Metallica - St. Anger (Album)
- Thread starter edwardgein
- Start date
if this album was made by a new upcoming band......it would be ok, but since its metallica....we;ve been let down....the wankers
BRING BACK MUSTAINE!
BRING BACK MUSTAINE!
narcisco said:
~Only someone who's never had a problem with addiction, (or who will never admit to one) would say something as stupid as this.
~As for the album. If you people honestly think that the Loads are better albums then don't please mention it. I can apreciate and respect real blues, classic rock, early jazz, folk and even some bluegrass or old country... but the Load albums despite all these promising influences was just crap. At least St. Anger is speed metal. Who cares about solos when your guitarist is Kirk? I'll agree that most of the other comments about the album make sense, but despite that I like the album for some reason. It reminds me of Sepultura's Against meets Kreator's Renewal.
hibernal_dream
A Mind Forever Voyaging
Found this long-winded review on metallica.com, probably the best i've seen
Metallica’s St. Anger is 75 minutes of aggression, violence, chaos and brutality. It’s an electrical meltdown wrapped inside a nuclear explosion surrounded by a 500 mile earthquake. On this, we all concur.
From here, we become less agreeable…
After listening to the album twice in its entirety, I’ll state my conclusion now…then spend several paragraphs explaining it…then I’ll state the conclusion again:
This is either the worst dumpster-full of rotten, spoiled garbage Metallica has ever written…or it’s brilliantly groundbreaking. But there is no middle ground. This album isn’t "okay." After hearing it twice, it either sucks or it’s phenomenal.
I suppose I’ll begin by touching on - and agreeing with - all the negatives about which I’ve heard others chanting. First, someone wake up Kirk Hammett and tell him his band’s recording a new album. His alarm clock has been broken for the last 6 months. Where’s Kirk! You’ve got (arguably) the greatest metal guitarist plugging in next to you, and as a reward for all his years of jaw-dropping, neck-shredding, light speed distorted dominance, you give him a grand total of… ZERO solos? What the f*** guys? In every song, there’s at least 2 places where Kirk could just lift off…but we get nothing. Maybe it was Kirk’s decision…in which case he should be flogged. Maybe it was Bob Rock’s decision…in which case he should be drawn and quartered. Most likely it was a collective decision. Now since we can’t execute the whole quartet, I’ll guess I’ll just shake my head and move on.
Secondly, everyone complains about the quality…the production…the mixing…the overall Bob Rocked sound on the record. I agree with the criticisms. St. Anger sounds like it was recorded for less than $1,000 on an 8 track in my friend’s sheet metal garage. Maybe Lars really is broke from Napster, but don’t Metallica have access to a multi-million dollar recording studio with top notch equipment and an unlimited budget? And let’s be honest about Bob Rock…the guy knows his stuff. Dr. Feelgood sounded great. The Black Album was amazingly produced. Bob didn’t suddenly go deaf. You have to believe it was intentional…but why? I’ll get to my theory…
Also, in the mix, the drums are WAY too loud. All you can hear is Lars banging on that tin can. The guitars (what little there are) are buried behind "Tama garage fury," as I will now call it.
As for James’ vocals…they’re rough. They’re raw. It sounds like he did one take and kept it no matter how it sounded. No overdubs, either. I remember watching A Year & a Half in the Life Of…which documented the recording of the Black Album…and Bob Rock made James sing "…and I dub thee Unforgiven" about 40 different times, keeping every take and overdubbing those vocals until they sounded thick and perfect. What a difference 12 years makes… James is thin, often out-of-key, often missing notes, his voice cracks occasionally. I almost started laughing during the Frantic-tic-tic-tock part of that song it was so out-of-key and warbling.
And as for the songs themselves…everyone I’ve talked to says the same thing: "the whole album is the same, repetitive song." It’s true, all the songs sound alike. And yes, all the songs are repetitive, lyrically and musically. The songwriting and arrangement are incredibly subpar compared to past Metallica efforts. Random, pointless time changes litter St. Anger. And several of the songs even start out in the tradition of newer hard rock songs, meaning they play the riff softly, then break into it hardcore. (Think Linkin Park’s One Step Closer or Godsmack’s I Stand Alone.) It’s very typical and, therefore, uncharacteristic of Metallica.
I think that’s about it, right? Have I covered all the reasons why most people think this album tanks?
Alright, now for the flipside…think about this…
Lars warned us for weeks that this record would blow our minds. Critics who heard it early said it was commercial suicide. They would lose all their new Black Album and beyond fans, and their old school fans would be jaded by the lack of creativity, harmony, and guitar solos that were so prevalent on the first 3 albums. Critically, Metallica couldn’t win. We’ve heard this for months.
My first point: we shouldn’t ACT so surprised with what we hear. That said, it’s easy to say "oh, yeah…I’m ready for anything," and then you’re presented with St. Anger and your preparation goes out the dirty window because you can’t believe your ears.
But here’s my big theory on why this album just might be brilliance in disguise…
Metallica have always been anti-glam. Lars has always described them as the anti-Motley Crue. They’ve always gone against the grain, forcing their heaviness down the pop-driven throat of the world. But remember in the late 80s and early 90s when glam was at its peak? Bands like the Crue, Skid Row, Posion, etc. ruled the music scene with their sex, drugs and party attitude accompanied by their teased hair, caked make-up, spandex, leather, lipstick and enough hairspray to make any drag queen proud.
At the time, that was the standard, and everyone did it…
Then along came a band wearing flannel. Their lead singer couldn’t sing like Sebastian Bach. He looked liked a bum. His name was Kurt. He didn’t use hairspray. He had a band called Nirvana. They could rock too, but they said the hell with this false image. They stripped everything down…naked…rock n roll, depressing lyrics and ripped clothes. And grunge was born.
Ten years later, Nirvana is credited with launching a revolution and igniting the hairspray into a flaming glam-wildfire…
So what has happened in the 10 years post-Nirvana? Other bands have come and gone. Grunge had its run. Then when hip-hop took off, suddenly rap rock was thrust upon us…Rage Against the Machine. Kid Rock. Limp Bizkit. 311. Technology improved dramatically. Bands like these started using turntables in their sets and on their albums. More crazy sound effects were incorporated in hard rock. Nine Inch Nails, Marilyn Manson and Rob Zombie pioneered the industrial techno-metal. Korn uses drum machines on their albums. It’s all programmed to sound perfect. Other metal outfits like Iron Maiden and Iced Earth use big orchestras, pianos, voice distortions. Linkin Park uses the digital muting and computerized beats. Guitars are compressed, vocals are overdubbed. It’s technology gone wild to produce the most "perfect-sounding" rock records possible.
At this time, it is the standard, and everyone does it…
Then along comes a band we know very well. They’ve gone through a lot in the past few years. They’ve lost their bassist. They’ve been tangled in unpopular lawsuits. Their front man was in rehab for alcoholism. They can still rock too…but they said the hell with this false image that "hi-tech is best." So they stripped everything down…naked…heavy metal, angry lyrics. Raw. No technology. No effects. No orchestra. No drum machine. No vocal overdubs. And St. Anger was born.
They say things move in cycles. In ‘83, Kill ‘Em All wasn’t popular. It was raw. It was basic thrash metal. Very good thrash metal…but it was simple. Now in ‘03, twenty years later, Metallica have gone full circle. St. Anger is simple. And although not as creative as the debut, it’s more like that record than any other.
So by this analogy (the same way that Nirvana was anti-glam, St. Anger is anti-technology), is Metallica’s new CD fresh and ground-breaking? Or is it more a return to roots? Given the cyclic nature of things, can it be both?
If this album is brilliant, it’s because it was written by a band that could have done something else. They have the money. They have the talent. They have the resources and the best producer in the world. They CHOSE to make St. Anger the way it is, and they did it on purpose. They see how hi-tech hard rock and heavy metal is becoming…so they put out a record that was completely the opposite. They put out a record that was about music…about feelings…about deep emotions. Not one about how many cool samples and effects we can mix together with our budget. St. Anger is a human record. It’s raw. It’s imperfect. It’s real. It’s…human.
Isn’t it refreshing to hear a human record in such a computerized world?
I think so…
And the more I think about it, the more this idea seems brilliantly groundbreaking. Maybe the songs themselves aren’t spectacular, but the POINT they make, from their production quality to their content give the album an amazing cohesion…a unity that gives modern techo-rock the finger. Actually, St. Anger pretty much gives everything the finger.
But here’s the kicker…
It could be said that any garage band from Peoria could make a record that sounds like the new Metallica CD. Why aren’t they considered groundbreaking in their stripped-down, simple philosophy? Well, because our Peoria garage band is poor. Their record HAS to sound naked. And they have no history. Metallica has 20 years of legacy and expectations. And for Metallica to do this by choice, gives the idea its appeal. It had to be the right band at the right time…and Metallica stepped up to the plate to carry the torch.
So if I’m right…if this album is brilliant, does it represent the future of hard rock? Will it have that much influence? Or does the public still want more years of super techo computerized ultra produced rock that showcases megabytes and digitalia instead of talent and songwriting?
I don’t know…
Now the conclusion again. This album is either a serious mistake and the biggest load of crap Metallica ever penned…or it’s brilliant and could change the sound of hard rock for the next 10 years.
Think about it…I’m gonna go listen to the CD again because I have a feeling it's really, really good.
Metallica’s St. Anger is 75 minutes of aggression, violence, chaos and brutality. It’s an electrical meltdown wrapped inside a nuclear explosion surrounded by a 500 mile earthquake. On this, we all concur.
From here, we become less agreeable…
After listening to the album twice in its entirety, I’ll state my conclusion now…then spend several paragraphs explaining it…then I’ll state the conclusion again:
This is either the worst dumpster-full of rotten, spoiled garbage Metallica has ever written…or it’s brilliantly groundbreaking. But there is no middle ground. This album isn’t "okay." After hearing it twice, it either sucks or it’s phenomenal.
I suppose I’ll begin by touching on - and agreeing with - all the negatives about which I’ve heard others chanting. First, someone wake up Kirk Hammett and tell him his band’s recording a new album. His alarm clock has been broken for the last 6 months. Where’s Kirk! You’ve got (arguably) the greatest metal guitarist plugging in next to you, and as a reward for all his years of jaw-dropping, neck-shredding, light speed distorted dominance, you give him a grand total of… ZERO solos? What the f*** guys? In every song, there’s at least 2 places where Kirk could just lift off…but we get nothing. Maybe it was Kirk’s decision…in which case he should be flogged. Maybe it was Bob Rock’s decision…in which case he should be drawn and quartered. Most likely it was a collective decision. Now since we can’t execute the whole quartet, I’ll guess I’ll just shake my head and move on.
Secondly, everyone complains about the quality…the production…the mixing…the overall Bob Rocked sound on the record. I agree with the criticisms. St. Anger sounds like it was recorded for less than $1,000 on an 8 track in my friend’s sheet metal garage. Maybe Lars really is broke from Napster, but don’t Metallica have access to a multi-million dollar recording studio with top notch equipment and an unlimited budget? And let’s be honest about Bob Rock…the guy knows his stuff. Dr. Feelgood sounded great. The Black Album was amazingly produced. Bob didn’t suddenly go deaf. You have to believe it was intentional…but why? I’ll get to my theory…
Also, in the mix, the drums are WAY too loud. All you can hear is Lars banging on that tin can. The guitars (what little there are) are buried behind "Tama garage fury," as I will now call it.
As for James’ vocals…they’re rough. They’re raw. It sounds like he did one take and kept it no matter how it sounded. No overdubs, either. I remember watching A Year & a Half in the Life Of…which documented the recording of the Black Album…and Bob Rock made James sing "…and I dub thee Unforgiven" about 40 different times, keeping every take and overdubbing those vocals until they sounded thick and perfect. What a difference 12 years makes… James is thin, often out-of-key, often missing notes, his voice cracks occasionally. I almost started laughing during the Frantic-tic-tic-tock part of that song it was so out-of-key and warbling.
And as for the songs themselves…everyone I’ve talked to says the same thing: "the whole album is the same, repetitive song." It’s true, all the songs sound alike. And yes, all the songs are repetitive, lyrically and musically. The songwriting and arrangement are incredibly subpar compared to past Metallica efforts. Random, pointless time changes litter St. Anger. And several of the songs even start out in the tradition of newer hard rock songs, meaning they play the riff softly, then break into it hardcore. (Think Linkin Park’s One Step Closer or Godsmack’s I Stand Alone.) It’s very typical and, therefore, uncharacteristic of Metallica.
I think that’s about it, right? Have I covered all the reasons why most people think this album tanks?
Alright, now for the flipside…think about this…
Lars warned us for weeks that this record would blow our minds. Critics who heard it early said it was commercial suicide. They would lose all their new Black Album and beyond fans, and their old school fans would be jaded by the lack of creativity, harmony, and guitar solos that were so prevalent on the first 3 albums. Critically, Metallica couldn’t win. We’ve heard this for months.
My first point: we shouldn’t ACT so surprised with what we hear. That said, it’s easy to say "oh, yeah…I’m ready for anything," and then you’re presented with St. Anger and your preparation goes out the dirty window because you can’t believe your ears.
But here’s my big theory on why this album just might be brilliance in disguise…
Metallica have always been anti-glam. Lars has always described them as the anti-Motley Crue. They’ve always gone against the grain, forcing their heaviness down the pop-driven throat of the world. But remember in the late 80s and early 90s when glam was at its peak? Bands like the Crue, Skid Row, Posion, etc. ruled the music scene with their sex, drugs and party attitude accompanied by their teased hair, caked make-up, spandex, leather, lipstick and enough hairspray to make any drag queen proud.
At the time, that was the standard, and everyone did it…
Then along came a band wearing flannel. Their lead singer couldn’t sing like Sebastian Bach. He looked liked a bum. His name was Kurt. He didn’t use hairspray. He had a band called Nirvana. They could rock too, but they said the hell with this false image. They stripped everything down…naked…rock n roll, depressing lyrics and ripped clothes. And grunge was born.
Ten years later, Nirvana is credited with launching a revolution and igniting the hairspray into a flaming glam-wildfire…
So what has happened in the 10 years post-Nirvana? Other bands have come and gone. Grunge had its run. Then when hip-hop took off, suddenly rap rock was thrust upon us…Rage Against the Machine. Kid Rock. Limp Bizkit. 311. Technology improved dramatically. Bands like these started using turntables in their sets and on their albums. More crazy sound effects were incorporated in hard rock. Nine Inch Nails, Marilyn Manson and Rob Zombie pioneered the industrial techno-metal. Korn uses drum machines on their albums. It’s all programmed to sound perfect. Other metal outfits like Iron Maiden and Iced Earth use big orchestras, pianos, voice distortions. Linkin Park uses the digital muting and computerized beats. Guitars are compressed, vocals are overdubbed. It’s technology gone wild to produce the most "perfect-sounding" rock records possible.
At this time, it is the standard, and everyone does it…
Then along comes a band we know very well. They’ve gone through a lot in the past few years. They’ve lost their bassist. They’ve been tangled in unpopular lawsuits. Their front man was in rehab for alcoholism. They can still rock too…but they said the hell with this false image that "hi-tech is best." So they stripped everything down…naked…heavy metal, angry lyrics. Raw. No technology. No effects. No orchestra. No drum machine. No vocal overdubs. And St. Anger was born.
They say things move in cycles. In ‘83, Kill ‘Em All wasn’t popular. It was raw. It was basic thrash metal. Very good thrash metal…but it was simple. Now in ‘03, twenty years later, Metallica have gone full circle. St. Anger is simple. And although not as creative as the debut, it’s more like that record than any other.
So by this analogy (the same way that Nirvana was anti-glam, St. Anger is anti-technology), is Metallica’s new CD fresh and ground-breaking? Or is it more a return to roots? Given the cyclic nature of things, can it be both?
If this album is brilliant, it’s because it was written by a band that could have done something else. They have the money. They have the talent. They have the resources and the best producer in the world. They CHOSE to make St. Anger the way it is, and they did it on purpose. They see how hi-tech hard rock and heavy metal is becoming…so they put out a record that was completely the opposite. They put out a record that was about music…about feelings…about deep emotions. Not one about how many cool samples and effects we can mix together with our budget. St. Anger is a human record. It’s raw. It’s imperfect. It’s real. It’s…human.
Isn’t it refreshing to hear a human record in such a computerized world?
I think so…
And the more I think about it, the more this idea seems brilliantly groundbreaking. Maybe the songs themselves aren’t spectacular, but the POINT they make, from their production quality to their content give the album an amazing cohesion…a unity that gives modern techo-rock the finger. Actually, St. Anger pretty much gives everything the finger.
But here’s the kicker…
It could be said that any garage band from Peoria could make a record that sounds like the new Metallica CD. Why aren’t they considered groundbreaking in their stripped-down, simple philosophy? Well, because our Peoria garage band is poor. Their record HAS to sound naked. And they have no history. Metallica has 20 years of legacy and expectations. And for Metallica to do this by choice, gives the idea its appeal. It had to be the right band at the right time…and Metallica stepped up to the plate to carry the torch.
So if I’m right…if this album is brilliant, does it represent the future of hard rock? Will it have that much influence? Or does the public still want more years of super techo computerized ultra produced rock that showcases megabytes and digitalia instead of talent and songwriting?
I don’t know…
Now the conclusion again. This album is either a serious mistake and the biggest load of crap Metallica ever penned…or it’s brilliant and could change the sound of hard rock for the next 10 years.
Think about it…I’m gonna go listen to the CD again because I have a feeling it's really, really good.
Blood_all_over
New Metal Member
Xtreme987
Member
- Sep 6, 2003
- 32
- 0
- 6
Do you suppose this mess of a CD was a test or purposely done by Metallica ? Come on think about it for a minute. Metallica probably one of the most well known metal bands ever. Maybe this is exactly what they wanted. They know Elektra's not gonna pull the plug on them anyhow. I'm almost wondering if it's a sort of publicity stunt. You know the same one Mike Tyson has been pulling for years now. Either way negative or positive reviews "MetallicA" will sell records. Just look at how many views & posts they get on this site for this album.
Just a thought but it does bring some reasoning to the CD. It certainly seems with what Bob Rock has said & what some band members have talked about in some interviews that this could be true.
Just a thought but it does bring some reasoning to the CD. It certainly seems with what Bob Rock has said & what some band members have talked about in some interviews that this could be true.
Corporal McDick
Sgt. 1st class
St. Anger seems to be very incomplete. I suppose that usually they'd sit about it and give it a touch. But they didnt. Their songs lack of solos. wtf they need kirk if jaymz can play it all by himself?
The instruments sound is terrible. Only with shitloads of expirience as metallica you can produce such a shitty sound. Lars plays on garbage cans, and the guitar's distortion folds into itself thus creating a shitty static noise.
Some riffs sound like their own 80s riffs but as wannabe riffs. cheap.
In conclusion, I must say that Metallica messed it up big time. It like they decided to do shit cuz they're too lazy!
overall:
3-4/10
The instruments sound is terrible. Only with shitloads of expirience as metallica you can produce such a shitty sound. Lars plays on garbage cans, and the guitar's distortion folds into itself thus creating a shitty static noise.
Some riffs sound like their own 80s riffs but as wannabe riffs. cheap.
In conclusion, I must say that Metallica messed it up big time. It like they decided to do shit cuz they're too lazy!
overall:
3-4/10
y'know, i limited my st anger listening cos i had a feeling it would infuriate me after a while. now, free of hype, i put it back in the player, and it's plenty energetic and interesting, and actually not bad at all!
Hmm.... Name one great Slayer song that isn't "Angel of Death", "Reign in Blood", or South of Heaven".fps said:
edwardgein said:
well, seeing as your registered name is ed gein, i'll go Dead Skin Mask. and yes, i own slayer's back catalogue (except diabolus cos what i've heard of it is awful) and saw them at the astoria. i'm not saying it's *heavy* or *true metal* or whatever, just saying i like some of the grooves they've got going on, and it's an energetic album, if definitely a few songs too long.
anyone that think this album is decent , good or even ok , should have their opinions ignored until the end of time.
wow, how utterly narrowminded of you. They're called opinions. Also, to some other people posting, there is a lot more to music than being *heavy*. Some people on this site really need to broaden their musical experience...
sixxswine
rockandrollazine.blogspot
You're piece of work. Why the hell 6-7 months later are you so bitter about the damn record? You mother cunnucker!!!! It was your fellow countryman that all the fans are blaming for the state of Metallica. Why don't you find where he lives & take it up with him, eh?!OceanbarD said:
Thanks for the Madcows too, bastards!
anonymousnick2001
World's Greatest Vocalist
Bleakest Harvest
\m/Misanthropic Hippy\m/
anonymousnick2001
World's Greatest Vocalist
Bleakest Harvest
\m/Misanthropic Hippy\m/
I think the problem is actually that they all have each other's (and the mainstream medias) dicks up their asses
anonymousnick2001
World's Greatest Vocalist
Alteredmindeath
Wasteland Survivor
This album is the biggest crock of shit that's ever came out from the biggest sell out band in the history of metal. Metallica could care less what people think as long as they get there million dollar pay check and a fucking grammy, they think there still heavy. They aint shit anymore! St Anger is worse than fucking Load going on tour with shit bands like Perfect Circle and Godsmack radio hungry trend monsters. They want you to pay $80 bucks plus for a godamn ticket to see them play there old shit and whats up with them tuning there shit down trying to make there old shit sound heavier like St anger. ST Anger is tuned down garbage even if it had solos on the album the low end riffs still suck major asshole. St Anger is good title because it represents how Angry all the old school fans still are.
R.I.P METALLICA
R.I.P METALLICA
