I watched/listened to the DVD last night with headphones, and I thought it sounded a lot cleaner than the CD.
Anubis
No Lifer
Listening to it through for the first time now. Sounds ok. The speed is back to their Master and Lightning eras, but like you said about the solos, kind of has something missing. Songwriting isn't that great either.
I like the album alot.
If you're purchasing the album, watch the DVD FIRST. The sound quality is far superior.
If you're purchasing the album, watch the DVD FIRST. The sound quality is far superior.
hdeck
Lifer
- Sep 26, 2002
- 14,530
- 1
- 0
Originally posted by: Eli
Shrug. You could say the "similar riff" thing about their previous albums, also.Originally posted by: hdeck
Originally posted by: Eli
I had it burned yesterday.
It's different. I like it for that. You can't compare it to their older stuff though..
I admit I was a little disappointed about the no guitar solo thing. But the band said it just didn't fit the album, and I can agree with that.
well i don't think guitars tuned to c and playing of similar riffs in every song really fits eitheri'll listen to it again later. but now i think it's nap time.
Each album that they've done has had the "same sound", this album is no different.
of course albums are going to have similar sounds. but when you pop in RTL and listen "RTL" then "FTB" they are 2 VERY distinct songs. The same holds true for the songs on their self-titled album as well. i could go on, but i just woke up
Yeah, I know..Originally posted by: hdeck
Originally posted by: Eli
Shrug. You could say the "similar riff" thing about their previous albums, also.Originally posted by: hdeck
Originally posted by: Eli
I had it burned yesterday.
It's different. I like it for that. You can't compare it to their older stuff though..
I admit I was a little disappointed about the no guitar solo thing. But the band said it just didn't fit the album, and I can agree with that.
well i don't think guitars tuned to c and playing of similar riffs in every song really fits either
Each album that they've done has had the "same sound", this album is no different.
of course albums are going to have similar sounds. but when you pop in RTL and listen "RTL" then "FTB" they are 2 VERY distinct songs. The same holds true for the songs on their self-titled album as well. i could go on, but i just woke up
Shrug. I just don't like to critisize them for it.. It's their musical vision, not mine..
Anubis
No Lifer
ehh i listned to the whole thing and its not that good. def glad i didnt pay 10$ for it. ill prob end up deleting it
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,396
- 8,558
- 126
Originally posted by: hdeck
Originally posted by: Eli
Shrug. You could say the "similar riff" thing about their previous albums, also.Originally posted by: hdeck
Originally posted by: Eli
I had it burned yesterday.
It's different. I like it for that. You can't compare it to their older stuff though..
I admit I was a little disappointed about the no guitar solo thing. But the band said it just didn't fit the album, and I can agree with that.
well i don't think guitars tuned to c and playing of similar riffs in every song really fits either
Each album that they've done has had the "same sound", this album is no different.
of course albums are going to have similar sounds. but when you pop in RTL and listen "RTL" then "FTB" they are 2 VERY distinct songs. The same holds true for the songs on their self-titled album as well. i could go on, but i just woke up
FWTB?
Originally posted by: ElFenix
my preorder hasn't arrived
Same
Dont think Bestbuy will ship it untill atlteast the 10th First impressions after 1 complete listen:
1. I really like the strip down/raw sound. Especially on the drums (which many people seem to hate). It's a refreshing change IMO.
2. Some songs I really like, others I think are so-so, but as a whole I dig the album.
3. The general sound of the album is brutal and unlike anything Metallica has down before.
4. In parts it gets repititive but the more you listen to the songs the more you get into them and the less you notice.
5. These songs are going to rock live. I can't wait 'til July 26th and Summer Sanitarium in Chicago.
6. Sometimes Jaymz' voice cracks or goes out of tune a lil' too much. Kind of a detractor, but like the rest of the album's sound I'd rather see Metallica venture into new territory and occasionally stumble than "unerringly" remain the same and never change.
And just a side note I'm a fan of the old sh*t and the new sh*t, and, apparently the new, new sh*t.
Lethal
EDIT: I just lifted my post from the other St. Anger thread. Sense that post I'm half way thru my 2nd complete listen and I'm liking it more and more.
1. I really like the strip down/raw sound. Especially on the drums (which many people seem to hate). It's a refreshing change IMO.
2. Some songs I really like, others I think are so-so, but as a whole I dig the album.
3. The general sound of the album is brutal and unlike anything Metallica has down before.
4. In parts it gets repititive but the more you listen to the songs the more you get into them and the less you notice.
5. These songs are going to rock live. I can't wait 'til July 26th and Summer Sanitarium in Chicago.
6. Sometimes Jaymz' voice cracks or goes out of tune a lil' too much. Kind of a detractor, but like the rest of the album's sound I'd rather see Metallica venture into new territory and occasionally stumble than "unerringly" remain the same and never change.
And just a side note I'm a fan of the old sh*t and the new sh*t, and, apparently the new, new sh*t.
Lethal
EDIT: I just lifted my post from the other St. Anger thread. Sense that post I'm half way thru my 2nd complete listen and I'm liking it more and more.
I have to agree that this album is completely different than there older albums. I think this is like the worst Metallica album I have ever heard.
Maybe I haven't heard enough nu-metal or something but St. Anger doesn't sound like any of the Korn, Limp Bizcuit, Slipknot, disturbed, Stained or any of the other typical nu-metal I've run into on the radio.
With St. Anger I think Metallica has again gleaned aspects of varying musical styles, combined them with their style, and created something new. In the begining they took a bit from Sabbath, a bit from the NWBHM scene, a bit from punk and gave birth to speed metal. RTL showed a move away from pure speed into more melodic and complex sounds. MOP, their best album IMO, showed a further move away from speed into a melodic, heavy sound. AJFA did away w/some of the melodic elements and was a fast, technical, angry, cathartic album for them. TBA was another transition album (and IMO is their weakest effort). Then came the "Loads" (Load and ReLoad) which saw a much more blues-based-rock style of sound from Metallica as well as some of best lyrics to come from Hetfield. Now we are at St. Anger. A quick glance at St. Anger would label it a "throw back" to the "old days" but St. Anger is an evolution of the band like each album before it has been. Granted it's fast and heavy but it's not "old sh*t" fast and heavy. IMO St. Anger's sound is as different from the old sh*t as the Load's are.
If you go into St. Anger expecting to hear new sh*t or old sh*t you are going to be very dissapointed. Like I said in my other post, St. Anger is the new, new sh*t.
With St. Anger I think Metallica has again gleaned aspects of varying musical styles, combined them with their style, and created something new. In the begining they took a bit from Sabbath, a bit from the NWBHM scene, a bit from punk and gave birth to speed metal. RTL showed a move away from pure speed into more melodic and complex sounds. MOP, their best album IMO, showed a further move away from speed into a melodic, heavy sound. AJFA did away w/some of the melodic elements and was a fast, technical, angry, cathartic album for them. TBA was another transition album (and IMO is their weakest effort). Then came the "Loads" (Load and ReLoad) which saw a much more blues-based-rock style of sound from Metallica as well as some of best lyrics to come from Hetfield. Now we are at St. Anger. A quick glance at St. Anger would label it a "throw back" to the "old days" but St. Anger is an evolution of the band like each album before it has been. Granted it's fast and heavy but it's not "old sh*t" fast and heavy. IMO St. Anger's sound is as different from the old sh*t as the Load's are.
If you go into St. Anger expecting to hear new sh*t or old sh*t you are going to be very dissapointed. Like I said in my other post, St. Anger is the new, new sh*t.
Well I haven't listen to the whole thing yet but sofar I think its decent and after a few more times I might actually like it . I thick a lot of the haters just don't want to like it so they don't.
. I thick a lot of the haters just don't want to like it so they don't.
- Aug 21, 2002
- 18,368
- 11
- 81
1. I agree
2. I agree
3. I agree
4. I disagree... the more I listen to it, the more I hear variances and it doesn't sound so repetative
5. I agree... you know Kirk is going to rip some solo's live... he always does, I don't think that will change
6. I agree... James is trying to sing too much... he doesn't sound angry enough for an album titled "St. Anger"
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter