Talk:St. Anger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh)

Article requirements:
YesY All the start class criteria
YesY A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details
YesY At least one section of prose (excluding the lead section)
YesY A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs
YesY A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians
YesY Categorisation at least by artist and year
YesY A casual reader should learn something about the album. Andrzejbanas (talk) 09:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Heavy metal Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, an attempt to improve articles related to heavy metal music. Please participate by visiting the project page for more details on the projects.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh)

Article requirements:
YesY All the start class criteria
YesY A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details
YesY At least one section of prose (excluding the lead section)
YesY A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs
YesY A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians
YesY Categorisation at least by artist and year
YesY A casual reader should learn something about the album. Andrzejbanas (talk) 09:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Recording Time?

6-year album since 1997 with Reload.

What the heck does that mean? --Ed

Typical Michaelese. Only half of what he writes even makes sense, and that's usually wrong. -- Zoe
My best guess is that (Michael thinks) they began recording St. Anger in 1997, when Reload was released. May or may not be true (and I don't care enough about Metallica past the early 90s to check), but that's probably what was meant. Tuf-Kat
No, I'm not saying that St. Anger was recorded in 1997. I'm saying that this is the first album since Reload. -- Micahel

Does that mean Tupic is still alive? Cuz he just released an album... Dietary Fiber

There will always be progressively worse Tupac albums. World War 3 could destroy virtually all of humanity and as long as someone controlled Interscope's property, Tupac's once interesting and musically ambitious vision will continue to be peddled for cheap bucks for fans that don't know any better than to quit buying the pieces-of-crap. Tupac didn't release them while he was alive for a reason... Tuf-Kat
Hasn't Jimi Hendrix released like 50 albums since he died? -- Zoe
was on wikipedia:votes for deletion, and was a one-line stub, so deleted. Martin

Just to clarify, that I don't think St. Anger was recorded in '97. I'm only saying "New album in 6-years after Reload and began recording St. Anger in 2002", okay. -- Michael

That still doesn't make sense, and you're still banned. Tuf-Kat

but will it be their eighth album, or their tenth album, or neither? Martin 18:51 May 15, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Saint Anger/Saint Ansgar?

Is there any connection between the title "St. Anger" and the real-life Catholic saint St. Ansgar? This would seem logical to me, and I'm wondering if there are any official statements or other evidence to back this up. -- J. Jensen 19:25 14 Jan 2005 (CST)

No, I remember seeing Kirk Hammett saying in a Metallica special around the time of St. Anger's release (it was on MTV I think) that James saw Kirk's St. Christopher necklace and came up with the idea of St. Anger. -- Haddock420 21:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Worst Album

"The album was panned by critics and is widely believed to be the worst album Metallica has ever made." That's definitely not true. Many professional critics consider it their best and most aggressive album in a long time. It's the fans who dislike the album, because it's so different from their classic albums (i.e. ride the lightning, ...and justice for all). And even fans who dislike st. anger generally agree load and reload were much worse. I'm removing this. Xunflash 17:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Come on! I'm a Metallica die hard fan, but to be honest St. Anger is the worse album they've ever made, it's impossible to be listening to it for more than half of an hour. Even the name "St. Anger" has become synonymous of something lame, poor, mediocre... You should put this 'The album was panned by critics and is widely believed to be the worst album Metallica has ever made.' back because definitely IS TRUE.

Regardless of whether or not it's their "worst" album, such opinionated input is not for the article, and really not for the talk page either. Sign your posts. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 15:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Isn't St. Anger 2 discs?

Isn't St. Anger 2 discs? I don't know for sure but I think it is. Does anybody know?

No. St. Anger is one disc. lynch 22:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Your probably thinking of the limited-edition version of it, which included a DVD. Underwater 23:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nu Metal?!

Someone please give me a description WHY St. Anger sounds like Nu Metal?!! Underwater 23:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Stupid guitars, stupid drumming... --PET 23:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
That is not the definition of nu metal. Genres are not described by "how good" a certain kind of music is. There are no hip-hop beats, no rap-metal style songs, no Korn-style angst lyrics in this album. --69.231.133.235 21:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC) (Jivi)
no Korn-style angst lyrics in this album.hahahahahahaha, you make me laugh--Dendrilopis 01:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I know, i just didn't had time to give an answer. Well, in my opinion Nu Metal is the music cu simply dosn't have something special. Like Funk has the bass, Death has the "grunts", Black has the high voice with keyboards, and so on. Nu metal is simply... "angry voice with angry lyrics" (usualy), no guitar solo's, no special bass, and no special drumming. Just hit the drum, get the string, etc. I also thing that Nu Metal is not Rap Metal. Rap has the rap voice and also the bass is something more "special". --PET 01:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I disagree about the bass not being special, because the bass in nu metal songs are "funky", reminiscent to many of a lot funk metal songs and bands such as Faith No More (more audible, more noticeable, suitable for hip hop). Not that it implies that they are as good (or as bad) as the older funk metal songs and bands, it is just that the bass is at least something. Metallica, however, has a very bad reputation of bass in their songs after Cliff Burton. Jason Newsted a times hated working with them because the bass is buried in the mixing. The bass is not "funky" here. The bass in this album may not be very good, but it is not the same as the bass playing in many nu metal songs. The drumming in nu metal songs employs many hip hop beats (breakbeats). Listen to a Korn album (well... if you want) or Linkin Park (am I going too far?) and see that there are these elements in those songs. In this album, well, they are just not very good riffs or sounds.
I agree that nu metal is not rap metal. I did not want to say "rapping" because not all nu metal songs rap throughout the entire song. Remember that nu metal and rap metal are a lot alike, they're just not equal (sorry for not being clear). I also know that there is no guitar solos in nu metal and that in this album there are no guitar solos. That should and is noted in the article, but it does not necessarily make this album a nu metal album as other metal (albeit no in the "true" metal sense, like NWOBHM) genres do not (necessarily) have guitar solos either, such as grindcore or crossover thrash. How many guitar solos in Napalm Death's grindcore classic Scum? Around three. In S.O.D.'s Speak English or Die? Many songs do not have guitar solos either. But they are both metal albums. Of course, they are definitely not nu metal albums and the same applies with St. Anger. While St. Anger has no solos, they are not automatically nu metal because there is more to nu metal than the lack of guitar solos. There a just many characteristics in that album that are missing that would make it a nu metal album.
Nu metal is basically a predominant combination of funky bass, hip hop drum beats, no guitar solos, angry rapping with traditional angry singing, and angry lyrics & themes. You do not have to like nu metal to understand what it really is. St. Anger lacks many of the characterstics that make a nu metal album. Also, just to let you know, I personally do not like this album. It is my least favorite Metallica album. . . . or least favorite album in general. --Jivi 23:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
In order to make a decent rap-funk-punk-metal album, Metallica would have collaborated with Red Hot Chili Peppers' Anthony Kiedis and Flea, so "St.Anger" would have become much more interesting and irriverent.

[edit] Windows Media Tempo Adjustments

Why are there recommended Windows Media Player play speed adjustments in this article? I don't think it's appropriate to include that information here, and if nobody objects I'll take it out. --64.107.192.24 09:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "The album received a generally warmer response in Europe."

Can this be verified? There are no references to back this up in the article.--Psa- 15:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Until there is a response, I am going to mark this comment as in need of citation. Feel free to remove it if you find a source.--Psa- 02:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I foung this on the page:

In rehab, Hetfield was locked in a cell along with former Metallica guitarist Dave Mustaine. Dave was suffering from an arm injury at the time and a rumoured Opal Fruits addiction. Forced to live together for many months, Hetfield and Mustaine began writing material for what believed to be the greatest metal album ever made. It is believed that over 585 hours of music was written but most of it was too good to be released into normal civilization. The metal gods spited both these men and buried their best music deep underground, in the earth's core. They were left with 12 tracks and one night, Hetfield stole them all and was released from rehab before Mustaine could notice. On the bus home, an elderly man of 76 quoted Hetfield saying "lawl, this m00sic is pretty leet!!1 I thinkz0r i'll call it saint anger LoL... How tr00!"

I really have no idea about the history of the album, and I was hoping one of you who do could fix it. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Lately I've been searching for Metallica related topics and I've found out that since Mission Metallica web page opened there's a lot of comments made in the albums topic by a band named Evile and its frontman Matt Drake, i find disturbing that his opinion is in every critical reception section on the albums topic, he is not a critic he is a member of a band that seams to me they are seeking atention and they are putting their expertise on everything Metallica for self promoting. Im taking all their coments down.-Omarnirv

[edit] Hunger??

What the hell is that song? I've never heard of it.

The song "Hunger" is actually a song by a band called Eternal Decision. --E tac 11:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A heavy metal album?

A have this album, and have listened to it several times, and it is not a heavy metal album. It's music is too different to be considered part of the heavy metal genre. Compare it to Judas Priest, Blacksabbath, and others. It is completely different. Also, it is not nu metal, it is maybe, a new genre.--RafaelG 21:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Alternative metal is probably the best description of what St. Anger is that you will be able to find on wikipedia.--E tac 09:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I repeat the point I made on the Load Discussion page. The band's name is METALlica. 'METAL'ica people!!!! Can it possibly BE any clearer? You cannot separate the two. Metallica's music has more to do with heavy metal than any person who edits this article. How anyone can even think to dispute this is beyond me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.53.46.141 (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

So the name of the band is what defines its genre? Then the music itself does not matter!--200.203.114.47 18:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Some 12 year old keeps re-inserting Alt metal. This album certainly doesn't sound like Faith No More or Primus. Heavy metal covers it. Leave the genre debates to the teenybopper blogs and chat rooms. 142.179.103.183 09:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Alternative metal is definitely incorrect. And it's heavier than Hard rock so Heavy metal it is. 142.166.244.44 09:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Heavy metal is as close a description as there is. Alternative metal(and especially Nu metal) are wrong. 216.21.150.44 09:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
what is the metallica fanboy club coming on here as unlogged ip users to add their personal POV to the article? why don't you get a real account and provide some actual reasoning and sources as to why its a "heavy metal album" --E tac 09:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

There I will stop changing the info as I don't want to get blocked for going over the 3 revert rule which I already have and I apologize for to any administrators for doing so even though the users editing the page are unlogged so they could very well be friends pushing the same pov or sock puppets or who knows what. Now show me and everyone else where it is a "heavy metal" album.--E tac 10:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd probably just settle with heavy metal for this album. Maybe even alternative metal... what else can you call it? --Dane ~nya 10:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The best way to describe what it is...is to avoid what it isn't. Alternative metal and Nu metal are both wrong. The album does not sound like Tool or SOAD or Faith No More or Primus or any other Alt metal band. And it doesn't contain any Hip Hop beats or rap lyrics or turntable scratching or Cookie monster vocals so Nu metal is eliminated too. And it's too heavy to be called Hard rock. Wikipedia works on WP:CITE and WP:V. And in this case the pro reviews linked in the album infobox refer to the album as heavy metal.(if a genre is actually mentioned) The only debate that ever springs up in this article is genre and the genre that has lasted the longest is Heavy metal. And it's verifiable based on the references already present in the article. Fair Deal 11:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I definitely agree with that. There's sometimes too much emphasis put on detail. --Dane ~nya 11:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You are right because the recent SOAD efforts sounds more like traditional heavy metal than St Anger and where is the fact that it is heavy metal stated in the article, I don't see it once.--E tac 19:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well this is an encyclopedia and its goal should be to provide as much detail as possible on the subject and just calling St. Anger "Heavy metal" doesn't give much description as the heavy metal page mostly includes information on classic heavy metal which St. Anger sounds nothing like, perhaps listing both heavy and alternative metal would be best as it would be more correct than when heavy metal and hard rock were both listed here for quite a while and just heavy metal would give the reader misleading information. Load and Reload are worth mentioning Hard Rock although I wouldn't say that is the case with St. Anger--E tac 19:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, alternative metal seems good to me, if heavy metal itself isn't terribly accurate. After all, alternative means different; I will be sorely disappointed in humanity if "alternative" means a set-in-stone criteria, and not just different. --Dane ~nya 07:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
So why does it keep being removed? What else can you call it?
from Alternative metal
"It is characterized by some heavy metal trappings (most notably heavy riffs), but usually with a pronounced experimental edge, including unconventional lyrics, odd time signatures, unusual technique, a resistance to conventional approaches to heavy music and an incorporation of a wide range of influences outside of the metal music scene."
I challange anyone to find a better description of what St. Anger is on a genre page on wikipedia. Then we can talk about removing it as it is obvious that although not a full on nu metal album it was heavily influenced by it, not having solos on a heavy metal album is unconventional, and the production was very experimental.--E tac 14:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


To the user who is saying to check the infobox links, the only one that list genres is AMG and that also says it is a speed metal album. If you can get St. Anger on the list of speed metal albums here here you will have a case for its reliability, until then please stop removing the correct genre.--E tac 14:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm well it is still getting removed by unlogged IPs as usual. Perhaps this page should be protected from new and unregistered users.--E tac 14:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia was built on the contributions of anonymous editors...mind WP:CIVIL please. Wikipedia is not a source for itself. You can't justify an arguement based on article content. The given review links satisfy WP:V. IF it is your personal opinion that you do not like the links....so what...personal opinions are not allowed on Wikipedia. Ther is no verifiable reference for calling the album Alternative metal...because it simply isn't. The single genre infobox satisfies WP:CITE, WP:V and WP:CON. And I doubt Si Nick will be as forgiving the next time he reviews the 3RR reports. 142.179.103.183 14:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia does allow personal opinions, just not in the articles themselves. That's why E tac is bring it up on the talk page. How about we all forget about these links regarding genre, and let's discuss things, okay? Let's discuss the genre by referring to heavy metal music and alternative metal. Yes, that's allowed; there's nothing worse than an encyclopaedia that contradicts itself. We're here to discuss, so let's forget about editing the article, and let's get to discussing the genre, okay?
In my personal opinion, I would simply link to heavy metal. Why? Because I believe if there's this "controversy" about it, we might as well resort to using the simplest thing it can be called, which is heavy metal. No subgenres. No adornments. Nothing to indicate it's "unique". Just simple heavy metal. However, according to the alternative metal page, it states that alternative metal can be accurately described as a mix of heavy metal, and alternative rock. A question I must raise is, is that what describes St. Anger? Personally, I would describe it's sound as a bit of nu metal mixed with plain heavy metal. Granted, it's mostly heavy metal than nu metal, but if this is true... the alternative metal article mentions nu metal as a subgenre of alternative metal. Therefore, if it sounds like I said above, perhaps both heavy metal, and alternative metal be listed?
Personally, under the circumstances, I would go ahead and list plain heavy metal, just for the time being. No objections to that I trust? It would be pretty accurate, in the meantime while everything is worked out. Also, anonymous user, please read the reviews themselves. I notice they list speed, thrash, heavy metal, and even hard rock. So, how does one simply pick out one specific genre? Or aren't the reviews reliable sources? (Personally, I disagree about reviews. They are blatantly biased; it's a person's opinion for god's sake! So I disagree with using reviews as a source. I could make a review on one of those sites saying it's "brutal hippycore" and it would be as valid as the next review.) --Dane ~nya 15:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I must stress my point. Are those reviews really reliable sources? --Dane ~nya 15:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
No, they are not valid sources. There is no authority here, there is no verifiable source, so those folks in here who don't have the conviction to sign in when they edit can't hide behind WP:CITE. This is simply a case where the accuracy of this article falls to the work of editors who know the subject. Druff 05:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no verifiable source for alternative. Reviews from teen blogs can't be used and, by Wikipedia Policy, "professional " reviews can be used as refs. This topic was already beat to death a long time ago by the teenyboppers over at the metal project. The only consensus that ever resulted was the single genre box. Also, if one were to be picky about sub-genres, in actuality...heavy metal is a sub-genre of Rock music. But it has enough stable status to stand as a genre of its own. And it's certainly not worth getting a 1 week block for 3RR just to blast personal POV above consensus. My own personal POV would be to call it "Tin can metal"..."311 called they want their snare drum back". But, that's my POV and it's not referenced so....it can't be added. 156.34.142.110 15:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
But the reviews that mention heavy metal, also mention thrash metal, hard rock, and speed metal. How does one know which to choose, apart from personal opinion? --Dane ~nya 01:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
You don't need a source for genres as genres are all relative, I have seens plenty of sites list St. Anger as nu metal, so if we are going by online sources you could literally find a dozen genres listed for each particular band or album. What one person calls one thing somone else might call something else, so we should go by the guidlines established on the articles for genres on wikipedia as that is the most informative to readers and overall makes the most sense.--E tac 03:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree, that'll make it consistent with the entire encyclopaedia. So, the issue is still whether to list heavy metal alone, or with alternative metal? Should we list alternative metal, to state it's, well, alternate to heavy metal, but still is? --Dane ~nya 08:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Why list it as an heavy metal album at all? It does not sounds like a heavy metal album of any metal sub-genre.--RafaelG 03:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
{{WP:SPAM|Spam links and blogs]] cannot be used as references. see: WP:SOURCE for guidelines for proper Wikipedia referencing. If a valid source for alternate can be found it can cetainly be used. But refs must meet up to WP:SOURCE, WP:CITE and WP:V. Spam links like amateur webzines and blogs certainly don't match that. Professional music publications are the only valid sources aloud. 198.164.250.229 03:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
So Alex Skolnick is an amateur webzine or a blog?--E tac 09:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
All the more reason to quit quoting policies and reversions, and to discuss. Dynamic IP, your opinions? --Dane ~nya 10:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Exactly and just because something is unreferenced doesn't give you the right to remove it, "heavy metal" isn't referenced either so perhaps that should be removed as well. The article is already tagged as being unrefferenced, perhaps it should be put up for deletion by our anonymous IP friends logic. --E tac 07:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

"WE WILL MAKE EVERYTHING METAL. BLACKER THAN THE BLACKEST BLACK, TIMES INFINITY."

We must all remember these words of wisdom from Nathan Explosion, everyone. Think about it for a second--does it really *matter* if it's "heavy" metal or "alternative" metal or "nu" metal? Can we all kinda agree that, y'know, it *sucks?* Seriously. We're debating if a turd is more brown or more green, here--at the end of the day, it's still a turd. (anonymous user)

It's ludicrous to put St. Anger under the same genre tag as something like Judas Priest's British Steel or Iron Maiden's Number of the Beast i.e. actual heavy metal records. St. Anger bears absolutely no resemblance to them, and it clearly isn't in the same genre. "Alternative Metal" is far more accurate. I don't want to get into a revert war over this, but it's my right to edit the article, and so I am. Druff 00:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a matter of opinion--ie. necessarily subjective. I personally think that bands like Judas Priest sound more like hard rock than metal. I know they aren't classified that way, but if I started editing the Priest article based solely on my own musical tastes, I'd get trashed. And rightfully so. There are about 1,001 different splinters of the metal genre now, it's gettin frickin insane. The album, IMO, is long, boring, and a bunch of noise. It's also metal.
Wikipedia is about reference and verification. Opinions have no place here. No valid ref exists for anything other than whats there. 156.34.216.32 00:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no valid reference for the "heavy metal" genre tag, so you don't have a leg to stand on. Only your personal opinion. Druff 05:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
All the pro-reviews validate the current status of the page. And previous concensus supports it. 156.34.216.32 10:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
You claim you can cite specific sources to support your position, but you never do. Please, do go ahead and cite any specific reviews you want. I will simply cite other pro reviews which support the my position. As for a consensus, there is just as large of a consensus supporting the "Alternative metal" genre, if not larger.Druff 22:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Go ahead and try. There has been 1 user in the past who diagreed with the pro reviews that are already linked in the infobox. He attempted to add a different genre with a reference but all he could come up with were fansite blogs and chats. A verifiable ref that meets up to Wiki-standard is more than welcome. But blogs and chats and fansites are not permitted as refs. And so far thats all thats ever been found. Ample valid refs are already available for the existing genre. It's OK to add another one provided a quality citation can be found. Good luck. 156.34.216.32 23:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistency in recording date

Both in history and reception:

Five and a half years elapsed between the release of the band's previous studio album, ReLoad, and the recording of St. Anger, which began in 2002.

Recording came to a halt in July 2001

Joetheodd 22:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation of album's name

Should it be added in the first paragraph how the album's name is pronounced? Like "Saint Anger"?80.235.68.181 08:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. 17:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pitchfork review

Read it properly, they gave it 0.8 not 8 so a 0. God, people are stupid sometimes. 62.136.157.69 (talk) 09:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

I can't stand refs in infoboxes and am a strong proponent of "put the cited text in the article". But this page is a magnet for "nu", "alt", "groove" etc etc etc pitchers who use the terms in more of an "anti" or negative context rather than a true description. The 4 refs in the infobox seem to derail the "I hate the band" users attempts to POV to page. They are clutter... but following their addition to the page it has been very very quiet for some time with only the odd goofball sneaking in. 156.34.216.38 (talk) 11:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No one ever pays attention to the hidden notes. The refs could be added to a "style" paragraph I supposed... and then a link to the section put in the field in lace of any genre at all. Thoughts? 156.34.216.38 (talk) 11:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Consensus on the talk page should dicate what genre appears in the infobox. If people keep changing it, keep changing it back per consensus and common sense. In my experience people do pay attention to the hidden notes, so it is a valuable option. Additionally, even if others are trying to argue "nu metal" or the like, "heavy metal" covers all those genres (as they are subgenres of heavy metal), so it's the most sensisble solution anyways. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh I agree 100% that hm should just cover off any sub-genres. But this page doesn't normally attract users who 'play by the Wiki rules'. Just look at the edit history... going way back. That stupid little field in the box has been a bone of contention as long as the page has been around. I spoke to PEJL about it a long time ago. We all agree that cited text goes better in the main body of the article. But for some pages... this one being a good example... the cites just seem to have a cooling effect on a any of the "anti-M" gang that pass by. As for the hidden notes... just about every British band has a hidden note telling editors to use British English spelling and grammar and point out WP:ENGVAR... but those pages still get slashed with "X IS a band" anyways regardless of the hidden instructions. I edit hundreds of music articles every week (day :D ) so I see it all. 156.34.216.38 (talk) 11:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Still, putting four ref tags is not the way to tackle the problem. I'd rather revert someone and explain to them the page consensus than make the page look awkward. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thats why I suggested creating a style sub-section w. refs... and then just sticking a link to the section in the genre field in place of any specific genre. 156.34.216.38 (talk) 12:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the rehearsal DVD

Should the above mentioned DVD that came with the CD be mentioned in the article?--Rockfang (talk) 04:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Amazon reviews say it all.

The people who purchased this album contributed to what now amounts to maybe 6,000 total reviews of what I dub "The Day The Music Died" and the 3-star average the album has on Amazon is almost misleading, because the large majority of fans gave it either one star (many stated they'd give it no stars if they could) or 5 stars, thus mathematically creating said average. But the album critics of Amazon had some rather harsh things to say at times. Here's a few quotes:

I can go for a vocalist trying to do something different, but some of it here sounds like what he might have been screeching in the rehab center when he was withdrawing from Jagermeister...give him a freaking shot NOW - these guys were just better metal-masters with a buzz on - sorry!
Bottom line - some say this is for 'Metallica fans only'. Translated - charity. Give 15 bucks to some starving kid with flys on his face before you give these rich old metal masters pension money! Maybe this will send a message to our heroes - Get out a do the kick-a CD that we KNOW you have in you!
I'd rather hear my mother-in-law gossip than hear this CD.

This one's a lemon.

This sounds like it was recorded in the men's room at Burger King
The video for "St. Anger" being shot in San Quentin was a nice touch... that's where they belong for doing this to their fans.
How does someone wake up one day and say to themselves "hey, it would be cool if I stole Oscar the Grouch's garbage can, took it to the studio, and banged on it for 75 minutes instead of using my regular drum kit.
Put it this way, if you put third graders with potty mouths into a room with guitars, told them to write about what makes them angry, add in some "cool" swear words here and there, and then put a retarded, deaf kid in the producers chair, you'd make a better "metal" album than this
it would be more entertaining to watch a cat use a litter box than waste your time and money on this turd.

I think you get the idea. -Alan 24.184.184.177 (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Did this have anything to do with changing the article?--Rockfang (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
It did in the sense that it's offering a helpful and concise look at the fans' reaction to the album and can be reflected in the article's description of said fan reception. There's not enough representation of that in the article. The fact is, you can really get an idea of how the fans viewed the album and who liked and who hated it. The "older" Metallica fans who had bought their music since their early thrash-metal days couldn't even believe that Metallica could make such an album while the younger generation of fans who are into the Nu-Metal scene (some speculate this was metallica's attempt to appeal to those fans) and don't per se remember their original style, had high praise for the album. Those are the sort of details that are omitted from here that should be included. Obviously don't quote those reviews, but they are the main themes of online criticism and I summed up which types of fans loved it and which abhorred it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.184.177 (talk) 02:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

"This sounds like it was recorded in the men's room at Burger King" What's really funny about that sentence is that about a week after the album came out, when I was taking a piss in a cubicle in Burger King on Grafton Street, the lyrics to Frantic was written on the door. Where it belongs. JackorKnave (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What do THEY think? (of the most dissapointing album in the history of metal)

Since this is such a controversial album, does anyone know of any interviews from Metallica in regards to St. Anger, and what they themselves think about ot, especially now. JackorKnave (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)