I have been spinning new Sucktallica album on spotify , actually its pretty good, its one of those what you can spin and spin, back to roots, garage days, more garage punk whit a bit metal elements if we look at song lenght, thing what is missing long hair, letter jackets, dirty garage whit emthy beer cans everywhere, stinky smell of cigarettes and well only good thing is good master here, otherwise its smells like teen spirit, old good garage days, beck to the damn roots, almost every song is good. Whats wrong whit em after black album sucktallica, before metallia, anyway decent album, but sad fan boys and girls will overate it.

but it don't change a fact its sucktallica now and will be

Nice review, SSUS. agree with you, though i like it a tad more than you. after so many albums that did nada for me, i'll actually spin this one again.

nowhere near their first four, but those were 30 years ago.

I agree with the reviewer 100%. This album is not awful. Some songs aren't very good and their is way too much repetition and overdone ideas. However, there are some good moments too. Spit Out the Bone is a very good song IMO. Moth Into Flame, Atlas, Rise too. I do disagree with the reviewer I really liked Now That We're Dead. It's not really a thrash song, it's more groovy rock hard/metal but I found myself singing it in my head after a few listens. It's not infomercial singing in my head either, it was genuine "I like this song" shit. Anyways I'm not a fan boy and I hate follow the crowd and just hating on something or someone just because it's cool. AKA Hipsters (I hate hipsters). I do feel this is an album that should be 8 songs long and about 30-32mins and it would be a really solid release. Unfrtouantely it's 12 songs and 77 long ass minutes. Therefore, I'd rate it a 6 flat.

By the way I think Anthrax' For All Kings and Testaments "Brotherhood of he Snake" were the best two thrash albums this year. I do love Death Angels Evil Divide though. I'd rate it third. Exmortus is awesome, love them just don't consider them a true thrash band more speed/power. Vector is very talented, the vocals are just not my favorite style. Still great new album by them. Helstar is more speed/power metal with thrash elements. To each their own, they are very talented too. When Rivera screeches I love it, when he sings in an operatic way I just don't like it as much.

People shit on the old grandfathers of thrash, but IMO they are still the best at what they do and their new albums have all been awesome this year, accept for Metallica.

I tried, I really did. Band just doesn't do it for me anymore. Excellent review and thanks.

I thought the album was pretty okay. I really agree with the reviewers line of, "I'm not encouraged by the fact that this album merely succeeded at not being terrible.". Its really the most accurate thing i've heard about this album.Metallica made their careers on mindblowing albums and this one is a far cry from that. But, there are a lot of bright spots. I think if they had just cut the entire second album minus Spit Out The Bone, the release would have been a lot more solid. Well, that wouldn't really solve the crappy production though.

I respect this review, fair enough. I'd probably give it anywhere between 7.5 or 8.5 because some of these songs kick ass. The mid-tempo stuff like "Now That We're Dead" and "Here Comes Revenge" are super catchy to me. My favourite song from this album is "Halo on Fire", it has to be one of the most beautiful songs they've ever written, and I really hope it becomes a live staple on this tour. Every time I listen to the song, I can imagine a crowd of 75,000 people screaming along to every lyric and every guitar harmony.

"Spit Out The Bone" will garner universal praise from feminazis around the world, and at the same time cause an uproar among sexist males for having a title that's suggestively anti-blowjob. Other than that, the song is one of the best they've written in a long time. It'll be interesting to see if they can pull it off live, though.

Overall, while there are songs that I find to be pointless filler (ie Confusion, Am I Savage, ManUnkind), this album is very solid. As for where I would rank this album, I would put it slightly below Death Magnetic, but above everything else they've given us in the past 25 years. If this is the last album we ever get from them, I won't be disappointed.

Apart from being a rip off of "Death Magnetic" and playmaking within its context, I enjoyed it much more than your review says. Terrific review by the way and truly justifies all high and low points of a record but as far as "enjoyment" level is concerned, people having fun with it and so do I.

I guess the bands ageing is showing more than ever now, it's not like their old days, that said it's not bad material and not as bad some people make it out to be. It's not like their old days but I didn't expect it to be, and I can listen to this album when i'm in the right mood. I imagine a lot of the die hard fans will be happy with these songs. Some of the riffs in songs like Confusion are good. The only real problem I have with this album is (as someone mentioned before) it sounds too similar to Death Magnetic for its own good, and a few of the songs could've been made more exciting.

I haven't been able to get into anything Metallica have done after (and kind of including) the Black Album because James Hetfield's voice just developed a much more whiny and "yeaaahhhhaaahhhaaahhh" type delivery to it, which totally turns me off. Either his voice changed naturally, or he intentionally changed his technique, but either way, I don't care for it. Hard to listen to those types of vocals without imagining that you're listening to some radio billboard hard rock band. They've got such a cringy "yeahhhh I want you by my side babyyyy" type tone to them

"Too many songs on Hardwired are forgettable to make it anything more than the best album that Metallica released in 2016, and, frankly, I wish Metallica would stop trying to write seven- and eight-minute songs if they only have 90 seconds of ideas".. very well said and very good review overall. There are 5 great songs in this album (Hardwired, Atlas, Moth, Halo and Bone) and the rest are not just below great, they are forgettable, generic and flat. Extremely long and bloated intros for no reason. It's such a waste of the great talent they have (or used to have?). The "tribute" to Lemmy is disgraceful, they could have covered one of Motorhead songs instead, like Damage case for example. Also the video for Manunkind is really awful and disrespectful towards Dead I think.

Metallica should really release their hard rock blues stuff under another name. That stuff is so much different (and not very good hard rock) than their thrash metal stuff, I don't see how someone can enjoy both. I also don't understand their obsession with long songs when it is clear they don't have the ideas for them. Far too many songs where I only enjoy Hammett's solo.

Great review. I agree on all points. The guitar sound is very unmetal and the drumming is horrible, as usual for the band.

- Is Metallica back?
- What?
- Is Metallica less gone?
- What the hell are you talking about?
- Oh in that case let me rephrase my question; is this album any good?
- F**k no.

(;D)

Quote:
This is Death Magnetic Metallica using Load techniques to play Black Album material...

Yep, this is exactly what it sounds like. Not as terrible as it could have been, but not exactly all that exciting, either.

Anyway, good review.

So this is worse than Lulu?

Written by Ellrohir on 01.12.2016 at 22:35

So this is worse than Lulu?

Totally not. Nothing is worse. But I understand your question

Written by Ellrohir on 01.12.2016 at 22:35

So this is worse than Lulu?

Not as worse as Lulu, not as good as Death Magnetic (which doesn't say much btw) but crap as Load (of fucking bullshit).

Actually I see the new album more focused and developed over last couple of albums, DM is full of too-long songs with no direction and full of repetitiveness, while no words describe St. Anger and Lulu disasters.

If you are expecting new AJFA, MOP or RTL, this won't happen... it's the time effect; musicians age and the era itself (80's was more creative and challenging in music)

Written by Nile_demon on 04.12.2016 at 14:14

Actually I see the new album more focused and developed over last couple of albums.

This is what it stands out for this record.

I also believe it's been more constructive, well-balanced, nicely fragmented and put into recording. Well, I understand about comparing with "Death Magentic" as outline of it is lot resemble to "Hardwired" but it is been more brilliantly executed.

Excellent review, sums perfectly my thoughts about it.

I've listened through "Hardwired" now for several times. Well, yes, James's style of singing ever since the black album changed, and the explosive screams of "Kill'em All" are not likely to ever resound from his throat. And, yes, the attitude and energy seem to have died together with Cliff (although much of it is still present on "Justice"). Even the black album, which I hated when it came out (except Sad But True) so much that I was actually relieved never to have had the band's logo tattooed on my skin, meanwhile has caught me somehow. The Metal ballads were there on Metallica albums ever since "Ride The Lightning", only not filling up a whole album. It just lacks the up-tempo speedy opener in the beginning and that thunderous final guitar gunfire in the end. Otherwise it's genuine Metallica. What really departed from the standards that the band themselves had established surely were the two loads of ... that James then squirted out mimicking Blues and Country. (The Memory Remains, though, is IMHO an underestimated pearl hidden among a heap of songs otherwise not worth mentioning.) Who would, at that time, have dared to imagine that far worse was yet to come? "St. Anger" stays true to its title and drives me so madly into anger that I cannot bear listening to it for longer than a few minutes. Compared to that, "Lulu" feels to me like an interestingly 'avantgarde' experiment whose gravest detriment is Lou Reed's voice. With the release of "Death Magnetic", however, the band won me over again. I agree that the songs are arranged in an irritating and confusing way. Whenever a riff or melody develops into something catchy that one wishes to hear more of, it is abruptly replaced by something unpleasant and it is gone, never ever to be repeated in that same song no matter how much one yearns for more of the good stuff. Apart from that, the songs are mostly within the upper tempo-range, the guitars roar heavily, and the lyrics are thoughtful and merit closer attention (the phrase "rise, fall down, and rise again" actually helped me get through a personal crisis). And I have no objection to the guitar-sound, apart from that loudness-war thing. In fact, the active pickup-sets specially designed for James and Kirk, respectively, are so good that I have them on some of my own guitars.

Now turning -- at last -- to "Hardwired", I can but confirm the overall impression. The first handful of songs on disc 1 positively peak out, then follows a row of songs that one would not miss if they weren't there (and that could as well have been released on a sort of "Beyond Hardwired" EP), and only the last song of disc 2 rises again to the quality the double-album had begun with. Those who purchased the 3-CD-set may or may not like King Of Summer, but to hear the old songs played live makes the 3rd disc a welcome addition to the other two. In comparison to "Death Magnetic" the tempo is slowed down quite a bit, but thank goodness it's still Metal, not Country or Blues. The riffing is less chaotic and the songs are structured a tad more organically. The lyrics feel like put together roughly, a swarm of buzzwords, phrases pounded out more than sentences that adhere to a chain of thought. James does limit his attempts at classical singing, and he sounds the better for that. Kirk was stolen his smart-phone with all his compositions on an airport, so we don't see him credited on any song for songwriting. His soloing is what it is and always was: technically impressive, super-fast fingering, occasionally at odds with the rhythm he is accompanying, and sometimes slightly out of tune (as it was long time ago in the intro to "One"). To be sure, I look up on him and I will never play only half as good as he does. All I say is that he's not absolutely perfect, either. Rob fits well into the rest of the band (so much better than Bob Rock on the bass) and one hopes that he is not subjected to the same kind of treatment that has driven Jason out of the band. It is hard to believe that he plays all that fast stuff not with a plec but with his bare fingers. And in a sense his playing style is rather grounded (as opposed to the melodically and harmonically meandering style of Cliff). Lars does a decent job on the drums, he is a bit slower than on "Death Magnetic", true, but this is nothing compared to the black album days when he could easily go fetch a beer in between the single strokes. So Metallica are back somehow. It's not exactly as in the old days, but, honestly, who would appreciate a band exactly repeating itself? The new songs are new, enjoyable and Metal. So much for that. Nevertheless, there is a slight feeling (or foreboding?) that the Metallica-train might in future make another weird turn at some railroad switch where nobody would have expected it. Meanwhile I feel quite comfortable with the present Metallica having regained a good deal of their former hardness and harshness. The good songs are as good as they are and will certainly rock future concerts. Moth Into The Flame live featuring Lady Gaga was awesome. More of that, please.

Written by DispensatioN on 08.05.2018 at 06:51

long text

You should have submitted a review instead of just a comment.

I agree on all points apart from the one where you say the Black Album has grown on you over the years even though you hated it when it came out. I also hated it with passion when it came out and I still think it's a poor release, with only two good songs, Sad But True and Wherever I May Roam.

This review is way too harsh. If this album didn't have Metallica's logo slapped to it, it would easily be an 8 to 8.5 rating. Nothing groundbreaking but very well execute and produced. Really it's biggest flaw is that it's not Master of Puppets? An album that came out nearly 25 years ago.

There is a lot to like in Hardwired. It's a legit good album. It's not an 80s Thrash Metal album, but it's a solid 2010s heavy metal album.

Written by 4look4rd on 03.11.2020 at 18:13

This review is way too harsh. If this album didn't have Metallica's logo slapped to it, it would easily be an 8 to 8.5 rating.

I mean, maaaaybe, but here's the thing: it does have Metallica's logo slapped on it, because it's a Metallica album. That means that James sang on it, Lars drummed on it, and Kirk wah-ed on it, and I have very little patience for those things these days. I dislike the production, I dislike the sound, and I stand by what I said: the writing is decent at best, usually stretched much too thin for the amount of space they insisted on filling, and quite often it's just boring ideas stitched together. To what extent do you suggest that this would even be the same album anymore if it weren't released as a Metallica album?

No matter the band, there's always a contingent of fans that insists that a harsh review would be stopped in its tracks if only the reviewer stopped to consider that maybe a completely hypothetical version of that album would be better. I understand that it would be very easy for someone to be swayed by an unfair prejudice against a band, but I didn't drop a 6.7 on this because I have some unreasonable disdain for Metallica. It's precisely what Metallica is as a band and what is represented on this album that makes me dislike the album to the extent that I do (and while 6.7 is not exactly a ringing endorsement, it rounds up to a 7/10, and that doesn't even qualify as "dislike" anyway). I highly doubt that this album would ever get an 8.5 out of me under any circumstances. It's not Kreator, it's not Death Angel, it's not Vektor, it's not Overkill - it's going to take a lot more than this ultra-clean blobcore for a thrash album to get that kind of rating.

If you like this album a lot more than I do, that's perfectly fine. If you think that more Metallica fans (or just observers) would be more receptive to the album if it were "not a Metallica album," whatever that means, then that's also fine, if wholly pointless. I am, however, sick of the suggestion that I personally scored this album too low because I have some kind of allergic reaction to seeing this particular pointy logo on the cover of an album. I like St. Anger and Lulu (quite a bit, even), so if there's any reviewer out there who might give Metallica a little unearned support, it is I.

And Master of Puppets came out 34 years ago, which is a little more than "nearly 25."

Written by 4look4rd on 03.11.2020 at 18:13

This review is way too harsh. If this album didn't have Metallica's logo slapped to it, it would easily be an 8 to 8.5 rating. Nothing groundbreaking but very well execute and produced. Really it's biggest flaw is that it's not Master of Puppets? An album that came out nearly 25 years ago.

There is a lot to like in Hardwired. It's a legit good album. It's not an 80s Thrash Metal album, but it's a solid 2010s heavy metal album.

IF this album was disc 1 + Spit Out The Bone (and maybe Lords Of Summer from the bonus disc 3), it would be an 8, if not a bit higher higher. But there's 5 songs on disc 2 that are the epitome of filler, and there's no justification in my mind for scoring it much above 7 because of that; as great as Atlas Rise, Moth Into Flame, Spit Out The Bone and (to a slightly lesser degree Halo On Fire), those are 4 songs out of 12, with another 2-3 solid ones and a bunch of incredibly forgettable tracks. Because of that, I think SSUS's score is entirely fair, although personally I would probably give it a low 7, just because, although we highlighted most of the same standouts, I probably like those songs a bit more

Written by ScreamingSteelUS on 03.11.2020 at 18:55

Written by 4look4rd on 03.11.2020 at 18:13

...

Sensible words

Mate, your score is completely reasonable, even if I would go a bit higher. I love James's voice, and don't mind Kirk's wah-wah and Lars' drumming, but this is 1 single album of solid music stretched out into a double album with completely dispensible filler such as Murder One and ManUnkind

I'd give it a 5 or 6 (on a veeery lenient day) personally for the exact same reasons that Matt stated (which explains why Matt rates higher than me in reviews ). If only half the tracks out of a dozen are worthy of listening, an album cannot get more than 6 in my opinion.

If this album didn't have Metallica's logo slapped to it, no one would have bothered to give it another chance after the first listen.

Written by ScreamingSteelUS on 03.11.2020 at 18:55

Written by 4look4rd on 03.11.2020 at 18:13

This review is way too harsh. If this album didn't have Metallica's logo slapped to it, it would easily be an 8 to 8.5 rating.

I mean, maaaaybe, but here's the thing: it does have Metallica's logo slapped on it, because it's a Metallica album. That means that James sang on it, Lars drummed on it, and Kirk wah-ed on it, and I have very little patience for those things these days. I dislike the production, I dislike the sound, and I stand by what I said: the writing is decent at best, usually stretched much too thin for the amount of space they insisted on filling, and quite often it's just boring ideas stitched together. To what extent do you suggest that this would even be the same album anymore if it weren't released as a Metallica album?

No matter the band, there's always a contingent of fans that insists that a harsh review would be stopped in its tracks if only the reviewer stopped to consider that maybe a completely hypothetical version of that album would be better. I understand that it would be very easy for someone to be swayed by an unfair prejudice against a band, but I didn't drop a 6.7 on this because I have some unreasonable disdain for Metallica. It's precisely what Metallica is as a band and what is represented on this album that makes me dislike the album to the extent that I do (and while 6.7 is not exactly a ringing endorsement, it rounds up to a 7/10, and that doesn't even qualify as "dislike" anyway). I highly doubt that this album would ever get an 8.5 out of me under any circumstances. It's not Kreator, it's not Death Angel, it's not Vektor, it's not Overkill - it's going to take a lot more than this ultra-clean blobcore for a thrash album to get that kind of rating.

If you like this album a lot more than I do, that's perfectly fine. If you think that more Metallica fans (or just observers) would be more receptive to the album if it were "not a Metallica album," whatever that means, then that's also fine, if wholly pointless. I am, however, sick of the suggestion that I personally scored this album too low because I have some kind of allergic reaction to seeing this particular pointy logo on the cover of an album. I like St. Anger and Lulu (quite a bit, even), so if there's any reviewer out there who might give Metallica a little unearned support, it is I.

And Master of Puppets came out 34 years ago, which is a little more than "nearly 25."

You're right in the sense that it is your review and your take on it but I disagree with your opinion. To me there is nothing inherently wrong with this album, outside of maybe it overstaying its welcome and songs stretching out for too long. Production is fine, it's not offensive like in St. Anger, it's just acceptable but not Steven Wilson levels of good. The drums could be mixed lower, but the guitars and bass actually sound really good with nice separation. It's too loud, but then again most albums have fallen victim of the loudness wars.

When I say there is a lot to like in this I mean that at it's core its a good riff driven album with great solos, consistently good musicianship throughout. Drumming, guitars, vocals, and bass are all on point (even if I hate James voice), nothing ground breaking but nothing bad either. It's accessible, but recognizably a Metallica album borrowing a lot from all of their eras. There is a lot of garage rock influences, some solid NWOBHM vibes, and even some throw back thrash moments.

So a 6.5 to me means an absolutely mediocre album, either completely flat or half good and half offensively bad. I view hardwire as an inconsistent album but with some really good highs like Spit out the Bone, main riffs in Here Comes Revenge and Moth into Flame, opener, and Atlas Rise. In fact if that was the whole album, and you got rid of James vocals you'd get an even higher rating from me. It's not like the filler songs are offensively bad either, they are just not as good as the rest.

But again if you're comparing Hardwired against their golden age, it's going to sound mediocre. As will most albums because Ride the Lightning and Master of Puppets (and to some extent Kill 'Em All and Justice) are some of the best albums in the whole genre.

Written by 4look4rd on 06.11.2020 at 06:12

opinion...

It's fine to disagree but your arguments actually justify the reviewer's rating. If you read your own comment again you will see that too. More importantly a 6.7 (not 6.5) may mean to you "an absolutely mediocre album" but to this website a 6 means "average" and a 7 means "good". So a 6.7 means "just below good and way above average".

Written by nikarg on 06.11.2020 at 12:14

Written by 4look4rd on 06.11.2020 at 06:12

opinion...

It's fine to disagree but your arguments actually justify the reviewer's rating. If you read your own comment again you will see that too. More importantly a 6.7 (not 6.5) may mean to you "an absolutely mediocre album" but to this website a 6 means "average" and a 7 means "good". So a 6.7 means "just below good and way above average".

Yeah, your argument is basically the same as ours, that it's an album with some very good songs and some mediocre ones, with good but not stellar musicianship and production, and that if it only included the best songs it would be stronger. That is literally the definition of an 'above average but not great album', so something in that 6.5-7.5 range, which is where it was scored. And 'It's not like the filler songs are offensively bad either', they're not offensively bad but they're incredibly forgettable, even when compared to the standard album tracks on recent releases by their peers, and by themselves on Death Magnetic, so it shouldn't be praised for that. And the final line of 'if you compare it to the golden age' - no one is doing that. We're comparing it to the literally hundreds, if not thousands, of metal albums released every year that manage to be more consistently entertaining than Hardwired, even if a lot of them don't have the same peaks as Hardwired has in the form of Atlas Rise, Spit Out The Bone, etc.

An album with 4 really strong songs, 3-4 fairly solid ones and 4-5 incredibly mediocre tracks is above average, which is what 6.7 is (I personally would go a half-point higher to around 7.2, but I completely understand why SSUS scored it the way he did), but it's not a great album; there's too many records these days that manage not to have such blatant filler (if someone asked me to provide an example of a 'filler track', ManUnkind and Murder One would be my first picks). It's frankly a bit hard to understand what the crux of the argument is.