•
Rating: THE REVIEW
Unfortunately, many great bands at some point in their careers experience a significant decline phase, which sometimes is destined to last forever.
This is the case with Metallica, whom I praised with my review of the 'Black Album', but now I have to criticize. After two mediocre albums like 'Load' and 'Reload', the Californians offer us a significantly worse album that has no musical utility and evokes deadly boredom.
The tracks are impressively repetitive, it's almost as if Heitfield and company enjoyed pressing the LOOP button continuously. The matter is this: composing tracks over 8 minutes long is not enough to make a masterpiece. There's an almost total lack of creativity, and when they try to do something different, it falls into the ridiculous. Think of Hetfield's repeated and desperate "kill-kill-kill" and "tic-tic-tic-tac" (what is it, a human clock?), who believes he can amaze us with his antics but in reality just looks like a clown.
The main characteristic of "St. Anger" is that the beginning of the songs is quite good, so it’s natural to think a good track is coming, but it's a damn flash in the pan, a false alarm. It's just a thin mask hiding the album's ugliness, and several fans, fools, bought this junk in droves due to this terrible commercial operation. Particularly nauseating are the nu-metal hints that James invents in the song "St. Anger" to put on a show and compensate for the terrible musical backdrop. As if that wasn't enough, the recording is awful, which contributes a bit to giving it such a low rating. The really sad thing is that this "album" reached 1st place on the Billboard chart, whereas masterpieces of the highest musical level (incredibly by the same artists) like "Kill'Em All", "Ride The Lightning", and "Master Of Puppets" only made it to fourth. At this point, I wonder: am I right or are these music critics? Who knows.
In my opinion, the only good thing about "St. Anger" is the cover, that's it.
Loading comments slowly
Summary by Bot
The review strongly criticizes Metallica's St. Anger album as a significant decline from their previous works, citing extreme repetition and lack of creativity. It points out poor recording quality and a misguided attempt to integrate nu-metal elements. Despite commercial success, the album is seen as musically boring and a disappointment to longtime fans. The only praised aspect is the album's cover art.Tracklist Lyrics Videos
Metallica
Metallica is an American heavy metal band formed in 1981 by James Hetfield and Lars Ulrich. They rose from the Bay Area thrash scene with early albums like Kill 'Em All and Ride the Lightning, achieved mainstream success with 1991's Metallica (The Black Album), and have released a long-running and often debated catalog since.173 Reviews
Other reviews
By cliffburton86
An album as aggressive as a dog whose bone is taken from its mouth!
James Hetfield has a fierce voice as if he wants to say to the whole world: 'I'm back, bastards!!! Sad but true!!!'
By Big D
The first peculiarity that strikes the listener concerns the sound clarity: practically nonexistent, and this could be a point in its favor because it might (very remotely) recall the times of 'Kill'em All'.
In conclusion, I do not believe that St. Anger is a bad album, but a 'different' album.
By El minchia
Metallica with St. Anger managed to elevate the role of crap beyond levels that even Elio couldn’t imagine.
Listening to those drums, you can’t help but realize it’s pans and dishes!
By Brizz89
"Metallica is not Nu Metal, but they wanted to enter the Olympus of the commercial, and they succeeded, considering the sales."
"This album is truly the worst in their entire discography, and its complete anonymity speaks volumes about how the future of this band will be."
By thetrooper
"St. Anger seems to me a bold attempt to recover, bringing back some good old aggression to the songs."
The biggest flaws: the total absence of Kirk Hammet's solos and entrusting bass recordings to that damn bastard Bob Rock.
