Bob Rock on why "St. Anger" sucked...

And in response to the controversy surrounding the last Metallica album, Rock had this to say:

"Well... yeah. Realistically though if you really think about it – it was the fact that there was NO real songs. That was because the guy who writes the songs – couldn't write the songs because of where he was personally. So, what St. Anger became was what the band could do at that point and it is exactly that. It was riffs strung together... The way I look at it was like raw power or a garage band. It was just riffs... It was garage band and that was supposed to sound like that and what I learned out of it is that people in metal just don't want it to change. So, it's best that Rick Rubin continue the metal thing and not Bob."

he has a point to an extent, but it's probably just sour grapes since they didn't utilize him this time around.

Sounds like sour grapes to me as well.

Regardless of how good or bad the songs themselves were, the production was absolutely horrid. He has no excuse for it. I've hear poorly recorded demos that sound better than the million dollar "St. Anger."

ultmetal wrote:

Sounds like sour grapes to me as well.

Regardless of how good or bad the songs themselves were, the production was absolutely horrid. He has no excuse for it. I've hear poorly recorded demos that sound better than the million dollar "St. Anger."

Like... No Life Til Leather

Chairman_Smith wrote:

ultmetal wrote:

Sounds like sour grapes to me as well.

Regardless of how good or bad the songs themselves were, the production was absolutely horrid. He has no excuse for it. I've hear poorly recorded demos that sound better than the million dollar "St. Anger."

Like... No Life Til Leather

Exactly.

I'm sure there is some truth to it...maybe a little sour grapes, but he's not making it up...

How is crappy songwriting an excuse for such a poor recording, mix, etc.?

ultmetal wrote:

How is crappy songwriting an excuse for such a poor recording, mix, etc.?

There's an old saying: "you can't polish a turd." Even if Rock had done one of his standard zillion dollar megabuck production jobs on those songs, I doubt it would've made them sound any better because they were simply crap songs.

Fat Freddy wrote:

ultmetal wrote:

How is crappy songwriting an excuse for such a poor recording, mix, etc.?

There's an old saying: "you can't polish a turd." Even if Rock had done one of his standard zillion dollar megabuck production jobs on those songs, I doubt it would've made them sound any better because they were simply crap songs.

That's what I'm saying. And he didn't mention the mix, only the songwriting...he didn't blame the sound on the songs.

Mmmmm, I still think if the production hadn't been so horrid, the album would have been much more listenable and enjoyable, despite what anyone thinks of the songs. The songs aren't that bad. Even if the songwriting is 'garage band fodder', I've heard many garage bands whose material I enjoyed and whose recording was marred by trash cans for drums.

True. He said in the same interview that Kirk was given room to solo on every song...Here's more of the interview:

ML: We don’t have much time left, so let me ask you how was it working with Metallica and can you comment on the St. Anger album?
BR: “It was the best and happiest fifteen years and some more stuff. It’s the extreme of emotions with those guys. Fifteen years of my life is a long time and it was fantastic. It was the best anybody could hope for. As for St. Anger, lots of controversy there.”

ML: A big controversy was the drum sound...
BR: “Well... yeah. Realistically though if you really think about it – it was the fact that there was NO real songs. That was because the guy who writes the songs – couldn’t write the songs because of where he was personally. So, what St. Anger became was what the band could do at that point and it is exactly that. It was riffs strung together... The way I look at it was like raw power or a garage band. It was just riffs... It was garage band and that was supposed to sound like that and what I learned out of it is that people in metal just don’t want it to change. So, it’s best that Rick Rubin continue the metal thing and not Bob.”

ML: It was also criticized for not having guitar solos...
BR: “Everybody has their theories, but the truth... You watch the movie and you think it’s some big conspiracy, but the truth is that Kirk had a chance to do a solo on every one of the songs. The only thing we said is ‘if the solo doesn’t add something – then we’re not going to add it.’ That’s the truth. It was like ‘Kirk you’ve got as much time as you want. Come up with something original and great... That doesn’t date it’. They were just trying to reach for something new and basically every time he did (come up with a solo); James and Lars (with me) said ‘No, it’s better without.’ And it came down to nothing is really sounding great so ‘ok, let’s not have solos.’ That’s the truth and Kirk agreed, but of course if you look at the movie... They took two and a half years and had to put a movie together so they grabbed all this stuff and kind of formed a way that it could be looked at, but it has nothing to do with what happened.”

ML: Movies only semi-reflect reality at the best of times.
BR: “Yeah, exactly. It was a good learning process for me. The more we get into those kinds of documentaries – it becomes something else. It’s not necessarily the truth. It’s an angle or a view of the truth and the truth of St. Anger was the band was broken-up. They were done.”

ML: Just by the fact that you were playing bass on it shows that they weren’t a band. They weren’t four guys.
BR: “They had three guys, but two of them couldn’t stand to be in the same room. They had all these problems personally and they never wanted to be with each other in the same room or speak to each other again. They broke-up. There was a couple of weeks to a month where it was over. All I did because I played bass when we put together the Mission Impossible song... They said ‘we can’t really add somebody new at this point. Just do what you did with Mission Impossible.’ I was there as a friend and not as a producer and if I made a mistake – that was it. I didn’t do what other guys would do which is ‘just phone me when you got the songs’. There are producers that do that. They don’t really do anything – they go ‘just write the songs and when they’re good, I’ll record them’. I didn’t do that – these guys are my friends. I love these guys. They’re falling apart and I’ve got to be with them so be it. I was there because I was a friend. I stuck with them for two and a half years of my life because they needed someone. That’s what I was there for. We stuck together and basically what Metallica fans have got to realize is - St. Anger is the reason why they’re still a band and if I was the sacrificial lamb then so be it. I’d rather have those guys now, as human beings, and me not work with them than anything. I just wish them the best of luck. They’re just a huge band and amazing musicians. I’ve nothing, but great things to say about them.”

Sounds like Bob Rock isn't taking responsibility AT ALL for that atrocity.

ultmetal wrote:

Sounds like Bob Rock isn't taking responsibility AT ALL for that atrocity.

Well, when you're with a bunch of guys with the dynamic they had at the time, there's probably only so much you can do.

But, he should at least say "Yeah, the drums sound like smurf poo."

ultmetal wrote:

Sounds like Bob Rock isn't taking responsibility AT ALL for that atrocity.

he is trying to make out like he had absolutely no say, when fact is, he has had substantial say since the black album.

i dont care as long as the next album is a corker which i 100% believe will blow minds and be a return to the metallica of old at least partly. the sacking of bob rock only shows how metallica are willing to move away from the commercial sound rock alledgeldy made the band take. come on people rick rubin producing should mean we get a classic metal production - ya know just the right amount of crunch and not a shitty pop mix. this is the producer who made reign in blood so i have confidence he would not let tham make a smurf poo record

mc666 wrote:

ultmetal wrote:

Sounds like Bob Rock isn't taking responsibility AT ALL for that atrocity.

he is trying to make out like he had absolutely no say, when fact is, he has had substantial say since the black album.

That's what I was thinking.

Shoot, he could have at least broke out with a piece of duct tape for that snare ring. Shesh!!!

ultmetal wrote:

Sounds like Bob Rock isn't taking responsibility AT ALL for that atrocity.

Would you want to fess and up and say "Yup, that is my abortion of a CD?" I'd probably want to distance myself from it too!

Bob did what they wanted.

I think it was the lack of "real songs" as Bob said that was the main problem.

I am not at all in the "Bob Rock stinks and he ruined Metallica" camp. Metallica ruined Metallica. If they thought Bob was steering them in the wrong direction then they had enough clout to fire him and do what they wanted to. Bob worked for them.

Temple of Blood wrote:

Bob did what they wanted.

I think it was the lack of "real songs" as Bob said that was the main problem.

I am not at all in the "Bob Rock stinks and he ruined Metallica" camp. Metallica ruined Metallica. If they thought Bob was steering them in the wrong direction then they had enough clout to fire him and do what they wanted to. Bob worked for them.

Thank you!

If I was a producer and something I was producing sounding like smurf poo, I wouldn't want my name on that product. Certainly Metallica ruined Metallica, but Bob has to take some measure of responsibility for how crappy that album was recorded, mixed, etc. His name is on the album as producer. He was hired, correct. However, he was hired to make the band sound good. That's the producers job. In this case, regardless of the crappy songwriting, the recording sounds like crap. The drums are atrocious. He didn't do his job.

Even you have to agree, Scott, that if you like the songs on an album, the production doesn't really matter that much. We all love old demo recordings, and under-produces stuff from the 80's, and we have nothing but utter respect for those recordings, because we love the songs. Now, if St.Anger would sound like St.Anger, but have songs like on Master of Puppets, would we even have this discussion?

kmorg wrote:

Even you have to agree, Scott, that if you like the songs on an album, the production doesn't really matter that much. We all love old demo recordings, and under-produces stuff from the 80's, and we have nothing but utter respect for those recordings, because we love the songs. Now, if St.Anger would sound like St.Anger, but have songs like on Master of Puppets, would we even have this discussion?

Yes, we would, if Master of Puppets had that same trash can snare sound running throughout it. The production ruined that album. I am not one who is overly concerned with production. I can enjoy 'raw' production, but that album goes beyond raw into just plain stupid.

Quote :

However, he was hired to make the band sound good. That's the producers job.

Depends on who he was hired by. If the label hired him, yeah. If the band hired him and were the ones paying him, he will do what they want...you listen to who signs your checks.

ultmetal wrote:

If I was a producer and something I was producing sounding like smurf poo, I wouldn't want my name on that product. Certainly Metallica ruined Metallica, but Bob has to take some measure of responsibility for how crappy that album was recorded, mixed, etc. His name is on the album as producer. He was hired, correct. However, he was hired to make the band sound good. That's the producers job. In this case, regardless of the crappy songwriting, the recording sounds like crap. The drums are atrocious. He didn't do his job.

Totally agree with Scott on this. How did anyone involved in the making of this album not notice how ridiculous the drums sounded?

This will end badly, but I think the drums on the track St. Anger sound hilariously awesome. On the rest of the album, they suck, but I think for that track they work. Having said that, St. Anger is one of the few tracks on the album I actually enjoy *shrug*.

And really, I think Metallica's ruin was the result of both Metallica and Bob Rock. The fatal combination of a band whose creative forces hate each other too much to make anything productive and a lazy producer resulted in St. Anger.