:upset:
What a shame job. I'm dissapointed with Metallica. The Guitars were scratchy, the drums sounded like he was planning a bunch of bloody garbage lids and the vocals sounded like my neighbour complaining about the noise.

2/5 it would've been 0 but i'm a fan of Robert Trujillo and Metallica in General.

Compared to other Metallica albums I think St. Anger sucks but when looked at in comparison to other Nu-metal albums its pretty good. But obviously people dont want Nu-metal from metallica. Then they'd be called Nu-Metallica. Makes sense really. Although we cant persecute them for wanting to try new ideas I think metallica should've stayed truer to their style on this album and perhaps taken more than twenty minutes to produce it (the drums sound like a ****ing garage recording!!!). overall 2/5.

i didn't like this album either. the drums are terrible and hetfield's voice can reeeaaalllyyyy get pretty hard to listen to. i dont think i've ever been as disappointed in an album as i was with this one.

I think St.Anger is pretty good album,its time they done somthing besides the same old stuff.(8-9 min.song,w/Kirk showing he can play lead).I ve also read u guys saying,they were tuned to low!,yeah right bout time they got out of that standard bull****.They were only dropped To C(CGCFAD) on every song but 2.The Unamed Feeling(BF#BEG#C#),and The Invisable kid(AbEbAbDbGbBb).I do agree they need solos,cuse thats there trade mark,but not everysong.Hetfields vocals were a little messed up,Lars,Snare sounds like a little kid beating on pots and pans.I guess now we all see whay theyed rather sue people than play cause they are not @ the top anymore.Also they recorded the songs live in the studio.

I was disappointed overall with the album. Mostly from my own perception that they were going to put out another 'Ride the Lightning' when I heard the new album was a lot heavier than the last few. The lyrics on a few songs are laughable (Frantic being the obvious). Plus, the lack of whiskeyburn on James' pipes seems to be very apparent, but I didn't mind it too much.

A whole album without a solo also hurts. A solo helps break up the song a bit, as well as put a unique stamp on it. After a while, St. Anger seemed to become one long song to me. I started missing when a new song had started.

I can appreciate that they didn't want this album overproduced. I think they may have underproduced this one though. This was the album they should have called Garage days revisited. I can hear that snare drum in my nightmares.

You get the feeling that St. Anger could almost never have been a total success. I see 2 distinct Metallica fan groups. The old school (Kill'em,Lightning, Puppets) and the commercial (Load, Re-Load). One of these groups was gonna be upset over this album. Personally, I'm glad they chose to make this a heavier album (even if it wasnt all that great). Buck the trend a little bit. And it took balls on their part, they could have been Nickelback and just write 2.5-3 minute radio rock songs just to make money.

I give it a 3/5

** A note on the DVD (coming from their interview on Much Music) Rob had seen the music a half hour before they started filming. I couldn't tell from watching. Good on ya Rob.

it blows -20/5

i lost complete respect for metallica when they released this huge turd

[QUOTE=armada]it blows -20/5

i lost complete respect for metallica when they released this huge turd[/QUOTE]

you idiot.

[QUOTE=theboywhodestroyedtheworld]I've only heard the song St.Anger, but it sure sucks ***[/QUOTE]
hahahahaha i love your review man....anywho to the cd i have read only this page but so far i can tell most ppl who have reviewed this cd are inexerienced morons who pretend to know stuff about music(im not pretending to i dont know anything but my own opinion).

anyway someone said the drums sucked thats because the snare was sooooo low it sounded like trash cans umm poeple keep saying kirk neede more solos well you see its verry difficult to write a solo and they didnt spend too much time on this album because james just got out of rehab. anyhwo in my opinion all of their stuff is awsome the new cd isnt my style and it isnt metallicas however they do what they want and the fan i am i support them its not like its horrible music. in fact compared to most metal out there st anger was great.

someone said they had the guitars turned down too low? moron its the distortion and tuning they used a completely different distortion than noraml. umm lets see bass is fine the new bassist rob is great in concert(not from experience but my best friend toured with them last summer in wich they rarely played st anger stuff) he has energy and plays well.

i personally think the reason for the low quality of st anger was becasue they all kinda just got all cleaned up and needed something to fall back on also part of it was the producer of the albums fault.
coments on their old stuff i like most of their stuff equally Favorite album by them is S&M but favorite song is call of the ktulu wich is on S&M and Ride the Lightning :naughty:

[QUOTE]hahahahaha i love your review man[/QUOTE]

I'm proud of that review. maybe i should've added that the nu-metal chorus in the song is one of the worst choruses i've heard, makes me wanna smash in the ****ing tv screen whenever that song comes on.

[QUOTE=manuscriptreplica]you idiot.[/QUOTE]

Now cut it, now cut it!

;);)

<-- ATDI fan too

No ****ing guitar solos!!!!

-5/5

[QUOTE=Cheese Smirnoff]No ****ing guitar solos!!!!

-5/5[/QUOTE]
Music is not all about guitar solos,Everyone is crying cause there no solos in this cd so what it sounds good if u dont like it than dont listen to :angry:
4/5 If Metallica doesnt wont solos than let them do it,if they wont it go for it.

[QUOTE=13hrdrive]NOT TRUE - ROB IS ON THE BASS IN THE DVD. HE WAS NEVER ON THE RECORDING OF THE ALBUM - IT WAS BOB ROCK ON BASS AND PRODUCING.[/QUOTE]


.....i don't think you understood me

what i meant, is that while the video crew was recording the footage for the DVD, metalllica is playing a few of the songs (from start to finish) for the first time ever.

[QUOTE=iloveteddy].5/5

Worst album ever[/QUOTE]



I agree, this is the worst album ever! :)

[QUOTE=Ecu]
75 minutes music (when other bands sell 35 minutes records at the same price), and DVD inside : +0.5[/QUOTE]


If it had been 75 minutes of good music, that may have counted.

1/5, one of the worst albums ever in my opinion... not just Metallica's worst album, but one of metal's (if you can call it metal) worst albums as well.

it isn't that great an album, if it was thrash metal, then everyone here would probably love it, but as people have said, the vocals kinda sucked and the drums uber-sucked.

9 out of 5!! One of Metallica's best albums!!

first album ive ever bought on the day it came out

first album from metallica i bought the day it came out

first big disappointment with a new album

I spent $17 on it

And it took 45 minutes to get the CD store, buy it, and get back home (i stupidely went the long way)

[QUOTE=MxShredder].....i don't think you understood me

what i meant, is that while the video crew was recording the footage for the DVD, metalllica is playing a few of the songs (from start to finish) for the first time ever.[/QUOTE]

Rob wan't even in the band yet when they recorded the album...so how could they be playing songs for the first time?

i don' think its the worst album ever but its metallica worst , production terrible, guitar playing is subpar for tallica and the drums, i didn't know lars traded his set for garbage cans and this hard for me to say cuz im big tallica fan, 1/5 and im being nice

This is album is good in small doses. I can listen to each song at a time, but i cant do it all at once. The first time i listend to it, i got a headache at song 7.
Each song on its own is all right, but as a whole, its un listenable.
2/5

[QUOTE=firemoth12][IMG]http://www.metallica.com/images/extras/2003_logo_bw2.jpg[/IMG]

St. Anger

Track List:

1. Frantic
2. St. Anger
3. Some Kind of Monster
4. Dirty Window
5. Invisible Kid
6. My World
7. Shoot Me Again
8. Sweet Amber
9. The Unnamed Feeling
10. Purify
11. All Within My Hands

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.

[b]What I like:[/b]

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. The deserve credit for that.

[b]What I don't like:[/b]

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.

[b]Overall:[/b]

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[/QUOTE]

Metallica's best effort, 1000000/5 :rolleyes:

Did I comment on this one yet? I don't think so...

I like some of the songs on here. In terms of fast, in-your-face metal, this does the trick...without solos, and with horrid production, however

I heard Hammett quoted somewhere saying that the next album would be a return to their 80's thrash heyday....let's see how that goes...and look at this one as an experiment that didn't quite work...

[QUOTE=firemoth12]Rob wan't even in the band yet when they recorded the album...so how could they be playing songs for the first time?[/QUOTE]

i'll keep this simple

1. metallica didn't record this album live, some parts were recorded at different times (even months apart in a few cases)

2. there were a few songs that they never played, in their entirety, from start to finish untill the DVD shooting crew came to the studio

3. the dvd crew comes and sets up, metallica notices that there are a few songs that they have never truely rehearsed beforehand

4. while the dvd crew is recording them, you see them playing a few songs (i don't know which ones) in their entirety, for the first time ever

if you figured out how to come here and become a member, it should be well within your mental capacity to understand that

well although it's a bit repeatitive, and some songs sound similar, i think it's quite good, but nto as good as the other albums they have released. And the drums are a bit too metally, sounds like ur hitting a pan (the drum skin is too tight) I'd give it around 3/5.

I thought St. Anger was ok. The drums are annoying and the production is pretty bad, but some of the songs were **** good (Dirty Window, Frantic, Sweet Amber, St. Anger).

3.5/5

this is a horrible album, i didn't buy it, my friend gave it to me... and it isnt that great, i can't even listen to the whole thing, its just repetive crap, a bad album for metallica. the only decent songs on this album are Dirty Window and Sweet Amber... DO NOT BUY THIS ALBUM. Go for some older metallica, Master Of Puppets is their best, buy that instead.

I would give them a .6/5 it was the worst album i have ever heard. Because of the lack of preparation. Everybody sounds excellent in this ablbum execpt James and his vocals. Dont get me wrong I love His vocals in every other song they have done But the vocals do not sound right with the new music.

[QUOTE=Raijo]Metallica's best effort, 1000000/5 :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

Dude, quoting entire review posts is not cool.

And to the guy just above me - how can you say its the worst album you've [i]ever[/i] heard, if your only apparent problem is with the vocals and you think everything else sounds excellent?

This thread is getting bogged down with the same kind of arguments that were so hugely popular in R&M last year. Not necessarily a bad thing (I love seeing good discussion in CDR forum), but theres far too many people just coming on and going "terrible ****ing ****ty ****ing album", seeming not to have read the review or the posts that followed it.

i no that this thread is very old but i just have to say something......i thought that this cd sucked!! it was very different from their old stuff and i dont even listen to metallica anymore because of this cd right here!!

_____fender_strat_____