/pt/ – Petrarchan

St. Anger is an album released by the heavy metal band Metallica in 2003. It was universally panned and still continues to be to this day. Many metal fans felt that Metallica had sold out, as the band had made a sharp turn away from their more "traditional" thrash albums. I write this not out of contrarianism; I'm not a fan of Metallica's music personally and have no reason reason to rehabilitate their image. But I think a good principle for quality music listening as an activity is to always go back to works which were widely disliked, overlooked, or even overly praised and canonized. When I first listened to this album as an neophyte to the genre, I too found it more humorous than headbangin', and joined in with that collective tut tutting from the metalheads about how bands changed their sound, and how terrible the 2000s was for metal. And yet, every so often throughout the years I would listen to this album, either out of humor or simply to refresh why everyone kept bringing it up. I cannot say that every metal listener out there harbors this skeleton in their closet, but it's undeniable that this album, for better or worse, has stayed in the public consciousness for far longer than most other metal albums. The very name of the title alone is enough to fuel a snarky comparison or series of jokes; even individual elements such as the notorious snare drum are famous. In fact, I will go as far as to say that the average metal fan can name more moments, songs, or attributes of this album than they could with most of Metallica's "classic" material. In other words, how many people know the phrase "fran-tic-tic-tic" from the first track, or the unbelievable, Shakespearean "my lifestyle determines my deathstyle" (also of the first song), which has burst out of the metalsphere and nearly become a catchphrase on its own. To contrast, how many quotes can anyone name from And Justice for All? Can you describe the unique timbre of Kill 'em All? I sure can't. But everyone knows what St. Anger sounds like. Everyone rolls their eyes when they hear James cry "I'm madly in ANGER with you"-- but it stuck with you, didn't it? Is not the purpose of music to entertain? to be memorable? To cement itself in the collective consciousness and to be remembered with mirth? Doesn't that matter more in the broader scope of our satirical human legacy, more than being part of the correct canon? What has really shaped music criticism in the 21st century is the cult of quantitation. Everything must be Rated. Everything can be categorized on this one-dimensional scale of right to left, one star, fifty percent, ten points, ten metal horns up in the air, or if you are especially bookwormish, A through F. These numbers stack on top of one another like census data until we have our new tastes imposed on ourselves, by ourselves, from the hivemind, delivered to you by media outlets and rating websites. Everyone said St. Anger sucks, and this became *the word*, repeated across generations. This cult of the number has clouded our higher abilities of judgment and discernment. Everything is either bad, badder, good or gooder. What if St. Anger wasn't Bad or Good or Really Bad? What if it was just entertaining on its own, absent from this particular value judgment? Why does everything need a number, anyway? Numbers are for increments, for software versions, for chapters. Let art be more multifaceted. Let the music rate itself, numberlessly. But the hate against Metallica's post-thrash period isn't down to mere taste or delicate pickiness about specific elements of the sound. This album and its context has a whole historiography behind it inside the metal world. It's not only a mirror of, or a victim of, the times, but itself agentic, responsible for many of the changes that other bands would make during that era, how metal was interpreted and influenced the mainstream, other elements outside the music itself such as the Napster scandal and so on. Metallica may be the biggest metal band, but they are so big they transformed into something bigger than four guys who get in the studio and play their instruments sometimes. They are not a "metal band" anymore. It is something larger and higher-dimensional. An image, a meaning, a symbol, and so on. The logo font, the archetypes of loss and redemption throughout life, the first representative of metal to almost anyone outside of that scene. A more involved metal listener than I would detail this story with more pathos and more epithets against the band. It's not just about a few sharp-tongued critics dragging down what is otherwise an unremarkable and below-average album, most serious participants of the genre really loathe this thing. But what if we embraced the adrenalinized postmodern rush of listening to a piece of music completely out of its context? After all, this is, at the end of the day, our own private consumption, you and me, at home on our devices. This is the gift we should get for living in end-of-history, postmodern purgatory. Put on St. Anger and forget the title, forget the name Metallica, forget the memes about the snare, forget 2003, forget nu-metal, everything... In short, what you will hear is a sorta catchy pop-metal nu-metal album, with brief moments of thrash; they feel a little forced in for all the oldheads in the audience, like members comps at the local casino. The sound quality isn't great, and is better played on speakers than damaging your eardrum with its sharpness. And the songs can get very simple and repetitive (but it is Metallica after all-- the whole raison d'etre of that band). Yes, the snare sound is very high-pitched, and it also happens to be very loud in the mix. These are some of the usual criticisms directed at the album. But taken out of the context of Metallica making a Metallica album, they fall a little flat and don't stand on their own. For example, Metallica is not the first band to use a higher pitched or even ping snare. That is a regular staple of some metal subgenres and used occasionally elsewhere. I also think critiques that Lars sucks as a drummer are also a tad unfair, as not every metal band needs to have a Kolias or Mounier behind the kit. Great music can be played by decidedly untechnical people, and still be full of pathos and enjoyable (Celtic Frost, anyone?). It's not easy because you still have to be naturally attuned to good music, but it's definitely possible. The low fidelity sound, as well, is also absolutely not a newcomer to the genre. It "sounds bad" because we imagine Metallica in a studio with all the spoils of their crusades underneath them, the film crews, all the technical apparatus around them. But on its own, without that? I think most importantly is the fact that when you listen to St. Anger, it just sounds like music that the musicians liked playing; even poor Lars, his unrhythmic banging is not because he is shirking off some responsibility of professionalism; he is clearly playing with intent and heart. The other band members sound in concerto. Unremarkable sure, but there is a cohesive product. Crucially, I think this is the music Metallica has always wanted to play. I think they got caught up in "classic thrash" by chance, by happenstance, just by being in LA in the 80s. Metallica were average, uncannily generic representatives of thrash anyway. Every other classic thrash band is better by virtue of having something to distinguish them, in a genre which goes stale very fast. Many metal bands hopped onto nu-metal post-grunge stuff because those genres unlocked a way of expression that didn't exist before, as well as plain being easier to play. It's okay when musicians hop off the metal train, and it doesn't diminish the ability of trve fans to make and listen to what they want to. St. Anger should be judged according to the standards of what it sounds like, and not in the context of thrash metal. It's ostensibly a nu-metal album, but it also has moments of thrash and groove metal in it. Some parts bring to mind System of a Down, albeit a less tightly-played one, and other parts have grungy dirge echoes Soundgarden or Alice in Chains. It's very of-its-time, but can we give it credit for at least being a little unique in this amalgam of metal styles? What else sounds like this album? And nu-metal has already famously gone through its revival and reappraisement by the younger generations. I, personally, am firmly against any serious cynicism towards this trend (though I will gently deride it, as is my right). People should get to listen to what they want and if they like something, good for them. If the young people really do like Korn and Limp Bizkit and whatever, great. I think that St. Anger would be the perfect album for a lot of the people in that crowd, if it could break through its own context. The shaggy hair, screaming hoarse over trap beats self-harm Roblox crowd. All the sadboys and mopey Drain Gang boys who practice competitive misogyny online. I think you lot would love this shit, you'll like the raw angst and simplicity and unpretentiousness of St. Anger, its easiness and digestibility. You will not need to listen to it ironically or pretend you are listening to bad music on purpose. You are young enough to not give a shit about the pointless metal territorial battles of the past. I say to you, enjoy this album. And for the rest of us, to learn one lesson from it: that being "good" is pointless without being interesting.