Talk:Load (album)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This album is connected[edit]

I think there's a problem with the last paragraph of the overview, the one that starts with:

"In the end, subjective musical tastes aside, it can at least be said that by objective measures Load is exceptional."

This strikes me as extremely subjective and POV. I certainly don't think that the album is objectively exceptional. AMG only gave Load a 2.5/5 rating, and they're supposedly rating by "objective" standards. That entire paragraph reeks of POV, and if no one objects in a weeks time, I will remove it. DaveTheRed 02:51, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure the author meant "Load is exceptionally good" but it should be removed regardless, as it does read POV. I think the statement was basically referring to Load as an exceptional Metallica album, which it is (the band had never done anything like it, nor have they done anything similar since) MrHate 03:21, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
On the contrary, I think that the author did mean "exceptionally good," as rest of the paragraph does nothing but heap praise on the album. If they merely meant that this album was different, the word "unique" have been much more neutral. At any rate, as it stands this paragraph needs to be removed. DaveTheRed 19:42, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • First... what the heck is POV? OMG, WTF? ;) -- Secondly, what does 'a rating by AMG' say about an album? I'm surprised quite often how certain people live by such ratings, critics etc. And thinking about the article I just read, I'd have to say that there's even a third (if not more) base of people (or 'fans') who liked 'Master of Puppets' as much as 'Load'. Personally, yes, it was an end, Load. But then again they helped me open-up. What they did was not selling-out, it was progressing. That said, there's the other interesting part: the quality of the album, the productional quality I mean (listen to the echo of Lars' drum) paired with strong songs such as 'The Outlaw Torn', 'Bleeding Me' and others. Also, the songwriting, the lyrics are stronger (than on past albums). Sure, every album is unique, I'd say. The change that started with 'The Black Album' and progressed to 'Load', that, that is exceptional. LIllIi 23:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
POV is point of view. This is when someone puts their own spin in what SHOULD be an objective article (Ex: Pantera ripped off Exhorder in almost every fashion imaginable, and diluted their style into a horrid mockery of what it should be. This is very POV) A rating by AMG can add to the article, as I'm sure someone looking into this album, or any album, would want to see what the critical reception of it was. Did Metallica sell out? Whose to say!? Do I think they "progressed"? No, they changed styles. Some would say they did this for album sales, others say it was boredom with the limits of thrash. I don't know, I don't care. All I know is, from ...And Justice For All onward, they sounded worse and worse. Cronos12390 03:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
GTFOH with that shit. There was a massive fan backlash to this album and it should be mentioned here. Your opinion of the intelligence or open-mindedness of the fans in question is not relevant. The album is still hated by some to this day and it should be mentioned.24.194.66.146 (talk) 05:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
You're trying to argue against a comment that was made over ten years ago... you might think that to be the case, but that is also just your opinion, which is just as relevant as other people's. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 06:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The last song, Sausalito[edit]

I think the article should mention that they had to fade-out the last song to actually fit on the record. The original version was a minute and a half or so longer. The full song was later published on a single.

The article should broaden the informative value by mentioning that the album was recorded in Sausalito. LIllIi 23:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

POV and poor un-encyclopedic text[edit]

This article looked like it was written by a 12 year old. There was a huge amount of POV and original research. It looked like a blog as opposed to an encyloedia article. I made a quick effort to clean out most of the crap. It needs a good copyedit now. I will do that a bit later. 216.21.150.44 01:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles on individual songs[edit]

Almost all of the articles on the individual songs are stubs whose info could either be merged into this article (as has been done with many of the Megadeth articles) or be deleted outright. Can we do without them? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 18:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Lyrics for "Until it sleeps"[edit]

It says in the article that it's about his mother's loosing fight against cancer, but on the following fan site; http://www.encycmet.com/songs/sluis.shtml it says it was his father that had cancer. I don't know which is right of the two, but it should be corrected.

According to the article on James Hetfield, his parents both died from cancer they refused treatment for because of their religious beliefs. This song is probably about his father's cancer because I believe his mother had died some years before and his father passed away more recently. 208.242.14.105 12:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Genre[edit]

Well, I doubt it can be described simply as "hard rock". To be metal, music doesn't need to be very heavy and fast, like early and late thrash/speed Metallica. IMHO, both Load & Reload are Black Sabbath's style, classic, slower heavy metal. Of course, in these albums, there are several softer songs, but still, the others are rather heavy, and most of them have distinguishable metal patterns, not those of hard rock.

I think "heavy metal" should be added to the genre. For both albums. Despite the interchangeability of "hard rock" and "heavy metal" definitions, if there is some controversy, both should be mentioned.

hard rock or heavy metal[edit]

I definitely consider this to be heavy metal. The band has the word 'metal' in their name. I think it's absurd to call metallica's music anything else. The band is quite literally synonymous with heavy metal. Heavy metal is an umbrella term that includes many times of sub-genres (thrash metal, death metal). Categorising this album as heavy metal would not be inappropriate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.53.46.141 (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

I agree that it should be classified as Heavy Metal. But should it be be classified as Thrash Metal or Speed Metal. I don't think Metallica has done a Thrash Metal album since ...And Justice for All. And I'm not sure I'd call any of their albums Speed Metal. 208.242.14.102 12:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

note about the cover art[edit]

http://www.metal-archives.com/release.php?id=2638 "The real origins of this artwork comes from Godflesh's music video "Crush My Soul" from the album "Selfless." Kirk Hammett has been a huge fan of Godflesh and Justin (singer/guitarist of Godflesh) showed the music video to Kirk. Kirk decided that a specific scene in that music video would be a perfect cover art for the Load album, and, in interviews, Kirk never mentioned the fact that the cover art came from a Godflesh video."

This bit of trivia was added to the article, but it's inaccurate. It's true that Andres Serrano directed Godflesh's Crush My Soul video, and perhaps that's how Kirk Hammett came to know of Serrano and where the idea for him to do the cover art for Load originated. But the cover art for Load does not appear in the video. It's from a piece entitled "Semen & Blood III" that Serrano did in 1990. Druff (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

"Thrash Metal" and "Speed Metal"?[edit]

Load is listed under four genres in this article; Thrash metal, speed metal, hard rock, and heavy metal. However, only the latter two can really be applied to this album. For example, one of the defining characteristics of both genres, the high speed of the music, is absent entirely from Load. Therefore, I have removed thrash metal and speed metal from the list of genres that this album falls under because while the album may fall under the hard rock and heavy metal genres the same can not be said for thrash metal and speed metal.--CP 61 21:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed those two genres again. They should not be listed. The only reason that I can see as to why they were brought back into the article is because AMG says that Load falls under those genres, but the simple fact is that it doesn't. If AMG said that The White Album is a melodic death metal album would that make it true? I think not.--CP 61 02:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)



I would classify the album as simply heavy metal, but there are a few thrash metal elements on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iron Wizard13 (talkcontribs) 04:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

2 X 4[edit]

I hears that the main riff of this song was written in Master of Puppets era. Is it true? 22:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.252.190 (talk) 05:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sound of Metal review[edit]

Do we really have to have this? This review looks neither "professional", nor is "Sound of Metal" itself of much notability, unlike the other sources (e.g. Allmusic and Rolling Stone). VZakharov (talk) 20:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Pre-album song debuts[edit]

Is it worth mentioning that 2X4 was first played in London in 1995 during the brief Escape From The Studio tour and that as far back as 1994 the band would jam on what would become The Outlaw Torn towards the end of Seek and Destroy when performing? -Alan 24.184.184.130 (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Reception POV?[edit]

The Reception section seems like it only has good things about the album. It doesn't include the harsher reviews by critics, and even in the more mixed reviews, it only cherry-picks the most flattering statements. 68.193.130.33 (talk) 15:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


  • Agreed. Fans hated this album and there needs to be at least a paragraph talking about its backlash (UTC)24.194.66.146 (talk) 12:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

SOUTHERN ROCK (?)[edit]

i deleted southern rock from the genres because there isn't more than one southern sounding song on load. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterOfBucket (talkcontribs) 21:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Singles from Load[edit]

Singles from Load

  1. Until It Sleeps (released on May 21, 1996)
  2. Hero of the Day (released on September 9, 1996)
  3. Mama Said (released on November 25, 1996)
  4. King Nothing (released on January 7, 1997)

"Ain't My Bitch" and "Bleeding Me" are not singles. --SuperVirtual (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

They're promotional Singles, and that counts. Lide the Rightning (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Genre[edit]

The term "hard rock" doesn't fit in the genre bar. Upon looking at the reviews listed in the "Reception" section, none of them categorises the album in that genre. Robert Christgau says "this is just a metal record", while Allmusic also wrote "what's left is polished and disappointingly straightforward heavy metal". Drowned in Sound actually noted that a number of tracks "seemed to pass by in a blur of hard-rockin' sleaze", but that is not a clear statement of the album being hard rock, just a comment that some songs have hard-rock flavour. What other editors think?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Hard rock[edit]

I had tried adding hard rock with a couple sources at both this article and Reload, only for my edits to get rejected, for some reason. Here are what the sources say: The book Legends of Rock Guitar describes the album as a "less metalish and more hard-rock album", while Beacon Journal notes that that both albums "found the thrash-metal pioneers fiddling around with hard rock". Instead of reverting my edits with no real explanation and giving me inappropriate genre warring warnings on my talk page, it would be better to explain the problems you have with the addition of hard rock and the sources used supporting it. It's not like hard rock is a controversial genre for these albums. These albums are often considered hard rock. 75.129.101.158 (talk) 13:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Have you read the post above this one and the reviews that call Load a heavy metal album? Robert Christgau is definitely a more respectable rock author than Pete Prown, and the second link shows a Death Magnetic review. Instead of preoccupying yourself with genre issues and fishing for "Metallica" "load" "Hard rock album" on the internet, you can expand the article with more valuable information on the recording and background.--Retrohead (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
@Retrohead: Sorry for the late reply here, but yes, I did. I know some sources also call it heavy metal, but other sources also call it hard rock. As a respectful of music critic Christgau is, that doesn't mean we can't bring up other viewpoints for the genre. I found two other source too. Stereogum calls it a hard rock album in their ranking of the Metallica albums. Entertainment Weekly described it a hard rock album at the end of their review of the album. Here we have 4 sources that call it hard rock (well, 3, if you want to discount the Death Magnetic review) and 3 sources for heavy metal (from AllMusic, Christgau and Q). That should balance things out to include both genres. 75.129.101.158 (talk) 22:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
All right, let see what the links say:
  • Stereogum—"Load and Reload also mark the furthest point of Metallica's decade-long lean away from stern metal tropes and towards a friendlier rock 'n' roll sound"—I assume this is the sentence from the review that you've based your hard rock addition on? Well, it's not correct. They describe the album as rock and roll, hard rock is how you interpret it.
  • Ohio.com—Again, there are plenty of review on Load, and citing a Death Magnetic review demonstrates bad comprehensiveness, missed research, and trying to prove a point.
  • Pete Prown (p. 226)—"The band re-emerged with Load, a less metalish and more hard-rock album that downplayed the group's previous headbanging."—This is a good reference for hard rock, but the author nowhere mentions thrash metal, which you added in the lead. When adding information, write what the source says, not what you think it should be or how you read it.--Retrohead (talk) 07:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
@Retrohead:: The Stereogum source says this within the second paragraph: "Though Load was a commercial hit and beloved by mainstream critics, its utilitarian hard rock was considered an utter betrayal by the fanbase that propelled Metallica to fame. It also marked the beginning of a tailspin." Fair enough on the Ohio.com source, I guess, but I wasn't the one who added it back. And I wasn't the one who mentioned thrash metal in the lead either.
We might as well bring up Reload too, since that's essentially the second part of this album. The source for hard rock there that you have just removed (which was a review of Reload, by the way) states "Metal fans should still be grateful for Metallica: Wherever the band may roam musically, it presents hard-rock fortification against SoCal ska lite and scary pop phenomena such as the Spice Girls." You might argue that source could be calling Metallica as a whole hard rock band, but they seem to be saying it in the context of that album. 75.129.101.158 (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)