That's what makes it so good, though. It's so raw and primal and energetic and full of youthful aggression.
I do get this, and it's a large part of the charm for that album. In my opinion, the sound is in a weird place for this album. I think it's "too raw", so to speak. I've really no idea how to convey what I mean exactly, but contrasting with Slayer and Megadeth's firsts, you might be able to see what I mean.
Slayer's Show No Mercy is clearly distinct from the Slayer 'sound' that started forming by Hell Awaits, but you can tell there's a method to the madness, so to speak. Megadeth, I think you can clearly see this is where a lot of Kill 'em All's sound comes from. Dave Mustaine seemed to know what he was going for with Megadeth from the start with Killing is My Business. Metallica, I think, didn't seem nearly as clued in to what they wanted sound wise. It certainly feels like that album was heavily weighted on Dave Mustaine's input, but err... there's obvious reasons for that.
I've no idea if that'll make any sense to anyone but me... Hopefully you know what I'm getting at.
I'd have to guess by this post that you'd probably rate all 3 of their first albums as top or very high of their respective discographies.
It is the epitome of mediocrity and watered-down pop-metal.
Eh, no real arguments there. I still liked the handful of songs enough to call it a decent album in my book.
Not going to bother with a list but I will say I think St. Anger is an interesting album. There are cool ideas, vocal harmonies and even a few good songs lurking somewhere in what is undeniably a messy album.
I love it when Metallica takes risks. They're a more daring and interesting band than their supposed fans will allow them to be.
Ok, I get this too, but... fuck that album :P
Seriously though, I agree with the sentiment. I think their most recent stuff backs you up in this regard, but St Anger came out when their heads were shoved so far up their collective asses it seeped through the album.