The sarcasm is in response to Hudson's attitude. Each is as pointless as the other.

But No. It isn't a different band. Its the same band DECADES apart. Things have changed since 1985 dude. Maybe you don't want to move on, but the band has.

The fact is, if all the Black and onwards stuff had been released by some other band. They'd still be a huge act today. And they wouldn't be copping the constant ripping from all sides like they do now.

The problem is, you "Original" fans can't judge the music on its own merits.

This post is only going to critique the music.

1. Generally, in the super-genre known as "Rock" it is mandatory to insert some type of guitar solo, this can help the track feel less repetitive.
2. Drumming is a very particular and precise art form, randomly beating the shit out of the set without any type of rhythm is stupid.
3. Underproducing and making your album sound like it was made with a budget of $25 when you really spent millions is ridiculous.
4. Lyrically, "I'm madly in anger with you" is a quality failure. It automatically seems to target 12-year-old boys with learning disabilities.
5. Vocally, James sounds like sandpaper or someone having a bowel movement.
6. Making a movie about making an album and then releasing it in theaters is, in my opinion, just another cheap way to get every cent from Joe Fan.

End rant.


...Almost...On the topic of lyrics, putting lyrics together from previous albums is a completely lazy thing to do and making Metallica 'Happy' ruins them completely. "St. Anger" for instance, is a song about turning anger into 'positive energy,' not something that Metallica should do.

Oh, and the distortion used on the guitars on most of the album sucks.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: St. Mike,

quote:

Originally posted by I82QB4IP:
The fact is, if all the Black and onwards stuff had been released by some other band. They'd still be a huge act today.

Not if they didn't start by handing out free albums to their original fans!

I82Q, I wasn't trying to insult you personally, it's just that I can't understand how someone can listen to Master of Puppets and then listen to Load or St. Anger and think that Metallica has evolved.

I'm glad you enjoy Load, reload, St. Anger. Personally, I think they are atrocious, but to each his own.

And the the 2 songs I listened to are 'new', in that they are going on the new Rick Rubin produced album, at least that's the word. You have to hunt around for them on the internet, but they're out there.

I've listened to St. Anger all the way through and I echo Mike's thought's on it.

Very, very, very bad this album is! I lost the very little respect I had left for these guys when I heard this album. The only thing that was worse then this album was that documentary they filmed abbout them making this lousy album. After watching for like 20 mins I swear I wanted to strangle Lars through the TV!

St. Anger is a good album....and imsick of people thinkin they are sell outs.....if uv seen what they went thought when making this album you would also belive that its good.....and yh they would be fuled by cash....but bands like Trivium are and Maiden...so u guys can shoveur opinans up ur ares's cuz ur nothing but a wast of time

I think I've commented on this one before but St Anger is awful.

The 'tick-tock,tick-tock' bit is so cringe-worthy I went and had my buttocks surgically unclenched.

I used to love Metallica, but their best work is far behind them (mighty fine it is too). Why do bands carry on beyond their years and destroy the magic?

I would love to hear a solo project by James, Kirk or Rob. Hetfield would be particularly interesting - he hangs around with Les Claypool and Jim (faith no more) Martin. It's got to be better than putting out rubbish to further a business franchise.

Metallica should've left their name unspoiled. Other bands knew when to quit - Faith no more, Soundgarden, Rage against the machine etc... Every one leaves a formidable legacy.

Metallica up to 'Black album' is amazing - legendary stuff. I can't hear the same fire in the albums that came afterwards.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Duncan Black,

I agree... except the Black Album is really when they started their decline. Half the album is hit or miss for me.

I know what you mean about the black album, but I consider it to be one of their better works for a number of reasons.

After their admirable no-sell-out policy for the better part of 10 years, they deserved the acclaim - It was good to see them on such a high. If you listen to everything from Kill em all to the black album it sounds like a very natural progression.

The black album is almost like - 'Let's go for the BIG-TIME because we CAN'. It was a new slant on Metallica and was a lot of fun at the time. Unfortunately, it sealed their fate. There was nowhere left to go but downhill. After the black album, they'd said and done everything that was possible with Metallica.

It would've been a good time to call it a day and retire as heroes - sadly, they spoiled their own legacy.

Most old school Metallica fans switched to Pantera round about 'black album'. Pantera took over as 'best metal band' throughout the 90s.

Metallica were a VERY special band at one time.

You can't say that about their music now, particularly St Anger.

I listen to a lot of the pre - load stuff but personally i think nay for st.anger. The song St.Anger is okay but the album sux big time.

Kill'em All is my favourite album

Kill 'em all is great.

Despite what the critics say, I love Cliff's bass solo. It sounds raw and full of enthusiasm.

st. anger is a work of art. I respect Metallica for experimenting with new sounds and taking chances. The sell-outs are the fans who can't let go of the past and evolve with the band.

I can’t listen to St. Anger, it just seems lazy and unorganized to the point where it starts to literally irritate me when I listen to it.

I actually have no issue with the attempt of a “new sound”, using drop C tuning, and belting out ballsy riffs (I thought most of the riffs were potentially really cool), it’s just the way it’s all organized, it lacks structure, as the riffs are often played out over, and over… with little or no guitar melodies over them, and most of the riffs start off on the same root note, and progress in the same key; you can literally skip from some random point in any song to another song, and it will often still sound like the same song.

The lyrics and vocal melodies are just awful. Simply by listening to them, you can tell that the band were scrapping the bottom of the barrel for lyrics, and what further backs up this assumption, is the video documentation of James having hardly any lyrics prepared, and needing Kirk and Lars to sit around and help come up with ideas for lyrics by writing down their thoughts, on Some Kind Of Monster i.e. “My lifestyle determines my deathstyle”.

I am actually not a Metallica hater, or, post The Black Album Metallica hater. I’ve enjoyed some of their more recent stuff. St. Anger just felt really forced/churned out. I’m kinda hoping it was just something they had to get out of their system, we’ll see what the next album brings.

quote:

Originally posted by MetalKid:
st. anger is a work of art. I respect Metallica for experimenting with new sounds and taking chances. The sell-outs are the fans who can't let go of the past and evolve with the band.

I'd seriously like to know how you define 'new'.

The history of metal has seen many influential diversions from Sabbath to the NWOBHM, through thrash and death to grindcore, power metal, industrial metal, folk metal and all kinds of other weird and wonderful genres.

Metallica remain an instrumental and important band in the evolution of metal. But St Anger? Apart from a failed experimentation with the snare drum, what is new? The lyrics are rehashed and ham-fisted, the riffs sound dated and the music never goes beyond up-tempo. Napalm Death pushed brutality in far more radical directions 20 years ago.

People here keep stating that St Anger is 'awesome' and 'great', but no-one ever states why. I have listened to it a lot (for my sins) and I have seen the film. I can't find anything that gives the work credibility.

I'd love it if Metallica recorded something good again, but St Anger was a massive let down for me. What are the appealing factors in that record?

quote:

Originally posted by Duncan Black:
I'd seriously like to know how you define 'new'. What are the appealing factors in that record?

When i say "new", i mean compared to Metallica's older works. For me, the appealing factor is that raw hard sound. I find st. anger refreshing, after listening to their earlier work for so many years.

That element is what I wanted to like, but it just didn't sound as good, but your comment makes sense. I just felt the sense of urgency had vanished from the sound.

I'm a guitarist myself and when you play something like the riff from 'Master of Puppets' in the same way as Metallica (all down strokes), it actually hurts. They really pound the guitars.

On St Anger there wasn't the same brutality. It was much more lazy. From the comments on the DVD they said they were trying to recapture the sound of a band forming in a garage and the premise fell short of the mark. This was simply due to the fact that they obviously weren't a band meeting for the first time. If you've got all the latest recording equipment and a shit hot producer - why not use those things? Trying to sound 'lo-fi' seemed a bit futile.

quote:

Originally posted by Duncan Black:
If you've got all the latest recording equipment and a shit hot producer - why not use those things? Trying to sound 'lo-fi' seemed a bit futile.

I don't quite understand Metallica's decision to go in that "Lo-Fi" direction. I would like to have heard a more polished st.anger. But, being the fan that i am, i try to find positive aspects in all their work.

Fanboyism is cool or whatever Metalkid, but if you seriously enjoy anything on St. Anger having heard their previous work, you should get your head checked. I don't think there is anything redeeming about the album at all, as I said earlier.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Honcho:
Fanboyism is cool or whatever Metalkid, but if you seriously enjoy anything on St. Anger having heard their previous work, you should get your head checked.

I went and got my head checked, Mike. The doctor said, "I respect your loyalty to the music and st.anger is a good album."

This message has been edited. Last edited by: MetalKid,