Metallica
St. Anger


2.0
poor

Review

by firemoth12 USER (2 Reviews)
January 14th, 2005 | 1239 replies


Release Date: 2003 | Tracklist


St. Anger

Review:
Before this album came out, people were really anticipating it. They were thinking it would be back to the roots of old Metallica, with the thrash, speed metal kind of stuff. In a way, it is. It many more ways, it isn't.

The CD comes in nice paper packaging with the CD, the bonus DVD (of them rehearsing every track), the booklet (which contains all lyrics and a picture of the band), and a slip of paper which gives you access to more Metallica music online.

The music is very heavy, no doubt metal, but I think they tried too hard when they were making it. They were trying to make it sound raw, agressive, and angry. But they ended up with raw, agressive, angry, and uninspired music. They simply overdid it. However this doesn't mean it's all bad.

What I like:

Instrumentals - Even though the production is horrible (which I'll get to later), I like the guitar riffs, and the drumming. It is very fitting for this kind of music, and Lars does a good job with the double bass.

Concept - They wanted heavier, more agressive thrash, and they tried. They deserve credit for that.

What I don't like:

Production - (or lack of). Cmon guys, you could have made this sound so much better if the production was good. The tin-can sound of the snare annoys the hell out of me. The guitars sound horrible in terms of production. They are low, and muddy while the drums are trebly and ringy. I read somewhere that Protools was used to copy and paste things within the music. Well, why? The songs sound choppy and repetetive because of that and the lack of content.

Hetfield's singing - I noticed that in several songs James tries to get to a note with his voice that he is simply unable to. Sometimes, I cringe because it feels like his voice is about to crack. Also, it is off-key a lot, and that doesn't help. Make the singing match to the instrumentals and it will sound so much better.

Lack of Solos - The lack of a guitar solo in a song does not automatically irritate me. I like many bands that solo very little and a song can still be wonderful without a solo. But on this album, I noticed many spots that could have been filled with a nice guitar solo, and it is such a shame that they weren't.

Overall:

Once in a while, I will listen to this album. But, it is very hard to listen to the whole songs. They get boring, and choppy. If they improved the production, added a solo here and there, and told Hetfield to sing in key to match with the music all the time, it would have been an enjoyable record to listen to. It is only those specific things that make this album bad.

Favorite songs: All Within My Hands, Some Kind of Monster, Shoot Me Again

2/5


user ratings (4603)
Chart.
2
poor
other reviews of this album
1 of

Comments:Add a Comment 
Distorted Vision
November 18th 2003


184 Comments


1/5, Metallica's worst album

MxShredder
November 18th 2003


58 Comments


Also, on the DVD, they are playing a few songs (im not sure which ones) for the first time ever, WHILE it is being recorded

I'll give it a 2.55

sting-ray
November 18th 2003


92 Comments


the drums sounded bad, the guitars weren't metallica-like, the vocals were not as sharp... St. Anger is not a bad album compared to some other stuff out there, but it is themselves. I like a few songs on the album, but overall igive it a:

1.5/5

Drunk Hobo
November 19th 2003


22 Comments


Good review man, I was expecting "St. Anger fu[b][/b]cking sucks!". I don't mind the album, the songs get repetitive when they go on for seven minutes with no solos.

Good job :thumb:

2.5/5

Prodigal_Suns_Rock
November 19th 2003


4 Comments


The songs do get really repetitive. The lyrics are also really bad. They seem like James is just makin **** up. It took me a bit but i did eventually get into the album. I have to go from start to end though.

Prodigal_Suns_Rock
November 19th 2003


4 Comments


oh yeah, 2/5

AbandonedD
November 21st 2003


2 Comments


Cashallica, Selloutica... need to spend time MAKING the music then counting they money the MAKING...

MxShredder
November 21st 2003


58 Comments


Originally posted by iloveteddy
.5/5

Worst album ever


:lol: no

BlindKoRnKid
November 21st 2003


2 Comments


1/5
i thought this was their worst album

i didnt like that they didnt have any real long guitar solos and stuff

i think that metallica is turning in the nu-metal

i think that they should go back to their roots and make some more harder guitar riffs and some killer solos from Kirk Hammet!!

hybridofsound
November 22nd 2003


131 Comments


I've just borrowed this cd off a friend and really I have to agree with the reviewer. What the hell is up with the production. The drums sound terible. I hope the album they produce next is a huge step away from this.

sting-ray
November 22nd 2003


92 Comments


Originally posted by AbandonedD
Cashallica, Selloutica... need to spend time MAKING the music then counting they money the MAKING...



their time is simply over, you cant expect a band to make great music for over 20 years. In my mind they just wanted their music to stay relevant with the period.

Bartender
Emeritus
November 22nd 2003


826 Comments


I probably agree with 2.5/5...I've had a friend of mine bitching at me for weeks now about how its not fair to judge an album against the band's past output, which I've consistently tried to tell him is crap - you can't just forget that Metallica have made some of the best music in the past two decades.

Also, I hate the fact that people say "How can you say its not that bad?? Its Metallica's worst album!!". Well of course its their worst album - they're Metallica. Every band has a worst album, and, for example, Zeppelin's worst still kicks the shi[i][/i]t out of a good majority of the bands out there.

Anyway, good review Congrats on avoiding what I just did and treating this like another rock and metal St Anger thread :/

manuscriptreplica
November 24th 2003


431 Comments


i tend to agree with Bartender - just because its **** compared to old metallica doesnt make it the worst album ever and deserving of .5/5. like really, you cannot possibly conceive a good charlotte CD is better than this.
i gave it a 3/5... i couldnt really care if they 'sold out' im sure they had enough money that they didnt need to go mainstream to get more money, its to expand their fan base. i am sure their next album will be back to 80's metallica and everyone will love them again.
well thats what i think anyways

Zmev
November 25th 2003


983 Comments

Album Rating: 2.0

3/5, the songs were heavy but the lyrics and vocals were crap

mettalicat
November 25th 2003


1 Comments


I was really dissapointed with st anger. There is so much wrong with it that could have been easily put right. Metallica are moving away from what they are good at, and while I respect that, I feel that the whole thing sounded pretty badly thought out.

Ecu
November 29th 2003


3 Comments


2.5/5

Production : -1
Repetitive and boring riffs : -1
Bad vocals : -1
75 minutes music (when other bands sell 35 minutes records at the same price), and DVD inside : +0.5

LBC
November 29th 2003


1 Comments


Although the cd was poor quality the effort wasn't all that bad. I think the blame should be given to Bob Rock, who decided it would be "better" if they used vintage mics and only do one or two takes on each song to capture the "immediacy" of them. BULL****! If the sound was better quality I don't think the album would be as negitively criticized.

Now, I do agree with the argument that Kirk needed to put some more solos in...every song in fact. What happened? In all the other albums he had the sweetest solos, even if it's 10 seconds long. More solos!

The only other problem I see with it is James' vocals. If he had taken more time and takes on the songs they would be a lot better.

Lars' druming and Rob's bass work was excellent! They couldn't do better, just better sound quality yet again.

I hope the next album is better, but it's still Metallica and im giving it a 3/5.

dougefresh
November 29th 2003


9 Comments


3/5

Much better than Load or Reload, all though I didn't like the fact that they had no solos, James' voice was weird and the drums sounded like sh[i][/i]it

guitarded_chuck
December 8th 2003


3307 Comments

Album Rating: 2.0

0000000000000000000000000000000x20000 os

manuscriptreplica
December 10th 2003


431 Comments


^^^ what does that mean?



You have to be logged in to post a comment. Login | Create a Profile





FAQ // STAFF & CONTRIBUTORS // SITE FORUM // CONTACT US

Bands: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z


Site Copyright 2005-2014 Sputnikmusic.com
All Album Reviews Displayed With Permission of Authors | Privacy Policy