Talk:St. Anger/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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

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?

Is there any connection between the title "St. Anger" and the real-life Catholic saint

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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!

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)

I have a funny question: Do people always edit this page so much, or is it because of my work on it? Lol, I'm just wondering because I JUST put it on watch the day I started working on it. Burningclean _[speak] 00:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I heard on a radio station that metallica may release a remastered version of st. anger with guitar solos, and better drums in between now and by the time they start their european leg of their tour. can anyone confirm/deny this??

See

loki

01:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

that doesnt answer my question... if the rumor i heard is true then it could help the article. im not posting a forum.. but thanks for "answering" my question —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.175.111 (talk) 02:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It's obvious this album isn't heavy metal in it's pure form. I don't really think it's Nu Metal (though Metallica aimed for the popularity and the comercial succes that genre was having at the moment) because it lacks ALL the elements it should have; yes, it has the harsh vocals and the tuned down guitars, and passages instead of solos, but it lacks the groove and feel of the bass and the rapping. It could be alternative metal, but when we read wikipedia's entry about the genre, we find that Nu Metal it's a subcategory, so it could easily be classified as Nu Metal. Some bands like Godsmack (which I don't think they're are Nu Metal) has the same elements of Nu Metal as this album and lack the same! (Rapping, the funky bass, etc.), so, I think St. Anger should be Nu Metal. Yes, I'm contradicting my own disregard for the classification (as I say before), but the comparition with Godsmack (for example) it's very interesting. My source, of course, it's this site's description of the genre Nu Metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kakisto (talk • contribs) 04:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

whats up with that? said to be replaced with one not showing the PA sticker, but is lower quality, and if released with a PA sticker it should be displayed.

Shouldn't this read, "since ...And Justice For All"? --66.240.89.45 (talk) 23:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

to NOT feature means he wasn't there. He was on AJFA. The Real Libs-speak politely 00:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

see, at first glance it looks like it is saying that he was also on Master Of Puppets, but I see your point.--66.240.89.45 (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

i dont understand to why the genre is just labelled as "heavy metal". it should be more specific. It is unusual for it to be just heavy metal, because that way its labelling it as traditional heavy metal (black sabbath, iron maiden, motorhead, etc.). this album is far from traditional heavy metal, and if any metallica albums are traditional heavy metal itll be black album, load and re-load. but st anger is different. theres definately a lot more blast beats, agressive vocals, etc. its just weird to call this album just "heavy metal". im not sure what to call this, so im asking what we should call it, because i know im not in the right position to label a new genre to this album, though it surely cannot be just called 'heavy metal'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Okram 09 (talk • contribs) 07:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It is classed as heavy metal because it is supported by several

WP:RS criteria. Occasionally vandals/trolls will try to add nu metal or alternative metal. But those terms are obvious attempts to add blatantly false information and those edits are reverted quickly and the users warned or blocked for their actions. If a reliable source for thrash or speed metal were found then it could be used. But the album is really just plain old heavy metal anyways and most of the citations reflect that. There is no experimentation in sound from this album.like the previous studio albums that drifted from heavy metal to hard rock and back to heavy metal. This one is just straight ahead/average heavy metal from start to finish. And that is what the citations support. The Real Libs-speak politely

08:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree, but like, its too different from traditional heavy metal. listen to black sabbath or iron maiden, then listen to this album. barely any traits are the same. and id say possibly speed metal should be added too, because it would make more sense. though thrash metal wouldnt, since the trademark of thrash metal (frequent guitar solos) are completely absent from that album. you also mentioned that "vandals" would label it as nu metal, or alternative metal. id somewhat agree though with the nu metal part, because some (not all) parts of the album resemble to the nu metal style. though if nu metal was labelled on this album, constant changes would be happening because evry time a band is labelled nu metal, its all of a sudden a giant bomb dropped on the page. many people would disagree particularly cos lots of people see nu metal as a criticizing term of a certain type of metal, which it isnt. its an actual genre. also, lots of people like to think that all nu metal is hip hop influenced, which it isnt. look at slipknot, old disturbed, mudvayne, old chimaira, and other bands like that. and those bands also sound similar in style to this album, therefore id say itd either be speed metal or nu metal, but like i said, its not up to me because itll most likely be changed again. plus, those sources citing that it's original heavy metal cannot be all depended on. i mean, what website in the end is reliable for genre listing? Okram 09 (talk) 10:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The citations don't say

consensus... which is the other thing Wikipedia is built on. The Real Libs-speak politely

11:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Usually when it says just 'heavy metal' it means traditional heavy metal. If there is no stated genre then it shouldn't just be called heavy metal. i thaught the whole point of genre listings in wiki is that it is specific about the subgenre. Okram 09 (talk) 23:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice... This album just sound like nu metal, but wikipedia says it's heavy metal and when people change into nu metal, they are considered trolls and are blocked from editing. Traditional or not Heavy metal is a generalization and the sources say "heavy metal album", "heavy metal band" etc. Kill 'Em All is also heavy metal, and so are Master of Puppets, Ride the Lightning, and ...And Justice for All, so lets change the genre in the articles from thrash metal to heavy metal, what do you think about it? 80.230.164.52 (talk) 15:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the edits changing it to "nu metal" are undone because they're without sources. That's what this is all about, you see: Puppets has sources calling it thrash metal, so we can call it thrash metal. St. Anger has sources calling it "heavy metal", and thus far I haven't seen people provide a good selection of sources terming it "nu metal", so that stays out.

talk

) 22:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You see, but my point is, the whole point of genres and subgenres in wiki is to be specific about the style. now dont u find it unusual that all of a sudden just for this article, people wanna just say "thats fine, just call it heavy metal. theres no need for a specific subgenre". that is all i am curious about. Okram 09 (talk) 12:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Libs sums it up fine: it's all about the sources. Find a good number of reliable sources calling it "nu metal", and the genre could be added. But so far it's just the opinion of a few editors, which doesn't really count for much on wikipedia. There's a distict difference between "heavy metal" as in traditional metal (like Sabbath, Priest, etc) and "heavy metal" as a general umbrella term for the genre as a whole. Not all albums fit neatly into existing genres, sometimes it's best to just use a more general one when specific ones don't appear in the sources.

talk

) 22:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/metallica/albums/album/282685/review/6212581 - "No wonder there's an authenticity to St. Anger's fury that none of the band's rap-metal followers can touch."

theres your verdict for nu metal. No sources for it. One against it, the Rolling Stone is a professional music critic, there opinion matters. Wikipedia editors are not proffesion music critics, theirs does not. Ducky610 (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

When I bought mine it came with a DVD, it did not say limited-edition or any thing.

All versions of the album have both a CD and a DVD.--Starman15317 (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone think that this picture should be added to the page (http://991.com/newGallery/Metallica-St-Anger---Comple-383903.jpg) of the four covers originally planned to be released? Starman15317 (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• if they are official, i think so.

94.214.69.18 (talk) 12:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

this has become an edit war, unsigned user's changing "heavy metal" to "nu metal" all the time. maybe somebody should consider securing it? Levygerards1 (talk) 11:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

"St. Anger" gets generally favorable reviews! Look at Metacritic.com: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay-Jay215 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Everyone knows that. But this page is always under attack from musically impaired teenagers who vandalise and weasel word the page into a less than stellar encyclopedia article. If the section can be re-written in an encyclopedic neutral tone with proper references and not poor quality amateur fanspam sites like metal-archives. that would be great. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

So, critics loved it and fans hate it. 24.223.154.154 (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I am a fan and I love it. It's so raw and passionate. It would be false to make a statement like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.59.16.106 (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I've taken shits that were raw and passionate. Doesn't make them any good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.61.64.108 (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure; st anger is nu metal because of the rapping in the unnamed feeling and the dj-schratching in sweet amber. i've got reliable sources and if you don't object, i will attempt to change it. 14:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• Look above. We tallied the sources, and the sources say "heavy metal". And, by the way, there is no rapping or DJ scratching on this album, first off, and secondly, you've got nu metal confused with rap rock. (Sugar Bear (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC))
• sure is. listen to to the "a year before" part in the intro and the scratching in the chorus of sweet amber

~~ What are you talking about? Are you hearing a different version to us or do you genuinely not know what scraching and rapping sounds like? Listen to Meteroa by Linkin Park (fairly typical nu metal album). That has rapping and scraching. That is what Nu Metal sounds like. St Anger does not. Not to mention you have not provided one of those reliable sources you were talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.228.160 (talk) 09:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• there are no reliable source's
• St. Anger is part NuMetal part Heavy Metal. I'm a big fan of NuMetal and I listen to many of bands with this type of genre. Additionally, Linkin Park is not the only NuMetal sound. For example, compare it with Korn, it sounds completely diferent, doesn't it? But it's the same genre. Let alone, the lead singer of Korn doesn't rap. Now here are the reason why St Anger is partly a NuMetal album:

1. It has lower tuned guitars 2. It's raw and aggressive 3. It has a lot of chromatic riffs/ simple riffs/ typical NuMetal riffs 4. I don't know anything about the lyrics but if they are angry and full of hate, it's definately a NuMetal album! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.175.204.211 (talk) 06:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Down tuned guitars and raw agression are used in more than nu metal, sludge metal also combinds downtuned guitars with raw agression, (which is mainly borrowed from hardcore punk). The riffs certainly are not nu metal, listen to frantic and listen to blind by korn and tell me they are in the same genre, the guitars riffs are alot more abrasive and alot faster than typical nu metal riffs. As stated above there is no hip hop influence, the bass is almost inaudible where as nu metal is very bass driven. And korn most certainly does rap... Listen to songs like Y'all want a single, coming undone or play me... they even have a 'rap battle' with fred durst in All in the Family... you dont have to sound like emminem or, since we're taking about nu metal, fred durst, to be rapping. Finally, if having angery hateful lyrics makes you nu metal then we should consider adding many different types of metal and hardcore bands to the list of nu metal bands... 124.181.133.180 (talk) 23:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This album is I'd say a combination of sludge metal, groove metal, and industrial metal. The downtuned guitars is something seen in sludge metal alot along with the way its played. The groove would be counted for the aggression in the music. In addition, It has an industrial sounds over all of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.8.65.190 (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Quitte funny you mention meteora is typical Nu metal, because if you look at the wikipedia article of the album. there's a discussion about if its Nu metal or Alternate metal.

Get your facts right. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levygerards1 (talk • contribs) 11:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

How does that have a bearing on this page? Of course theres debate because LP fanboys dont want their favorite band labeled under such a contraverial genre. Any unbiased listener can hear that meteora is nu metal (simple riffs, hardcore screams mixed with clean singing and rapping, hip hop drum beats, dj scraching, very bass driven tracks), just like you can here this has next to or none of those and is not nu metal. 124.176.181.34 (talk) 06:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• So what? Why didn't they change it then, if you now for sure you are right?

Why dont you change it? Oh, and maybe another suggestion, Why can't it just say "Nu Metal, Heavy Metal".... Why? 84.87.85.28 (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

What? Do you know what you are talking aboiut? It wasnt changed because it is nu metal and there are many sources which back that up... This is not a nu metal album! If it is, proove it. Where are any reliable sources that say this is nu metal? Any? 124.180.14.175 (talk) 00:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• This says it all:

http://metalpundit.blogspot.com/2008/04/metallica-st-anger.html P.S. I'm Levygerards1 84.26.89.7 (talk) 14:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

A blog? You relise those are amature and not reliable? The fact that it uses the term 'mallcore' kind of gives it away... for all we know you wrote it yourself... Heres a professional review by the rolling stone stating it isnt nu metal and also isnt just whineing they dont like the music - http://www.rollingstone.com/music/reviews/album/7733/38079 .... oh and heres another by popmatters - vhttp://www.popmatters.com/music/reviews/m/metallica-stanger.shtml ... Just because the music isnt particually good doesnt make it nu metal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.217.120.179 (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

eye added alternative metal to the genres. cuz itt izz prih tee all turr nay tivv. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterOfBucket (talk • contribs) 22:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

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)

Hey why would you need to tell someone how to pronounce the word st. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard.darren (talk • contribs) 10:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

They may figure St is for Street and not Saint.--204.96.148.75 (talk) 00:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Not if you understand basic English grammar. If it was meant to be "street" it would've been "Anger St." --Dexter_prog (talk • contribs • count) @ 14:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

"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)

St. Anger sucked. And although everyone feels obligated to say Load and ReLoad sucked too, both those albums (re-orchenstated) had a good showing on the "S&M" album, which although you'll never admit it in public, you loved. ---Boot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.231.21 (talk) 05:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

err... you mean Load and Reload, right? Have you ever actually listened to those albums? --Dexter_prog (talk • contribs • count) @ 23:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Fear of piracy? the album was so bad why would you want to steal any of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.64.24 (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that hating this Album became a stupid trend. It was one of the best albums they ever made, and I've heard them all.--75.139.103.133 (talk) 01:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's a scary thought, I just got St. Anger on scratchy Elektra used vinyl, I now have a total appreciation for this album. See the album (vinyl that is) sounds better cause certain parts of the song really come out on vinyl. It's hard to explain, but I've always said the CD was missing something. Literally, when they re-issue St. Anger on vinyl, pick that gem up. Honestly, I am totally blown away, if only the CD sounded THIS FUCKIN' GOOD!!! ;)24.68.45.25 (talk) 02:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

How is this an Alternative metal / nu metal album?? The production is nowhere near polished enough, the songs are far too long, there is no hip hop elements (mostly used in nu metal but are present in some alternative metal), it has nothing to do with alternative rock and the only real "experimentation" is the lack of guitar solos, which are rarely used by other metal bands while also clearly not being alt/nu metal (ie Kataklysm, Strapping Young Lad), down-tuning; also used by sludge metal, metallic hardcore, groove metal (or modern metal in general) and hardcore punk bands, and the drums; which are used by no-body... And from the discussion above I can see that there are no sources for anything other than Heavy metal... So why is there even so many reverts recently? Dims25 (talk) 02:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I saw a increase of vandalism regarding the St. Anger album. Those motherfucking vandals just turned the page into a mess, by changing music genres. Why not lament all of wiki-vandalism, and add a semi-protected sign? '| () () `'/ I> (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

is it me or does this album have some Bluesy sound in it ?? like the song : Unnamed Feeling (Wich is a song that i really love on the album) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.82.72.88 (talk) 10:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

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 irrelevant.

I think it's more like Groove Metal.

Genre is definately nu metal or at least alternative metal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Refriedbeansmexicano (talk • contribs) 23:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

whether the album is nu metal or not is debatable, but shoot me again IS nu metal — Preceding unsigned comment added by I call the big one bitey (talk • contribs) 17:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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)

I know rite? So Eagles of Death Metal should be death metal then, according to your standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.103.212 (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2008 (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

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: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

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: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.

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)

Whether the album was good or not is all about opinion, but debating the genre is stupid. all of the sub-genres are still covered under the genre of Heavy Metal. Whether its as good as the original heavy metal acts like black sabbath or judas priest is irrelevent. Call it what it is and quit arguing over technicalities. heavy riffs, pounding drums, and dark lyrics, whats not Heavy metal about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.33.106 (talk) 16:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC) i've heard album called many genres, from nu metal to post-grunge to garage rock, but heavy metal/alternative metal is the best description for this album imo, i'm sure the majority of people here agree with me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I call the big one bitey (talk • contribs) 18:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

A source to prove that this is a nu metal album: [2] from BBC, reliable or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.73.138.165 (talk) 01:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• BBC is professional thus is your source reliable. I think we can change the genre to Nu Metal, Heavy Metal now?

84.87.85.28 (talk) 13:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

You'd need a lot more than that. There is already an overwhelming consensus against it. Mr Pyles (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The BBC would be a perfectly reliable source, but the article linked to does not in fact describe Metallica, or St. Anger as a nu metal album. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I just picked this up on original Elektra vinyl, songs sounds way different then they do on CD (Invisible Kid has an interesting echo in the main chorus), the music sounds more focused and clearer to understand, downside is that it sounds a hell of a lot more quieter, in fact the album is more listenable now. Could this be because of the loudness wars with CD's?24.68.45.25 (talk) 01:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible as that is clearly an issue with their latest album death magnetic which is compressed to death with audible distortion and almost no dynamic range. but that album was produced by rick rubin and I remember two other records produced by him that have the same artefacts (johnny cash "hurt" and "califorication" by the Red Hot Chili Peppers). St. Anger was produced by Bob Rock who also did all the decent work on previous Metallica Albums. I think with St.Anger they wanted it to sound that raw and I like it. 93.232.195.189 (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

allmusic - Hard Rock, Heavy Metal, Speed Metal

Blender - Thrash (tsk tsk tsk)

EW - Metal, Hard Rock

IGN - Metal, Rock

New York - Metal

NME - Heavy Metal

Pitchfork media - nothing specifc, mostly just complaining really

Rolling Stone - Heavy Metal (states not rap metal)

Village voice - nothing speicfic

This list clearly shows Heavy Metal and Hard Rock as the dominante genres, Rolling stone actually states not rap metal (what they generally call nu metal) so that can go. I Also do not see the word Alternative anywhere, Ducky610 (talk) 11:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Would whoever insistes on ALt metal please provied a reliable source or I will keep removing it. Ducky610 (talk) 09:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Simple, Publications are NOT reliable sources for genres. Listen to the music to determine the genre. I'm not against St. Anger being called just Heavy metal, but none of these sources improve chances of winning an argument whether or not the album is Alternative metal.69.180.175.133 (talk) 17:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)JRC3

• JRC3, we're not allowed to list genres by ear. That's personal opinion. (Sugar Bear (talk) 00:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC))

The tune, the sound of the drums, rap vocals on some themes... is not nu metal?? Erlandinho (talk) 14:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Please see the above sources. Also, you're confusing nu metal with rap rock; and there's no rapped vocals on this album. (Sugar Bear (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC))

What? He says nu metal, you say no there's no rap, and somehow he's the one mixing up nu metal and rap rock? What are you talking about? 69.122.244.46 (talk) 04:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Ummmm, so the tune and drums sounds like Korn or linkin park to you? I'm sure you couldnt find a reliable source for that if you tried —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.228.153 (talk) 06:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070626014337/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com:80/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?Mode=Archive&Date=12/11/2003 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/Blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?Mode=Archive&Date=12/11/2003
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081228210648/http://www.blender.com:80/guide/reviews.aspx?id=1886 to http://www.blender.com/guide/reviews.aspx?id=1886

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:St. Anger/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following

Last edited at 09:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 06:49, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

St. anger is not heavy metal, its nu metal with thrashmetal elements, heavy metal ist something totaly different, btw.: what was the source for that?

And your very reliable source that backs up your claim is ?

open channel

) 17:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

it is in the artikle, if you ever wathed on it, befor reverting my edits

Norschweden (talk

) 17:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

The source is still not a

reliable source. Instead of telling others not to edit-war (or in this case, genre-war) or calling "vandalism", how about you stop doing it yourself and actually reach a new consensus before changing the genre? I think that what makes this even more redundant, as I've found, is that it's a long-running issue. I've read the source, and it does not explicitly state that the album is a nu metal album. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)}

06:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

the source says, st. anger is "an album that was lyrically and structurally as nu metal as it could possibly get" and "Metallica would try to win over the nu metal audience with St Anger three years later". while the source for heavy metal just says its metal, which ist the "supergenre" whose subgenres are for example nu metal, black metal and heavy metal

Norschweden (talk

) 07:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, so I missed the first sentence (I was partially basing my argument on the factual inaccuracy of the second sentence). But in my further reading, I noticed something that you, too, appear to have overlooked. If you look closely at the top of the article, among the many hashtags that are there, what do you see? #InMyOpinion. What does that imply? It's an opinionative column. Therefore, it is unreliable – as you have undoubtedly been told numerous times before – and needs to go. Again, you need to find a reliable source in order to prove that the album is nu metal. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 08:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Which column about genres is not in the authors opinion? ists always the opinion of the author, its not math there is not the one and only solution, it needs to be classified as a genre by people who are exprets. and btw the source of the heavy metal thin is still wrong because it just says metal. and i wasnt "told numerous times before" its not my source it was added by 179.214.204.239 and i just revertet all this "nothing about this album is really 'nu metal'....the band is a heavy metal band though"-edits without any source. i'll restore the version before you came and we can search for real sources, before (!) we chenge something

Norschweden (talk

) 09:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

i think this is some thin we can all agree with

Awesome, awesome – this is the kind of source that we need, a review written by experts. The only problem for you is that it says "Thrash Metal, Heavy Metal, Alternative Metal", which supports the previous genre(s) before you changed it to nu metal some time ago. Death Magnetic currently says, "Heavy metal, thrash metal" – if we were to use this source, that is how we would set it out on this article as well, and just as likely on Hardwired... to Self-Destruct. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 09:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

its about the header not about the reviews nu and alternative metal are almost the same, i would have written alternative metal in the article, but the other guys always added nu metal (btw if you look at the history i just restored never added totaly new things) but yes i know that you are not a big friend of looking in the history

Norschweden (talk

) 09:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I have already stated that I'm aware that there's a long-running dispute over the genres – I have indeed looked at the history, if that wasn't already clear enough – and saying that "nu and alternative metal are almost the same" is

original research. I know that you're not the only person who's changed the genres to nu metal – but I, in turn, am not the only person to disagree with this particular source that you have kept on re-implementing into the article, which is still an unreliable source. This one that you have suggested above is far, far better – except that the genres would be "Heavy metal, thrash metal" if it were to be used. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)}

10:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

the main problem is that many people (including the guys who wrote

Norschweden (talk

) 10:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Traditional heavy metal is still listed as a subgenre on the heavy metal article, so I would still not be opposed to using heavy metal as a genre. I would simply have it as "Heavy metal, thrash metal", which is a bit more simple, but consistent with some of their other albums. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 10:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

that is the problem it is not like the other albums it has big nu/alternative metal influence it would be wrong to ignore this. "Thrash Metal and Alternative Metal" is the best i think, but "Heavy Metal and Alternative Metal" would be also ok

Norschweden (talk

) 10:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, if you're so insistent on using alternative metal, would you object if I just replaced the nu metal and opinionative column with your new source and all three genres (Heavy metal, thrash metal, alternative metal)? At least then we'll have come to a solid agreement and we'll have some stability, if you will, in the representation of the genres for this album, at least. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 12:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

ok

Norschweden (talk

) 15:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I have just modified 2 external links on St. Anger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140326022406/http://www.metallica.com/releases/frantic.asp to http://www.metallica.com/releases/frantic.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/rpm/028020-110.01-e.php?PHPSESSID=v2a76h62to0aart05gg0u3agj2&q1=Metallica&x=20&y=5

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I noticed there is a lot of genre warring going on, are the genres currently listed sourced? If not would it be best if the genre section is left blank? Lukejordan02 (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Lukejordan02, look at the end of the "Recording" section – that's where the sourced genres are. Had they not been, leaving the parameter blank wouldn't be the solution – you go and look for sourced genres. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 11:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok thanks Lukejordan02 (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I just had an edit I made reverted for it apparently being "disruptive", And I have no idea why.

So, on this article, under the 'Recording' sub-section, there are two photos of Jason Newsted and Robert Trujilo that are placed one on top of the other with the caption reading "Jason Newsted, left" and "Robert Trujilo, right". Because of them being one on top of the other, I edited the caption to say "Jason Newsted, top" and "Robert Trujilo, bottom".

Someone please explain why this edit may be "disruptive"

Have a nice day Bagpiper88 (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm looking at the article on a big screen and the images are side-by-side. You are using a mobile browser, which explains why you see them vertically stacked. Binksternet (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect St. Pissed the Fuck Off and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 13#St. Pissed the Fuck Off until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I dont think nu metal is an accurate genre for this album 82.3.235.223 (talk) 02:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Aight. so i have a couple of things i feel should be mentioned or discussed in further detail:

• More production discussion aspects: protools etc
• the album's mixed-to-later-negative reception: band responses then and later on (they do exist)
• fan response (aka negative)- fan re-recordings of st anger, other things indicative of this
• relation to some kind of monster documentary and the effects it had on the album's later reception; and the fact the documentary itself has been generally acclaimed by reviewers past/present.

rough ideas Chchcheckit (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)