Metallica St. Anger
» Back to review

Comments:Add a Comment 
pattern_recognition
April 23rd 2006


950 Comments


Interestingly, Lars has recently admitted in the press that the St. Anger sessions were 'a complete disaster', mostly because they abandoned their traditional writing methods and tried something new.
Apparently, they've now turned their backs on the ideas that St. Anger embodied, and have completed several tracks for their next album, which they hope to release early next year.
Hopefully it'll be better than this.

Jim
April 23rd 2006


5110 Comments

Album Rating: 3.0

I really think going back to the old All tracks written by Hetfield/Ulrich would be sweet. It would be more comfortable for them, and in turn create a less forced product.

Bron-Yr-Aur
April 24th 2006


4405 Comments

Album Rating: 1.5

Bahamut, I don't know quite what your getting at. I judged it alone, then afterward compared it. I see how that could have been misleading however. And I agree with your Hetfield/Ulrich statement above. Lars would certainly feel more comfortable with more power and less cameras I believe.

Bfhurricane
April 24th 2006


6284 Comments

Album Rating: 2.5

oh to pattern_recognition... theres a bootleg of Metallica playing a show in new zealand, and they play an unreleased song that they wrote for their upcoming album, and it sucks. I think the glory days of metallica are over, and their fall will be as great as their rise.

pattern_recognition
April 24th 2006


950 Comments


Yeah, I can believe that. Last time I saw them, they only played three St. Anger songs out of a two and a half hour set, so it was like they'd realised no-one wanted to hear them...
The kings are dead, long live the kings.

Max Bantleman
April 24th 2006


7 Comments


St. Anger was a 'recovery' album.
It felt like an attempt at rebuilding something that was broken, with parts that were still broken.
I'm not sure WTF was up with the production: they tried and failed miserably with a 'new' approach (for them) of writing / recording in a hope to recapture something, when they should have been moving forward in to unconquered territory.
James' vocals sound like he's tried to be brutally honest with his sound and ability at that stage of his life, reflecting the struggle with both the band and the material. Sounds strained and probably is.
Kirks just sounds bored: like he's been told of for being too busy and he's sulking. Less is more, but there has to be some to be less.
Robert does a freakin' great job, but is (perhaps traditionally) murdered in the mix.
Lars just unplugged his brain when he was listening to the playback and nodded politely when he should have been killing someone for getting him the worst drum sound ever put on any Metallica record ever.
Bob sounds like he's just run out of ideas and was not going to be the lynch pin for the sessions, so he just arsed about.
I am, and always will be, a massive (and very old, long time) Metallica fan.
St. Anger is important to the band as a changing point and a start of a recovery period, that they will hopefully complete during the next album.
They have changed enormously over the years as people, and this has been reflected in their music. They'll never record another MoP, but they will get their sh1t together and get back to making the kind of music I love them for. I'm sure of that.
Best track on the album for me is Some Kind Of Monster, but only cos it reminds me of a version of Sad But True I saw them do once

pattern_recognition
April 24th 2006


950 Comments


Rob isn't even on the album, though. All the bass was done by Bob. And it shows.

overdriven101
April 25th 2006


272 Comments

Album Rating: 3.5

Bfhurricane, u said the new song sucks, in what way does it suck? is it like st anger or is it like thier old stuff?

RazorBladeLight
April 26th 2006


258 Comments

Album Rating: 4.0

st. anger was cool. who cares that it sounds nothing like their old stuff, underproduced, and the songs deal with different themes, the album was still good.

i know this album is extremely contreversial because some hate that there are no solos, or james can't quite hit those high notes, but this i like it.

Bfhurricane
April 26th 2006


6284 Comments

Album Rating: 2.5

I agree with Max Bantleman fully. And overdriven101, this song i heard was illegally recorded by someone in the crowd at a new zealand concert, its supposed to be on their new album. It sounds nothing like anything on load/reload, a little bit of st. anger and their old style mixed. I dont mind the style, but the riffs were boring and his voice was WAY off which could have been the reason i didnt like it. and the quality of the tape was sh1tty too, but who knows it might sound much better when they record it.

I havent lost hope in Metallica, even if they do go down and if their new album sucks they still had an amazing career

overdriven101
April 26th 2006


272 Comments

Album Rating: 3.5

okay, i loved ST. ANGER, but the band were hated for making it so they probably wont make another st anger-like album. i just hope this album rocks to!This Message Edited On 04.27.06

diefamous
April 28th 2006


281 Comments

Album Rating: 2.0

Listen up, if you play the guitar and you know speed picking patterns, then you would know that this album is very weak. Their older stuff was more melodic.. and you could feel the meaning of the songs when you listened to them. St. Anger on the other hand, had a poor combination of the instruments. I feel bad for Kirk. He wanted to add his solos and his true talent to these songs and the rest of the band denied him. I couldn't feel any kind of feeling from this album. It's Nu-Metal.. and it's crap. Metallica fans, put aside the fact that you love the band and truely listen to this album... it is the bane of metal.

Bron-Yr-Aur
April 29th 2006


4405 Comments

Album Rating: 1.5

I actually kind of liked the title song. It was the rest of it that was the problem.

metallicaman8
April 29th 2006


4677 Comments

Album Rating: 2.5

Yeah I have this album and it came with a free dvd of them practising. You can tell they didn't have their shit together

Diabulus in musica
April 30th 2006


485 Comments

Album Rating: 4.5

:angry:WUT WUTThis Message Edited On 04.30.06

RazorBladeLight
April 30th 2006


258 Comments

Album Rating: 4.0

I read that Lars said the new album was FAR from St. Anger. The word usage seemed as though he knew they weren't trying, but like Max said, that it was a recovery. Now they (hopefully) have their sh!t together. I will always and forever think MetallicA rule, and will loyaly listen to their stuff, but i will judge it honestly. this album was great for what it was.

Diabulus in musica
April 30th 2006


485 Comments

Album Rating: 4.5

i liked a lot st anger, and i honestly dont think their new album is going to be another AJFA, its imposible to do that, but i do hope it will be as good as reload, hopefully

diefamous
April 30th 2006


281 Comments

Album Rating: 2.0

wow metaldude... you sure you mean reload?

metallicaman8
May 1st 2006


4677 Comments

Album Rating: 2.5

Yeah if anything I'd rather them make another album more like the black album

Diabulus in musica
May 1st 2006


485 Comments

Album Rating: 4.5

User Album Rating: 2



wow metaldude... you sure you mean reload?




yeah i know its strange, but one thing is for sure, they are not going to make another album like the first 4, so if i have to choose, between the last 4 (S/T, Load, Reload and St. Anger) id choose reload





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





STAFF & CONTRIBUTORS // 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 2005-2023 Sputnikmusic.com
All Album Reviews Displayed With Permission of Authors | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy