From: cblaise@moose.uvm.edu.UUCP (Chris Blaise)
Subject: Re: Sell Out!!
Originator: cblaise@moose.uvm.edu
Organization: University of Vermont -- Division of EMBA Computer Facility
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 20:17:29 GMT

> Metallica are really not the same anymore..  And while bands like Rush
> progress on each album, Mettallica took a step backwards on this last
> one.. 

	Well, at the risk of starting another religious war, here I go.
I'm not a Rush fan, but my friend is.  From listening to a song here
and there from their last 3-4 albums, I'm under the impression that
Rush is ANTI-progressive.  It sounds like, TO ME, that they just mix and
mash the same riffs over and over again, like the Cult did with
_Ceremony_.  Like I said, I'm basing this judgement on perhaps 5 songs
that I don't really the (Roll the Bones?) remember, but that was my
opinion when he (my friend) said "Hey, these guys are cool.  Check them
out!".  They also don't seem to mix their lyrics well with the music. 
Their vocalist (Geddy Lee?) sounds more like a high pitched mono-tonist
than the instrument of the band that I happen to like (someone a few
months ago wrote a nice piece in either alt.rock-n-roll or rec.music.misc
about how certain bands have a better lyrical "ryhthem" or how the lyrics
fit into the music.  His example, which I though was excellent, was
Anthony Keidis's style which is virtually another instrument in the RHCP). 

	Metallica not progressive?  Well what can you really expect from
something as innovative as MoP and AJFA, especially the last one.  
About all they could do would turn a Megadeth, where TO ME, it all
sounds high pitched, blended to much together (is there really bass in
there?), and offkey (mainly Dave's whiny vocals).  Instead Metallica went
for something simpler, unlike anything else they had done, blending certain
elements of their earliest, rough, short songed days, with the
techniques they'd learned since then.  I call it progression, FOR THEM.
I would expect their next album to have a couple of 7-8 minute songs on
it with complexities ranging from their "simpler" techniques on this
album to their MoP and AFJA stuff.  Just a prediction.

> None of the songs are about anything concrete.  Dreams, war, America... 

	And AFJA was with songs about war, coming of age, justice?

	And MoP with songs about submission and suicide?

	I think equally good arguments can be made that the subject
contents of all of their albums are either concrete or non-concrete.  Would
you rather have him write "concrete" lyrics about screwing a chick or buying
weed?

> Especially "Don't Tread On Me"...  Isn't this the same band that put out
> AJFA?

	Y'know, this thing has pissed me off since the day the album was
released.  _Rolling Stone_(I know, I know...) loved the entire album, but
cut down on the song, calling it "hollow in both lyrically and
musically" - I think it's bullshit!  I'm not a big lyrics man, but I
liked the sound of the music.  I think it's one of the more powerful
pieces of MUSIC on the album.  As far as the lyrics go, James explained months
before it was released that that song was about the Revolutionary War. 
Infact, I believe he said something to the effect that people would still be
tagging it as a "pro-Gulf War" song. Guess he was right.


 TTYL
 Chris