From: Kevin.J.Feury@dartmouth.edu (Kevin J. Feury)
Newsgroups: alt.rock-n-roll.metal
Subject: Re: *MENTAL FLATULENCE RAMPANT ON NEWSGROUP!  HIDE MY 
 ERECTION!*
Date: 5 Apr 92 05:25:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: dartvax.1992Apr5.052533.1605
 <1992Apr3.193701.17236@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>  
 <1992Apr3.232947.1@pomona.claremont.edu>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <1992Apr3.232947.1@pomona.claremont.edu>
cblanc@pomona.claremont.edu writes:

> In article <1992Apr3.193701.17236@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Kevin.J.Feury@dartmouth.edu (Kevin J. Feury) writes:
> > i still don't agree that it's 'serious' music back then, metallica's
> > attitude wsa fuck this, fuck that, fuck you and fuck the world. that's
> > not a real serious attitude to go about writing music for.
 
> 	For parts of KEA, maybe.  RTL?  MOP?  If that's really what you think,
> um, did you read the lyrics?  Listen to the anger and passion of the music?

i'd say morelikely for all of KEA. as for RTL and MOP, need i cite
pecific references? how about the most blatant in 'damage, inc.' what
do you think the song is about? i see plenty of anger, anger in the
style and lyrics. it's all about rebellion, the same sort of rebellion
you call 'bullshit rebellion' in g'n'r. notice that as they got older
and more mature, metallica stopped writing songs like that. now they
have a much more realistic outlook on life than that.

> > they don't publicize the single releases, record companies do. when a
> > band gets as large and popular as metallica was even before the latest

 
> 	The band still retains some control - at least, some bands do.

the band is rarely , if ever in control, ESPECIALLY in the early days
of their existence. that's when the company can wield the most power
over a band. metallica didn't control the price of GARAGE DAYS. they
puclished what they wanted on the cover and conveniently, that's the
most probable price that the company would have sold the e.p. at
anyway. 

> > album, the record companies see this and do their best to promte the
> > band. prime example? nirvana. when NEVERMIND was released, only long
> > time nirvana fans knew or cared. six months later it becomes popular
> > and suddenly nirvana are everywhere and even their previous album
> > breaks the top 100 charts. it's not the band, it's the record company.
> > and the company is only doing good business, promoting a popular band.
> > and they didn't change the price of the album. all companies that i can
 
> 	There's a difference between promoting something merely through
> merchandise and promoting something as a band member through interviews and by
> completely backing up record company actions.  If Metallica had had that core
> feeling they could have avoided the over-promotion, and they surely could have
> avoided the negative influence Bob Rock has on this.

what are you trying to say here? metallica didn't say to the company
'now don't promote us' and they didn't say to mtv 'don't talk about us
or play our videos' any band would take as much advertising and
promotion as they could get. why wouldn't they? if you were trying to
sell your product would you try to limit the exposure it got? don't be
an ignorant idiot and say you wouldn't. i wouldn't believe you even if
you said you did. you'd have to be foolish not to. bob rock? he had
nothing to do with promoting the album, he produced it. the fact that
he has a name synonymous with groups like bon jovi means nothing. he
was chosen because he was able to provide the sound that the band was
looking for. 

> > think of have lower list prices for shorter length ep's. right now, the
> > ugly kid joe ep sells for $9.99 around here in commercial stores, but
> > you can get it for $6.99. again, it's simple company business.
 
> 	Sacred Reich - Surf Nicaragua.  I don't know of many other EP's.

you should look around some. there are quite a lot. look at anthrax.
they have almost as many e.p.'s as they do albums.

> > of course axl's in charge, he wouldn't have it any other way. but
> > there's not a single example of james making a complete public asshole
> > of himself the way axl does.

 
> 	No, they are different personalities.  James is an egomaniac in his own
> way - most sources agree on this.

how is it manifested then?
 
> > why should they be considered racists because (primarily) of one song??
> > there's no reason to yank that record unless you're overly concerned
> > about your image and what people think of you. but in that case, you
> > wouldn't write that song in the first place. it's a song about
> > frustration with the world and it rings true, i'm sure, to more people
> > than you think.
 
> 	Sure, if you _want_ to be considered a racist, that's fine.  My point
> (second restatement) is that Axl's apologizing, therefore, is bogus.  And if
> they still hold that point of (as is evident because they continue to sell the
> album) view, then they are racists.

you're one insignificant voice. g'n'r have quite a large audience of
fans and i'm sure that most of them don't consider the group racist. to
judge the band on one song is simply asinine. that's along the lines of
saying that ozzy promotes suicide ('suicide solution'), iron maiden
advocate devil worship ('children of the damned') or that metallica are
senseless war hawks ('no remorse') yet i don't see you bitching about
stuff like that? try a little consistency on for size.

> > i agree that g'n'r have an attitude, but it's not a fake attitude. it's
> > the way they really are. consequently, i don't buy the bullshit
> > rebellion part. i certainly wouldn't call their music 'soft' perhaps
> > not metal, especially a lot of the newer stuff, but it's certainly not
> > poison or bon jovi. i certainly have more respect for g'n'r than poison
> > of bon jovi or those kind of bands...they are the true glam
> > types...g'n'r just doesn't fit. the fact that you mention sleaze is the
> > key here. most 'glam' bands have this basically clean cut type image,
> > not the drug-induced, violent alcoholic i think of when i picture axl.
> 
> 	Motley Crue?  Alice Cooper?  Hanoi Rocks?  A bunch of tattooed, drunken
> fuckups?  It ranges, of course, but all have some form of rebellion in there. 
> It's bullshit rebellion with GnR because they can cop an attitude one minute
> and then blow the record company reps the next.

i don't think they blew anyone. if the company sez, 'apologize, or your
contract is terminated', you apologize if you have any brains at all.
that's not being hypocritical, that's being intelligent.
 
> >> 	I repeat myself for those who seem incapable of figuring this out.  My
> >> objections to the album as a sell-out are based upon the following:
> >> 
> >> 	(1)  The sound has changed; it's slower, cheesier.
> >> 	(2)  It's slicker and simpler not in the sense of enlightened
> >> musicianship (they've done simple stuff with power before; this stuff is weak)
> >> but in the sense of pop music.
> >> 	(3)  The songs focus on catchiness and not mood or soul.
> > 
> > on point 1. that's exactly what metallica have been saying they'd do
> > since the end of the AJFA tour. they said they were going back to a
> > simpler, more basic type of music. what they did was increase their
> > overall musicianship with this album. it's not a sell-out, it's a
> > rounding of their abilities. 

 
> 	As I've said before:  it's pop music.

here you prove that you really don't have a clue. how does it become
pop music, because it's slow? that would make almost everything iron
maiden has done pop music. because it's not the utterly emotion filled
anger type songs of the past? i guess ozzy osbourne and black sabbath
are all pop metal then too? you're so sad and pathetic. a band you like
changes it's style to one you don't like, so suddenly you rail them to
no end and do your best to make sure that everyone else agrees with
you. sounds more like you're just a selfish person to me.

> > 
> > on point 2. it's a restatment of point 1. the 'slickness' you refer to
> > is the production that metallica have so desperately sought on all of
> > their previous albums, but have never been able to acheive. that's not
> > a sell-out. it's something they've tried to do for a long time and have
> > only recently succeeded in doing.

 
> 	The slickness of production isn't what they wanted ... better
> production (which really turned out not to be necessary, except AJFA) but not
> pop production.

what is this so-called 'slickness'?? a better, cleaner sound where you
can hear all the instruments? that makes them a sell-out? simply
because it's not the raw sound they had before? get a grip on yoursel.
the band didn't want that kind of sound from the beginning. up until
AJFA, they never had the money to get a better producer thaffn fleming
rasmussen. after he fucked up AJFA, they decided they were gonna get
someone who could give them what they wanted.
 
> > 
> > on point 3. that's a load of shit. the only song i find even vaguely
> > 'catchy' is 'enter sandman' on METALLICA. there's plenty of 'soul' in
> > the other songs: what about 'the unforgiven', 'sad but true', the god
> > that failed' or 'my friend of misery' the music and lyrics aren't
> > catchy, they're typical metallica.

 
> 	Simpler, more boring, less innovative.  Less feel.  This is a
> subjective point.
 
the only 'innovative' album i think metallica had was AJFA. KEA is
simple bazooka metal. straightfoward yell, scream, etc. RTL is slightly
more refined and the band begins to show some musical talent and
integrity (call of ktulu for example) MOP is more on the lines of KEA.
straight forward speed and power, yet intelligent lyrics and better
solo efforts. again, the presence of an instrumental piece of the
quality of 'orion' shows a lot of potential for improvement and
complexity. AJFA. radically different from all other metallica albums
(with the exception of 'dyer's eve') lots of speed and rhythm changes.
many more and longer chord progressions and an incredible amount of key
changes. further lyrical improvement and maturity of topics on the
band's part. it is the pinnacle of metallica's musical ability, yet it
sounds for the most part like shit. the drums are too heavy and muffle
almost every note that jason plays. sure the bass and drums work
together a lot, but on AJFA, the drums overpower the bass into
non-existence. now you get METALLICA. slower, yet still intelligent
music and lyrics. the speed is gone as are many of the chord
progressions and key changes. much simpler music, but still heavy. most
of the chords used are extensive power chord structures repeated over
and over again, much like on KEA. only now the speed is gone and the
sound is clean. you can hear each instrument clearly at almost any
point on the album. not their best musical work, but ooon the whole,
the best sounding album. it cements the fact that metallica are
musically versatile. they can blare away with speed and power, use
intense musical complexity to vary this, and finally, use slower songs
to complete and contrast their musical style and selection.

> >  
> >> 	It's sold out.  I don't care when they wrote NEM - every band writes
> >> stuff that is crap, or is just screwing around when they create stuff like
> >> that, but if they take themselves seriously, they don't release it.  If it was
> >> so damn good, why didn't they put it out on ... say ... AJFA?  Or on a single? 
> >> Or - even though the rest were cover tunes - Garage Days Re-Revisited?
> >> 	Yes, we all know that AJFA made number 6 _before_ the one single was
> >> released.  AJFA made it in part because One caught a lot of peoples' eyes.
> >> 	It's not my fault reality comes hard to many people about this album. 
> >> But, hey, Metallica changed and changed their music with it, and so I'm
> >> sticking to the earlier stuff.
> > 
> > if you've ever listened to what james has said, that song means a lot
> > personally to him and exemplifies what he feels is the perfect
> > relationship, not just with a woman, but just in life in general. it
> > sure as hell wasn't screwing around on his part. why wasn't it released
> > before? it never fit the rest of the music on any album tha metallica
> > previously released. it certainly doesn't belong on AJFA, it's far too
> > simple to be there. as for GARAGE DAYS, there's almost no production at
> > all on that album. NEM would sound horrendous like that. it doesn't
> > sound that good in concert because the acoustics of most arenas don't
> > cater to that type of sound.
 
> 	That's right; they had to wait to sell out.  Chances are it was a
> fragment that he never would have released on a Metallica album but might have,
> oh, had a romantic streak and sang it to WOMAN?

they didn't have to wait for anything. they could have released it at
anytime. the songs just didn't fit in on their previous albums. this is
nothing new for the group 'call of ktulu' was written while dave
mustaine was part of the group, yet wasn't released until RTL. why? it
doesn't fit into the style of KEA. it's smoother and cleaner. it's not
as raw. on the other hane, we have 'dyer's eve' it was written at the
time of MOP, yet not put on that album. it gets stuck on the end of
AJFA as another song and it doesn't fit with the rest of the album. so
you see, it's nothing new for the group to hold over a song from a
previous time.i'd be willing to bet that there are a substantial number
of other songs the group has written that haven't been released, both
of the older and newer style. you can never predict what you will or
will not release. the band have grown more mature over time and realize
that the fuck it all attitude they had in their early days is not the
attitude they have anymore. why should they? it's a pretty
self-centered and immature attitude anyway. they have grown both
musically and emotionally as a band over the last decade. five or ten
years from now, their style will probably far different from what it is
today or was in the past. it's an evolutionary  process, and if the
band honestly believes in what their writing, as they do and have said
time and time again, than no matter what they say or do, they haven't
sold out. they only people who sell out are people that can't accept a
band that changes with time and experiments in new directions. there's
no reason why metallica should be stifled and reduced to a bunch of
idiots mindlessly thrashing about on stage, doing the same songs and
style of music for 20 years. they're more than entitled to do whatever
the hell they want, and your selfishness is not about to hold them
back.

-kev.

> > 
> > -kev.
> > slatanist@mac.dartmouth.edu
> > 
> > he who lives by the sword, will also surely die.
> > he who lives in sin, will surely live the lie.
> 
> <beer>.
Newsgroups: alt.rock-n-roll.metal,alt.rock-n-roll.metal.heavy