What part of a band are...

Point is, they couldn't have known they would attract those listeners, since there was no real apparent market for that kind of music.
 
I think it is funny when fans run up to bands and scream or get nervous around them. The whole time the guy is thinking in his head, "man, when will i get the chance to drink a beer". Sure we would all love attention but being on a personal level is better.

Think of it this way..at some point these people were fans of metal hanging out in thier garage jamming. The only thing that seperated them from the norm is one of two things. They got lucky and were picked up by a good label. (i say this with the fact in mind that not all bands that are signed are good,sometimes they are just a selling point.) or ....they worked thier ass off and played gig after gig, and put out demo after demo, so that people would hear them.

Hard work always pays off , there is no doubt in my mind of that. what seperates the fan from the band is simple. A band is a group of musicians that make the tunes . Fans are the ones that enjoy them as well. Any band member from any band has a few favorites they listened to which makes them fans as well.
 
"Load" and "ReLoad" pissed more people off and caused more "sell out!!!" cries. Now I was quite young when those albums came out so I really can't remember all of what was popular on MTV, radio, ect... at that time, but was bluesey-hard rock really that big in '96-'97?


That was a couple of years after the Seattle grunge scene had peaked, and I and others seemed to view Metallica in that context when those albums came out. In the 5 years it took Load to surface, grunge killed off the popularity of 80s hair metal. People these days are quick to cite the Black Album as the point where things started going downhill, and I'd agree with that. But they were still basically straight-up metal at that point IMO, albeit more accessible and less aggressive.

Load, however, came across as a lot "looser" in that intentionally sloppy grunge way, and combined with their new logo, haircuts and overall image change (seeing Lars in eyeshadow was interesting at the time, to say the least), they definitely came across as a band trying to fit in with the changed landscape of the mainstream, whether or not they'd admit to it. Labeling your band metal was commercial suicide at the time, and I even remember them stating in interviews that they didn't want to be associated with metal. I still try to give them the benefit of the doubt, but given how things transpired back then, it's hard to not to write off Load/Reload as a sellout move.
 
1. I'm definitely an open minded fan. BUT. If one of my fave bands starts producing shit - I'm not going to close my eyes and blindly accept it.
In past I've sent a few messages to bands I love, saying that they need to realize that their newest stuff is an utter piece of shit.

2. Umm... Primordial?

3. Yes, it's definitely hard.
 
I love it when bands try new things. The result might not always work but if you don't like it then don't listen to it and listen to their other stuff, it's as simple as that. Personally I'm vastly open-minded when it comes to my metal. I love Mayhem's "Grand Declaration of War", I love Emperor's "Prometheus", etc etc. I think the fact that a band wants to expand their sound shows that they're willing to explore their potentials and I fully respect that. However, I think that if the experiment doesn't end up working they should try something else or go back to what they used to do. My example of this is In Flames. I love absolutely every one of their albums, from Lunar Strain right up to A Sense of Purpose, the ony exceptions being Reroute to Remain and Soundtrack. I just find them waaaay too poppy. and I really wish Anders would go back to his older style of vocals. But it just isn't going to happen so I've made myself grow accustomed to his new style. But I still hate those two albums with a burning passion. I'm all for poppy metal, but they just don't know how to do it right.