Review 1 of 16

stormwatch writes:

5of 5 Stars

The hype is all true. This is a return to form. This is also unlike classic 'tallica. What this really is is a return to where these guys were arguably before or during Kill 'Em All. Thrash/speed metal was born out of punk. The punk influences have been nowhere since the late 80s. This albums sounds like a blend of punk, metal, mod-era Who, and the postpunk rhythm sections (and even some choruses) from Adam and the Ants and Bowwowow including the burundi tone on the toms and snare. The ferocity seems genuine, which surprised me. The musicianship is less technical and more riff-based but with polyrhythms. This is probably the most "intelligent" Metallica album (and why not, it ain't Alcoholica anymore, these are middle aged rich guys). This is the first (or maybe second) Metallica album that 70s-era King Crimson fans could embrace, and as one, absolutely do -- this record is right there with Red and Starless in its moods, tone, and stark intelligence. I wanted to hate it, frankly, but it may be the best Metallica album of all -- even if the fans vomit on it and nothing but 'Frantic' makes the next tour setlist. Highly recommended, in spite of myself.

Jun 18, 2008 12:26:51

Review 2 of 16

dsk writes:

1of 5 Stars

Even though I have rated this as 1 star, in reality I rate it as a big, fat zero. The only good thing to come from this album is the documentary film that shows how dysfunctional the band had become. The album itself has songs that sound like a collection of ideas thrown together with some very uninspiring lyrics. The snare drum is somehow given the highest level in the mix and it rings so loudly and annoyingly that it completely ruins every song. Given how good this band once were, I think it is time to call it a day.

Apr 30, 2008 21:55:21

Review 3 of 16

aviolentfluid writes:

4of 5 Stars

I think a lot of people are comparing old
Metallica to new Metallica (St. Anger)
mistakenly. Granted, St. Anger is nothing
compared to Ride the Lightning or Master of
Puppets, everyone makes the mistake of
comparing to Metallica int heir hayday. St.
Anger is infinitely better than 99 percent of
the garbage that is made these days and shoved
down our throats as "good." It's still a good
album, but it's not Metallica.

Mar 5, 2008 09:01:47

Review 4 of 16

SlyDawg76 writes:

1of 5 Stars

After buying this album when it was first released, putting it away for 5 years, and then dragging it back out this weekend and listening to it again left me with only one single word to describe it: Tragic. I honestly don't know what message Metallica was trying to convey when they sat down to write this thing but they didn't get it across. What did come across, however, was that Metallica is officially the washed-up shell of what used to be the greatest and most influential metal group in history. St Anger is a chore to listen to and even more tedious is trying to find the good parts; because there aren't any. It's unmelodic and nearly completely devoid of all musicality whatsoever. Hetfield sounds like a drunk partygoer that was pulled from the audience and asked to scream a song as a parody. Hammett is lost without a solo and the guitar work sounds like a bunch of white noise at times. Ulrich's drums sound like he's beating on a bunch of construction barrels with holes in them, and the level of difficulty at which he plays them could easily be met or exceeded by most middle schoolers. As a whole, this is an embarrassing attempt at a group trying to stick around and ride the mainstream pony when all the while they should have unplugged their equipment and packed it away while they still had a shining legacy. The only "anger" associated with this collosal failure is that felt by the consumer once they realized what they just paid $20.00 for.

Feb 17, 2008 20:09:57

Review 5 of 16

Thelivingdead writes:

1of 5 Stars

Metallica Is one of the best metal band to grace the pressince of the planet. Prety much all Metallica albums are instent classics up until the album ''Load.'' Now Metallicas albums have reach shit to even more shit the album tried to be a comback but falled with terible drums, and not the same Metallica feel that we once new and loved it just doesn't quite fit the the mark. Overall the album ok a 2/5

Download
St.Anger
Some kinda monster

Jan 19, 2008 12:41:24

Review 6 of 16

rockerdale2k7 writes:

4of 5 Stars

right.im going to start with saying i have nothing at all against st anger.its the worst album theyve done but compared to todays music its gr8

i think that some songs such as dirty window and some kind of monster although highly enjoyable are dragged on.

also the biggest negative point is the whole "No solo"thing.this is bullshit.metal without solos is like emo without poofs


apart from the dragged out tracks and lack of solos st anger is a massive ball of raw agressive lyrics,angry snare haunting guitars and pissed off vocals.

i think the reason that it has recieved so badly is down to the fact people cant take the fact its so raw,poweful and in your face.which is a total rarity in metal these days.

there is also some total classics in st anger.sweet amber,frantic,st anger and some kind of monster are easily the best tracks of the album

i realy enjoyed st anger.75+ minutes of raw metal.

not as good as master,kill em all,or ride the lightning.more agressive than load n reload.not as deep as justice but a revolution in modern metal.

i dont think they should stick with that style and they should go back to old school thrash but its a change from the norm and a very positive one at that

Jan 12, 2008 09:22:18

Review 7 of 16

DusticularCancer writes:

3of 5 Stars

First of all, I must say it used to crack me up listening to the either 16 or underdeveloped 35 year olds on every website with a comment box that features metallica saying the same thing over and over that i shouldn't even repeat, but just so they know i'm talking about them: "METALLICA SUCKED AFTER (insert album from the 80's) DUDE AND (insert band from the 80's that has put out 10 albums that sound the same) IS BETTER". It used to make me chuckle (back in what, 1998?) and by now it's just gotten unbearable. And it's the same reason, every time! No, they don't slap the same trademark 80's "look what i can do" guitar solo to the bridge of every song. Heads up, after 20+ years it gets old! You'd never admit it, likely because you dont know what you're talking about, but metallica has possessed a (what you would call shitty pop) element that they've always incorporated in their most dingy recordings, and that's why they've always stood out and consistently sounded better than their "metal" peers. They are for the song, and they knew that a trademark 80's "look what i can do" solo wouldn't have fit in these songs. In fact, not very much else could possibly fit in these songs. The album as a whole? I think RS said it well as it feels more like a piece of history more than an album. The songs were written while it was all falling apart. And perhaps for that reason i didn't mind the fact that they weren't masterpieces. I felt it was an interesting reflection of a really fucked up spell they were going through. Speaking from recent experience, writing a beautiful piece is the last thing on your mind when your band is falling apart, and when you do (in my or lars' place) sit behind a drumkit, you dont give a shit about tuning it before playing, you wanna get your feelings out, raw and simple. Same for everyone else. This was a soundtrack, not an album. it didn't have an awkward Scorpions solo pro-tooled into every song. They weren't in the mood. Go cry about it. If you were expecting a masterpiece from a band that wrote an album while they hated each other, then it sucks to be you. I personally am happy that they didn't try to sugarcoat it, because they easily could have written Ride the Lightning part 2, and the record label would've been happy, the 16 year olds trying to sound tough on the internet would've been happy, and I along with the real music fans would have heard a weak fake, and hollow attempt at sounding like you're at the top when you're at the bottom. I respect what they did, despite the lack of 80's-ness or commercial perfection. They've already been there and done that. St. Anger was what it was. And now that this is out of their system, it's time for them to put this new wave of young "look what we can do" metal in its place with their next album, which is sure to, as Het said on the Kill Em' All tour, "all the fake people." Yes, youtube comment peanut gallery, that's you.

Dec 12, 2007 14:23:16

Review 8 of 16

jonah writes:

1of 5 Stars

4 years later, I still can't believe Rolling Stone gave this 4 stars. I wish there was an option for 0 stars (consider this wish a suggestion in honor of St. Anger). This album is missing what us oldschool Metallica fans really crave: mind blowing guitar solos, musical complexity (particulary the influence of classical guitar that was so prominent on their early albums). Yes, St. Anger is heavy and it does feature some time signature changes, but it is very poorly produced, the lyrics are repetitive and daft, and it just feels like a collosal f-you to any fan of good music.

Sep 28, 2007 13:25:43