St. Anger is clearly a record inspired by bands who made their name in an era where complex guitar-based instrumentation is ignored, all that's old-school is kept aside, and a new form of "core" aggression takes over the heaviness that once used to be. I still remember the thrill the "Black Album" gave me and the disappointment I got from "Load" and "Re-Load". I bet every metal fan used to love "Kill 'Em All", and I'm very sure that many metal fans came to dislike "St. Anger".

Is this album an expression of need for progress? If it is, then maybe progress towards another kind of music would have been a lot better recieved... maybe welcomed too. If I were to hear this kind of material from a newly formed band then I'd be ecstatic, but this just isn't the music a band ends up playing after all those years in music - it's a bit more easy accepting it as a starting point rather than an end-up zone. Even if I'd try to put my prejudice aside and experiment with a more objective reviewing technique I'd still have to be pissed off, because if production wouldn't be as professional (or expensive - whatever) these songs wouldn't have any power at all. You can't make it on attitude alone. The album is quite boring, even though there's a lot of pretty good ideas incorporated in it's structure.

Metallica might have been experimenting or might have been turning towards commercial fields for financial reasons, but the bottom line is that "St. Anger", although very new and quite interesting, is not very exciting overall. So that's it! - my opinions, but I do encourage you to decide for yourself, and not just go on my word on this one...

written by Cseke Róbert

Playing time: 75.02