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

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

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.”

Actually, in SKOM (the movie), Kirk said he wanted to put solos on the album, but he was told (by Lars, IIRC) solos were out. Kirk did add solos when they played the songs live, though.

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.

i'm in 100% agreement on this. i liked some of the songs on the album, but the production was horrid. you can tell that whether or not you liked the songs or not that that production goes beyond raw into unexcusable. especially for a band of this calibur. to me it doesn't matter if the band hired him, or the label..he didn't do his job. the proof is in the headphones.

mc666 wrote:

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.

i'm in 100% agreement on this. i liked some of the songs on the album, but the production was horrid. you can tell that whether or not you liked the songs or not that that production goes beyond raw into unexcusable. especially for a band of this calibur. to me it doesn't matter if the band hired him, or the label..he didn't do his job. the proof is in the headphones.

I've stated this before, but ultimately it's Lars & James (maybe Kirk to some extent) that had to listen to the FINAL PRODUCT and say "YES. This is what WE wanted. THIS is the EXACT sound we were going for." Bob Rock was working FOR them, friend of the band or not. So whether he did his job correctly or not is a matter of opinion. From what I'm reading into about his quotes, he did what was expected of him and did what he could with the poor material. The band signed off on it. They, the band or just Lars and James if you like, are the ones that have to take the responsibility. This is just speculation on my part because we'll never know the whole story, but how do we know that Bob didn't try tuning the drums or tweaked certain things, polishing a turd in essence, and then had to go back becasue Lars came in and said, "No man, make it sound more loose, make it stand out in the mix."

I'm not in the music industry, but I do work in video production and I've had to attach my name to some really crap product because that's what the paying client wanted. We could certainly make suggestions and push the client in a certain direction because we knew what they wanted wouldn't work, but in the end, they want it a certain way and we would deliver the goods (Priest pun intended ). The satisfaction comes when the client comes back, tail between the legs, and wants us to do it over, the right way this time, and we can charge them all over again.

MetalGuy71 wrote:

I've stated this before, but ultimately it's Lars & James (maybe Kirk to some extent) that had to listen to the FINAL PRODUCT and say "YES. This is what WE wanted. THIS is the EXACT sound we were going for." Bob Rock was working FOR them, friend of the band or not. So whether he did his job correctly or not is a matter of opinion. From what I'm reading into about his quotes, he did what was expected of him and did what he could with the poor material. The band signed off on it. They, the band or just Lars and James if you like, are the ones that have to take the responsibility. This is just speculation on my part because we'll never know the whole story, but how do we know that Bob didn't try tuning the drums or tweaked certain things, polishing a turd in essence, and then had to go back becasue Lars came in and said, "No man, make it sound more loose, make it stand out in the mix."

I'm not in the music industry, but I do work in video production and I've had to attach my name to some really crap product because that's what the paying client wanted. We could certainly make suggestions and push the client in a certain direction because we knew what they wanted wouldn't work, but in the end, they want it a certain way and we would deliver the goods (Priest pun intended ). The satisfaction comes when the client comes back, tail between the legs, and wants us to do it over, the right way this time, and we can charge them all over again.

you can state it as much as you wish, i'll still disagree.

I think St Anger sucked cause they were lazy and trying to be unique and thought raw and not sugar coated metallica would appeal to the public.

Metallica finally learned they are not like a Polo shirt where it is the name that sells. Hopefully and it already sounds like they cleaned up the lazy attitude and are trying again. I am happy about that, however I am still not hopeful about the new album, but that is unfair to mention to you all and even them. That isnt the point of the thread.