Year-end thoughts...

2009 seemed to be a year in which the '90s idea of "modern rock" began to enter its nostalgia phase. Limp Bizkit and Creed reunited, even though nobody really wanted them to (Bizkit couldn't give tickets away for a show in Las Vegas, and at least one promoter ended up selling deeply-discounted Creed tickets). Jimmy Eat World and the Get Up Kids, among other bands, did "10th-anniversary tours" for cult favorite albums. Billy Corgan and Courtney Love were more known for their tabloid exploits than any music they released.* Live, Oasis, and the Foo Fighters all took unspecified "hiatuses," and the Red Hot Chili Peppers appear to have joined them.

*Although seriously Billy, good on you for hooking up with Jessica Simpson. No idea how an Uncle Fester look-alike pulled that off, but good on you.

So, in the spirit of nostalgia that seems to always overtake things at the end of one decade and the start of another, I'll be doing a series of "From the Cutout Bin" posts. See you back here soon.

3EB singer weighs in (twice) on the death of the album

Third Eye Blind (as we've mentioned before here) are close to releasing their fourth album. It'll be called Ursa Major, and it should be out in February.
So lead singer Stephan Jenkins was speaking at a music conference in San Francisco*, and said he thinks albums are soon to be obsolete. Idolator reported on this, and then there was a lively back-and-forth in the comments section, including a lengthy follow-up from Mr. Jenkins himself. It's a highly recommended read... and what do you think? Are bands going to go just to releasing singles on iTunes, or is there still value in the album for some? My personal belief is that as long as albums can be resold on Amazon if you run into a cash crunch, you're better off spending your money on a physical product than on something digital.

*I wonder how much artists get paid to give speeches at events like this? I saw Art Alexakis deliver a keynote address at a similar event in Cincinnati in 2004. He even brought an acoustic and played "Heartspark Dollarsign" after he predicted the music industry would fall apart (which he was right on about).

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!