I never got all The Black Album hate to be honest.

Everytime an underground band goes "mainstream" then suddenly it's a big f*cking deal. Would metalheads be happier if they just kept trying to repeat the same album over and over and over?

Well since we're talking about a metal band here, yeah that's exactly what it is.

It's not on par with their earlier material but I think it's a good album nonetheless.

I think a large degree comes from, as I've been told, the "universe of **** it gave way to" a la Godsmack, Korn, Limp Bizkit's

I guess peopel saw the lightening up of the sound, a more rock oriented move, to bring the dawn of the nu-metal era.

I don't agree with that, I feel if anything, Metallica led only to a small portion of that. Ultimatly, no band of that era matched skill levels or used general topics like they did (maybe general lyrics, which is a lot different and a lot worse).

The metal kids themselves clearly hate it because it doesn't sound like a wrench in the gears at the chainsaw factory. I could probably make a platnium selling metal album so long as I looped tightly enough the sounds metal objects crashing to the ground.

And thats really what modern metal is, Stomp with darker overtones.

To be fair. Bands like Faith No More, RATM and Alice In Chains are more responsable for that.

Yeah, the "sellout" album always gets the bum rap regardless of it's actual quality.

That applies to everything from Yes's 90125 to Queen's The Game to Genesis's Abacab to David Bowie's Let's Dance.

Fans don't want good albums or for bands to try different things, they want albums that conform to the style they're most accustomed to hearing. It's a hipster thing, a band releases an album with universial appeal and gains them a whole new audience, then the older fans rant like little school children. "We were here first".

I disagree on that. I think if anything Metalica were one of the least technically competent big metal bands, at least they were when Burton died.

Lars isn't a really good drummer, Hammett is nowhere near as skilled as many other metal lead guitarists, Newsted was a decent bassist but never had much to do and and because he could never match up to what Burton did, he's gotten a very bum rap.

It's Hetfield that really held the band together, and it's his skills as both a rhythm guitarist and a songwriter that put's Metallica leagues above their peers.

Well Megadeth also wrote songs about political and social topics. But then again, Megadeth was always Dave Mustaine's bitter attempt to outdo his former bandmates at whatever they did.

:laughing:

I concur.

...

yes. They're metalheads.

@ Boo Boo:

Right, they may not be the preemminent bands out there when it comes to chops, but compared to the bands listed (nu-metal et. all) its like playing a toddler in Family Fued. Godsmak has a decent drummer now and thats the only thing they compete in.

Hammett may not be as good of a Metal guitarist as other bands have, but he's a better guitar player in general. I always think of the scene from Metalocalypse scene where they give the blonde sweedish guy an acoustic guitar and try to teach him blues. They bend a note and ask him to repeat it and all he does is play hammer-ons in a 6/32 time signature.

And because things get off track here, I'm not saying S/T gave us the "universe of ****" I'm saying thats what I'm hearing from people.

Discussion:A few years on, St Anger really wasn't that bad an album.
It's just when you take what the purists consider real Metallica and then you take Metallica's radio-rock-nu-metal-neighbours at the time of it's release, and sandwhich that with expectations of a repeat Black album, it was never going to be pretty.

But if you isolated it from everything and anything, and listened to it. Well, it's not the end of the world. If it was a brand new band and that was their debut album it would have gone down reasonably well.

I don't think so, I think St. Anger was pretty terrible no matter how it would have come into the world.

I disagree, I think that album cops 95% of it's flak due to it's release environment, and Metallica's fuck-off-up-high-in-the-music-sky mantle piece from past albums. A comparatively bad album doesn't make for an outright bad album. And that album does have some good songs.

To be honest, I don't really like any of Metallica's music, but I tend to respect St. Anger the most just for being their attempt to do something different. It's not music I enjoy, but it's better than another rehash of MoP or RtL.

I like St. Anger... it was the first Metallica album I ever cared to own...I think it was bold, Ballsy. Sure it had its problems sonically and songwriting wise.... the drums ping a little too much, it could have used a solo, a little less repetition on some tracks...

But it was different, and it was a good listen lyrically, especially when I ad some demons to exorcise!