From: cblanc@pomona.claremont.edu
Subject: The Amazing Alt.R-N-R.Metal.Deception Circus!
Organization: Pomona College
Date: 10 Apr 92 12:18:02 PDT

In article <1992Apr10.024318.26384@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Kevin.J.Feury@dartmouth.edu (Kevin J. Feury) writes:
> you are more than pathetic. first you say it about g'n'r, now
> metallica. why do you seem to assume taht everyone is lying? do you
> have some sort of paranoid complex that makes you think this way? i
> find it rather funny. perhaps you could find some truth to this? as for
> money, metallica sure don't need it. they  spent nearly a million bucks
> on production for this album, and the length of the tour they proposed
> before its release indicated they were not in need of cash.

	Wait?  Maybe they want ... more?  Kev, face it: most of the people out
there are probably lying.  Do you believe everything you hear?  Neither do I,
especially when the speaker has interests which conflict with his telling the
truth.

> 
>> Catchy ... let's see.  This is harder to prove because it's pure
>> subjectivity, but think about the cadenced chants of Harvester of Sorrow; it's
>> a simple pop sound, a chanting followed by an echoed vocal.  The riff surely is
>> a simpler sound. 
> 
> i beg to differ. i just don't like 'harvester ' at all, but i do think
> it's metal and not 'pop' they played it during the 'monsters of rock'
> tour and it went over rather well with the crowd hungering for new
> metallica. i didn't care for it then or now.

	So you base your judgements of 'pop' on crowd appeal?  Isn't that the
definition of pop?

> 
>  From "Metallica," let's see:  Enter Sandman has that neat
>> singsong "Exit Light/Enter night" hook and the purely silly lyrics sung with
>> the same fervor as Nirvana.
> 
> i will cede that 'sandman' is the only song i seem to find catchy, but
> it's more the riff than the lyrics. i don't think the fervor of nirvana
> is similar at all, but what are you trying to say? comparing nirvana
> and metallica? say what you like about the restof their stuff, but
> 'slts' is pretty damn close to metal, especially the power chord riff
> sections.

	Perhaps by your definitions, but it seems to me more the product of
punk-influenced rock.  It's all pretty "close," but it's closer to the pop
market than to the core of metal, musically, lyrically, or ethically.

> 
>> What about Sad But True?  "Hey-ey!"  Sounds like
>> pop rock to me. 
> 
> sounds like someone trying to garner attention to me. what word would
> you use? i take it you wouldn't write the song at all, but given that
> you had an interest in it, what would you say?

	It's a pop technique with a pop lyrical style.  Were I to write that
song, I would have used a real lyrical hook.  Not "hey-ey!" as if I were Motley
Crue, but perhaps a more cerebral focus.

> 
>> The Unforgiven ... that neat little "la nah nah" or whatever
>> it is he sings at the end...what, is this MetalliJovi or something?
> 
> no, that's what is commonly referred to as a 'hetfieldism' you know,
> like the 'go!' in 'damage, inc.' or the laughing in 'seek and destroy'
> i don't find it particularly out of place. it's something james has a
> knack for doing. kinda like the way mj hangs his tongue out when he
> jams the basketball...

	Yeah, right, sure.  Look, that light murmur at the end there is
standard pop technique for ending a song.  Nothing Metallica would have
resorted to back when they were making music.  It's frivolous.  There's a
difference between an idiosyncrasy generated by concentrating (hanging your
tongue out) and a musicial idiocy.

>  
>> > they picked him for the sound they could get, not for what else he
>> > produces. don't you ever listen to what the band say? although alex
>> 
>> 	Why?  What's their incentive to tell the truth?
> 
> what's the incentive to lie? this album is all about james. it's him,
> his past, his experience. this is how he feels. there's no need to lie.
> you're just making up more bullshit.

	Since you're so big on facts, prove I'm lying.  How am I "bullshitting"
(=lying) if I'm putting forth opinions?  What _is_ his incentive to tell the
truth?  His objective was to create an album full of simple songs like the hits
of the last twenty years (see him on the one-riff nature of the songs, any
interview).  Sure it's about James.  It's about James retiring in Beverly
Hills.  Yep, that's where they live...

>  
>> > would have given the band better sound than flemming, rick rubin would
>> > certainly not have, and neither of them would have given the quality
>> 
>> 	I thought he did a better job for metal than Rock did.
> 
> what it comes down to, yet again, is that metallica, not bob rock,
> wrote the songs. he only produced them. they liked the sound he gave,
> so they hired him.

	Yes, thank you, Kev, we can all grasp this concept.  However, a 'fifth
member of the band'?  Metallica admit that Rock had influence beyond simply
recording sound.

>  
>> > that bob rock does. say what you want about the other groups he
>> > produces, but the man gives a good sound. regardless of this, the band
>> > wrote the songs, not the producer.
>> 
>> 	But he was "like a fifth member of the band" - Hetfield, I think.
> 
> so is almost every other producer. if you want a certain sound, you ask
> the producer how to get it. he tells you. it's very simple. if he
> doesn't tell you, or you don't do it, you don't get the sound you want.
> so yes, the producer is very important to the band.

	Uh-huh.  Hetfield said that as a contrast to Flemming.  The implication
is that Rock had more than normal influence, and I believe it.

>  
>> > and my point is that he doesn't care what everyone else thinks.
>> 
>> 	Then why the Rolling Stone interview?  
> 
> what about it? metallica's goal is to spread their music wherever they
> can. the fact that the new album seems to be more popular than the
> others doesn't mean a whole lot to me. when metallica wrote the album,
> they wrote what they wanted to write. suppose that noone liked the
> 'sandman' video and it never became popular? then i guarantee this
> conversation never would have taken place between us. the band got
> lucky that the sound they produced is popular. same with nirvana. same
> with the original g'n'r. they didn't write to an audience, they gained
> an audience.

	Cough.  I have told you repeatedly that it doesn't matter to me.  If I
gave a shit about what was popular, would I listen to REM?  The Beatles?  Do
you have a fucking case here?  Hell, no!  For all of your pedanticism, Kev, you
don't really put forth a decent point in this argument.
	If Metallica don't give a fuck, why do they now give a fuck about
spreading their music?  If people like it, then, should they or should they not
give a fuck?  Why is it that they've written this album more accessibly (as
discussed above) instead of more simply as you assert?  Look at Anthrax - they
write some completely simple stuff, but it's not sold out.  DRI - somewhat
sold-out, but not this badly.  Simple, but good.  There are other ways to write
simple, more musical songs than to write pop music.

>  
>> > besides, anyone with even part of a working brain should look at the
>> > big picture, not a single song. a normal person should be able to look
>> > past what a song says and try to see what the group is actually saying.
>> 
>> 	It's not my fault they cannot write coherent lyrics.
> 
> it has nothing to do with coherence idiot. most metallica songs (after
> KEA) mean far more when you scratch below the surface. it's a great
> contrast from the way say, dave mustaine writes. he comes out and hits
> you over the head with it.

	Oh, really?  Why don't you analyze "In My Darkest Hour," then, and tell
me that again.  Most metal has underlying meaning, as does most rock with
integrity.  Ever listen to the blues?  Full of imagery and tradtion.  Metal
carries its own as well.  There are offenders in this - Death, and Anthrax at
times - but metal generally does a good job of avoiding the 'sheet of glass'
songwriting style.

>  
>> > for example, i like the insight suaron (and if you read this thread,
>> > you know how much he likes g'n'r) gave me in a post he made about the
>> > lyrics. he thinks they were written with axl's idea what the thoughts
>> > of a racist person look like. step back and examine that for a second.
>> > i like this idea. it's new to me, and very interesting. of course,
>> > giving that explanation, they still should not pull the song, because
>> > it demonstrates that the band is not racist...
>> 
>> 	I originally thought that was the basis for the song.  I don't care if
>> they yank it - I'm not convinced they're not racist - but they are presenting
>> an unclear image at best to the public.
> 
> what's wrong with being unclear? very few things in this world today
> are black and white with distinct borders, and music of all types is
> one of those things. 

	Nothing wrong with it - but then they shouldn't bitch about being
called racist, as that's what it appears, and not just to the PC-freaks, but to
normally-thinking individuals.

>  
>> > very good interpretaion on your part about the debate. i have been for
>> > nearly seven years.however, what i wrote was that it was silly for
>> > people to consider g'n'r racist because of one song they wrote and the
>> > lyrics in that song. if you say that the lyrics alter the way people
>> > think about axl and g'n'r, then in effect, they do twist people. you
>> > said it, not me.
>> 
>> 	No, I didn't.  The lyrics portray Axl as racist, but do not twist
>> people into thinking along racist lines.
> 
> why should they protray axl one way or another just because he sings
> them? what if you consider 'anarchy in the u.k.' does that mean that
> just because they sang that song, the sex pistols, megadeth an motley
> crue (ha!) are out to cause havoc and 'fucking destroy' to put in
> vince's manner? no. its a cop out to listen to one song and make
> judgement. further, i read the cd cover to the ep 'cos we have it at
> the radio station, and there's a real nice disclaimer about all the
> songs on it which basically sez 'you may not like what we write. we're
> sorry about that, but hey, we're gonna write it and sing it anyway'

	Um, you're comparing a great cover tune - and, yes, the original
writers _were_ out to destroy - to modern pop-hard-rock songs.  Axl's tune is
by all accounts something he felt - and he comes off as a racist.  
	That disclaimer is inherent in all music that's not utterly shallow. 
It's not balls to put it on an album cover, nor does it say that much.  It's
not a cop out to listen to one song and the controversy following it and then
make your own judgement.

> 
>> > no, but it would impress me if you could put up some facts instead of
>> > opinions without backing.
>> 
>> 	Have you put forward any facts?  Most of this is interpretive anyway;
>> what do you want?  A confession from James Hetfield?
> 
> my facts come from interviewsi've seen and heard with the group and
> taped conversations a friend of mine who got backstage on this tour
> made. the band didn't know they were being taped. perhaps however, the
> confession you mention would be more appropriate to you, you seem to be
> the one claiming lies...

	Whaddya know.  We've probably been reading the same interviews.  It's -
once again - subjective.  How much _do_ we believe Metallica?  It is possible
for human beings (even superior musicians like Metallica) to bullshit
themselves into false paradigms and then continue with their misrepresentations
in order to preserve their self-view.  That's what I think they're doing.  By
now it's unconscious.  So in that sense they may no longer be lying, but living
a lie.
	I would like to see a confession, or rather, Hetfield really
unburdening.  I'd have to become his longtime friend and get him drunk first,
though, in all probability.

> 
>> > true, especially when one party doesn't actively engage. and your
>> 
>> 	What's the point when arguing with closed minds who dish out squirrel
>> arguments?
> 
> it's to try to give understanding and facts to people who don't know
> what they're talking about. 

	Amazingly enough, if you dropped the insult attempts from your messages
you might understand.  If all you can do is attempt to slam, well, then, you've
proven my point.

>  
>> > 'worse fights' don't scare or impress me. what you're saying is that
>> > you'll fight solely to fight, regardless of whether you're right or
>> 
>> 	No.  I'm fighting because I hate ignorance and deception.
> 
> and i don't seem to find either one here.

	Ignorance?  Not as much.  Ignorance of the facts, no.  Ignorance of the
world, yes.  Ignorance of some basic concepts, ditto.  Deception?  Only of the
self.  The other deception's pouring out of the camps of the bands you defend
so zealously.

> 
>> > wrong. that's moronic. and you don't piss me off. you rather make me
>> > laugh.
>> 
>> 	Kev, you make me wonder...and laugh.  :]=
> 
> maybe soon i'll even make you think. not.

	Are these weak stabs at insults the best you can do?
>  
>> >> So leave me now, little man.
>> > 
>> > wouldn't you just love that.
>> 
>> 	Actually, yes. 
> 
> ah well, perhaps when you can put forth arguments i can't answer.

	Since much of your answers are insults, I guess this is going to keep
going.  What I tried to tell you is that there will be no answers, as this can
all be reduced to subjectivity (who do you believe?  what do you hear in the
music?  what do you think about the musical history of it all?) and we're both
obstinate.

>  
>> > as if...
>> 
>> 	As if this were real?
> 
> no, 'as if' 
> ever seen 'wayne's world' ?? or is that too much of a burden for one of
> your intelligence?

	More insults.  What does the statement above attempt to accomplish? 
Merely the gratification of your own ego?

Newsgroups: alt.rock-n-roll.metal