The only thing that's weird is Reeds off-time delivery, but he's notoriously avant-garde and, as Ray points out, he's always been polarizing. Music is good, lyrics are good, Hetfields delivery is good. People are rushing to judgement & are massively over-reacting to an out of context 30 second clip. That said, a 90 minute experimental/metal concept album based on 100 year old german plays isn't going to be for everybody. However it turns out I have nothing but respect for those involved because they're doing something they want to do, not what others think they should.
I didn't think it could get much worse than Death Magnetic, but amazingly enough, Metallica has done the impossible.
urgghhh may I ask why you (and many other Metallica fans) think that? I mean, I'm all for people opinions and the less said about St. Anger the better... but why was Death Magnetic so bad? It was old school. 'Tallica haven't sounded as fresh in years. Solos where back. It was thrashier, faster. The only thing bad about it was the terrible mixing. Other than that its a great album. I just don't get the hate on it!
Considering this is the band that released St Anger it's pretty much impossible for anything else to be their worst album.
Because I don't like it. I felt like it was boring as hell, and the only track I could stand through it was The Unforgiven 3.
I was talking more about people saying Death Magnetic was even worse. I still haven't actually listened to anything at all from this one.
They had the right idea with St. Anger, but they executed it poorly (an understatement, I know). There were some great riffs sandwiched in those shitty songs. They should've trimmed the fat and made a 30-40 minute punk-influenced album. With a fucking snare.
James Hetfield's vocals just don't do a damn thing for me anymore. Maybe it's a combination of that and just how they've been produced ever since the mid 90s, but it's just not working anymore. Just release this piece of shit, tour for it, announce a break-up after a final tour, and then watch the money just pour in. Anniversary issues of their old albums, remasters, rarities, best-ofs, live CDs/DVDs... far more interesting and financially smart than to keep doing what they're doing. Or just keep doing the Big 4 tour, I don't know. They're treading water and have been for years now, even before St. Anger. I think the last great thing they did was the S&M concert.
Basically, if you weren't a fan of Lou Reed before, you're probably not going to like this. If you're going to get into anything Lou Reed-related, start with some Velvet Underground stuff, and if you can get into that, then you might be able to look at this collaboration with a bit more of an open-mind. Sorry if I'm generalizing a bit and that doesn't apply to any particular person who reads this post, but the majority of the hatred for this song that I've seen is coming from people who weren't previously Lou Reed fans. I'm not surprised a bit in that regard. As far as I'm concerned, the song is decent, and most of my issues with it are on Metallica's end. Lou's vocals are kind of loud in comparison to the music, but other than that, I don't really take issue with them, as they're what I've come to expect from the guy. The guitar riff the song is built around is pretty solid, but it gets REALLY repetitive...and as usual, WTF is up with Lars Ulrich's drumming? This is a mid-tempo 4/4 song that should be a piece of cake, yet he still does all kinds of awkward-sounding offbeat stuff with the kick that really has no place in the song. At least his snare sounds decent for a change...James Hetfield's vocals are pretty solid though.