Album Rating: 4.0

Album is pretty wicked. Some tracks here are their best since 1991

Album Rating: 2.5

Still enjoy Atlas Rise and Moth a lot. It's just way too long for it's own good and Lars is way too lazy.

Excellent review

Album Rating: 3.5

"Still enjoy Atlas Rise and Moth a lot. It's just way too long for it's own good and Lars is way too lazy."



definitely agree, it verges on feeling bloated, to its detriment. Could trim a couple on songs on here, and I don't feel like anything would be lost

Album Rating: 4.0

I suppose they wanted to be able to say that they did a double album in their career, but in this day and age I think double albums are a bad idea. Iron Maiden and Biffy Clyro have suffered for this recently as well. Much as I love them, Metallica are a band much stronger in smaller doses. Even Death Magnetic was way overlong. Something around the 40-minute mark with the writing being as consistent as 'Moth Into Flame' and some of the other better tracks here would give all haters at least some pause for thought.

Album Rating: 3.5

I think the consistency is a problem too. I LOVE disc 1, I think it's fantastic, but disc 2 loses me completely until Bone. It's like a wave of uninterestingness for me, all the songs just melt together in a collection of riffs, nothing really stands out.



I haven't listened to Book of Souls yet, but I would have thought if any metal band could do it now, it would be Maiden? Given Mariner and all

Album Rating: 4.0

Book of Souls is a great album but it really is a bit of a slow burner and a few of the songs blend much like disc 2 here

st anger >

Album Rating: 4.0

kek

Album Rating: 3.5

What's dumb is they made it a double album when all of the tracks fit on one disc

Album Rating: 3.0 | Sound Off

^Arcade Fire did the same thing but no one complained about the songs all fitting onto one disc

Album Rating: 3.5

because it's easier to digest on 2 discs...separately if need be

Album Rating: 4.0

Aw shit I forgot about Reflektor, that was overblown as well.

Album Rating: 3.5

I agree with Alex, and I thought it was dumb when Arcade Fire did it too.

Album Rating: 3.5

Might boost this to a 4.



The three songs before Spit I wasn't keen on at first; they didn't seem to have a clear, good purpose to be there. Now I see that section of the album as the band more or less taking things back to 1991, those songs probably would've fit on the Black Album pretty well - so I like them now.

Album Rating: 2.5

http://metallica.alwaysdata.net/uploads/final/1479744097_463515005.jpg

Metallica stopped being a band for posers, this is getting serious.

Album Rating: 3.5

Very impressed by this album. I'm still not sure what my favorite song is. Dream No More, Halo Of Fire, Hardwired, Spit Out the Bone are all strong contenders.

Album Rating: 3.4 | Sound Off

--I suppose they wanted to be able to say that they did a double album in their career, but in this day and age I think double albums are a bad idea.--

I disagree. I think in this day and age, it's the best time to release a double album. Everything these days is digital. Everyone is entitled to take that double album and pick the songs that work best for them and move on, and that wasn't always the case. Back in the day, at best you were stuck dragging around two discs (or tapes before that), and at worst you were having to skip through shit instead of getting a seamless experience.

Everyone has different tastes and I haven't seen a single song on this album get universal hate or praise. With digital, you make your own albums. I do it all the time. Even people that buy the hard copy probably immediately rip the songs to put on their phone.

The only problem with double albums is that they are more expensive, but that's it. The rest is up to the musician. If he is a fucking genious like Corgan who writes like 100 songs per month or is Reznor who needs like 3 years to make a double album, it doesn't care, the thing will still work. Stop releasing a 10 tracks album. It's not worthy...at least is sonic youth's murray street.