From: Kevin.J.Feury@dartmouth.edu (Kevin J. Feury)
Newsgroups: alt.rock-n-roll.metal,alt.rock-n-roll.metal.heavy
Subject: Re: fweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee....
Date: 10 Apr 92 02:43:18 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <1992Apr8.183003.1@pomona.claremont.edu>
cblanc@pomona.claremont.edu writes:

> In article <1992Apr8.040739.2158@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Kevin.J.Feury@dartmouth.edu (Kevin J. Feury) writes:
> > again, that simple sound was what they were after, given the long,
> > twisting patterns of AJFA. read an article or two about it. hell, i
> > think i even wrote one about ten minutes ago. and i think 'harvester'
> > is by far the worst song on AJFA. i didn't find it catchy at all. as
> > for METALLICA, other than 'sandman', i don't find it catchy at all. 
> 
> 	Brilliant, Kev.  Pure brilliance!  YES, I have read articles about it;
> I've heard what they have to say.  Ever think THEY COULD BE LYING?  What do
> they want?  Money!  Why would they want to complicate their earning cycle? 
> NOT! 

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.

> 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.

 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.

> 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?

> 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...
 
> > 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.
 
> > 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.
 
> > 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.
 
> > 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.
 
> > 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.
 
> > 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. 
 
> > 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'

> > 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...

> > 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. 
 
> > '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.

> > 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.
 
> >> 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.
 
> > 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?

-kev.
> 
> > 
> > -kev.