#hardwired...to self destruct

Metallica is arguably the biggest metal band of all time, and something that comes with that is being one of the most polarizing acts, too, and people have a lot of things to say about this band’s body of work. You’ll find some metalheads that only care about the first couple of albums before Cliff Burton was tragically killed in the late 80s, or you’ll have fans that only care about their 80s output. Anything after 1991’s The Black Album is garbage, because they “sold out,” according to them. You have people that enjoy their later work, too, but most fans aren’t into those albums. Metallica haven’t released an album in a very long time, and people were not expecting them to come back with a new record, let alone a good one. When Hardwired…To Self-Destruct was announced, I was rather curious about it, because I’ve enjoyed the few Metallica albums that I’ve listened to. It’s funny, because I’ve only heard their 80s output at this point in time. I haven’t listened to anything after 1988’s And Justice For All, but I’ve wanted to. Another reason I was curious, too, is that I’ve listened to the other albums from “The Big Four” of thrash metal. My favorite of those three was the latest Slayer album, 2014’s Repentless, but I did like the newest Anthrax, 2016’s For All Kings. The only one I hadn’t listened to yet was Metallica’s new album, Hardwired…To Self-Destruct. Part of why I didn’t give this a listen a lot sooner is because it was a double album. I don’t really like long albums as a whole, unless they’re greatest hits albums, and double albums are even worse, because there can be a lot of filler, monotony, and meandering stuff that bores me after awhile. That’s what I was worried about with this album, especially with the critical consensus being that it was good, but it was nothing as great as their “classic” work. That’s to be expected, though, so I’m not shocked to hear that, but I was still somewhat curious about the album.

It’s taken me close to a year to listen to this album, which is kind of good, because the hype’s died down, and I found a copy at FYE for a very cheap price. It was weird, because the album was brand new, but it was touted as used, so I’m guessing someone brought in a copy they never opened, because they got it as a gift, or they had another copy. Either way, that’s good news for me, because the album was cheaper than it normally would have been. I thought I’d pick it up, because I mean, the album is cheap, and it’s the new Metallica album, so why not? Even if I wasn’t crazy about it, I’d give it a few listens. I’ve done just that over the last week, actually, so how I feel about this thing? Well, the shorthand would be that I like this album, as it’s surprisingly quite good, but it doesn’t hold a candle to their classic material. Yeah, that’s to be expected, like I said, but this album is surprisingly good. Metallica came back with a solid record that’s a good mix between their early material and their more traditional heavy metal sound in later albums, which I really like, because it’s not too heavy, but it’s also not too soft, boring, and limp, either. This LP has a lot of interesting and aggressive guitarwork, but that’s about all it has. That’s my biggest issue right there: why was this a double album? I don’t understand why this album is 77 minutes, across two discs, because there’s no reason for it. The first disc of this record is great, honestly, and the album is non-stop adrenaline, but when the album hits its second disc, well, I find myself zoning out for awhile. The last couple of songs, though, are surprisingly awesome, and they pull me right back in, but the middle of this album just doesn’t do much for me. If the album was around an hour, or even 50 minutes, this LP would have made a bigger impact, but this doesn’t need to be a two-disc record.