Metallica's induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame was a fait accompli
By Steven Rosen
Metallica's induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame was a fait accompli. But so are death and taxes and nobody really wants either of those. The successful quartet have been recognized as advance scouts in all matters Metal virtually since 1983 when they released their debut Kill 'Em All album. They have been media darlings and a major touring force for a couple of decades now. Every band from Mastodon and Lamb of God and Trivium and Avenged Sevenfold cites them as significant influences and with the recent release of Death Magnetic - their first album in five years - they have been transformed into true musical giants.
Hence, their inclusion in this year's crop of Rock and Roll Hall of Fame nominees was a long gone and foregone conclusion.
Still, there is something niggling about this band. It's as if they're trying too hard to be a Hard Rock / Metal band. Does that make sense? There is no sense of them as an organic entity. You think of Zeppelin, you think organic. You conjure up the Who, and they ooze this fundamental heaviness. Metallica is forced to synthesize the Metal feel. They're driven by formula, but truly great and historic bands are driven by feel and instinct.
Metallica's guitar players will bring in muscular and distorted riffs (the basic stuff of heavyosity) to functional if not exactly fiery rhythms and grooves (Ulrich is a good player but he comes nowhere near the scope of Bonham or Moon or Paice). Hetfield croaks out a vocal in this half-shout / half-scream style that is somewhere near irritating and at the end of it all, there is a Metallica song.
All the pieces fit; nothing rubs or grinds. Maybe that's the problem. There is nothing in their music that grabs you by the throat and claws at your heart. There is none of the abandon of an Aerosmith track, none of the overwhelming majesty of one of Hendrix's songs, and none of the inherent madness of a Megadeth piece.
Yes, I know, Metallica are stylistically different than Jimi and James and Kirk are not the sames types of players as Joe Perry and Brad Whitford. The point being made is that the Experience and Aerosmith are true leading edge exponents of their particular genres - they've proven it over and over with songs and music that still resonate all these years later (Tyler and company are still out there doing big business because).
Metallica are a very good band. They've adorned the cover of every major music publication in the world and have cultivated a following of rabid, diehard fans. They're just not a great one.
Jeff Beck is also being inducted along with Metallica. Can anyone - with a straight face? - look at Beck's body of work and not see it totally overshadow what Metallica has created? If induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame has nothing to do with celebrity or album sales or cover stories and is purely the function of an artist's creativity, the difference between what Jeff has brought to the world of music and what Metallica has brought is the difference between a man-made pearl and an oyster-created pearl. They are both beautiful, have value, and appeal to a lot of people. But only one occurs in nature, is elemental, organic, and rare; no two are alike. The other one can be generated any time a dweeb lab assistant sticks a pebble inside an oyster and irritates the hell out of him.
Wham, bam, thank you clam! A synthetic pearl. It looks real and feels real. But you have to look very closely and examine it up close to know it's a fake. Not everybody knows what to look for. And even more sadly than that, some people don't even care.
