(By WHIPLASH, afternoon dj @ Rock 1057, Peoria, IL.)
"Metallicas St. Anger is 75 minutes of aggression, violence, chaos and brutality. Its 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, Ill state my conclusion now then spend several paragraphs explaining it then Ill state the conclusion again:
This is either the worst dumpster-full of rotten, spoiled garbage Metallica has ever written or its brilliantly groundbreaking. But there is no middle ground. This album isnt "okay." After hearing it twice, it either sucks or its phenomenal.
I suppose Ill begin by touching on - and agreeing with - all the negatives about which Ive heard others chanting. First, someone wake up Kirk Hammett and tell him his bands recording a new album. His alarm clock has been broken for the last 6 months. Wheres Kirk! Youve 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, theres at least 2 places where Kirk could just lift off but we get nothing. Maybe it was Kirks decision in which case he should be flogged. Maybe it was Bob Rocks decision in which case he should be drawn and quartered. Most likely it was a collective decision. Now since we cant execute the whole quartet, Ill guess Ill 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 friends sheet metal garage. Maybe Lars really is broke from Napster, but dont Metallica have access to a multi-million dollar recording studio with top notch equipment and an unlimited budget? And lets be honest about Bob Rock the guy knows his stuff. Dr. Feelgood sounded great. The Black Album was amazingly produced. Bob didnt suddenly go deaf. You have to believe it was intentional but why? Ill 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 theyre rough. Theyre 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 Ive talked to says the same thing: "the whole album is the same, repetitive song." Its 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 Parks One Step Closer or Godsmacks I Stand Alone.) Its very typical and, therefore, uncharacteristic of Metallica.
I think thats 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 couldnt win. Weve heard this for months.
My first point: we shouldnt ACT so surprised with what we hear. That said, its easy to say "oh, yeah Im ready for anything," and then youre presented with St. Anger and your preparation goes out the dirty window because you cant believe your ears.
But heres 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. Theyve 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 couldnt sing like Sebastian Bach. He looked liked a bum. His name was Kurt. He didnt 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. Its 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. Its 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. Theyve gone through a lot in the past few years. Theyve lost their bassist. Theyve 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 wasnt 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, its 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 Metallicas 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, its 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. Its raw. Its imperfect. Its real. Its human.
Isnt 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 arent 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 heres the kicker
It could be said that any garage band from Peoria could make a record that sounds like the new Metallica CD. Why arent 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 Im 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 dont know
Now the conclusion again. This album is either a serious mistake and the biggest load of crap Metallica ever penned or its brilliant and could change the sound of hard rock for the next 10 years.
Think about it Im gonna go listen to the CD again because I have a feeling it's really, really good."
"Metallicas St. Anger is 75 minutes of aggression, violence, chaos and brutality. Its 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, Ill state my conclusion now then spend several paragraphs explaining it then Ill state the conclusion again:
This is either the worst dumpster-full of rotten, spoiled garbage Metallica has ever written or its brilliantly groundbreaking. But there is no middle ground. This album isnt "okay." After hearing it twice, it either sucks or its phenomenal.
I suppose Ill begin by touching on - and agreeing with - all the negatives about which Ive heard others chanting. First, someone wake up Kirk Hammett and tell him his bands recording a new album. His alarm clock has been broken for the last 6 months. Wheres Kirk! Youve 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, theres at least 2 places where Kirk could just lift off but we get nothing. Maybe it was Kirks decision in which case he should be flogged. Maybe it was Bob Rocks decision in which case he should be drawn and quartered. Most likely it was a collective decision. Now since we cant execute the whole quartet, Ill guess Ill 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 friends sheet metal garage. Maybe Lars really is broke from Napster, but dont Metallica have access to a multi-million dollar recording studio with top notch equipment and an unlimited budget? And lets be honest about Bob Rock the guy knows his stuff. Dr. Feelgood sounded great. The Black Album was amazingly produced. Bob didnt suddenly go deaf. You have to believe it was intentional but why? Ill 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 theyre rough. Theyre 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 Ive talked to says the same thing: "the whole album is the same, repetitive song." Its 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 Parks One Step Closer or Godsmacks I Stand Alone.) Its very typical and, therefore, uncharacteristic of Metallica.
I think thats 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 couldnt win. Weve heard this for months.
My first point: we shouldnt ACT so surprised with what we hear. That said, its easy to say "oh, yeah Im ready for anything," and then youre presented with St. Anger and your preparation goes out the dirty window because you cant believe your ears.
But heres 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. Theyve 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 couldnt sing like Sebastian Bach. He looked liked a bum. His name was Kurt. He didnt 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. Its 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. Its 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. Theyve gone through a lot in the past few years. Theyve lost their bassist. Theyve 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 wasnt 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, its 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 Metallicas 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, its 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. Its raw. Its imperfect. Its real. Its human.
Isnt 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 arent 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 heres the kicker
It could be said that any garage band from Peoria could make a record that sounds like the new Metallica CD. Why arent 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 Im 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 dont know
Now the conclusion again. This album is either a serious mistake and the biggest load of crap Metallica ever penned or its brilliant and could change the sound of hard rock for the next 10 years.
Think about it Im gonna go listen to the CD again because I have a feeling it's really, really good."
