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: *METALLICA SELL CHILDREN TO MARRIOTT FOOD CORP.!*
Date: 10 Apr 92 02:55:04 GMT
 <1992Apr8.041300.2409@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>  
 <1992Apr8.200916.1@pomona.claremont.edu>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <1992Apr8.200916.1@pomona.claremont.edu>
cblanc@pomona.claremont.edu writes:

> In article <1992Apr8.041300.2409@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Kevin.J.Feury@dartmouth.edu (Kevin J. Feury) writes:
> > 
> > why do you say this? i think i've provided a more than fair bit of
> > evidence for my standpoint, and if you want more, i'll give you more.
> > would you prefer to discuss the musical intracacies of metallica, old
> > and new? perhaps their type of chord progressions and inversions? maybe
> > soloing style and chord basis? you name it, i'll give it to you. 
> 
> 	You've provided what is essentially subjective information in this
> area; your contention is that the new album provides some form of musical
> superiority through better music-crafting at a slower speed.

incorrect. what i said was that metallica have expanded their musical
boundaries to include different styles of music and in the process have
become better musicians.

> Analyze away, but this is subjective. 

i beg to differ. is the better musucian the one who can do one thing or
master many?

> About the only thing here that's qualitative is the
> complexity argument, and that doesn't take any musical knowledge to see.  What
> other evidence do you have?  Nothing besides vague paraphrasings of band member
> interviews.  Great!  Of course, we _all_ know that they'd never _lie_...

here you go again with your favorite argument. sure. you're right.
every band lies! they're all liars! gt a grip on yourself and think up
a realistic argument
  
> > you on the other hand provide little or nothing the the way of
> > constructive argument. you make statements, but you don't endeavor to
> > provide any substance to them. thus, we are left simply with your
> 
> 	Really?  I don't think so.  What about some of my analysis of the
> lyrical/sonic qualities of the new album?

i think they're blatantly ignorant of what actually exists in light of
what the band says and does.

> > bandwagoning opinions. where were you when the album came out? i don't
> 
> 	Bandwagoning?  Your memory fails you.  I heard Enter Sandman two days
> after the album came out and thought it was a sellout.  I didn't post for some
> time because I waited until I had the album and had heard every song on it. 
> That's called giving it a fair chance. 

you needed six months to decide that? jesus, you really are slow...it's
only now that oyu and your lackeys come crawling out of the closet to
bitch and moan about it.
 
> > recall more than one or two post complaining about the 'sell-out' of
> > metallica. now it seems that there's nothing else. 
> 
> 	Really?  Seems there's more Nimpfer vs. Suaron than this...

i meant in terms of musical argument. nimper vs. suaron is all a huge
joke. there's nothing serious about it at all. this on the other
hand...
  
> > it seems to me that you grow weary of this argument because you can't
> > come up with a good base or foot to stand on. once i dissect your
> 
> 	Dissect?  Dissect, my ass.  Offer counter-arguments, yes, but you can
> barely _read_ my statements from your interpretations.  Either that or you're
> just a weak CX'er.

that's ok, maybe you just need to look a little harder. i don't bother
to delete in case others should want to read the entire argument, not
just one little piece. now, getting back to the subject.

> > statements, you simply seem to accept it and move on to fabricate
> > another falshood about the band. i'm not one of these newer fans. i've
> > followed the group for a long time, since before they switched to
> > elektra records. (did you know they had a label before that?) i even
> 
> 	Yes, I own the album on CD.  

which?
 
> > have the old megaforce version of KEA on album (no lyrics or
> > 'blitzkrieg' or 'am i evil'. what i'm saying is that i'm a very long
> > time fan of the band, and to tell you the truth, i think the only
> > change is that in speed (with a resulting slight drop in intensity) and
> > the choice of different subject matter.
> 
> 	That's neat.  What the hell does length of fanship matter?  That's a
> bandwagon argument I've seen around here before.  It doesn't matter if you
> listen to "Metallica" before the other stuff or vice versa; if you know the
> album release dates within a year or two you'll be able to figure out what
> happened.

my point is that i am not a newcomer. that i have herd all of these
arguments with each new album. it gets trisome listening to different
people hash on the same stuff. if you don't like it, fine, but don't
sit there and bitch about it all life long.
  
> > i grow weary of your type of person. the type that makes a statement
> > about metallica but can't back it up, so they circle around and around
> 
> 	Find one I can't back up that's not subjective.  Do you now see my
> point about this argument?

no, i miss it completely. you write about lyrics, so i cite my
references. now that argument is gone. you cite sound quality, so i
cite refernces on that. so then we go back to lyrics. back and forth.
back and forth. perhaps a new objection raised here or there. you're
entitled to your opinion, but don't try to make stuff up that's not
there.
 
> > and then try to back out when they can't think of anything new. it's
> > pathetic. you should at least know what you're talking about before you
> > open your flapper.
> 
> 	I don't know what's more pathetic, this argument or your clinging to
> the theory that Metallica are infallible and do not succumb to the corporate
> pressures of this great nation.

oh, they're plenty fallible. they've mad plenty of mistakes in the past
and will in the future. they haven't succumbed to anything. since the
beginning they were crushed by corporate pressure. it's only now that
they get the vaguest bit of breathing room to be different and pow! you
try to kill it.

> > to quote the pyhtonesque, 'that's the type of blinard philistine pig
> > ignorance i've come to expect from your type of non-creative garbage'
> 
> 	This seems indicative of your style of argument.  When you reach a
> point where you cannot "win," you attempt to insult.  Weak, at best. 
> Hackneyed, in any case.

where have i missed any point on your argument? find it and i'll refute
it the best i know how. 

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