A few days ago, it was announced that “Reload” would be re-released in various editions, continuing Metallica’s excellent series of back-catalog reissues. Once again, I was struck by the vast majority of comments—from both die-hard fans of the band and the broader metal fanbase—which, if not exactly raving, were nonetheless highly complimentary of the album in question. Almost instinctively, the exact opposite—the negative reactions to “Reload” when it was first released nearly three decades ago—came to mind. And while the “bashing” of “Load” was largely unfair since the album contained some truly great songs, it was obvious from the very first listen that “Reload” was clearly inferior in quality.
This isn’t the first time people have reevaluated an album—or an artist in general. I’ll mention the classic examples of “The X Factor,” “Jugulator,” “Louder Than Hell,” “Risk” (to a lesser extent), and many others. So what is it that makes people change their minds, or what is it that makes subsequent generations hear the same album differently? Ultimately, why does the…trash of the past turn into…the gems of today?
Obviously, everyone can suggest—based on their own perspective—many different explanations. Personally, I will focus on two of them, as I consider them the most important, though this does not mean the subject is exhausted here. And that, after all, is the charm of this particular issue.
A first explanation has to do with the recipient of the music, with the listener themselves. I have written in the past about the dynamic nature of music, focusing on the fact that songs are not something… static. Something, that is, that is released and that’s it. They change over time. And if that sounds strange to you, what I mean is that as we grow older and change as individuals, as characters, and as personalities, our perception of things (and therefore of music) may change. The likely result? An album that once seemed terrible, bad, mediocre (you choose the label) to us may now sound significantly improved—or at least…different. Of course, I don’t think we’ll ever go to the other extreme and call it a masterpiece, a well-hidden secret, a rough diamond, or whatever else—but the negative impression can certainly be turned into a positive one. It’s just that our experiences and perceptions have changed, and we approach music differently.
And while that’s a healthy and optimistic explanation, the second approach isn’t quite as encouraging. This time, we shift our focus from the listener to the creator—or, if you prefer, to bands and the music industry in general. I often wonder if some albums sound better to me today simply because the ones that followed are even worse. Furthermore, the virtual absence of serious production and final sound results today (almost everything sounds the same through computer programs and bears no resemblance to the “warm” and massive productions of the ’70s and especially the ’80s) makes new releases almost automatically inferior, at least in this regard. Note…I’m not implying that good songs aren’t being written anymore. Quite the opposite. It’s just that there are many factors that hinder their evaluation. If you prefer, the virtually non-existent music industry today neither wants nor encourages the creation of classic albums in our era, since everything moves at a dizzying pace. That is the reality.
It’s one of those discussions we all have with our friends, and I’ll say again, everyone might point to something different. For example, the experiential factor may always be subjective, but it is simultaneously a catalyst for whatever evaluations we make. So if “Reload” is the first Metallica album someone ever heard, it will be an exceptional record because it will remind them of things from their personal life that will stay with them forever. Of course, that doesn’t mean “Fixxxer” is on par with “Blackened” or “For Whom The Bell Tolls,” does it?
Sakis Nikas
