Metallica
Master of Puppets


1.5
very poor

Review

by Drunken Viking USER (20 Reviews)
June 14th, 2006 | 749 replies | 61,087 views


Release Date: 1986 | Tracklist


53 of 110 thought this review was well written

Metallica released the now hugely successful Master Of Puppets in 1986. But lets look a bit into the history of them. The year was 1983, and the metal scene had run rampant with glam bands in spandex playing power ballads. Metallica wanted to Kill 'Em All so to speak. They released the highly successful Kill 'Em All. It was a straightforward thrash album, and a popular one at that. After touring they released Ride the Lightning in 1984 and it was received again very well from fans. Now onto the album in question. Master of Puppets, by far the most popular album put out from them, rivaled only by The Black Album. This album is considered by many to be the classic album of the 1900's. Now if you look around on the sight you will see many 5/5 reviews expressing just those feelings. I'm here to bring you what I feel are the negatives to this album and they vastly out weigh the good.

Master Of Puppets starts out with Battery. An acoustic intro with some harmonizing, nothing spectacular but a decent start to the album. RIght after electric guitars play the same thing only Kirk has some kind of effect on his guitar. I think it would sound better without it, but it's up to you. The main riff is just what you'd expect from a thrash album, fast and slightly technical, but as soon as James turns on his mic I turn off the song. His vocals are flat out terrible, the drums as expected weren't special in any sense of the word, but at least the bass is amazing, as it is Cliff Burton, right? WRONG! The bass is ok, average for a thrash album. The solo is ok, but again nowhere near what I expected with the praise he gets. Overall this song is nothing that good, a decent song at best. Now onto the infamous Master Of Puppets. I'm sure everyone has heard this song. James voice again is horrid and seriously compromises the listening ability. The guitar part is nothing great, and all of the riffs sound the same to me. The chorus is almost one of the most annoying things to come from these guys. With the constant stop start riff behind James and the guys yelling Master! Master! Obey your Master! it's a real shock this song was ever popular. Midway through the entire song stops and we hear a clean passage. It drags on and on, you begin to wonder, is this ever going to stop? The solo, while memorable is nothing to awesome. Speed picking with a few bends and squeals doesn't really appeal to me. This song, like the clean passage seems to never fucking end. Just when you think oh finally, we heard the solo it can end, bam. Another verse begins.

The Thing That Should Not Be begins slow, the intro doesn't work for them at all. Again like previous tracks the riffs all sound very samey. While there are differences they fail to distinguish themselves as unique. The solo is horrible as well. Not that Kirk's sloppy, he just abuses effects. This solo also sounds like the rest, fast picking with a few squeals. Throughout the song we hear a soft, loud, soft, loud formula going on. They would be much better off just sticking to all heavy all the time. This song again seems to drag on, James could have at least re-wrotten the vocal lines, or changed up the riffing once and a while, but no. He decides that doing the same thing over and over is better, a decision that ultimately hurts this song. Welcome Home (Sanitarium) is again a slow song. The intro is I guess supposed to create a chilling and haunting atmosphere, however the guitar lead from Kirk completely destroys this. Without that they might have accomplished their goal. The song starts to pick up as the guitars go from clean to distortion. The solo is one of Kirk's better ones, he actual slightly varies his style :o. The song doesn't seem to drag as much as other songs, and as a result it's a little better.

Disposable Heroes starts off with a fast thrash riff, sadly it sounds just like the rest of the riffs. Some Palm muted E string chugging follow by some chords with a familiar rhythm. The main riff is actually a little bit different from most, it reminds of Arch Enemy's Silent Wars a bit. The drums really hold back this song, it screams blast beat, fast blast beat! But Lars decides that just a fast than average rock beat is more appropriate. James's vocals are really starting to take a toll on my ears. He has almost no range a feels the need to double and triple track his voice like it's going out of style. The solo is again boring, it just goes on for to long. They could have and should have just left it out and the song wouldn't have dragged. Leper Messiah sounds a bit different from the other songs, the riffing sounds similar but still very different at the same time. The rhythm is very different from most songs. There isn't much to say about this song, other then the vocals are repulsive like usual, and Lars is still pathetic. About halfway through the song starts to change, the solo sounds again like the others, expect some palm muting occurs.

Orion, the mighty Orion. I've heard so much good from this song, the solos are great, it's an instrumental. It had a lot to live up to. It begins with silence then the drums come in with a standard rock beat, the guitars finally kick in at about a minute in. So far the riffing is ok, nothing amazing, the bass is heard but it's still only average. We hear a cool riff about 3 minutes in, which can also be interpreted as the first solo. As much as I hate to say it, it sounds pretty awesome. Halfway through however, the song stops. The bass in the only instrument remaining, the guitars begin to creep in again, the solo is mediocre, it would have been better if it was played with some backing chords behind it and not such a somber attitude. The first solo with all of that is great, different from the other, bursting with emotion it's probably Kirk's best on the song. But even with a this the song drags, with all the solos it seems they were just trying to put them in wherever. We get it you guys have some ok guitar solos, we don't 15 to drive the point home.

Damage Inc., my first thought when this song started was, how many more fucking songs until this album will end? Luckily just one song clocking in at 5:30. The intro is extremely slow, and instead of a riff being played more chords with different volumes, being slowly faded in and out. The distorted guitars kick in suddenly, and we're back into the same old riffing style as usual. The second James starts his manslaughter on the ears I realize that he was missing, and I'm saddened by his return to the mic. :( The solo is predictable again, but it's loner than most, and actually it's a bit better. The wah could've just been left off but it didn't affect it to much. With the last chords, finally this so called "classic" album is over.

Pros
- The guitars are ok, if you love solos you'll be very satisfied with this release
- It's Metallica

Cons
- James can't sing, his voice is simply horrid
- All of the riffs sound the exact same, I can barely tell the difference
- It's Metallica

Overall this album failed to impress me. Now for all of you raging fanboys who can't stand it when Metallica isn't hailed, just don't post and it'll be for the better.



Recent reviews by this author
In Flames ClaymanTrivium The Crusade
Led Zeppelin Led Zeppelin IVAll That Remains The Fall of Ideals
Bleeding Through The TruthMetallica Kill 'Em All
user ratings (6139)
Chart.
4.4
superb
other reviews of this album
1 of

Comments:Add a Comment 
La Revolucion
June 14th 2006



1060 Comments


[QUOTE=El Review]Cons
- James can't sing, his voice is simply horrid
- All of the riffs sound the exact same, I can barely tell the difference
- It's Metallica[/quote]
OuchThis Message Edited On 06.14.06

Two-Headed Boy
June 14th 2006



4527 Comments

Album Rating: 2.5

Go, my little Metallica hater, go!

You have guts, but at least I completely agree with you.

The Door Mouse
June 14th 2006



2092 Comments

Album Rating: 2.5

wow its like a record
9 count em 9 mop reviews
TOO MUCH!!!!!!!!!

Drunken Viking
June 14th 2006



1023 Comments


Thanks fo the comments. At least the flaming hasn't started, those fanboys can be quite the assholes.

Steerpike
June 14th 2006



1859 Comments

Album Rating: 2.0 | Sound Off

Very ballsy and long overdue.

John Paul Harrison
June 14th 2006



1014 Comments


I admire your bravery, comrade. Quite dashing of you.

Now, let us watch as this review gets neg-ed into oblivion.

Jimmy
June 14th 2006



717 Comments


Even if you don't like this album, it's not even close to deserving of a 1.5... Also, The Black Album is by far Metallica's most successful album, not Master of Puppets.

stinkypoptart
June 14th 2006



1169 Comments


i vote yes because even if i hadnt read it i would say yes because it took balls and secondly because it was a good review.

Two-Headed Boy
June 14th 2006



4527 Comments

Album Rating: 2.5

^How can you tell if it was good if you didn't read it?

Blokus
June 14th 2006



155 Comments

Album Rating: 4.5

Wow...1.5 on Master of Puppets. Never seen that before! Great review though, gets my vote. :thumb:

stinkypoptart
June 14th 2006



1169 Comments


i was joking. i did read it and thought it was good.

Drunken Viking
June 14th 2006



1023 Comments


[QUOTE=]Even if you don't like this album, it's not even close to deserving of a 1.5... Also, The Black Album is by far Metallica's most successful album, not Master of Puppets.[/QUOTE]
Are you the one that negged it?

[QUOTE=]Now, let us watch as this review gets neg-ed into oblivion.[/QUOTE]
:lol:

Bron-Yr-Aur
June 14th 2006



4405 Comments

Album Rating: 3.0

I applaud this review.

Mikesn
Emeritus
June 14th 2006



3709 Comments


You backed up your points. You get my vote.


I always thought MoP was a bit overrated, but I never thought I'd see something like this. :lol:

Hatshepsut
June 14th 2006



1997 Comments

Album Rating: 4.0

Not a bad review, don't agree with it at all but you backed up your points. Yes this is the ninth review of the album, but it wasn't another 5 star rating. It's a completely new view to the CD.

XSebbyMcMuffinX
June 14th 2006



339 Comments

Album Rating: 4.5

Kirk doesn't use any effects except a wah pedal (if you call that an effect). The quality of James' singing on MoP is very opinionated in your review so I'd have to put that down. Cliff's bass is doing all that it should along with nice little bass solos (all three excluding the intro b/c that is just setting a background w/ the chord progressions) in Orion. And you were saying "as good as over ppl say he is". Leave out other ppl's opinions and he's a great bassist. Now about Lars... this isn't grindcore and I honestly don't see a blast beat fitting in anywhere on the album, although I do think there are places where he could have done something better but heck, I'll just record it all and fix it myself. :D

But to the point, this is just another negative review trying to counter all the good ones without taking into account you have opinions not everyone is going to agree with making this review pointless. Next time you try to review something, make it more factual and less opinion based. If you want to express your opinions, do it in a forum, not a review.

Bron-Yr-Aur
June 14th 2006



4405 Comments

Album Rating: 3.0

And I'm not surprised you gave it a 5. It's incredible that people think if someone else doesn't worship a band they like and write a negative review about it, then they're either doing it to counter them, or they're doing it based off others' opinions. He didn't like the album. Grasp it. And yes, I would call wah an effect. This Message Edited On 06.14.06

Steerpike
June 14th 2006



1859 Comments

Album Rating: 2.0 | Sound Off

But to the point, this is just another negative review trying to counter all the good ones without taking into account you have opinions not everyone is going to agree with making this review pointless. Next time you try to review something, make it more factual and less opinion based. If you want to express your opinions, do it in a forum, not a review.


If this is your stance, you're going to half to tell those supporting you to shut the hell up too, because there are a lot of fanboys who think saying it's "their opinion" makes them impervious to criticism.

And I'm not surprised you gave it a 5. It's incredible that people think if someone else doesn't worship a band they like then they're either doing it to counter them, or they're doing it based off others' opinions. He didn't like the album. Grasp it. And yes, I would call wah an effect.


Well, not everyone can be as enlightened, wise, and good-looking as us.This Message Edited On 06.14.06

Hatshepsut
June 14th 2006



1997 Comments

Album Rating: 4.0

Finally a fanboy is here.

Jimmy
June 14th 2006



717 Comments


How could you give two Avenged Sevenfold albums 5/5, but this a 1.5/5? It doesn't make any sense to me.



You have to be logged in to post a comment. Login | Create a Profile





FAQ // STAFF & CONTRIBUTORS // SITE FORUM // CONTACT US

Bands: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z


Site Copyright 2005-2013 Sputnikmusic.com
All Album Reviews Displayed With Permission of Authors | Privacy Policy