Metallica St. Anger
» Back to review

Comments:Add a Comment 
Inflames
November 30th 2006


635 Comments

Album Rating: 2.0

i thought metallica was so good before this

Shadows
Moderator
November 30th 2006


2530 Comments

Album Rating: 1.0 | Sound Off

I'd rather listen to most nu metal than this. SA was a pretty bad attempt at nu metal. Sad, considering how simple the genre is.

The Door Mouse
November 30th 2006


2092 Comments


[quote=megadeth101]metallicas' worst is is still a good cd.[/quote]

Wow you're not a fanboy.

Two-Headed Boy
November 30th 2006


4527 Comments


I'm either going to buy this or a meat grinder.

Jim
December 1st 2006


5110 Comments

Album Rating: 3.0

[quote=Zepdude7]Wow you're not a fanboy[/quote]A guy called Zepdude dispensing sarcasm against fanboys :rolleyes:

Pebster49
December 2nd 2006


3041 Comments

Album Rating: 1.0 | Sound Off

Ya, I agree with eveyrone on this...This was a sad attempt, what were they thinking for puting this out...you would think they would have to know that this was not up to par

DekWannaBFlea
December 11th 2006


284 Comments

Album Rating: 1.5

Banging on pots and pans is better than the shitty drum tracks.



The lyrics are cliche, laughable and pedestrian. The Vocals are forced, out of tune, and worse than Hetfield's normal vocals.



The guitar tracks are muddy (the drums at some point overwhelm the guitars).



Boring riffs, the tracks are too long and just anything that has inspiration is lacking in this album.



" SET IT FREEEEE" lol. God that was awful.

MetalicDethPriest
February 8th 2007


17 Comments


If any one has seen the film SKOM then you can clearly see that MetallicA wac definitly feeling the vibe with st. anger. The album depicted them and there emotins perfictly. The tin can sound in the drums is exactly what lars was going for. It had nothing to do with production. The tone of James Voice has the anger and controled feeling in it. Also i think its the best that he has sounded in years. They wanted the thick muddy guitar tone in the music. MetallicA dose whaever they want, and ya got to respect them for that. I get pissed when people actualy HATE them for it. They have the balls to go agenst the grain and do something new.

Bfhurricane
February 8th 2007


6284 Comments

Album Rating: 2.5

But before the release of this album, Metallica promised a return to their thrash roots, and tried to be progressive in that. They basically botched it up bad. The fact that they still had the fire inside themselves while writing this doesn't make up for the fact that the album is by far their worst, with a few redeeming moments that are far outweighed by the bad.

WARPATH_88
February 8th 2007


514 Comments

Album Rating: 3.0

Call me crazy, but I liked this album better than load or re-load. It was way more agressive and less bluesy. But not having solos bugged me. Hammett is to good not to do solos.

Steerpike
February 8th 2007


1861 Comments


MetallicA dose whaever they want, and ya got to respect them for that. I get pissed when people actualy HATE them for it. They have the balls to go agenst the grain and do something new.

So what you're saying is that everything they do is good, and we can't criticize them, period.
Jesus baby eating Christ...

Angmar
February 8th 2007


2688 Comments

Album Rating: 1.5

Exactly people shouldnt criticize them if they do something different, but if what they do different sucks then people certainly do have the right to criticize.

Tyler
Emeritus
February 8th 2007


7927 Comments

Album Rating: 1.5

People have the right to criticize them regardless, that's the point of this site. The real key is you know, justifying your criticisms.

Angmar
February 8th 2007


2688 Comments

Album Rating: 1.5

[quote=Chan]It's just Metallica without solos[/quote] I disagree, even though im not the biggest Metallica fan by any means i think there are way more negative aspects in this album then not having solos. The production and songwriting are of much lower quality then normal for instance.This Message Edited On 02.08.07

Bfhurricane
February 8th 2007


6284 Comments

Album Rating: 2.5

I couldn't disagree more Chan. The sound on this album and the way they approached every song is so much different than anything else they have done. They could have released Ride the Lightning or Master of Puppets without solos and they would have still been twice as good as this.

- in response to ur earlier commentThis Message Edited On 02.08.07

Bfhurricane
February 8th 2007


6284 Comments

Album Rating: 2.5

The songwriting was exceptional in their earlier albums. This uses a different formula of riffs that aren't exciting to begin with. They're not thought out well in this album

Steerpike
February 8th 2007


1861 Comments


I rate the crapiness of Metallica albums based on how many faces each one makes me want to smash with a brick. Saint Anger ranks high enough to put the FBI after me on a full-scale manhunt.

WARPATH_88
February 8th 2007


514 Comments

Album Rating: 3.0

Wow my post keep geting deleted.

kuririn
February 9th 2007


65 Comments


Alcoholica

Thrasher86
February 16th 2007


181 Comments

Album Rating: 1.0

0/5 THIS ALBUM SUCKS!!!! WORSE THEN LOAD! the funny thing is the moive was kinda gay to. Metallica used to be the coolest back in the day now they have some $ and they became full of them selfs.



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