Review 9 of 17

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

Review 10 of 17

Ayashi writes:

1of 5 Stars

Rolling Stone, you have to be fucking kidding me. You give this piece of crap four stars??

This album SUCKS! I'm not giving it one star because it's that bad, because it does have its moments. But it was supposed to be SO MUCH BETTER that it doesnt deserve any more.

Aug 31, 2007 12:35:01

Review 11 of 17

raceudown writes:

1of 5 Stars

4 Stars? Rolling Stone, you are once again out of your mind!! Metallica completely lost touch with the fans that gave them a chance to become the greatest band in the world in the 80s. This albums complete lack of interesting ideas, terrible sound (WTF with the drums?), and mind piercing lyrics (kill kill kill kill...) make it by far the worst in Metallica's cataloge. And the true fans of Metallica wish they had broken up in 1990 or 1991. They lost the will to make an album that may not be a commercial hit, but be a hit with the truly loyal fanbase, the fanbase that comtinues to listen to the new album with the hope that Rolling Stone was right and that this is as good as ...And Justice for All. But they are wrong. It is not. The fans weep while Metallica wipes their @$$ with 20s. But I digress. 1 Star.

Aug 6, 2007 21:27:32

Review 12 of 17

battery101 writes:

4of 5 Stars

Most definatly Metallica's most contraversial album. Supposedly im not a "FAN" though because i liked it. Was it what i wanted to hear?...no. But thats why it kicked ass. And everything the haters hate about this album is why i liked it. Was it MetallicA actually trying as hard as humanly possible? No. But like it or not, St. Anger was the re-birth of MetallicA.

Jul 29, 2007 12:54:53

Review 13 of 17

degameth writes:

4of 5 Stars

Ok so it seems these days hating metallica is cool...ask yourself " where would music be without them today " sure st. anger isnt there best album sure its no ...and justice for all, sure its no master of puppets, sure its no ride the lightning and no its not kill em all and it is nothing like the black album...but you must admit " thankgod it isnt load or re-load " in its own right st. anger is fantastic it proves metallica can come back to the older days of thrash, there not there yet but is st. anger not one step closer than say...re-load? I sometimes think Im the only one in the world who truly likes this album...admit it st. anger is some hardcore shit and no it isnt the old metallica which yes is better than st. anger but that doesnt mean st. anger is bad listen to frantic people thats better than load and re-load combined. As a whole st. anger is above good its pretty deep and as the title suggests " angry ". The metallica we love is coming back it isnt here yet but hmmmm i smell a comeback........listen to st. anger....even though solos are absent haha METALLICA

Apr 15, 2007 03:00:48

Review 14 of 17

poserhater writes:

1of 5 Stars

Are you shitting me, Rolling Stone?! The fans got it right. As depicted in the doc Some Kind of Monster (a shitty movie too), this heap is a basement tape, not a record. Lars' annoying pranging drums sound like an Uzi being fired at a gong, and they sound that way on every song! Pointless lyrics made up seconds before they're recorded, James sounds like shit, every song sounds the same, no good riffs. It took them years to come up with this?! It's already years later and they still haven't done anything since. I guess all we get are their great records they made before they really even got famous. Stick a fork in Metallica, they're done.

Jun 24, 2006 09:33:25

Review 15 of 17

Sukergod writes:

2of 5 Stars

Ugh, the review done by Rolling Stone, could not be more wrong!!!!. This album ain't going back to the days of Master, of Lightning, it should go back to the garbage, where they must have dug deep into to get this trash out. While it does have a couple of good songs, lik frantic and probally the best song , Sweet Amber, this album lacks alot. Sadly enough the load/reload albums had alot more substance than this heap. Who cares about raw emotion, when the songs all sound the same, and basically suck. Any hopes for a rewind back to he old metallica for any future albums for metallica is out of the question, they just can't do it anymore.

May 29, 2006 07:06:52

Review 16 of 17

Chayes writes:

4of 5 Stars

As a whole St. Anger is a decent album, but not a Metallica standard. With all that was going on inside the band at the time of recording really comes out in the music. Dull sounds and garage band style of playing did not work out at all. Hopefully the next album (which isn't being produced by Bob Rock) will bring out the Metallica we all have come to know and love.

Apr 6, 2006 08:08:52