So, about that new Metallica album...

Metallica are back, and it's got me to thinking. Is Metallica really considered a '90s band?
If you look back, the band had a monstrous cult following in the metal community in the early to mid-'80s, then became mega-stars around 1988-89 (that's when all their old albums went platinum within a span of about 18 months, meaning kids were discovering the band and buying everything they could get their hands on).

Then they put out the juggernaut, diamond-certified Black Album (14 million sold so far in the US) in 1991. Load went quintuple-platinum in '96, Reload went triple-platinum in '97, a covers album (Garage, Inc.) went quintuple-platinum in '99.

But here's the conundrum part: people that loudly claim themselves to be true Metallica fans hate their late-'90s work. And their classic '80s albums (Kill 'Em All, Ride the Lightning, Master of Puppets, ... And Justice For All) continue to sell millions of copies. Master of Puppets was certified 6x-platinum in 2003.* Moreover, the band doesn't seem to fit the aesthetic of everything else that was happening in post-Nirvana rock... maybe you can hear some Metallica in lunkheads like Creed and Limp Bizkit at the end of the decade, but I can't. On the other hand, it was the songs from Load / Reload that were finally embraced by modern rock radio, and the band did play the last touring Lollapalooza.

The album that absolutely no one likes, St. Anger, came out in 2003. And the new one (which opened at #1, by the way, to me sounds like a fusion of their '80s and '90s work.

Actually, this conversation works just as well for U2 and (to a lesser extent) R.E.M. So what do you think? Is Metallica within the remit of this here blog, or not? Discuss.

*By the way, if you're curious, you can look up gold and platinum certifications here. It's fun!