal relationship with that band. 

Maybe the nostalgia record is about recharging batteries, consolidating your career before you kick on to the next thing. 

Maybe Death Magnetic and Hardwired are like the Beggars Banquet and Let it Bleed of Metallica. There will be 2 more big records from them that really change the landscape of rock so that in 10 years there's a new wave of bands  that are heavily influence by 21st century Metallica. 

Ok, well, I think differently about it. The Black Album, Load and Reload were definitely more commercial. But I don't think the musical direction of those albums were done for commercial motives. I can't imagine them getting together in a meeting and going: ''so yeah, it's time to start getting hits, so let's leave the metal for a while and make more hardrock songs with melody and some ballads that will appeal to a larger audience.'' I truly think it was a natural evolution.

If I'm wrong, because at the end of the day I can't know those things for sure, then I have absolutely no respect for this band at all.

I understand your take on the nostalgia thing, but as I mentioned... for me it's not a nostalgia act unless a band is purposely exploiting that. e.g. LP tour, Reunion tour. I just checked a random setlist from a couple of years ago, and they do rely very heavily on their 80s reportaire, so I get what you're saying. As a fan I would rather see a band doing way more newish songs, too.

[PsychoKiss344]

Kirk just shut up.

Although Metallica's new album is really good I will say.

[Glidn]

Ditto

[wasted]

9 hours ago, Apollo said:

You are confusing your opinion with fact, though. 

Just because you think Metallica sucks doesn't mean their millions of fans agree with you. 

Their albums sell millions. Their tours almost always sell out. 

You think their last albums suck? Great. Millions of fans disagree. 

Lots of people think Chinese Democracy sucks. Does that mean GnR shouldn't ever release music again or that they should retire?

Home run!

You do the same to criticize Guns and let Metallica off the hook. It's just opinion. 

I enjoyed DM. But I think it was more a sign post to the past more than anything. When I brought up how I liked it fans would tell me it sucks check out ride the lightening. It's maybe not as raw or exciting as early Metallica. It's more like a santized theme park version. I had nostalgia for a time I never experienced maybe. 

Maybe if in exploring their past they had come up with songs like Sympathy for the Devil or Street Fighting Man that kick in a new era of Metallica or influenced generations, then it wouldn't have just become a sign saying Go back and listen to the early stuff. 

Just my opinion, trying to explain it. It's not Metallica sucks! This nostalgia thing maybe isn't really that important. But Kirk brought it up. 

 

 

Edited November 17, 2016 by wasted
Black/white

[wasted]

8 hours ago, EvanG said:

Ok, well, I think differently about it. The Black Album, Load and Reload were definitely more commercial. But I don't think the musical direction of those albums were done for commercial motives. I can't imagine them getting together in a meeting and going: ''so yeah, it's time to start getting hits, so let's leave the metal for a while and make more hardrock songs with melody and some ballads that will appeal to a larger audience.'' I truly think it was a natural evolution.

If I'm wrong, because at the end of the day I can't know those things for sure, then I have absolutely no respect for this band at all.

I understand your take on the nostalgia thing, but as I mentioned... for me it's not a nostalgia act unless a band is purposely exploiting that. e.g. LP tour, Reunion tour. I just checked a random setlist from a couple of years ago, and they do rely very heavily on their 80s reportaire, so I get what you're saying. As a fan I would rather see a band doing way more newish songs, too.

True there's kind of external pressures. Real or imagine. Will we get left behind. I vaguely remember James not being convince, Bob Rock was cracking the whip. 

Like Goodnight was saying they should do a GNFR album. The trick would be for it to be good enough not to just become a sign post to the past. Maybe with all good intentions DM just became that to me. 

For me CD wasn't trying to re-do AFD or UYI, seemed to be looking forward. Shackler's and ITW enjoyable evolutions of GNR. 

Just my opinion, everyone will experience things differently. 

Edited November 17, 2016 by wasted
Revol

[Apollo]

2 hours ago, wasted said:

You do the same to criticize Guns and let Metallica off the hook. It's just opinion. 

I enjoyed DM. But I think it was more a sign post to the past more than anything. When I brought up how I liked it fans would tell me it sucks check out ride the lightening. It's maybe not as raw or exciting as early Metallica. It's more like a santized theme park version. I had nostalgia for a time I never experienced maybe. 

Maybe if in exploring their past they had come up with songs like Sympathy for the Devil or Street Fighting Man that kick in a new era of Metallica or influenced generations, then it wouldn't have just become a sign saying Go back and listen to the early stuff. 

Just my opinion, trying to explain it. It's not Metallica sucks! This nostalgia thing maybe isn't really that important. But Kirk brought it up. 

 

 

I don't really understand anything you just said. So I I'll wrap up oh interaction by saying that IMO Kirk is 100% correct. And my feelings about Metallica's career have nothing to do with his assessment of GnR. 

Metallica is a fan friendly band. Axl runs GnR in a different manner. He does what he wants to do, with no regard for his fans. Again - our personal feelings about either bands music doesn't change those facts. 

All bands play their hits. Some bands create new music - others don't. Label it how you want. 

Kirk was 100% right. 

Edited November 17, 2016 by Apollo

[wasted]

39 minutes ago, Apollo said:

I don't really understand anything got just said. So I I'll wrap up oh interaction by saying that IMO Kirk is 100% correct. And my feelings about Metallica's career have nothing to do with his assessment of GnR. 

Metallica is a fan friendly band. Axl runs GnR in a different manner. He does what he wants to do, with no regard for his fans. Again - our personal feelings about either bands music doesn't change those facts. 

All bands play their hits. Some bands create new music - others don't. Label it how you want. 

Kirk was 100% right. 

Well, I agree to a degree but think Metallica also are a bit of nostalgia  act. I basically said DM was a nostalgia record, CD not so much. Both live off nostalgia touring, Metallica less so, but like you said they are fan friendly. GNR are doing a reunion tour for the fans right now. 

It started more about Kirk being on shaky ground rather than GNR not being a nostalgia act right now on the reunion tour. 

Edited November 17, 2016 by wasted
Absolutes

[Apollo]

46 minutes ago, wasted said:

Well, I agree to a degree but think Metallica also are a bit of nostalgia  act. I basically said DM was a nostalgia record, CD not so much. Both live off nostalgia touring, Metallica less so, but like you said they are fan friendly. GNR are doing a reunion tour for the fans right now. 

It started more about Kirk being on shaky ground rather than GNR not being a nostalgia act right now on the reunion tour. 

If this reunion was about the fans then tickets wouldn't be so expensive, they would introduce new music, and Adler and Izzy would be on stage every night. 

And Axl is making an estimated $500,000 a show. That's pretty good wages. 

Bands play their hits. Axl is playing CD songs that he was playing as far back as 2000. 

Maybe it's silly for us to argue the definition of the word nostalgic. 

[wasted]

24 minutes ago, Apollo said:

If this reunion was about the fans then tickets wouldn't be so expensive, they would introduce new music, and Adler and Izzy would be on stage every night. 

And Axl is making an estimated $500,000 a show. That's pretty good wages. 

Bands play their hits. Axl is playing CD songs that he was playing as far back as 2000. 

Maybe it's silly for us to argue the definition of the word nostalgic. 

Maybe they are all kind of nostalgia acts is what I was saying. 

I still think they tried to work it out to give the fans what they want. 

[lassie]

On 12/11/2016 at 2:17 PM, EvanG said:

That's pretty subjective, isn't it? At least throw an ''IMO'' in there if you make such comments.

With Load and Reload they turned more to a hardrock sound, and a lot of fans didn't like that, they just wanted metal from Metallica, and that's fine. But others did like their new sound... more melody, they evolved their sound a bit. It's all a matter of taste. 

 

Yes of course it is subjective, but why should i say "IMO" when it was my opinion i wrote about?  And yes some like the sound of the new metallica stuff, and others don't.