#1
...and lets say the band that made St Anger was a grunge or alternative band, would this album be that hated? I know Metallica didn't play that style of music in the past, but I think I had an idea on what they wanted to do in that album.
#5
St. Angre aint that bad compaired to the shite they just released. Lars is holding them back and always will.
Lars hasn't got any better in 20 years probably worse
and James still cant sing.
MARSHALL: AVT 2000, MARSHALL: JTM 200 MARSHALL MAJOR 1969, LINE 6: POD X3 LIVE, VARIAX 600, VARIAX 700, GIBSON: FIREBIRD V,FERNANDES: REVELLE DK, FERNANDES: RETRO ROCKET PRO, BOSS: RC 50 loop station
#7
If they spent a little more time cleaning it up (and not doing everything in one take) then I would have liked it.
#8
Quote by Clinical Notes
St. Angre aint that bad compaired to the shite they just released. Lars is holding them back and always will.
Lars hasn't got any better in 20 years probably worse
and James still cant sing.


I think Lars had some really good drum patterns in Death Metallic. I did like the opening of "Broken Beat and Scarred."
#9
You know what I did when I read the title? I LOLed. Why? Cuz this is a way old argument. We all know & agree that St. Anger sucked. Truth is they shouldn't have done an album when the band was undergoing counselling, James was having marriage trouble, and there was a chance that the band might've broken up. So, let's all forget what was a total embarrassment to music in general & Metal especially.

/Thread
#10
It's a love it or hate it type deal.

On the plus side, it never lets up--it's realy consistent. A bunch of fast, growling, high-energy release refreshingly free of any pretension.

Sure, there's no solos, but they just wouldn't have fit. Also it was in line with the times and far better crafted than a lot of 2003's alternatives.

IMHO, overall it's far better than their pop efforts like everything before that through the Black Album--too many balads in that part of the catalogue.

As for DM, at first I thought it just sounded like a bunch of riffs cut & paste together on pro-tools but after it got stuck in my car CD player & I've been hearing it at least 30 minutes a day, it has really grown on me. I don't even want to turn on the radio and it's been over 3 months now. There's a lot of detail in the dynamics and you can't hear the flawed engineering through the 32 valve, dual exhaust cacophony in my car anyway.
#12
I don't care. Knowing Metallica's history, I still loved the stuff off Load and Reload. I don't care what they put out, if it's good music, no matter the style, I'll like it.

There's not much that's good about St. Anger. It's terribly under-produced, which is the sound they wanted. The lyrics don't make sense, and they're just terrible. James's singing is terrible and off tune, I think it was done in one take. The songs don't have a good flow to it, and they're too long for nothing. There's also not one guitar solo! I don't even need to talk about Lars's snare which sounded like he was beating on a garbage can.
UG's AC/DC Lover
#14
It'd sound like ever other nu-metal band at the time.
Which is what the complaint is to begin with
Been in Japan since August, no fucking money left!
#15
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
We all know & agree that St. Anger sucked.
/Thread

Except that critics were very divided on this album, and while I usually have a pretty strong distaste for everything Metallica does I went and gave St Anger a listen and I must admit, I think it's much rawer sounding and much less boring to lsiten to than everything else I've heard from them.
#16
i like St.Anger
Quote by Demonikk
'Practice amp' = amp you practice with? In my case, Peavey 6505+ and 4x12
I don't do things small


Except children.
#17
Quote by toyboxmonster
Except that critics were very divided on this album, and while I usually have a pretty strong distaste for everything Metallica does I went and gave St Anger a listen and I must admit, I think it's much rawer sounding and much less boring to lsiten to than everything else I've heard from them.


Agreed/ It wasn't suppose to be a typical heavy metal album with guitar solos and such. Also, in the "Some Kind of Monster" movie James said he wanted to make an ugly style of music. IMO the production was intentional.
#18
Quote by Slicer666
i like St.Anger

At least it's more metal than Load and ReLoad can ever be.
#19
it wouldn't be as hated becouse it would be practically unknown. The songs aren't that outstanding or new in any way.

this may seem like fanboy statement but for me it's true:
if it weren't made by metallica I probably wouldn't like it.

It's the fact that every song on the album has a meaning to it. A very real connection to the bands history. You can feel the honesty in James singing and the album really gets in under your skin if you let it. Espescially combined with the documentary some kind of monster.

Theres few albums that gives me the same feeling as St.Anger,shure the sound and producement (is that a word?) may be questionable but for me there's so much more than that.
#20
Quote by thejoeman
Agreed/ It wasn't suppose to be a typical heavy metal album with guitar solos and such. Also, in the "Some Kind of Monster" movie James said he wanted to make an ugly style of music. IMO the production was intentional.


Yeah, instead it was the typical Nu-Metal album with no guitar solos, muddy production, quasi-hip hop backup vocals, out of tune "singing," and completely forgettable riffs. The album is so typical of mainstream hard rock in 2003 that you could erase metallica's name and stamp on the name of any band you wish.
#22
Quote by nev474
Tic Tic Tic Tic Tic Tic Toc Frantic

+1

Just think, if Lars had his way the whole CD would have been called Frantic.

I never even gave STANGER a listen until after watching Some Kind of Monster. I never heard any of it on the radio back when it came out and I heard so much of the bad press that I wasn't about to buy the CD back then.

It definitely took some guts for them and Bob Rock to drop the Top 40 approach they'd all gotten so comfortable with and put this out.

I think the biggest reason "Real Metallica Fans" hate it so much is they love to think of Metallica as selling out, but St Anger is so anti-sellout that it takes the wind out of their sails.

Screw this fanboy crap, just appreciate the raw emotion coming out your speakers and be thankful for the utter absence of anything like a balad. It's not 1988 anymore and we don't need to hear "Jonny Got His Gun" voiceovers ruining "One" on MTV anymore. Even if it was #38 of 100 all "time great videos", right behind the Verve's "Bittersweet Symphony". Bleaachhh....
#23
Not gonna lie, when I heard the first two tracks of the album (Frantic and St. Anger), I thought it was going to be a decent album. Nothing like the older days, but it still sounded decent. Then it all went downhill from there :-(. In conclusion St. Anger (song)=good. St. Anger (album)=bad.
-LTD Alexi 600
-LTD MH-100 QM
-Schecter Omen 6
-B-52 AT-112
Quote by My Father
So is this guitar Mexican made or human made? Wait, shit, that was really racist wasn't it?


My shitty covers: http://www.youtube.com/simpleben09
#25
I like it. I also think it's a pretty honest representation of where they were at that time, after watching SKoM.
Quote by duncang
maybe it's because i secrely agree that tracedin inymballsackistheb best album ever


he's got the fire and the fury,
at his command
well you don't have to worry,
if you hold onto jesus' hand
#26
I don't hate it. I mean, it's definitely not my favorite release by them, but , I like Frantic, and Some Kind of Monster, and I loved All Within My Hands (althoug the acoustic version was better)
"I'm not concerned about all hell breaking loose, but that a PART of hell will break loose... it'll be much harder to detect." - George Carlin
#27
Frantic is the only good song on the entire album.

They SHOULD have called it frantic.

And left out all the other songs.
I've got all this ringing in my ears but nothing on my fingers---
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebelmidget
I do believe you just used Blink 182 and hard rock in the same sentence. It would seem you're rather confused.
XDXDXDXDXDXDXDXDXD
#28
It's the double-edged sword that Metallica has to deal with. Many are more critical of their music because they are Metallica, but at the same time, they sell records because they are Metallica. Would any of their last few records sold at all if they hadn't made 'Master of Puppets' or 'Metallica'? To me, they're like the Stones or AC/DC. They sell records and tickets based off of what they did decades ago.
#29
Quote by pwrmax
At least it's more metal than Load and ReLoad can ever be.


Load and ReLoad are a 100 times better than St. Anger.. Instead of rating an album on how Metal it is you should really take the time and listen to Load and ReLoad. I like them. I mean come on Bleeding Me, The Memory Remains, Mama Said, King Nothing, Low Man's Lyric.. all wonderfull songs. Yes I agree that its not Metal but that doesnt change the fact that its GOOD.
#30
i listen to it even though it WAS done by them
i'll admit, the production on that album sucked ass. but i truly believe that the actual songwriting was decent, even good in some places. i'm sorry if anybody is going to hate me for saying it, but its true
Fender 72' Deluxe Tele
Schecter Damian Elite 7
Fender '62 Reissue Jazz Bass (MIJ)
Peavey XXX 212 (back on the East Coast)

Macbook Pro 15" Retina
Logic Pro X 10.0.7
Revalver 4
LePou Amp Sims
Ignite Amp Sims
LeCab2
RedWirez Impulses