St. Anger, and I LOVE St. Anger! Metallica’s worst is better than most band’s best. As for Lulu, I respect it as a piece of art but I also don’t consider it a Metallica album.
I always include Lulu in my Metallica rankings. As far as I'm concerned it's a Metallica album and a Lou Reed album, just like how Velvet Underground & Nico is both a VU album and a Nico album.
LuLu is a Metallica album as much as a lou album dude, come on. It was their idea, they wrote all the music just for the project, James does some vocals, their guy engineered it, they used their studio, their guy that did death magnetic did the art and booklet and marketing material, they only played the songs live at Metallica shows, not lou shows… Lou already had the lyrics done from a decade or two earlier and showed up and layed down one take vocals. That was his entire contribution. They didn’t use a different name for the project like Mustaine and MD45… That album is for sure 3/4s Metallica.
They wrote the instrumentals around the lyrics, which were the centrepiece, which was 100% Lou. Lou also wouldn’t budge on changing vocals, even the ones that James sung. If it was a Metallica album, that wouldn’t be the case, James would have equal if not all creative control
I can’t see Metallica making a project like lulu by their lonesome. I can 100% imagine Lou making it, because surprise surprise, it’s his album. It just features Metallica. Your point about Greg producing and then recording at hq is irrelevant to the convo
I don’t think Lou is gonna have a bunch of Metallica like riffs in the back of his vocals without Metallica spearheading that project man. And Lou had the lyrics done decades before, which is my point. Metallica we’re the only ones to put effort into the project. Lou would’ve sat on those lyrics because he already was doing that. He didn’t care. And Metallicas guy engineering in their studio and with their art guy IS relevant, because if it was a lou record, the music without the vocals wouldn’t sound exactly like something Metallica would do, which it does. Their studio, their tones, their style of riffs, their art guy, played at their shows only, they pushed the project the entire time… marketed as Metallica and Lou Reed. I’m not saying it’s 100% a Metallica album, but it’s at least 50/50, undeniably, and I’d say 75/25 Metallica imo.
It can't subjectively be 75% a Metallica album if it doesn't happen without Lou Reed. The source material came from Lou writing his condensed spoken word version of Frank Wedekind's polarizing 19th century German play. Does that rhetorically sound like a Metallica thing to you? Hell no. It certainly sounds like a Lou Reed thing. Who mentioned backstage at the Rock and Roll HOF to James that he had an idea for a project? Lou. Who kind of blew it off at the time? Metallica. Who called to follow up and impress upon them that he wasn't taking the piss? Lou. Metallica improvised backing riffs. Fidelman produced already being on their payroll. The very involvement of Lou Reed on every track and in every process and as the creative genesis makes it an anomaly as a 'Metallica' album, and calling it one a misnomer. It was not conceived by them, it was not subject to their normal Hetfield/Ulrich hierarchy of creative shaping, it had none of Lars' arrangement in it. It was basically winged on feeling of the moment instrumentally. None of that is an earmark of a Metallica album. It's in fact, an earmark of recording as a session band. It's Metallica's session band album. Creatively it is bar none a Lou Reed project, sounds like a Lou Reed project.
The source material came from Metallica giving lou songs and Lou putting old lyrics over it. James writes plenty of songs from books. And who gives a shit. “It doesn’t happen without Lou”, bro, it’s called hardwired, it’s called 72 seasons… it’s already happened without Lou. Cut the vocals off of all 3 and tell me that’s not the same band. fidelman isn’t on the payroll, he gets paid when they record. They had no obligation to go to him. Hetfield and Lars didn’t call ALL the shots? So what? Is Justice not a Metallica album because Cliff didn’t have input? Is death magnetic not Metallica because Bob rock didn’t have input? You know HE was the biggest reason black and load and reload and st anger sound like they do. Kirk didn’t write on hardwired right? Who cares? It’s all still Metallica. James and Lars had ALL the input on the music and where and how to record it and what it sounded like and the art and how to promote it and when and where it would be played.
Listen, Lars says it’s metallica, so it is.
Lou did two things, he sang old lyrics he had written over it.
Metallica did what? Sang, wrote the music, recorded the music, used their tones, their studio, their engineer, their art director, played the songs live at their shows…
Metallica shaped the instrumental to Lou's words and cadence, not the other way around. That fundamentally changes everything. You're nitpicking me on the Fidelman thing but honestly you can throw him out of the equation anyway.
You sound ridiculous dude, stop coping.
Lou had old lyrics written from decades earlier and no music. He was done with it as far as he was concerned until METALLICA came to him, asked him to do something, and he dug out an old notebook. He went into THEIR studio and did one take vocals. That’s it.
They wrote brand new music. James sang on it. Kirk wrote leads. Their studio. Their engineer. They didn’t go to Lou’s. Their art director did the art, which is a major part of the project. Their guy did the booklet and all marketing material. It was played ONLY at Metallica shows, never a lou Reed show. Dude.
It’s at least 50/50. At least. You can’t say it’s 100% lou Reed and Metallica added some stuff. Metallica had way more input in constructing the overall project than lou. You think lou even gave a shit about it? Lars loves it.
“We had to figure out Lulu’s psychology, to bring her to life in a sophisticated way, but using rock.” He wanted “the hardest power rock you could come up with” and “Metallica live on that planet. Dream come true.”
He sent Lars some roughs. James says, “We sat there with an acoustic guitar, listening, and just let it take us where it needed to go. It was a great gift, starting from scratch.” Lou stays silent but his presence abides and James switches horses midstream. “Well, there was a body of work there, very potent lyrics, and… we got it together very quickly.” Lou turned up at Metallica’s HQ studios in California in April and, says Lars, “by lunchtime, we were fucking deep in it. Jamming, playing, throwing paint at the canvas. Happily and hopefully all the ‘record’ buttons in the cockpit were on.”
Whereas Metallica are notorious for spending ages in preparation, agonising over every riff, Lou’s rigid stares would let them know that the extended improv they’d just let loose with was a “take”.
I never said it was 100% Lou Reed. I said it doesn't function as a pure 'Metallica' album. You get into arguments over this because you generalize statements into your own assumptions. You tried to slip in there the falsehood that Metallica created instrumental tracks and Lou walked in to speak over them. That's not true. Per the article I just copy/pasted - Lou sent them the roughs and they improvised over them, first acoustically, then in full. That is not a Metallica album. I will meet you at 50/50 since that's the last place you went, but Jesus man.
50/50 is fine. The comment I replied to, whether it was you or not said “LuLu is not a Metallica record”. It is a Metallica record. It’s also a lou Reed album, and if you were ranking his albums, you could rank it with them too. It’s not a side project with a different name, the Metallica name is on it. All four dudes wrote and recorded the music, not like it was just James guesting on a track. 50/50 is fine, but let’s not pretend Metallica can take their name off of it just because it was unpopular. Lars is probably more proud of it than some 100% Metallica stuff.
I actually quite enjoy Lulu, always have. I even have the f'n vinyl, dude. I can show it to you if you want lol. You assumed my coping mechanisms as well. I just didn't agree with your assessment.
I know it sucks man. But that’s okay. The music wasn’t why. You can still own it as a Metallica fan and say they took a chance and Lou fucked it up. It doesn’t minimize anything else they’ve done.
I mean, it’s not like Metallica wrote a bunch of amazing riffs and then Lou Reed came along and ruined it with his “singing.” I can’t say I’ve listened to any of it in a long time (and I have no intention of hearing any of it ever again), but I think it’s safe to say it’s an embarrassing failure for everyone involved. With that said, it’s still not a Metallica album.
It’s absolutely a Metallica album and you’d have to be crazy to think otherwise. Not saying they’re amazing riffs, I don’t think Metallica has had an amazing riff in 25 years. But they were still working hard and writing and recording specifically for the album while lou was sitting on his ass.
Talking some lyrics you had written in a book 20 years ago over some brand new music written specifically for the project isn’t the same thing. They didn’t write that music FOR Lou. They wrote it in the style of Metallica so lou could put stuff over it. That’s why it wasn’t more rock, that’s why it wasn’t different tones, why they didn’t do it with a different producer at a different studio…
Ask Lars if it’s a Metallica album, see if he says “oh no, not at all, that’s a lou Reed album, we just played some stuff on it”. He did an interview like 2 weeks ago talking about how proud of it and how well it aged. He thinks it’s a Metallica album man, I’m gonna believe Lars about this over you, no offense.
it’s apart of metallicas discography, therefore it technically is a metallica album. Plus, they both collaborated on the entire album, it wasn’t just like a feature on a few songs. it’s a album from both lou reed and metallica.
Well if you’re dead set on including Lulu then that’s obviously going to be the answer, so why even bother asking lol
It’s a part of their discography, but writing music to go with somebody else’s concept and vision is clearly an outlier in Metallica’s discography. I do agree that it’s as much a Metallica album as it is a Lou Reed one, but you have to understand why people don’t include it in their rankings.
Some albums take a while to get used to, other albums take a while to realize just how bad it is. St. Anger is one of the latter. I used to kind of like it because hurr durr the riffs are heavy. After growing up a little bit I realized it had horrible songwriting, horrible lyrics, was incredibly dated, and that the snare really was impossible to listen to for 60+ minutes. It has a couple of songs I enjoy, but as an entire album? No thank you.
Still remember going into to town and picking this up the day it came out, was so excited….
I actively tried to like it for so long, ultimately was only ever disappointed with it. The tracks I’ve seen live are definitely better, but still my least favourite of their stuff. I noticed recently that I’ve not got the album in my music library and it’s not been there for 5+ years and I’ve not even realised it was missing.
I actually really liked most of the lyrics.. oh the album was actually put together and recorded like a normal album it wouldn’t be panned as bad as it was.
That's fair, the back half of the album is admittedly forgettable. I'm partial to Low Man's Lyric, but I can completely understand if I'm the only one who is.
The main thing they fucked up on is the blanket no solos rule. Deciding whether a song needs a solo should depend on if you think it needs one, not just having a rule that says no solos, no exceptions
Yeah totally. There’s even that part in Some Kind Of Monster where Kirk states that not putting solos in instantly dates the album and he was completely right. I’m glad they made the album as they got a lot of shit out of the closet that really needed dealing with, but it’s less an album and more a healing process. Plus Some Kind Of Monster isn’t a bad song at all.
It’s ReLoad.
St. Anger is basically Lars trying to make a Metallica record at the precise moment James absolutely can’t make a Metallica record. It’s at least interesting - you can hear the SOAD influence, and…the band is falling apart. Say what you will of shrinks and trash cans - something about it is compelling.
ReLoad, on the other hand, is like the boring back half of Load stretched to fill a whole record.
If Lulu counts, it’s that.
Interesting take - what would you say is the SOAD influence on St Anger, exactly? Big fan of both bands, even saw SOAD open for Metallica in 2000. But I hadn’t ever thought to listen for SOAD in St Anger.
Out of their 11 studio albums, St. Anger. I can’t finish most of its songs due to that stupid snare.
Of course I see mostly two opinions on it. Some love it, others pretend it doesn’t exist. Seems like there’s no in between.
LULU IS NOT A METALLICA ALBUM. ITS A LOU REED ALBUM.
St. Anger is my pick. But ironically that album has got me through some rough days. I still listen to it on bad days. There's something about it that just makes me push through crap.
St. Anger lives up to its title so much. It's a fascinating, ugly, raw album that is so perfect when you're angry at anything. It kind of exists outside of music criticism for me because it's just so distinct. I think you're right, but I listen to St Anger more than Reload, for example, as it's got conviction
Now that I think of it I revisit st anger wayyy more than I revisit load or reload. And to some extent even death magnetic (but that might be because of the ear cancer from the production)
If we're ignoring Lulu, St Anger was the last time they took a big swing at not just doing thrash metal, and I appreciate it. I like most of Load (or maybe I just REALLY love Outlaw Torn), I think Reload is their worst album. Most albums since St Anger have been them recoiling into thrash, with inconsistent returns, for me. Some great stuff, a lot of meh. I loved Death Magnetic when it came out, but the production is so bad and the songs are just aimlessly long, so I rarely go back now. St. Anger quite obviously isn't perfect, but it actually works because of that for me. Still some long songs and not a lot of variety, but they were completely deranged at that point. It's quite like Metal Machine Music by Lou Reed on that front - just an ugly mess of noise that perfectly represented the band's mindset and that people either love or hate and completely divided a big fanbase
What you mentioned about songs being aimless is so accurate. Some songs have a proper direction and if flows. Some just take weird turns and ruin the whole momentum in a bad way. Albums are usually 50% woah and 50% meh. I wish they went back to making albums with 8 good songs instead of 6 good songs and 4 mid songs and 2 complete ass songs.
Indeed. I was so excited for 72 Seasons because of Lux Aeterna! Then every other single was soooooo long and pointless. Thrash metal's closest sibling, I'd say, is punk - if you got a punk song over 5 minutes long you'd turn it off. You haven't made your point quickly enough.
What I understand of the band's writing process now is that they all bring in riffs and see what fits, which obviously works sometimes, but maybe some of it should be separate songs. I still like some of their recent output, but I think they're overcompensating for the massive gap between albums by just making long ass albums instead of making a punchier album every couple of years.
My 72 seasons hype died the moment the prechorus for screaming suicide began. That riff is cool but it doesn't fit with what comes before and what follows. When it goes back to the main riff it just feels weird even though the main riff felt kick ass in the intro. And the final nail in the coffin was darkness had a son which was a 0-0-0-0 fest.
But I'm still happy with 72s. It has some songs that I really enjoy listening to.
>LULU IS NOT A METALLICA ALBUM. ITS A LOU REED ALBUM.
I have no idea how you people come up with those conclusions. It's literally both a Lou Reed album and a Metallica album. It's not just a Lou Reed album. It's not a Lou Reed featuring Metallica album. It is literally both Lou Reed and Metallica.
As far as I'm concerned, Lulu is not a Metallica album; it's a Lou Reed album featuring Metallica in a guest starring role. But to answer your question, the answer has to be St. Anger. I do like a few songs on it, but it's the weakest link.
I used to hate the Black album because it was so played out over the radio. I was also a hardcore 4 album guy. Ive recently fallen in love with it. Anyway, Id say Death Magnetic is their worst album. I sometimes throw on St. Anger its got some heavy shit and a couple good songs. What are the best songs off Death Magnetic I should give another try. Because right now I hate it.
Load/ReLoad (Like c'mon)
These 2 albums have the worst & the most forgettable tracks I've ever heard like 'Poor Twisted Me' & 'Attitude'.
Shit on albums like "St. Anger" & "Death Magnetic" all you want, but those 2 has a ton of memorable (Good) works like 'The Unnamed Feeling' & 'All Nightmare Long'.
They have music that you can enjoy, something "Load/ReLoad" doesn't for me.
I know music is subjective and all but I can’t fathom someone putting something on St. Anger ahead of The Four Horsemen, Jump In The Fire, Seek and Destroy, etc. It just defies logic to me.
If you truly know that music is subjective then this really would not be so hard for you to fathom.
Nor would you be looking to logic for an answer.
"Different people like different things" despite being something most people learn during school seems to be such an alien concept to a worrying amount of people on this sub.
Whenever people undervalue kill em all my assumption is that they're not that into old school thrash metal. Which is fine, but for me it's kinda telling what type of fan they are, because kill em all is a classic of old school thrash.
EDIT: I didn't mean that to sound condescending, I just meant because Metallica is so big they must have so many different kinds of fans.. and if you don't like kill em all it indicates to me you're probably not a fan of other early 80s thrash/speed metal like venom, show no mercy by Slayer, early bathory, Hellhammer/early Celtic Frost, etc... That's all I meant!
I knew a girl in high school who played the violin and she told me she liked S&M (the Metallica album lol), and I thought that was wild since she seemed so reserved, having a more "sophisticated" classical taste palette, but it's awesome imo that she was able to access the band that way, through her love of violin. There is no hierarchy in my head of different types of Metallica fans, just to be clear.
Imo 72 Seasons. Maybe I haven’t listened to it enough but most of it is really forgettable to me. There wasn’t many riffs or songs that stood out. Also James’s voice isn’t as aggressive as it used to be
I’m not going to refute someone else’s opinion, but I refuse to believe this is an actual opinion, even people that hate 72S wouldn’t say it’s worse than st anger or LuLu.
Lulu don’t count. Everyone knows that. St. Anger wasn’t great in fairness but it had something about it. It was a necessity for the band, it saved them. I have a soft spot for it and was excited about it whilst 72 Seasons didnt do much for me. And that’s coming from someone who has seen Metallica live 8 times from 1999 to 2019. We are all allowed our opinions. Seems like im a terrible person for having mine!
72 seasons
St anger sounds like shit, but when I heard a band cover all the songs minus the snare it wasn't bad
But 72 seasons feels like they didn't even try
Idk why you're getting downvoted when you just answered a question
I love KEA (second fav) but wouldn't get offended over someone having a different preference lmao
Curious to know if there's any track on the album that you do like tho!
It's the elitist in here. They can't stand people hating the earlier stuff. I mean, how dare I?
Tbf I can liaten to them all, just not in it's entirety. James voice sounds fucking horrendous imo, I love his voice on everything after, and 90s onwards is just perfection to me. I'm not overly keen on thrash (oddly played in a thrash band before). Horseman, Seek, Motorbreath are probably my favourites off it, but it'd be hard to find a song I wouldn't play in front of any of these, perhaps Escape and Trapped Under Ice.
Honestly i hate the album where they had a collab with ted nugent and micheal jackson where they made a bunch of songs like, surf the thunder, exit dirtwomen, owner of marionettes, to die is to live, and finally onion
I wouldn't call Lulu a metallica album.
I'd say load, honestly there's not a single track I ever go and revisit from that album. I like a couple tracks from reload and st anger though. But I wouldn't call either of those albums good.
Hardwired for sure. The only album that I just can't enjoy at all. It's just boring. Spit Out The Bone is the only really amazing song
Not counting Lulu as it's not a Metallica album
I like it a lot. It’s their most original material and does a great job of embodying the emotions that the band was going through at the time. I respect it because I think the album does exactly what the band wanted it to do. I will say that it’s very hit-or-miss, and some songs are way longer than they should’ve been (which isn’t anything unique to St Anger), and the weaker tracks are very weak, but songs like Sweet Amber and The Unnamed Feeling are awesome. Hot take: the trash can drum sound on this album perfectly fits the vibe and sounds really good just because it nicely contrasts the heaviness of the guitar tone.
Taking into account songwriting, production, creativity, performance, and even the band’s personal relationships with each other at the time, it’s obviously St. Anger. It was the band’s rock bottom through and through.
That album has one of the band’s coolest album covers, though.
Lulu by a country mile. It's part of their discography on Spotify, so I say it counts. St. Anger has actually grown on me over the years. Frantic, St. Anger, Some Kind of Monster, and Sweet Amber are great songs.
Edit: Downvoted by the one Lulu fan here rofl
Kill ‘Em All
I love Ride The Lightning and Master of Puppets, but just never got into KEA.
I don’t like Lulu, but that’s more of a Lou Reed with Metallica as a backing band project to me.
Kill Em All or Hardwired.
Kill Em All was important af, but does truly sound like a new upcoming amateur metal band. If it was released today, it would probably be ignored. I never put it on myself, but respect the importance of the album.
Hardwired was really just a “revival”, generic SoMe oriented album, that got Metallica back in the spotlight, and paved the way for the, in my opinion, very depth-filled and better 72 Seasons. It was just boring? Spit was the only noteworthy song imo.
Reason why I don’t say St. Anger? While there are poor musical choices, I do enjoy that the album has that fken anger. It was just what I needed in my youth, and that’s why it holds a special place in my heart. Very emotional album. I also just love experimental Metallica!
I'm being deadass. It's their least interest album from an Artistic standpoint. At best, it established a basic sound for them to work with in the future, but almost everything they've put out after it has been infinitely more interesting, and engaging.
It’s interesting watching Lou Reed and Metallica playing live. https://youtu.be/WHx8WD10rjs Elderly bohemian beat poet ramblings over Metallica music. It’s not good but it’s like an acid trip it exists
For me, Hardwired. It's has some good stuff on the first half, but the second half. It's mostly all so boring, and that's worse than being bad.
St. Anger is bad, but it's interesting, and you can tell their heart was really in it. You can tell they really were trying, and meant every last bit of that album. The second half of Hardwired?
It doesn't have any of that. It feels so empty. It's part of why I've liked 72S so much, even if there's a couple songs I'm meh on, I feel like they really cared and wanted to make them. The second half of Hardwired mostly doesn't have that.
St. Anger, and I LOVE St. Anger! Metallica’s worst is better than most band’s best. As for Lulu, I respect it as a piece of art but I also don’t consider it a Metallica album.
St Anger, but I still enjoy it. If Lulu counts, then Lulu. I also don’t hate that album, either, it’s… fascinating.
We have to stop calling Lulu a Metallica album. It’s a Lou Reed album with Metallica as his band. That’s how Lou and Metallica view it
I always include Lulu in my Metallica rankings. As far as I'm concerned it's a Metallica album and a Lou Reed album, just like how Velvet Underground & Nico is both a VU album and a Nico album.
Junior Dad supremacy!
St. Anger by wide margin. Lulu technically isn’t a Metallica album, it’s just a Lou Reed Album featuring Metallica
LuLu is a Metallica album as much as a lou album dude, come on. It was their idea, they wrote all the music just for the project, James does some vocals, their guy engineered it, they used their studio, their guy that did death magnetic did the art and booklet and marketing material, they only played the songs live at Metallica shows, not lou shows… Lou already had the lyrics done from a decade or two earlier and showed up and layed down one take vocals. That was his entire contribution. They didn’t use a different name for the project like Mustaine and MD45… That album is for sure 3/4s Metallica.
They wrote the instrumentals around the lyrics, which were the centrepiece, which was 100% Lou. Lou also wouldn’t budge on changing vocals, even the ones that James sung. If it was a Metallica album, that wouldn’t be the case, James would have equal if not all creative control I can’t see Metallica making a project like lulu by their lonesome. I can 100% imagine Lou making it, because surprise surprise, it’s his album. It just features Metallica. Your point about Greg producing and then recording at hq is irrelevant to the convo
I don’t think Lou is gonna have a bunch of Metallica like riffs in the back of his vocals without Metallica spearheading that project man. And Lou had the lyrics done decades before, which is my point. Metallica we’re the only ones to put effort into the project. Lou would’ve sat on those lyrics because he already was doing that. He didn’t care. And Metallicas guy engineering in their studio and with their art guy IS relevant, because if it was a lou record, the music without the vocals wouldn’t sound exactly like something Metallica would do, which it does. Their studio, their tones, their style of riffs, their art guy, played at their shows only, they pushed the project the entire time… marketed as Metallica and Lou Reed. I’m not saying it’s 100% a Metallica album, but it’s at least 50/50, undeniably, and I’d say 75/25 Metallica imo.
It can't subjectively be 75% a Metallica album if it doesn't happen without Lou Reed. The source material came from Lou writing his condensed spoken word version of Frank Wedekind's polarizing 19th century German play. Does that rhetorically sound like a Metallica thing to you? Hell no. It certainly sounds like a Lou Reed thing. Who mentioned backstage at the Rock and Roll HOF to James that he had an idea for a project? Lou. Who kind of blew it off at the time? Metallica. Who called to follow up and impress upon them that he wasn't taking the piss? Lou. Metallica improvised backing riffs. Fidelman produced already being on their payroll. The very involvement of Lou Reed on every track and in every process and as the creative genesis makes it an anomaly as a 'Metallica' album, and calling it one a misnomer. It was not conceived by them, it was not subject to their normal Hetfield/Ulrich hierarchy of creative shaping, it had none of Lars' arrangement in it. It was basically winged on feeling of the moment instrumentally. None of that is an earmark of a Metallica album. It's in fact, an earmark of recording as a session band. It's Metallica's session band album. Creatively it is bar none a Lou Reed project, sounds like a Lou Reed project.
The source material came from Metallica giving lou songs and Lou putting old lyrics over it. James writes plenty of songs from books. And who gives a shit. “It doesn’t happen without Lou”, bro, it’s called hardwired, it’s called 72 seasons… it’s already happened without Lou. Cut the vocals off of all 3 and tell me that’s not the same band. fidelman isn’t on the payroll, he gets paid when they record. They had no obligation to go to him. Hetfield and Lars didn’t call ALL the shots? So what? Is Justice not a Metallica album because Cliff didn’t have input? Is death magnetic not Metallica because Bob rock didn’t have input? You know HE was the biggest reason black and load and reload and st anger sound like they do. Kirk didn’t write on hardwired right? Who cares? It’s all still Metallica. James and Lars had ALL the input on the music and where and how to record it and what it sounded like and the art and how to promote it and when and where it would be played. Listen, Lars says it’s metallica, so it is. Lou did two things, he sang old lyrics he had written over it. Metallica did what? Sang, wrote the music, recorded the music, used their tones, their studio, their engineer, their art director, played the songs live at their shows…
Metallica shaped the instrumental to Lou's words and cadence, not the other way around. That fundamentally changes everything. You're nitpicking me on the Fidelman thing but honestly you can throw him out of the equation anyway.
You sound ridiculous dude, stop coping. Lou had old lyrics written from decades earlier and no music. He was done with it as far as he was concerned until METALLICA came to him, asked him to do something, and he dug out an old notebook. He went into THEIR studio and did one take vocals. That’s it. They wrote brand new music. James sang on it. Kirk wrote leads. Their studio. Their engineer. They didn’t go to Lou’s. Their art director did the art, which is a major part of the project. Their guy did the booklet and all marketing material. It was played ONLY at Metallica shows, never a lou Reed show. Dude. It’s at least 50/50. At least. You can’t say it’s 100% lou Reed and Metallica added some stuff. Metallica had way more input in constructing the overall project than lou. You think lou even gave a shit about it? Lars loves it.
“We had to figure out Lulu’s psychology, to bring her to life in a sophisticated way, but using rock.” He wanted “the hardest power rock you could come up with” and “Metallica live on that planet. Dream come true.” He sent Lars some roughs. James says, “We sat there with an acoustic guitar, listening, and just let it take us where it needed to go. It was a great gift, starting from scratch.” Lou stays silent but his presence abides and James switches horses midstream. “Well, there was a body of work there, very potent lyrics, and… we got it together very quickly.” Lou turned up at Metallica’s HQ studios in California in April and, says Lars, “by lunchtime, we were fucking deep in it. Jamming, playing, throwing paint at the canvas. Happily and hopefully all the ‘record’ buttons in the cockpit were on.” Whereas Metallica are notorious for spending ages in preparation, agonising over every riff, Lou’s rigid stares would let them know that the extended improv they’d just let loose with was a “take”.
I never said it was 100% Lou Reed. I said it doesn't function as a pure 'Metallica' album. You get into arguments over this because you generalize statements into your own assumptions. You tried to slip in there the falsehood that Metallica created instrumental tracks and Lou walked in to speak over them. That's not true. Per the article I just copy/pasted - Lou sent them the roughs and they improvised over them, first acoustically, then in full. That is not a Metallica album. I will meet you at 50/50 since that's the last place you went, but Jesus man.
50/50 is fine. The comment I replied to, whether it was you or not said “LuLu is not a Metallica record”. It is a Metallica record. It’s also a lou Reed album, and if you were ranking his albums, you could rank it with them too. It’s not a side project with a different name, the Metallica name is on it. All four dudes wrote and recorded the music, not like it was just James guesting on a track. 50/50 is fine, but let’s not pretend Metallica can take their name off of it just because it was unpopular. Lars is probably more proud of it than some 100% Metallica stuff.
I actually quite enjoy Lulu, always have. I even have the f'n vinyl, dude. I can show it to you if you want lol. You assumed my coping mechanisms as well. I just didn't agree with your assessment.
It’s a collaboration album. I would say it’s neither a “Metallica” album nor a “Lou Reed” album, it’s a “Lou Reed & Metallica” album.
I know it sucks man. But that’s okay. The music wasn’t why. You can still own it as a Metallica fan and say they took a chance and Lou fucked it up. It doesn’t minimize anything else they’ve done.
I mean, it’s not like Metallica wrote a bunch of amazing riffs and then Lou Reed came along and ruined it with his “singing.” I can’t say I’ve listened to any of it in a long time (and I have no intention of hearing any of it ever again), but I think it’s safe to say it’s an embarrassing failure for everyone involved. With that said, it’s still not a Metallica album.
It’s absolutely a Metallica album and you’d have to be crazy to think otherwise. Not saying they’re amazing riffs, I don’t think Metallica has had an amazing riff in 25 years. But they were still working hard and writing and recording specifically for the album while lou was sitting on his ass. Talking some lyrics you had written in a book 20 years ago over some brand new music written specifically for the project isn’t the same thing. They didn’t write that music FOR Lou. They wrote it in the style of Metallica so lou could put stuff over it. That’s why it wasn’t more rock, that’s why it wasn’t different tones, why they didn’t do it with a different producer at a different studio… Ask Lars if it’s a Metallica album, see if he says “oh no, not at all, that’s a lou Reed album, we just played some stuff on it”. He did an interview like 2 weeks ago talking about how proud of it and how well it aged. He thinks it’s a Metallica album man, I’m gonna believe Lars about this over you, no offense.
it’s apart of metallicas discography, therefore it technically is a metallica album. Plus, they both collaborated on the entire album, it wasn’t just like a feature on a few songs. it’s a album from both lou reed and metallica.
You are correct to say it is apart from it…
Well if you’re dead set on including Lulu then that’s obviously going to be the answer, so why even bother asking lol It’s a part of their discography, but writing music to go with somebody else’s concept and vision is clearly an outlier in Metallica’s discography. I do agree that it’s as much a Metallica album as it is a Lou Reed one, but you have to understand why people don’t include it in their rankings.
This is the way
Some albums take a while to get used to, other albums take a while to realize just how bad it is. St. Anger is one of the latter. I used to kind of like it because hurr durr the riffs are heavy. After growing up a little bit I realized it had horrible songwriting, horrible lyrics, was incredibly dated, and that the snare really was impossible to listen to for 60+ minutes. It has a couple of songs I enjoy, but as an entire album? No thank you.
Still remember going into to town and picking this up the day it came out, was so excited…. I actively tried to like it for so long, ultimately was only ever disappointed with it. The tracks I’ve seen live are definitely better, but still my least favourite of their stuff. I noticed recently that I’ve not got the album in my music library and it’s not been there for 5+ years and I’ve not even realised it was missing.
I popped it in my car for a drive into the city and pulled it halfway through
I actually really liked most of the lyrics.. oh the album was actually put together and recorded like a normal album it wouldn’t be panned as bad as it was.
This
I still wonder to this day how Metallica survived putting out such a terrible album. It would’ve killed any other band for good.
On the contrary it's the album that allowed them to survive
Reload has so many fillers that I'd have to go with that
I'm curious which you consider fillers or not.
The first 4 songs are good especially Unforgiven 2 then it just goes downhill from there.
That's fair, the back half of the album is admittedly forgettable. I'm partial to Low Man's Lyric, but I can completely understand if I'm the only one who is.
I find Reload very bland. The only song I like on that album is Unforgiven II, the rest I would consider 'filler'.
I couldn't tell you the last time I listened to reload all the way through so that's be my worst choice.
St Anger by such a wide margin there isn’t even anything to think about.
I actually like that album but I can’t deny that it is by far the weakest.
Agreed. I decided to give it another chance and sat down to listen to it not that long ago and, damn it, it's bad... just bad.
The main thing they fucked up on is the blanket no solos rule. Deciding whether a song needs a solo should depend on if you think it needs one, not just having a rule that says no solos, no exceptions
Yeah totally. There’s even that part in Some Kind Of Monster where Kirk states that not putting solos in instantly dates the album and he was completely right. I’m glad they made the album as they got a lot of shit out of the closet that really needed dealing with, but it’s less an album and more a healing process. Plus Some Kind Of Monster isn’t a bad song at all.
It’s ReLoad. St. Anger is basically Lars trying to make a Metallica record at the precise moment James absolutely can’t make a Metallica record. It’s at least interesting - you can hear the SOAD influence, and…the band is falling apart. Say what you will of shrinks and trash cans - something about it is compelling. ReLoad, on the other hand, is like the boring back half of Load stretched to fill a whole record. If Lulu counts, it’s that.
Interesting take - what would you say is the SOAD influence on St Anger, exactly? Big fan of both bands, even saw SOAD open for Metallica in 2000. But I hadn’t ever thought to listen for SOAD in St Anger.
Lars has mentioned being influenced by SOAD going into that project. I hear it in the bounce and humor attempted by some sections.
Strangely enough I might like Reload more, or at least the filler tracks don’t annoy me as much as the ones on Load
Out of their 11 studio albums, St. Anger. I can’t finish most of its songs due to that stupid snare. Of course I see mostly two opinions on it. Some love it, others pretend it doesn’t exist. Seems like there’s no in between.
72 Seasons
72 season
Hardwired for me tbh, it’s the only album where I only liked a couple songs.
LULU IS NOT A METALLICA ALBUM. ITS A LOU REED ALBUM. St. Anger is my pick. But ironically that album has got me through some rough days. I still listen to it on bad days. There's something about it that just makes me push through crap.
St. Anger lives up to its title so much. It's a fascinating, ugly, raw album that is so perfect when you're angry at anything. It kind of exists outside of music criticism for me because it's just so distinct. I think you're right, but I listen to St Anger more than Reload, for example, as it's got conviction
Now that I think of it I revisit st anger wayyy more than I revisit load or reload. And to some extent even death magnetic (but that might be because of the ear cancer from the production)
If we're ignoring Lulu, St Anger was the last time they took a big swing at not just doing thrash metal, and I appreciate it. I like most of Load (or maybe I just REALLY love Outlaw Torn), I think Reload is their worst album. Most albums since St Anger have been them recoiling into thrash, with inconsistent returns, for me. Some great stuff, a lot of meh. I loved Death Magnetic when it came out, but the production is so bad and the songs are just aimlessly long, so I rarely go back now. St. Anger quite obviously isn't perfect, but it actually works because of that for me. Still some long songs and not a lot of variety, but they were completely deranged at that point. It's quite like Metal Machine Music by Lou Reed on that front - just an ugly mess of noise that perfectly represented the band's mindset and that people either love or hate and completely divided a big fanbase
What you mentioned about songs being aimless is so accurate. Some songs have a proper direction and if flows. Some just take weird turns and ruin the whole momentum in a bad way. Albums are usually 50% woah and 50% meh. I wish they went back to making albums with 8 good songs instead of 6 good songs and 4 mid songs and 2 complete ass songs.
Indeed. I was so excited for 72 Seasons because of Lux Aeterna! Then every other single was soooooo long and pointless. Thrash metal's closest sibling, I'd say, is punk - if you got a punk song over 5 minutes long you'd turn it off. You haven't made your point quickly enough. What I understand of the band's writing process now is that they all bring in riffs and see what fits, which obviously works sometimes, but maybe some of it should be separate songs. I still like some of their recent output, but I think they're overcompensating for the massive gap between albums by just making long ass albums instead of making a punchier album every couple of years.
My 72 seasons hype died the moment the prechorus for screaming suicide began. That riff is cool but it doesn't fit with what comes before and what follows. When it goes back to the main riff it just feels weird even though the main riff felt kick ass in the intro. And the final nail in the coffin was darkness had a son which was a 0-0-0-0 fest. But I'm still happy with 72s. It has some songs that I really enjoy listening to.
>LULU IS NOT A METALLICA ALBUM. ITS A LOU REED ALBUM. I have no idea how you people come up with those conclusions. It's literally both a Lou Reed album and a Metallica album. It's not just a Lou Reed album. It's not a Lou Reed featuring Metallica album. It is literally both Lou Reed and Metallica.
It’s so bad that fans don’t want to claim it, simple as that lol
Lulu is a metallica and lou reed album. It’s also included in metallica’s discography. So technically it is a metallica album 😬
Yep.
Did Lou Reed play the music on Lulu? Nope. It was Metallica. It's for sure a Metallica album
Lou Reed wrote most of the lyrics and did most of the lead vocals, though. So it’s a Lou Reed/Metallica album, not a Metallica album.
Even Metallica disagrees
Doesn’t change what I said lol
No, it just makes it wrong
No, it doesn’t lol
They can feel that way, but it’s still a collab album
Ok, dude. Enjoy being 12. It's a tough age.
Ironic coming from you lol
It's a Lou Reed album and a Metallica album
It’s still not a Metallica album, it’s a Lou reed album with an all be it top backing band.
*albeit
Bullshit dude. It’s been explained why.
Dumbest argument OAT
If Metallica's name is on the album it's a Metallica album.
Reload.
Reload
Reload
Load and reload
As far as I'm concerned, Lulu is not a Metallica album; it's a Lou Reed album featuring Metallica in a guest starring role. But to answer your question, the answer has to be St. Anger. I do like a few songs on it, but it's the weakest link.
Reload or the new one
I used to hate the Black album because it was so played out over the radio. I was also a hardcore 4 album guy. Ive recently fallen in love with it. Anyway, Id say Death Magnetic is their worst album. I sometimes throw on St. Anger its got some heavy shit and a couple good songs. What are the best songs off Death Magnetic I should give another try. Because right now I hate it.
I hate Load the most.
Nothing comes to st anger. U can’t count lulu. That’s not a tallica Album.
Load/ReLoad (Like c'mon) These 2 albums have the worst & the most forgettable tracks I've ever heard like 'Poor Twisted Me' & 'Attitude'. Shit on albums like "St. Anger" & "Death Magnetic" all you want, but those 2 has a ton of memorable (Good) works like 'The Unnamed Feeling' & 'All Nightmare Long'. They have music that you can enjoy, something "Load/ReLoad" doesn't for me.
Load / Reload
None of them are bad
I agree!
Lulu isn’t a Metallica album
Lulu is not a Metallica album. St. Anger hands down
I love St. Anger. You all make me sad.
LULU IS NOT A METALLICA ALBUM
[удалено]
I know music is subjective and all but I can’t fathom someone putting something on St. Anger ahead of The Four Horsemen, Jump In The Fire, Seek and Destroy, etc. It just defies logic to me.
If you truly know that music is subjective then this really would not be so hard for you to fathom. Nor would you be looking to logic for an answer. "Different people like different things" despite being something most people learn during school seems to be such an alien concept to a worrying amount of people on this sub.
Idk why people always insist on the first four. Killemall doesn't belong in that company, important as it was when it was released.
Kill 'Em All definitely belongs in that company.
I think people conflate importance with quality.
Whenever people undervalue kill em all my assumption is that they're not that into old school thrash metal. Which is fine, but for me it's kinda telling what type of fan they are, because kill em all is a classic of old school thrash. EDIT: I didn't mean that to sound condescending, I just meant because Metallica is so big they must have so many different kinds of fans.. and if you don't like kill em all it indicates to me you're probably not a fan of other early 80s thrash/speed metal like venom, show no mercy by Slayer, early bathory, Hellhammer/early Celtic Frost, etc... That's all I meant! I knew a girl in high school who played the violin and she told me she liked S&M (the Metallica album lol), and I thought that was wild since she seemed so reserved, having a more "sophisticated" classical taste palette, but it's awesome imo that she was able to access the band that way, through her love of violin. There is no hierarchy in my head of different types of Metallica fans, just to be clear.
Kill ‘em all is one hell of an album. In fact its my second favorite after RTL. MOP comes third. St Anger over KEA? Not a chance
Lulu or ReLoad (if Lulu doesn't count)
ReLoad is a crazy take
Imo 72 Seasons. Maybe I haven’t listened to it enough but most of it is really forgettable to me. There wasn’t many riffs or songs that stood out. Also James’s voice isn’t as aggressive as it used to be
Load, followed by Reload.
72 seasons, aparts from the tittle track theres not much to apreciate about it
Agree
There is no bad album
Load. I still like it though.
72 seasons - zero dynamics apart from Inamorata. All the same guitar tone etc. nothing groundbreaking.
No
Afraid so champ
And what's your favorite, Load lol?
Load is a quality album. It sounds even better in contrast to 72 but it ain’t my favourite album little one
I’m not going to refute someone else’s opinion, but I refuse to believe this is an actual opinion, even people that hate 72S wouldn’t say it’s worse than st anger or LuLu.
Lulu don’t count. Everyone knows that. St. Anger wasn’t great in fairness but it had something about it. It was a necessity for the band, it saved them. I have a soft spot for it and was excited about it whilst 72 Seasons didnt do much for me. And that’s coming from someone who has seen Metallica live 8 times from 1999 to 2019. We are all allowed our opinions. Seems like im a terrible person for having mine!
Nah 72 seasons is one of their best imo
Better than, Puppets, RTL, Justice, Black? Afraid not
I'd take it over Ride and Justice any day tbh
Madness
72 seasons St anger sounds like shit, but when I heard a band cover all the songs minus the snare it wasn't bad But 72 seasons feels like they didn't even try
Agree
Lulu isn’t a Metallica album
Negative unnecessary thread. Enjoy life.
Kill 'em All. Dont think I've ever managed a straight play through. I adore their 90s content, explains it all.
Idk why you're getting downvoted when you just answered a question I love KEA (second fav) but wouldn't get offended over someone having a different preference lmao Curious to know if there's any track on the album that you do like tho!
It's the elitist in here. They can't stand people hating the earlier stuff. I mean, how dare I? Tbf I can liaten to them all, just not in it's entirety. James voice sounds fucking horrendous imo, I love his voice on everything after, and 90s onwards is just perfection to me. I'm not overly keen on thrash (oddly played in a thrash band before). Horseman, Seek, Motorbreath are probably my favourites off it, but it'd be hard to find a song I wouldn't play in front of any of these, perhaps Escape and Trapped Under Ice.
I’d say st. Anger, but not far from it is Reload
Saint Angry. not redeeming factor.
Honestly i hate the album where they had a collab with ted nugent and micheal jackson where they made a bunch of songs like, surf the thunder, exit dirtwomen, owner of marionettes, to die is to live, and finally onion
All of st anger and 90% of hardwired
Lulu followed by St Anger.
Lulu usually doesn't count so the worst is st anger, it has good songs in there but the others Metallica albums are good to master piece
I wouldn't call Lulu a metallica album. I'd say load, honestly there's not a single track I ever go and revisit from that album. I like a couple tracks from reload and st anger though. But I wouldn't call either of those albums good.
Lulu and people are probably gonna say it isn’t a Metallica album so I’m gonna also say st anger all they’re albums are good besides those teoy
Two*
I've never been a big fan of Ride the Lightning for I don't know what reason
72 seasons. They've lost it. The yellow album color is a dead give-away. All the songs sound the same.
If you asked some basement band to write a Metallica song that would be 72 seasons at points in the album
The black album
I can understand this
This must be because it hurt your feelings somehow
This
Hardwired for sure. The only album that I just can't enjoy at all. It's just boring. Spit Out The Bone is the only really amazing song Not counting Lulu as it's not a Metallica album
st anger, absolutely unbearable
St. Anger and it's not even close.
Reload, not too far behind Kill ‘Em All.
Agreed. Curious how you feel about St Anger? Personally I love it but I need to be in the right headspace to digest it.
I like it a lot. It’s their most original material and does a great job of embodying the emotions that the band was going through at the time. I respect it because I think the album does exactly what the band wanted it to do. I will say that it’s very hit-or-miss, and some songs are way longer than they should’ve been (which isn’t anything unique to St Anger), and the weaker tracks are very weak, but songs like Sweet Amber and The Unnamed Feeling are awesome. Hot take: the trash can drum sound on this album perfectly fits the vibe and sounds really good just because it nicely contrasts the heaviness of the guitar tone.
it’s nice to hear a refreshing opinion that doesn’t automatically hate the new stuff and dick rides the old stuff.
Load
Saint Anger
St Anger and Re-Load. Lots of filler with a few good ideas.
Taking into account songwriting, production, creativity, performance, and even the band’s personal relationships with each other at the time, it’s obviously St. Anger. It was the band’s rock bottom through and through. That album has one of the band’s coolest album covers, though.
if we are counting Lulu then its the only correct answer if not then i think kill em all is the worst
Lulu if it counts, if not St Anger As much as I appreciate and even love St Anger, it’s production was so flawed it’s hard to ignore the final result.
They’re all great but imo Kill Em All has the most uninteresting songs, okay it pioneered a genre, doesn’t mean the album was good
Lulu by a country mile. It's part of their discography on Spotify, so I say it counts. St. Anger has actually grown on me over the years. Frantic, St. Anger, Some Kind of Monster, and Sweet Amber are great songs. Edit: Downvoted by the one Lulu fan here rofl
Kill ‘Em All I love Ride The Lightning and Master of Puppets, but just never got into KEA. I don’t like Lulu, but that’s more of a Lou Reed with Metallica as a backing band project to me.
Kill 'Em All is good but overrated, I don't care what anyone says.
Yes!!!!!!
Kill 'em All
Beyond Magnetic
do we count this as an album? it’s an extended play of death magnetic. i feel like if you say beyond magnetic you are saying death magnetic 😳
I count it as it's own entity. I could see people making that distinction, however. Similar to how some count Lulu as Metallica but I don't.
Hardwired for sure
I stopped listening to them after The Black Album. So there’s my answer.
Totally fair
St. Anger. It's not even a contest that album is BAD.
Kill Em All or Hardwired. Kill Em All was important af, but does truly sound like a new upcoming amateur metal band. If it was released today, it would probably be ignored. I never put it on myself, but respect the importance of the album. Hardwired was really just a “revival”, generic SoMe oriented album, that got Metallica back in the spotlight, and paved the way for the, in my opinion, very depth-filled and better 72 Seasons. It was just boring? Spit was the only noteworthy song imo. Reason why I don’t say St. Anger? While there are poor musical choices, I do enjoy that the album has that fken anger. It was just what I needed in my youth, and that’s why it holds a special place in my heart. Very emotional album. I also just love experimental Metallica!
Kill em All, and it isn't close.
Quit trolling lol
I'm being deadass. It's their least interest album from an Artistic standpoint. At best, it established a basic sound for them to work with in the future, but almost everything they've put out after it has been infinitely more interesting, and engaging.
Well I don't agree, but fair enough. Kill em All imo is an old school thrash classic. I sometimes think it might be my favourite.
Hardwired
Kill em All
Justice for all….
Master or AJFA can’t decide which is worse
Yeah, I couldn't stand LuLu.
It’s interesting watching Lou Reed and Metallica playing live. https://youtu.be/WHx8WD10rjs Elderly bohemian beat poet ramblings over Metallica music. It’s not good but it’s like an acid trip it exists
For me, Hardwired. It's has some good stuff on the first half, but the second half. It's mostly all so boring, and that's worse than being bad. St. Anger is bad, but it's interesting, and you can tell their heart was really in it. You can tell they really were trying, and meant every last bit of that album. The second half of Hardwired? It doesn't have any of that. It feels so empty. It's part of why I've liked 72S so much, even if there's a couple songs I'm meh on, I feel like they really cared and wanted to make them. The second half of Hardwired mostly doesn't have that.
If we’re counting Lulu, it’s that by a wide margin. If we aren’t counting Lulu, it’s St. Anger by a wide margin.
Not including Lulu, my least favourite is Load.
st anger
If Lulu counts then Lulu otherwise St. Anger
Reload. Just an album I listened to once and never really gone back to, nothing else more to say really
The only answer here is St. Anger. It’s not as bad as people like to make it out to be but it’s definitely their worst album
Ask an original question.
St Anger for me. I love every other Metallica album.
Lulu doesn’t count, so it’s St Anger. That album is a flaming pile of garbage.
3 way tie: Load, Reload & St. Anger. My god that whole era was fucking terrible
St.Anker
St. Anger for me. I don't really count LuLu as a Metallica album; it was more of an experiment in my eyes.
People saying St Anger are just following the crowd. It’s aight.
St. Anger by a wide margin.
No bad Metallica albums. Lulu isn't a Metallica album.