From: Kevin.J.Feury@dartmouth.edu (Kevin J. Feury)
Newsgroups: alt.rock-n-roll.metal,alt.rock-n-roll.metal.heavy,alt.thrash
Subject: Re: The Amazing Alt.R-N-R.Metal.Deception Circus!
Date: 14 Apr 92 02:05:27 GMT
 <1992Apr10.024318.26384@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>  
 <1992Apr10.121802.1@pomona.claremont.edu>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <1992Apr10.121802.1@pomona.claremont.edu>
cblanc@pomona.claremont.edu writes:

> 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.

oh, yeah, we're all liars now, with ulterior motives and good reasons
to pretend we're someone else who we're really not in this massive
attempt to fool everyone else into thinking about us in a way that's
not really us. i think you've stumblmed on to a new truth in life. not.

> >> 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?

no, pop is a style of music written explicitly to be popular. metallica
don't now and never did write that type or style of music. neither did
nirvana or garth brooks , but they've made it to #1 and i wouldn't call
either of them '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.

very good! and do you know where the roots of metal lie? in rock,
particularly punk rock with power chords and speed. that's where speed
metal came from. i'm glad you just proved the point metallica make when
they say they're going back to their basic roots.
 
> > 
> >> 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.

sounds very little like motley crue to me. very little, but then again,
since james has always done it, i guess they've always been pop. 

> > 
> >> 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.

'standard' funny you should say that, there's nothing standard about
it. james' idiosyncracy is his added vocal here and there. it's not
something new. 

> >  
> >> > 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?

there's no need for incentive. it's just the way they are and always
have been. 

> > 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...


you're making up horseshit that has no basis in fact or any precedent
with the band. you brought it up, the burden of proof should be on you
to prove it. as far as i'm concerned, they're innocent till proven
guilty. like they need to write 'hits' they're plenty well off with out
METALLICA. why don't you grow up and realize that metallica today are
different than they were yesterday by choice, not by influence. they
still write what they want to write, not what they think people want to
hear.
 
> >  
> >> > 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.

such as? and where do they say such things. of course, i could be like
you and say they're lying...not. 
 
> >  
> >> > 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.

he should have a lot of influence, 'cos the band sure as hell don't
have experience recording this type of material. they needed all the
help they could get.

> >  
> >> > 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? 

they don't care if you like it or not, but i'll bet they want as many
people to hear it and get the chance to like it or not. any other band
is the same way. spread the music so more people can hear it. the
bottom line is that they do have to sell some albums sooner or later,
but they're not writing for an audience of millions.


> 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.

oh please, now anthrax? you're pointless and wasting my time. METALLICA
is not 'pop'
 
> >  
> >> > 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. 

there's no need. dave himself sez his songs aren't written with hidden
meaning. but i guess he's lying too...

> 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.

i don't think they appear as anything but general idiots who make a
much bigger stink than they ought to.
 
> >  
> >> > 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.

sure it is. if you don't look at the whole picture, you get a very
skewed sense of what goes on.
 
> >> > 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.

living a lie. god i love this. you show me any evidence they're lying
other than your conjecture based on the fact that you don't like the
new album and i'll consider the possibility. 'till then...

> > 
> >> > 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.

nah, with all your claims about lying you leave me little alternative
than to belittle you for your lack of creativness and attempts to shift
the burden of proof to me. you brought it up, now show us your guns.

> >  
> >> > '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.

fill me a cup of this decption you see so flowing. show me where it is
and some sort of proof that it exists.

> > 
> >> > 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.

no, no, only precious little. i have to contain myself because i find
you so amusing with you little 'deception and lies' claims...

>  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.

of course i'm obstinate. but i'm not out to change your mind. i'm here
to say what i believe and pick holes in what you believe.

> >  
> >> > 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.

you bet.

> What does the statement above attempt to accomplish? 

your ignorance clearly.

> Merely the gratification of your own ego?

only to a small extent. i get more when i think about how much i like
metallica no matter what you say about them and how what was once a
source of jjoy to you is now a topic of anger and hatred.

-kev
Newsgroups: alt.rock-n-roll.metal,alt.rock-n-roll.metal.heavy