What genre is St. Anger?
Printed From: MetalMusicArchives.com
Category: Metal Music Lounges
Forum Name: Polls
Forum Description: Create polls on topics related to metal music
URL: http://www.MetalMusicArchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=12353
Printed Date: 15 Jan 2025 at 5:09pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 10.16 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: What genre is St. Anger?
Posted By: TheHeavyMetalCat
Subject: What genre is St. Anger?
Date Posted: 13 Feb 2017 at 3:51am
|
It's usually agreed that Metallica's St. Anger isn't a very good album. What's not agreed is what genre it's actually supposed to be. Here on MMA for example we have it pegged as thrash metal. On RYM the vote has turned up Alternative Metal. You can see a number of other suggestions for it's genre there as well, with some claiming it's not even metal, but hard rock. Some people have even voted for it as noise rock, post-hardcore or garage rock. Wikipedia has it down as heavy metal. This is also the top tag for it on Last.fm. I've seen it described as many more things that this including nu-metal, groove metal, stoner metal, speed metal and many other things that don't make any sense to me. I've even seen some people call it progressive or avant-garde metal. Personally I think of it as simply their attempt at making a modern sounding metal album, which I suppose fits alternative metal the most. Discuss. |
Replies:
Posted By: adg211288
Date Posted: 13 Feb 2017 at 11:14am
|
It's been so long since I played it that I can't really say for certain. I remember back at the time I just assumed it was thrash because that's what Metallica was and I was only just discovering heavy rock and metal so didn't know any better. I can rule a few of these options out and say it's definitely not prog, avant-garde, speed, stoner, hard rock, hardcore or nu and I'd probably rule out heavy metal as well. Could be any of the other three. Not sure. ------------- Earn Money Online (NOT a scam): https://premium.gg2u.org?referrer=adg211288" rel="nofollow - GG2U https://adamsfilmcorner.quora.com/" rel="nofollow - Adam's Film Corner on Quora |
Posted By: Unitron
Date Posted: 13 Feb 2017 at 11:24am
|
Well I'm one of those few people who doesn't think St. Anger is that bad of an album, I think it has some great tracks on it (albeit being a bit too long). Personally I'm fine with it being in thrash metal, but I suppose groove metal may be a better fit. I see it as one of those albums that borders on thrash and groove metal, so either of those works for me. Also, alternative metal doesn't equal modern-sounding metal album, alternative metal usually means a metal band that takes influence from a wide range of both metal and non-metal styles. St. Anger does sound like an attempt at a modern-sounding album (Although I've heard the band meant it to be a "back to the garage sound of a band just starting out" album), but it does that without really taking any elements from styles other than thrash and groove. ------------- If I say fuck two more times that's forty-six fucks in this fucked up rhyme |
Posted By: aglasshouse
Date Posted: 13 Feb 2017 at 8:13pm
|
Alternative metal? Definitely not. If it's alternative metal then there would be alternative elements, of which there are none. I do agree with Khaliq though, the sound is more reminiscent of groove metal considering. Don't lump it in with alternative metal just because you don't like it. Conversely, alternative metal isn't defined as a modern metal album. There's other more complex elements to it.
|
Posted By: Vim Fuego
Date Posted: 13 Feb 2017 at 9:00pm
I lumped it in nu-metal because I don't like it... |
aglasshouse wrote:Posted By: aglasshouse
Date Posted: 13 Feb 2017 at 9:22pm
If you like willful ignorance, so be it.
|
Posted By: Warthur
Date Posted: 14 Feb 2017 at 4:08am
|
I guess the rationale behind calling it nu-metal comes down to two things: - It came out in 2003, when nu-metal was still hot and people lazily applied the term to any metal that didn't fit into a more obvious category. - Nu-metal tends to downplay guitar solos, St. Anger doesn't have any.
|
Posted By: adg211288
Date Posted: 14 Feb 2017 at 5:26am
|
I replayed a few tracks this morning (and it may be just the nostalgia but they weren't as bad as I seemed to be telling myself they ought to be, drum sound aside) and based on those I think us having this in thrash is way off the mark and it doesn't scream groove metal at me either, at least as far as my admittedly limited experience with groove metal goes. Heavy metal or alternative metal would be my 'either or' picks. I'm leaning towards the latter though and that's not lumping it in because I hate, because I actually don't hate it. Being my first metal album purchased (as unusual gateway album as it is), it's still pretty important to me so I'd like to see it tagged appropriately. That's not thrash. If there's any lumping in to be done regarding alternative, it's because there's no better 'best fit' for the album. ------------- Earn Money Online (NOT a scam): https://premium.gg2u.org?referrer=adg211288" rel="nofollow - GG2U https://adamsfilmcorner.quora.com/" rel="nofollow - Adam's Film Corner on Quora |
Posted By: aglasshouse
Date Posted: 14 Feb 2017 at 7:48am
|
Speaking from a point of experience as well as considering the time frame the album was released in, St. Anger is not alternative metal. Thrash isn't correct either though. Personally what I'm leaning towards is plain Heavy but I'm not exactly qualified to speak on the behalf of something like groove mainly because of my similar lack of knowledge. Khaliq may be able to better explain his feelings towards his groove opinion but that aside trad. is my personal best bet. Trad is just more all encompassing than alternative metal, especially seeing as in 2003 alternative metal was still a derivative form of it's more recent self, with more post-grunge and alternative rock elements. Sure it's more diverse now but in the early 2000s alt metal was actually quite stagnant. Traditional goes back much longer and similarly can have many diverse sounds lumped under it. Just my opinion. |
Posted By: Warthur
Date Posted: 14 Feb 2017 at 7:55am
|
Lemme go down the list... Alternative Metal: It doesn't really fit into any established tradition of alternative metal, but then again "alternative" music in general is a really broad umbrella which generally covers "anything which bucked traditional rock/metal trends from the 1980s/1990s onwards". To make the analogy, there's an awful lot of "alternative rock" bands who don't really sound like each other (the Cure sound nothing like Oasis, for instance), so there's no reason to assume that alternative metal release necessarily have much in common beyond a non-traditional approach which isn't quite weird enough to be avant-garde. Funk Metal, Nu Metal: No, clearly not either of these. Avant-garde Metal: Nope, it's definitely not traditional but it's not really weird enough to be avant-garde. Black Metal/Death Metal/Doom Metal/Drone Metal/Folk Metal/Glam Metal/Gothic Metal/Grindcore: A clear "nope" to all these. Groove Metal: I've yet to see a really strong argument that it's groove beyond the fact that groove is kind of descended from thrash and St. Anger is kind of descended from thrash. Don't think so. Industrial Metal/Metalcore/Neoclassical metal/Power Metal/Progressive Metal: Nope. Sludge Metal: I'm not seeing it myself. Speed Metal/Stoner Metal/Symphonic Metal: Obviously not. Thrash Metal: No, it's drifted too far from that. Traditional heavy metal: Clue's in the name, really - I'd have a hard time accepting anything which takes St. Anger's particular aesthetic decisions like ditching guitar solos as being "traditional" heavy metal by any description. US Power Metal: No. Metal Related: It's clearly some sort of metal, but what type is an open question. So on balance, I'm inclined to agree: "Alternative Metal" isn't a perfect fit, but it's the least bad fit any of our existing categories offer. And it'd be silly to come up with a new "St. Anger Metal" category just for this one album.
|
Posted By: 666sharon666
Date Posted: 14 Feb 2017 at 8:01am
|
We've been talking about asking M@X to drop the 'traditional' part of the sub-genre's name. Just have Heavy Metal. There's a lot of stuff including many modern bands that definitely aren't alternative metal that fit there, so dropping the traditional part of the name makes a lot of sense. I'd take St. Anger in heavy metal over thrash metal any day. I'm more neutral on the heavy vs alternative argument though. Either one works for me. |
Posted By: Unitron
Date Posted: 14 Feb 2017 at 10:08am
|
Listening to some of the songs again. I can still rule out alternative, as the only connection to that I can hear is the occasional AiC-esque vocal melody. Musically, it is hard to place. I still stand with saying the album does have a mix of thrash and groove, Frantic coming across as thrash to my ears, while My World has sort of a southern groove metal sound. If the "traditional" is dropped from heavy metal, I suppose it would be fine there, but that still doesn't sound quite right. ------------- If I say fuck two more times that's forty-six fucks in this fucked up rhyme |
Posted By: Warthur
Date Posted: 14 Feb 2017 at 10:21am
I think the risk there is that then Heavy Metal *will* become the generic "We're not sure where it goes so we'll toss it in here" subgenre. Maybe keep Traditional as a subgenre of Heavy, like NWOBHM is?
|
Posted By: Vim Fuego
Date Posted: 14 Feb 2017 at 4:06pm
It's because I don't like nu-metal either.  I really don't know what the hell you call it, because there's no genre for abominations. I was really just trying to mess with the poll.  |
Posted By: siLLy puPPy
Date Posted: 14 Feb 2017 at 9:16pm
|
I see it as alternative metal myself. Alternative means "outside the norm" but not weird enough for avantgarde or progressive. While nu metal may have been an influence it's not that either becaue they keep some ties to thrash compositional approaches even if the familiarities had been deemphasized. I actually like it better than most as well, much better than the 90s output after the black album ------------- 
|
Posted By: 666sharon666
Date Posted: 15 Feb 2017 at 4:38am
That would only confuse matters as traditional metal and heavy metal are two names for the same thing. The difference is one name narrows the scope of the genre and the other broadens it. Calling the sub-genre traditional heavy metal like we have now suggests that it's only for artists who really are traditional. It doesn't leave any room for the artists who have a modern sound but still mostly have the same values as genuine traditional heavy metal bands and could be considered a natural evolution of them. All genres evolve, heavy metal included. That's why specifically saying 'traditional' is too limiting. |
Posted By: TheHeavyMetalCat
Date Posted: 15 Feb 2017 at 8:14am
|
Hey just so we're clear on something (not saying that anyone has implied anything) I didn't start this topic to contest the album's placement on MMA. It's just that so many different sites list the album as a different genre and I was curious about what everyone thought. I actually assumed the collab version of this discussion would have been done long ago and that thrash had been settled on. Though as no one here does consider it thrash maybe it should be moved. |
Posted By: Warthur
Date Posted: 16 Feb 2017 at 11:43am
Surely having mostly the same values as those who have come before you is the definition of traditional?
|
Posted By: 666sharon666
Date Posted: 16 Feb 2017 at 12:00pm
|
I see your point, but some collabs have in the past objected to the more modern sounding (so called melodic metal) bands being placed in the sub-genre for not being 'traditional enough' which in my view is wrong. But more to the point, 'heavy metal' on its own is the more used name. I know some prefer to say traditional heavy metal to differentiate from the genre as a whole, but it's more correct to say 'metal' is the genre as a whole and 'heavy metal' is a sub-genre. We're talking about a re-name only, not a change in how the sub-genre is run. |
Posted By: Warthur
Date Posted: 17 Feb 2017 at 3:26am
| I think the simple fact that lots of people use "heavy metal" to refer to metal as a whole is argument enough for the current genre name - it emphasises that it *isn't* a catch-all term but means something specific. |
Posted By: Warthur
Date Posted: 17 Feb 2017 at 5:15am
| Plus if there's a group of acts in there which a) have a recognisable, distinct common sound and b) aren't really following the traditions of the heavy metal subgenre that sounds like an argument for melodic metal as a subgenre. Especially if they describe themselves that way. |
Posted By: adg211288
Date Posted: 17 Feb 2017 at 6:25am
|
Melodic Metal as a sub-genre (of trad) has been suggested before but always ruled out due to objections. ------------- Earn Money Online (NOT a scam): https://premium.gg2u.org?referrer=adg211288" rel="nofollow - GG2U https://adamsfilmcorner.quora.com/" rel="nofollow - Adam's Film Corner on Quora |
Posted By: 666sharon666
Date Posted: 17 Feb 2017 at 6:28am
|
Having a sub-genre called just melodic metal wouldn't solve the problem though. It might make it even worse. An issue with the current setup is that some have tried to push bands like this into power metal. If we has melodic metal we might get the reverse start to happen. There's no perfect solution to this, which is why I stand by that we should stick to what is most correct. And that's just having Heavy Metal on Metal Music Archives because the site itself is not called Heavy Metal Music Archives (which would justify the current name). |
Posted By: Warthur
Date Posted: 17 Feb 2017 at 7:49am
| What the site calls itself doesn't control or affect the fact that "metal" and "heavy metal" are used as synonyms by a lot of people, though. Are we naming the genres to be clear to us, or to be clear to new people stumbling across the site? |
Posted By: Unitron
Date Posted: 17 Feb 2017 at 10:29am
Good point, I could see how the "traditional" could be of help to those coming to the site that aren't as familiar with all the metal genres. I know to many of us seasoned metalheads, there's no questioning what we mean when we say heavy metal, but heavy metal and metal have become somewhat synonymous to those not as familiar with it. ------------- If I say fuck two more times that's forty-six fucks in this fucked up rhyme |
Posted By: TheHeavyMetalCat
Date Posted: 17 Feb 2017 at 11:27am
|
This is going really off topic here. But to throw my opinion in I think we should use the more common name. Which is Heavy Metal. |
Posted By: aglasshouse
Date Posted: 17 Feb 2017 at 7:07pm
I agree pretty much with this. Not as a throwaway genre but as something that encompasses something as debated as St. Anger which doesn't fit in the more specific genres on this site.
|