cptgaio

Come on, you're at 5 reviews for the same artist: you're about to reach third place, currently held by me and Tori Amos at 8, second place that Donjunio/Neil Young at 12. The first place of the couple Mien_mo_man/Tod Rundgren is "unreachable" at 20. (I send a big hug to Don and Mien and hope they don't mind being "mentioned")

He never said much to me, but I kind of like the genre...

Only if you give both of them to me...

But any Hard Rock album with heavy blues influences from the 70s. "Reload" is pure quoting: it goes from Led Zeppelin to The Who and even the Stones and dozens of others (including some Garage nods). Come on, sounds... they're not theirs but from others before them; they had their own sounds too, but they "put them away" in '87...

PS: Yes, you can be a conspiracy theorist about a single theory, many, or even all of them. But even this doesn't create changes in the sense of the "discussion": it is quite clear that you support the 9/11 conspiracy theory, therefore you are a conspiracy theorist.

Written very poorly: fatigue and dysgraphia.

You can have them. But that doesn't change the fact that you are a conspiracy theorist. In post 119, you make a mistake in Italian by attributing a meaning to the word "complottista" that it actually doesn't have, because it aligns with the meaning of "cospiratore." I was talking about the Italian language, not your "historical theories" (which I repeat I consider abhorrent and on which I won't discuss: indeed, I've never done so, reminding you to the point of annoyance that I won't do it): for me, you can also believe that airplane trails spread harmful gases (an extreme example of a conspiracy theory) but if you change the meaning of a word (which I applied to you and not in general: you should read the posts carefully before starting to ramble on supposed issues of "content") it means either that you don't know its meaning (and I am happy to correct you) or that you are giving it an (incorrect) interpretation all your own (and I correct you here too). As you can see, there is no criticism of the content but only of the use of terms.

Another rather banal provocation that once again relies on shifting the terms of the discussion. I'm not replying because it's not worth it. Good night.

But what categorization and categorization. It's Italian language. There is no interpretation to be made.

But it's not a matter of getting you to change your mind or not. You can keep your idea as it is, for goodness' sake :-D The point is that the Metallica, objectively, had attitudes in the '90s (beyond just the music) that confirmed their detachment from the genre, and it wouldn't have been a problem if they hadn't spat on the plate they used to eat from just a few years prior with statements like the one I mention in post 35 (only to take it back twenty years later with the trend reversed: what a cheek!).
Then, regarding the "experimentation," we are not on the same page here either: it wasn't experimentation with "Load" or "Reload," which in the end are just two albums of classic hard rock and, moreover, quite dull (whether you like them or not is another matter). Sure, they are different from their first four albums, but just changing genre doesn’t mean one is experimenting; honestly, they needed to do a bit more, which they didn’t.
The discussion about "sales" is more complex; one can also commercialize and sell very little, but what is being contested about Metallica is that the "Black Album" was a calculated move (from the choice of Bob Rock as producer to the selection of the singles) to "climb" the charts as quickly as possible (not to mention the terrible tour with Guns, but you’re young, so you might not remember it).