PDA

View Full Version : Important Metallica Question..and Music in General


DrPogo
04-07-2009, 11:05 PM
As we all know, before Death Magnetic, Metallica released an album that is regarded today as absolute horseshit by most. I have a few important questions for YOU, the metal fans. (I have found that the more intellegent metal fans are in this Forum, as opposed to MANY other ones, so this is why I'm asking you guys, because I don't know if anyone has ever addressed this, and I would truly like to know.)

1. It seems almost like it's "cool" to hate St. Anger....Why? Just because "real" metal fans say it sucks?

2. It can't be that bad, seeing as it still went OVER platinum. (Don't give me that, oh, everyone bought it then realized it sucked, because you guys/gals damn well know that if one of your friends buys a CD, tells a few others that it sucks, they don't just run right out and buy it. Even if it's Metallica.)

3. How long has it been since you gave it a listen?

4. THE BIG QUESTION: Do you REALLY hate St. Anger?

I'll be the first to admit, I frequently have St. Anger either in my car or I listen to a song or two from it from day to day.

I'm not trying to be a dick, by any means, just looking for feedback. For the last few years, I've been wondering why people genuinely say that they HATE that album. Call me a pussy or a fake metalhead, but I own well over 4000 CDs, and have over 100,000mp3s. Again, I'll admit, on an average day I'll pop in Slaves on Dope, Systematic, Neurotica, Jerry Lee Lewis, Royal Crown Revue, Hank Williams, Pantera, Corrosion of Conformity Stone Temple Pilots, Torture Killer, Louis Prima, AC/DC, Insomnium, Anvil, Megadeth, Cold, Slayer, Suidakra, Tyr, Brian Setzer, Minor Threat, Emperor, Disturbed, Cannibal Corpse, Clutch, Manowar, 3rd Strike, Dean Martin, Alestorm, Alice in Chains, Sabbath, Tool, Sepultura, Buddy Holly, Misfits, Johnny Cash, Hammerfall, Iron Maiden, King Diamond, Korn, Machine Head, Mercyful Fate, Motorhead, etc. (You get my drift, a combination of 50's rock-n-roll (the kings, IMO) all the way through the blackest of the black, the Nu-est of the Nu, and the deadliest of the death...and even the heathenest of the Pagan, lol, so what's it matter what other people think, what do YOU think of the album) Because AFTER ALL, ISN'T MUSIC SUPPOSED TO MAKE YOU HAPPY, NOT MAKE YOU LOOK COOL IN FORUMS AND MESSAGE BOARDS?!) Hahaha, i respect all taste in rock and all of it's subsidiary bullshit categories, and I want to know about all those guilty pleasures (like that Spin Doctors CD you guys throw on when no ones home on the lowest volume! :rocker:) I WANNA know about that "East-Coast/Above-Ground/Lowfat-Cesar/Starbucks/Cuffed Jeans/Levi/Post/Death/Prog-Ska/Library-Core/Blackened Tilapia Metal" band that you guys listen to!

Music is great, you all agree, I know this. Be honest, and answer any questions that I asked, I'm very interested in your responses. (I'll include some of them in my upcoming feature article for my University newspaper in which I have a monthly column, not specifics, just examples.)

Thanks a ton, and keep them horns high!

Div
04-07-2009, 11:53 PM
1.) The general consensus that St. Anger blows is because the album is amazingly bland compared to the stuff that got Metallica famous to begin with. Ride the Lightning and Kill Em All had great thrashy tracks on them, but St. Anger has almost nothing akin to those two. It feels as if the well of inspiration for them has run dry, and instead of trying like they did in the past they just started dicking around in the studio and whatever they came up with they put on an album and didn't care too much about the quality because they knew that their popular name would carry them into the charts.

2.) It really is that bad. Britney Spears went over platinum too, but that doesn't mean it's amazing music. The songs are too drawn out and repetitive, the drumming sounds awful, the lyrics are just terribly generic, and there are barely and riffs and almost no solos to be found. The album was lacking everything that made Metallica popular to begin with.

3.) Don't remember.

4.) I do. There are so many other great bands out there that are unheard of, and yet Metallica can make millions by releasing this shit pile, that makes me angry. Releasing St. Anger was a total dick move on their part. "Hey guys you want a new album, here let us take a shit in this jewel case and sell it to you"

TonyD
04-08-2009, 12:03 AM
2) This was discussed in another thread a day or two ago. METALLICA on the cover of any new studio album is almost an automatic million records sold.

3) Months, if not years other than the "KILL KILL KILL" video. Part of why it's allowed to be bashed all day long is because no one listens to it anymore because it was just so boring in the first place.

4) I don't hate it as much as it's made out to be, but I still think that every song was made too long just to be long. For example, if the first three tracks were cut down to less than five minutes a piece, they would be a little interesting. The rest of the album is mostly lame riffs that could have been written by a 13 year old in 10 minutes. To compound the lameness, they decided to play those same riffs over and over again until the songs reached lengths like those on Justice.

The snare sound is another thing that people seem to complain about a lot. I don't totally hate it, but when you bang on the thing for nearly 80 minutes, a shotgun starts to sound mighty tasty.

Because AFTER ALL, ISN'T MUSIC SUPPOSED TO MAKE YOU HAPPY, NOT MAKE YOU LOOK COOL IN FORUMS AND MESSAGE BOARDS?!

Thank you lol

SomewhereInTime72
04-08-2009, 12:45 AM
I have not listened to the album recently because I do not like it.

ravenheart
04-08-2009, 02:33 AM
I've not listened to it recently only because I have so much new stuff to listen to every week. But it's one of the most frequent Metallica records I'll listen to. I like it a lot, always have.

HugeRockStar
04-08-2009, 07:26 AM
I'm one of those fans that people make fun of that will buy anything Metallica releases just cuz I've loved them for so long. I had Death Magnetic on pre-order long before I heard a single note from it.

St. Anger does suck. 8 minute songs that should be 3 minutes, horrible lyrics and vocals and bad production. Although for some reason I've always liked the song Some Kind Of Monster and I listen to that track quite frequently.

Maiden33
04-08-2009, 08:13 AM
Absolutely everything about St. Anger is a joke to me. Granted, I'm not much of a Metallica fan at all anymore, but back before that album came out, when I was really getting into metal, I liked Metallica a lot. That album coming out was one of the big things that permanently turned me off to them. I think it's a massive stab at being trendy, basically following in the footsteps of a lot of the shitty bands that Metallica themselves influenced in the first place. The songs are 2 or 3 times as long as they should be, and the tone of absolutely every instrument is awful. The guitar tone is about as bad as the drum sound. The lyrics are a total joke, and the vocals are totally awful. Oh yes, and I can't stand the fact that they actually thought it was a good idea to consciously record an album with absolutely no guitar solos. I'm not one of those people that thinks every song needs a solo to be good, but to record an album and purposely exclude them is just absolutely dumb.
So that's about it in a nutshell.

rjturtle9
04-08-2009, 08:55 AM
1. it's not cool to hate st. anger. it's just the common sense thing to do. tghe record was a complete fail

2. just like everyone else said, the album sold because of the name on the front.

3. maybe early middle school

4. hate is a funny word for an album. i'm not going to go into a record store and destroy every copy i see. i just think it's a terrible album

JRA
04-08-2009, 10:38 AM
2) This was discussed in another thread a day or two ago. METALLICA on the cover of any new studio album is almost an automatic million records sold.





Yea pretty much this. It was also the fact that they were touting the "going back to our roots" schtick so of course everyone was eager to buy it. But yea, because of the Metallica-tards(who are more than likely too cool to be listening to any other metal) will buy anything they do upon instant.

I think the biggest problem with Metallica nowadays is their songs are two fucking long. Somebody in management must have told them that not only must their songs be thrashy, they have to be over 7 minutes each. Since the fuck when? I bet if most of the songs on Death Magnetic, or even St. Anger for that matter, were only around 4-5 minutes, they'd have received a much warmer reception. Fuck the "78 minutes of music" shit. Most albums are should be at 40-50 minutes. Everything longer is more or less an ego stroke.

Also, "My lifestyle, determines my deathstyle?" James probably bought that one from Joey DeMaio, who rejected it for being too cheesy and stupid.

mankvill
04-08-2009, 10:48 AM
I think someone took Death Magnetic and edited it so basically it cut out like 20 - 30 minutes of unneeded stuff. :lol:

powerslave_85
04-08-2009, 01:10 PM
1. It seems almost like it's "cool" to hate St. Anger....Why? Just because "real" metal fans say it sucks?

2. It can't be that bad, seeing as it still went OVER platinum. (Don't give me that, oh, everyone bought it then realized it sucked, because you guys/gals damn well know that if one of your friends buys a CD, tells a few others that it sucks, they don't just run right out and buy it. Even if it's Metallica.)

3. How long has it been since you gave it a listen?

4. THE BIG QUESTION: Do you REALLY hate St. Anger?
1. Because it's terrible.
2. Popularity and quality are two very different things.
3. Since shortly after it came out.
4. Yes.

DethMaiden
04-08-2009, 01:42 PM
1. Because it's terrible.
2. Popularity and quality are two very different things.
3. Since shortly after it came out.
4. Yes.

These are also my answers.

KILL, KILL KILL!

HandOfDoom
04-08-2009, 02:06 PM
Aside from The Unnamed Feeling and Sweet Amber I agree with everyone else.

b_halperin
04-08-2009, 02:59 PM
1. It seems almost like it's "cool" to hate St. Anger....Why? Just because "real" metal fans say it sucks?

2. It can't be that bad, seeing as it still went OVER platinum. (Don't give me that, oh, everyone bought it then realized it sucked, because you guys/gals damn well know that if one of your friends buys a CD, tells a few others that it sucks, they don't just run right out and buy it. Even if it's Metallica.)

3. How long has it been since you gave it a listen?

4. THE BIG QUESTION: Do you REALLY hate St. Anger?

1. Songs are easily forgettable, they released the album is if it was a mandatory release. I didn't feel any connection between St. Anger and their previous discs, the ones which made them famous.

2. Metallica was one of the pioneers of metal. At this point, if they just ejaculated into a cd case it would go platinum.

3. The first week it was released I listened to it quite a few times.

4. Yes, with a burning passion. Bands like Metallica need to realize that they can't get by with that horseshit, even though moneywise they did.

SomewhereInTime72
04-08-2009, 03:25 PM
2. Metallica was one of the pioneers of metal. At this point, if they just ejaculated into a cd case it would go platinum.


They already did this with Load and Reload.

rjturtle9
04-08-2009, 03:42 PM
They already did this with Load and Reload.

not really. there was some blood and piss in those albums to.

SomewhereInTime72
04-08-2009, 05:09 PM
not really. there was some blood and piss in those albums to.

I thought that was just what happens when Lars ejaculates...

b_halperin
04-08-2009, 05:34 PM
I thought that was just what happens when Lars ejaculates...

:lol:

Sinfulsot
04-08-2009, 07:22 PM
not really. there was some blood and piss in those albums to.
I thought that was just what happens when Lars ejaculates...

he really should get that looked at...

rjturtle9
04-08-2009, 07:38 PM
I thought that was just what happens when Lars ejaculates...

wow i thought the only thing wrong with him was his drumming...

Indestructible
04-09-2009, 02:21 PM
As we all know, before Death Magnetic, Metallica released an album that is regarded today as absolute horseshit by most. I have a few important questions for YOU, the metal fans. (I have found that the more intellegent metal fans are in this Forum, as opposed to MANY other ones, so this is why I'm asking you guys, because I don't know if anyone has ever addressed this, and I would truly like to know.)

1. It seems almost like it's "cool" to hate St. Anger....Why? Just because "real" metal fans say it sucks?

2. It can't be that bad, seeing as it still went OVER platinum. (Don't give me that, oh, everyone bought it then realized it sucked, because you guys/gals damn well know that if one of your friends buys a CD, tells a few others that it sucks, they don't just run right out and buy it. Even if it's Metallica.)

3. How long has it been since you gave it a listen?

4. THE BIG QUESTION: Do you REALLY hate St. Anger?

I'll be the first to admit, I frequently have St. Anger either in my car or I listen to a song or two from it from day to day.

I'm not trying to be a dick, by any means, just looking for feedback. For the last few years, I've been wondering why people genuinely say that they HATE that album. Call me a pussy or a fake metalhead, but I own well over 4000 CDs, and have over 100,000mp3s. Again, I'll admit, on an average day I'll pop in Slaves on Dope, Systematic, Neurotica, Jerry Lee Lewis, Royal Crown Revue, Hank Williams, Pantera, Corrosion of Conformity Stone Temple Pilots, Torture Killer, Louis Prima, AC/DC, Insomnium, Anvil, Megadeth, Cold, Slayer, Suidakra, Tyr, Brian Setzer, Minor Threat, Emperor, Disturbed, Cannibal Corpse, Clutch, Manowar, 3rd Strike, Dean Martin, Alestorm, Alice in Chains, Sabbath, Tool, Sepultura, Buddy Holly, Misfits, Johnny Cash, Hammerfall, Iron Maiden, King Diamond, Korn, Machine Head, Mercyful Fate, Motorhead, etc. (You get my drift, a combination of 50's rock-n-roll (the kings, IMO) all the way through the blackest of the black, the Nu-est of the Nu, and the deadliest of the death...and even the heathenest of the Pagan, lol, so what's it matter what other people think, what do YOU think of the album) Because AFTER ALL, ISN'T MUSIC SUPPOSED TO MAKE YOU HAPPY, NOT MAKE YOU LOOK COOL IN FORUMS AND MESSAGE BOARDS?!) Hahaha, i respect all taste in rock and all of it's subsidiary bullshit categories, and I want to know about all those guilty pleasures (like that Spin Doctors CD you guys throw on when no ones home on the lowest volume! :rocker:) I WANNA know about that "East-Coast/Above-Ground/Lowfat-Cesar/Starbucks/Cuffed Jeans/Levi/Post/Death/Prog-Ska/Library-Core/Blackened Tilapia Metal" band that you guys listen to!

Music is great, you all agree, I know this. Be honest, and answer any questions that I asked, I'm very interested in your responses. (I'll include some of them in my upcoming feature article for my University newspaper in which I have a monthly column, not specifics, just examples.)

Thanks a ton, and keep them horns high!


st anger did sell over platinum because it was metallica. no one was expecting it to suck

Clayman01
04-13-2009, 11:23 AM
My problem with St. Anger, and really with everything from the Black Album forward, is that the songs are too boring and repetitive. I've seen them say it over and over, after ...And Justice for All they felt the songs were too long with too many parts, sort of like musical gymnastics. But they didn't shorten the songs at all, they just made them repeat the same riff over and over and over and over...

In addition, the production and "sound" of an album is very important to me. The drums on St.Anger are so freakin horrible. It sounds like Lars is banging on a cowbell through half the songs. I don't know why he can't come up with a decent drum sound. Plus the lyrics were lame, the singing wasn't good either, and they were "trying" to sound thrashy instead of just being "thrasy".

I haven't listened to the entire album since a few weeks after it was released. I listen to a track every couple months and it reminds me I don't like it. I haven't even bothered putting it on my iPod (Load either).

jaysadler2
04-14-2009, 01:51 AM
A lot of people just bought st anger because it is Metallica at the end of the day. To be honest in comparison to their back catalogue it is poor, but i do enjoy listening to the album now and again cos it is essentially 'ANGRY'. The riffs and lyrics really reflect on what the band was going through at the time;
- James in rehab
- Loosing a bass player
- Bob Rock being there
- The group recieving counsseling
- Many other issues (like meeting up with dave mustaine during the some kind of monster documentary).

So it kinda shapes metallicas career. I goota say its not the best metallica album, but it reveals a lot more about the band in the way they were frustrated, pissed off etc.

Not me necessarilly, but why a lot of metal fans look down on it is because....NO SOLOS!!!!!!

overkiller
04-14-2009, 06:25 AM
I WANNA know about that "East-Coast/Above-Ground/Lowfat-Cesar/Starbucks/Cuffed Jeans/Levi/Post/Death/Prog-Ska/Library-Core/Blackened Tilapia Metal" band that you guys listen to!

This is THE best new subgenre to come out since 1987. If you don't think so, you're a fool.











:D

JRA
04-14-2009, 06:38 AM
You know, it kind of irritates me that metal fans look down upon St. Anger because of no solos as opposed to how bad it is. There are plenty of great rock songs that just don't happen to have solos in them. A few examples of the top of my head:

Venom- Countess Bathory
Led Zeppelin-Kashmir
Soundgarden- Jesus Christ Pose
Mastodon- Mother Puncher
Hellhammer- Triumph Of Death (and whenever Tom Warrior tries to solo in other songs, its usually terrible anyway)