LOAD : what is that about?
Brian D. Arenschield
LOAD, what a bullshit name for an album. Metallica has
been disappointing its fans ever since the release of the
black album, this takes the cake.
I hope the alternative world which they are trying to get
into laughs at them, They have already lost any of their
true fans, this should take care of the rest.
They go against everything they once stood for, they have turned
their back on the world of heavy metal when it needed them most.
For this I hope they eternally rot in the studios of MTV.
How can you people compare them to real metal bands like
megadeth, and iron maiden, thats such crap! These bands may not
sell like Metallica does (Icant believe they still use that name),
but at least they still have their dignity, and the respect
of the metal world.
Metallica, they are a laugh, Lollapolooza are they serious?
Headlining an alternative festival. THey truly are a sorry
group of sellouts.
Metallica once stood proudly atop the world of music, now
they are alone at the bottom. What a sad situation this band
has put themselves into.
Emerson Calender
>
> LOAD, what a bullshit name for an album. Metallica has
> been disappointing its fans ever since the release of the
> black album, this takes the cake.
How long have you been listening to Metallica? Not that it means
anything to you, but I've been hearing people bitch and moan, "SELLOUTS!"
since Ride The Lightning came out, so your complaints are nothing
new...Besides, why do you think LOAD sucks? It's just a title like
...And Justice For All...er, um...wait a second...That title totally
sucks too because they blatantly ripped that off from the Pledge of
Allegiance (US). Man, Metallica sucks for that lapse of originality,
huh?
> I hope the alternative world which they are trying to get into laughs at
> them,
Metallica ain't trying to get into no one's stupid little genre
categorization. Their style and variety transcends quite a number of
musical genres. Hey, I got an idea: Let's call Metallica sellouts
because Cliff Burton was into classical arrangements. Cliff...What a
dead fuckin' sellout (irony mode on, just in case you didn't catch it the
first time)...
> They have already lost any of their true fans, this should take care of
the rest.
I'm not sure of your basis for this statement, because I'm still around...
> They go against everything they once stood for...
Which was...Selling out in 1983 by putting out an album with a title that
was not their original choice, selling out in 1984 by releasing Fade To
Black (it's wimpy!) AND signing to a major label, selling out in 1985 by
touring in support of RTL (and that blasted ballad), selling out in 1986
by opening for a fat and bloated OZZY OSBOURNE, selling out in 1987 by
putting out a record full of other people's songs (Jeez! Were Metallica
running out of ideas already?), selling out in 1988 by touring with such a
lowly group as Kingdom Come, selling out in 1989 by putting out a video
AND playing the Grammys (I really think Jethro Tull and their one legged
flutist deserved an award for hard rock/ heavy metal), selling out in
1990 by only playing 10 or so gigs and only coming up with enough energy
to record and release one tune (a cover song at that!), selling out in
1991 by releasing some black album that has a song more wimpy than Fade
To Black, selling out in 1992 by touring with Buns-n-Poses, selling out
in 1993 by winning a popularity contest (American Music Awards), selling
out in 1994 by playing a summer tour in the US and not elsewhere (not
very generous, are they?), then selling out even more in 1995 by only
playing 3 freaking gigs! What fucking gall! And nowhere near MY house!
> they have turned their back on the world of heavy metal when it needed
> them most.
You seem to think that Metal would be better off without Metallica as
they are now. I don't think metal needs Metallica. You still have
Megadeth, Pantera, Sepultura, a reformed Dokken, and Iron Maiden...I
think Metallica has grown to encompass more than just metal. Can you
accept that?
> Metallica, they are a laugh, Lollapolooza are they serious?
> Headlining an alternative festival.
Is metal getting airplay ontop 40 radio stations, or music video channels
right now? Nah. So metal must be the alternative to the mainstream
(which is filled with Coolio, Smashing Pumpkins, Foo Fighters, etc.)
> Metallica once stood proudly atop the world of music, now
> they are alone at the bottom.
What do you mean? Metallica is the biggest rock band on earth at the minute-
with no new album since August 1991 that is a pretty awesome feat in a
world full of fickle music consumers. Remember what kind of music was
popular back in '91? Metal was all over the place! You had radio
stations that would play metal! Where's KNAC now? Hard rock heaven.
It's a Spanish station now.
Hugs and middle fingerz,
Jameson Calantoc <jj...@axe.humboldt.edu> B-) <--- turn your head sideways!
Amr Costandi
lot for that man.
Perish32
Arenschield) writes:
>Metallica once stood proudly atop the world of music, now
>they are alone at the bottom. What a sad situation this band
>has put themselves into.
>
>
You are lame. You havn't even heard the new album yet.
Perish-Reigning in the midst of the Shadow Realms
brandon of borge
: LOAD, what a bullshit name for an album. Metallica has
why? what's wrong with it? besides, who *really* cares what the album's
called, anyway? isn't the important thing the MUSIC?
: been disappointing its fans ever since the release of the
: black album, this takes the cake.
1) how many albums have they produced since tba?
2) which fans? the fairly large handful that have been around for years,
or the mega-mobs of people who *loved* tba?
: I hope the alternative world which they are trying to get
: into laughs at them, They have already lost any of their
metallica--trying to fit into a group? hahahahahahahaha!!!
: true fans, this should take care of the rest.
they have lost "any" of their true fans? all, maybe? if so, i don't
think so--would anybody still be reading this group if metallica had no
"true" fans left? besides, who are these so-called true fans that
no longer stick with the band (thereby defeating the purpose of the label
"true fans")?
: They go against everything they once stood for, they have turned
pray tell, what did they once stand for that they have now gone against?
: their back on the world of heavy metal when it needed them most.
*now* is when metal needs metallica the most? i think not.
: For this I hope they eternally rot in the studios of MTV.
semi-creative :)
i'm gettin' tired of this crap. i think it's summed up pretty well by
jjc2. it's quite entertaining, actually, and yet it makes quite a few
good points.
<bunch of metallica-bashing snipped>
CyBorge
--
"the more you read the more you learn. the more you learn the more you
know. the more you know the more you forget. the more you forget the
less you know. the less you know the more ignorant you are. therefore,
the more you read, the more ignorant you are."
Hedbanger
>On 8 Apr 1996, Brian D. Arenschield wrote:
>>
>> LOAD, what a bullshit name for an album. Metallica has
>> been disappointing its fans ever since the release of the
>> black album, this takes the cake.
>How long have you been listening to Metallica? Not that it means
>anything to you, but I've been hearing people bitch and moan, "SELLOUTS!"
>since Ride The Lightning came out, so your complaints are nothing
>new...Besides, why do you think LOAD sucks? It's just a title like
>...And Justice For All...er, um...wait a second...That title totally
>sucks too because they blatantly ripped that off from the Pledge of
>Allegiance (US). Man, Metallica sucks for that lapse of originality,
>huh?
Good reply. But I must point out that ...And Justice for All came out
not long after a movie by that name...
Joan
Parasite
Well now that you asked, I'll mention a few things. The song, "Ride the Lightning," is
cleary anti-death penalty. But Lars has recently stated that he supports the death
penalty in extreme situations. After all, if you appeal to people on both sides of an
issue, you satisfy everyone, appeal to a wider range of people, and in the end, sell
more albums.
Another example. The songs, "For Whom the Bell Tolls" and "Disposable Heroes," and
several songs off of the album, ..And Justice for All, are clearly anti-government,
anti-war, and anti-military. But, as it turns out, when you make such dogmatic
statements, you alienate a large portion of potential buyers. That's why Metallica
wrote a pro-goverment, pro-military song like "Don't Tread On Me."
Another example. Lars once said that Metallica will neve rmake videos.
In the song, Damage, Inc., Metallica says, "Following our instinct not a trend / Go
against the grain until the end." Now they've cut their hair to look like all the
popular alternative bands out there and are playing the commercial, Lollpalooza. Is
that really going against the grain?
=Parasite
Herman Bovens
>Well now that you asked, I'll mention a few things. The song, "Ride the Lightning," is
>cleary anti-death penalty. But Lars has recently stated that he supports the death
>penalty in extreme situations.
But did Lars write the lyrics to RTL?
Also, maybe Lars already supported the death penalty in extreme situations,
and they tried to sell out with RTL becaus it's more radical anti-death
penalty (and people love radical thoughts!). After all, it's hard to make
song that is clearly "anti-death penalty (except in extreme situations)".
So I guess RTL is about a case of death penalty in a non-extreme situation.
>Another example. The songs, "For Whom the Bell Tolls" and "Disposable Heroes," and
>several songs off of the album, ..And Justice for All, are clearly anti-government,
>anti-war, and anti-military. But, as it turns out, when you make such dogmatic
>statements, you alienate a large portion of potential buyers.
No, you don't, because most younger people just love anti-gov lyrics.
>wrote a pro-goverment, pro-military song like "Don't Tread On Me."
I'm still not sure if "Don't Tread On Me" is pro-military. We'll have to
ask James. The song is certainly not pro-war.
>Another example. Lars once said that Metallica will neve rmake videos.
>
>In the song, Damage, Inc., Metallica says, "Following our instinct not a trend / Go
>against the grain until the end." Now they've cut their hair to look like all the
>popular alternative bands out there and are playing the commercial, Lollpalooza.
I really don't think that they look like alternative bands at the moment.
Kirk's dreadlocks were alternative-looking (and cute too, there was nothing
wrong with IMO) but he's got rid of them. Are you happy with that?
If Load would be a pure metal album, people would think that they can only
make metal. I think the album will have a few pure metal songs, and a
variety of other songs as well.
Bye,
Herman Bovens
her...@michotte.psy.kuleuven.ac.be
* PGP Public Key available upon request *
Pagan
>>anything to you, but I've been hearing people bitch and moan, "SELLOUTS!"
>>since Ride The Lightning came out, so your complaints are nothing
>>new...Besides, why do you think LOAD sucks? It's just a title like
>>...And Justice For All...er, um...wait a second...That title totally
>>sucks too because they blatantly ripped that off from the Pledge of
>>Allegiance (US). Man, Metallica sucks for that lapse of originality,
>>huh?
>Good reply. But I must point out that ...And Justice for All came out
>not long after a movie by that name...
>Joan
Just a little background info, they made the album after seeing the
movie, so it was some kind of inspiration. It's in one of the books.
Alex
Thank you very much my friends! You treat us good here man!
Goodnight from Metallica! Thank you!
-James Hetfield-
Ziad Kanna
r>
r>
r>LOAD, what a bullshit name for an album. Metallica has
r>been disappointing its fans ever since the release of the
r>black album, this takes the cake.
r>I hope the alternative world which they are trying to get
r>into laughs at them, They have already lost any of their
r>true fans, this should take care of the rest.
r>They go against everything they once stood for, they have turned
r>their back on the world of heavy metal when it needed them most.
r>For this I hope they eternally rot in the studios of MTV.
r>How can you people compare them to real metal bands like
r>megadeth, and iron maiden, thats such crap! These bands may not
r>sell like Metallica does (Icant believe they still use that name),
r>but at least they still have their dignity, and the respect
r>of the metal world.
r>Metallica, they are a laugh, Lollapolooza are they serious?
r>Headlining an alternative festival. THey truly are a sorry
r>group of sellouts.
r>Metallica once stood proudly atop the world of music, now
r>they are alone at the bottom. What a sad situation this band
r>has put themselves into.
There are still millions of "true" fans out there that love Metallica's
music. Since when are Metallica alternative? I don't get where you're
coming from. And you mean to tell me that you consider Megadeth and Iron
Maiden "real" metal, but you don't consider Metallica real metal. That's
a joke! Metallica, even with the Black Album, are heavier than Maiden,
and Megadeth. Handle the change that has evolved and stop your crying!
MELTDOWN
I don't think anyone could have put
it better. Great post!
RyDog
Charles A. Eck
They have already lost any of their
>true fans, this should take care of the rest.
You sure about this brainiac? I've been listening to them since
1985 and I still do. Speak for yourself, not others and please
do us a favor and define what a true fan is. Perhaps one with a
mind as narrow as an ant's cock and can't stand it when they do
something *GASP* different?
>For this I hope they eternally rot in the studios of MTV.
They won't. You'll be waiting a long time.
>How can you people compare them to real metal bands like
>megadeth, and iron maiden, thats such crap! These bands may not
>sell like Metallica does (Icant believe they still use that name),
>but at least they still have their dignity, and the respect
>of the metal world.
Let me get this straight. Metallica is a "sellout" but yet a
"real metal band" like Megadeth goes on the fucking David
Letterman show? I think you had better shut up now.
>Metallica, they are a laugh, Lollapolooza are they serious?
No, it is an ongoing joke meant to irritate idiots like you.
>Headlining an alternative festival.
I must have missed the press conference before the first
Lollapalooza festival when they said that only alternative
bands and no one else will ever be allowed to perform.
THey truly are a sorry
>group of sellouts.
And you're a moron.
-Scott Powell, putting you in your place
Parasite
Well, the album sleeve says it was written by Hetfield, Ulrich, Burton, and Mustaine.
> Also, maybe Lars already supported the death penalty in extreme situations,
> and they tried to sell out with RTL becaus it's more radical anti-death
> penalty (and people love radical thoughts!).
That's a theory. But I never accused Metallica of selling out. This is simple an
example of Metallica going against something they previously stood for.
> After all, it's hard to make
> song that is clearly "anti-death penalty (except in extreme situations)".
> So I guess RTL is about a case of death penalty in a non-extreme situation.
That's one possible interpretation. It's not mine though. The song implies that only
God can take a life ("Who made you God to say / 'I'll take your life from you!!').
> No, you don't, because most younger people just love anti-gov lyrics.
Most young people don't care about lyrics. For example, White Zombie writes lyrics
honoring, almost worshipping Satan. There aren't many satan-worshippers who buy White
Zombie albums, but they are still extremeley popular.
> I'm still not sure if "Don't Tread On Me" is pro-military. We'll have to
> ask James. The song is certainly not pro-war.
I guess that's a question for philosophers to debate in the future. But lines like,
"Love it or leave it," "To secure peace is to prepare for war," and "The eyes, they
never close, emblem of vigilance," leave little doubt in my mind that the song is
patriotic.
> I really don't think that they look like alternative bands at the moment.
> Kirk's dreadlocks were alternative-looking (and cute too, there was nothing
> wrong with IMO) but he's got rid of them. Are you happy with that?
I've seen one picture of the band with short hair. At least I think it was the band. I
was flipping through Shit Parader magazine and I saw a picture of four strangers who
resembled a band I once thought I knew. Personally, I don't really care what they look
like. It's the Lollapalooza thing that bothers me. Someone told me that on a radio
interview in Buffalo, Metallica claimed to have cut its hair in order to conform to the
Lollapalooza image.
> If Load would be a pure metal album, people would think that they can only
> make metal. I think the album will have a few pure metal songs, and a
> variety of other songs as well.
That's a valid thought.
=Parasite
arel...@cnsvax.uwec.edu
>
> LOAD, what a bullshit name for an album. Metallica has
Only fair-weather "friends" like you, creamcake.
> I hope the alternative world which they are trying to get
> into laughs at them, They have already lost any of their
> true fans, this should take care of the rest.
If you were a true fan instead of such a dipshit, you'd would be able
to mature with Metallica instead of living in the past. Your pathetic attempts
to put down a group of guys with more talent and vision than you can fully
appreciate only serve to underscore your own shortcomings.
> They go against everything they once stood for, they have turned
> their back on the world of heavy metal when it needed them most.
> For this I hope they eternally rot in the studios of MTV.
What did they stand for that they don't still represent? Wait, don't
answer that: your limited intelligence and experience handicap you too much to
offer a truly insightful look into their music.
> How can you people compare them to real metal bands like
> megadeth, and iron maiden, thats such crap! These bands may not
> sell like Metallica does (Icant believe they still use that name),
> but at least they still have their dignity, and the respect
> of the metal world.
Unlike your own obvious limitations (probably born of severe
inbreeding), Metallica did not and does not write music to cater to a
particular vein of music. Hell, I feel sorry for such great bands like
Megadeth and Iron Maiden that have to stand for the patronage from such a '80s
hair-head, glam-metal poser such as yourself. Go buy some hairspray, Twinkie.
> Metallica, they are a laugh, Lollapolooza are they serious?
> Headlining an alternative festival. THey truly are a sorry
> group of sellouts.
It's called spreading the word, showing granolas the true definition of
metal. What, you think they just play 'NEM' for half an hour straight? But
you wouldn't understand the concept of 'branching out'; so stick your head
back in the sand and crank your Twisted Sister albums. Remember, a small mind
is a tidy mind.
> Metallica once stood proudly atop the world of music, now
> they are alone at the bottom. What a sad situation this band
> has put themselves into.
What a sad situation your parents put themselves into. It's too bad
your mother couldn't spell abortion.
- Barracuda
Casey Glover
haven't listened. I leave it in their hands.
-Leatherface
brandon of borge
: > pray tell, what did they once stand for that they have now gone against?
:
: Well now that you asked, I'll mention a few things. The song, "Ride the Lightning," is
: cleary anti-death penalty. But Lars has recently stated that he supports the death
: penalty in extreme situations. After all, if you appeal to people on both sides of an
lars helped write the song, but did he write the lyrics? i don't know if
he did or not. even if he was anti-death penalty when the song was
written, does that mean he can never change his opinion about anything? i
used to think i would always hate girls (when i was like six or
something), but that changed quickly. it's been what, twelve years now
since rtl? a lot has happened since then.
: issue, you satisfy everyone, appeal to a wider range of people, and in the end, sell
: more albums.
i wouldn't say you satisfy everyone, but you do appeal to a wider range of
people and sell more albums. i'm not quite sure i understand what bearing
that has on the discussion, though...can you clarify a little?
: Another example. The songs, "For Whom the Bell Tolls" and "Disposable Heroes," and
: several songs off of the album, ..And Justice for All, are clearly anti-government,
: anti-war, and anti-military. But, as it turns out, when you make such dogmatic
: statements, you alienate a large portion of potential buyers. That's why Metallica
what?! i disagree. there are an awful lot of people out there who *love*
anti-government/war/military stuff. those people would embrace these
songs. sure, there are many people who would be upset by them, but in
my experience (just mine, remember...), there are more who dislike
government.
: wrote a pro-goverment, pro-military song like "Don't Tread On Me." :
i don't feel tread is pro-government or pro-military. to me, the song
says war is going to happen regardless of what you do to prevent it. "to
secure peace is to prepare for war." you develop a peace treaty, and
pretty soon it gets broken and war breaks out. "the eyes, they never
close, emblem of vigilance." we are always on the lookout, we're
paranoid. war is inevitable. i don't see anything there that means it's
good--all i see is that it's gonna happen.
: Another example. Lars once said that Metallica will neve rmake videos.
hm. i don't remember him saying that. of course, i don't remember what i
had for supper last night either. when did he say that? 1984? if so,
again, it's been a long time, and things change. maybe they wanted to do
something different (as if they've never done anything different before).
: In the song, Damage, Inc., Metallica says, "Following our instinct not a trend / Go
: against the grain until the end." Now they've cut their hair to look like all the
: popular alternative bands out there and are playing the commercial, Lollpalooza. Is
: that really going against the grain?
they might look like the alternative bands out there, but is that *why*
they cut their hair?
as for lolla: metallica has millions of fans, many of which like the
alterna-shit. it makes sense that they would play something at a concert
like lolla *sometime*, doesn't it? oh well, i'm not too concerned with
it. it's just a concert, in my mind
brandon of borge
: > Also, maybe Lars already supported the death penalty in extreme situations,
: > and they tried to sell out with RTL becaus it's more radical anti-death
: > penalty (and people love radical thoughts!).
:
: That's a theory. But I never accused Metallica of selling out. This is simple an
: example of Metallica going against something they previously stood for.
they, in this case, being lars?
: That's one possible interpretation. It's not mine though. The song implies that only
: God can take a life ("Who made you God to say / 'I'll take your life from you!!').
the song also makes no reference whatsoever to the dreamer actually
committing a crime. at least none that i see.
: Most young people don't care about lyrics. For example, White Zombie writes lyrics
: honoring, almost worshipping Satan. There aren't many satan-worshippers who buy White
: Zombie albums, but they are still extremeley popular.
that's true, most young people don't care about the lyrics. i, for one,
feel that good lyrics really enhance a good song. that's what i hate
about, say, nirvana for example.
: I guess that's a question for philosophers to debate in the future. But lines like,
: "Love it or leave it," "To secure peace is to prepare for war," and "The eyes, they
: never close, emblem of vigilance," leave little doubt in my mind that the song is
: patriotic.
patriotic? it seems to me more like war is inevitable and you can either
embrace it or ignore it, but it's gonna get ya in the end.
: like. It's the Lollapalooza thing that bothers me. Someone told me that on a radio
: interview in Buffalo, Metallica claimed to have cut its hair in order to conform to the
: Lollapalooza image.
really? how reliable is the source? if that claim is a true statement,
that metallica cut their hair in order to conform, then that really sucks,
in my opinion.
: > If Load would be a pure metal album, people would think that they can only
: > make metal. I think the album will have a few pure metal songs, and a
: > variety of other songs as well.
:
: That's a valid thought.
which one is valid? i don't think a pure metal album would cause people
to think they can only make metal. didn't they take a different route in
...ajfa and tba? i think people realize that metallica *can* play a wide
assortment of music, so load wouldn't change their minds. that is, people
that realize the transition from kea to tba, anyway.
i agree, though, that load will have some "pure" metal songs (most likely
speed metal), and a variety of other stuff as well.
Robert Brogan
: LOAD, what a bullshit name for an album. Metallica has
: been disappointing its fans ever since the release of the
: black album, this takes the cake.
[blah, blah, blah, sellouts, blah, iron maiden, megadeth, blah, not metal]
: they are alone at the bottom. What a sad situation this band
: has put themselves into.
Stop yer whining. So you don't like the black album. So fucking what.
TBA ain't the best thing Metallica's done but its a good heavy metal
album. TBA doesn't even sound remotely alternative, I don't think you
have a clue what alternative is. I have to listen lame alternative bands
at work and its quite a relief to put on some Metallica. Sellouts? No
one knew that TBA would sell so much. Listen, there's only so
much great metal to go around, and listening to MoP 20 times a week gets
tired, so stop being so goddamn picky and listen to TBA, some pretty damn
good metal.
Rob
Emerson Calender
is just another concert, etc. On the point of lyric writing, James is
the sole lyricist. There may be line contributions or changes made by
others, but James has to feel what he's singing about. He feels more in
touch with lyrics that he writes.
_________________________________________________________________
Parasite
> committing a crime. at least none that i see.
Actually, the narrator of the song confesses to the crime. He says, "Guilty as charged,
but damnit it aint right," meaning that he did committ a crime, but it's not right that
they're killing him.
> that's true, most young people don't care about the lyrics. i, for one,
> feel that good lyrics really enhance a good song. that's what i hate
> about, say, nirvana for example.
Nirvana and just about every other alternative group out there.
> patriotic? it seems to me more like war is inevitable and you can either
> embrace it or ignore it, but it's gonna get ya in the end.
The song doesn't deal with war as much as it deals with America itself.
Let's see, it goes:
LIBERTY OR DEATH, WHAT WE SO PROUDLY HAIL
ONCE YOU PROVOKE HER, RATTLING OF HERE TAIL
NEVER BEGINS IT, NEVER, BUT ONCE ENGAGED...
NEVER SURRENDERS, SHOWING THE FANS OF RAGE
To me this says that the US would die for liberty, it never attacks unless it's
provoked and when it attacks, it will fight to the end and never surender. I guess the
writer of the song overlooked Vietnam and Korea, but it's still well-written. I don't
know, it seems like it's an attempt to justisy American miltary intervention. Maybe
you're right. Still, I don't think they'd ever write a song like this back in the
Master of Puppets days. "Disposable Heroes" goes against it.
=Parasite
Emerson Calender
be a rebuttal to your remarks?
Parasite
> lars helped write the song, but did he write the lyrics? i don't know if
> he did or not. even if he was anti-death penalty when the song was
> written, does that mean he can never change his opinion about anything?
I never said that. The person I was replying to didn't seem to tink that Metallica ever
contradicted itself, or said something one time, and said something to the contrary
later. I was merely naming example of when they did.
> i wouldn't say you satisfy everyone, but you do appeal to a wider range of
> people and sell more albums. i'm not quite sure i understand what bearing
> that has on the discussion, though...can you clarify a little?
Well ,the issue is, 'Has Metallica ever gone against what they previously stood for?' I
believe the answer to that is 'yes.' Therefore, I asked myself, 'Why would Metallica do
that?' One theory is that they simply changed their beliefs or opinions. Another is
that they wanted to appeal to a wider range aof people and sell more albums.
That's why Metallica
>
> what?! i disagree. there are an awful lot of people out there who *love*
> anti-government/war/military stuff. those people would embrace these
> songs. sure, there are many people who would be upset by them, but in
> my experience (just mine, remember...), there are more who dislike
> government.
Yes, and Metallica has plenty of fans who loved their previous attacks on the
government. But those particular fans wouldn't have given up on Metallica just because
they wrote one song supporting the government.
> i don't feel tread is pro-government or pro-military. to me, the song
> says war is going to happen regardless of what you do to prevent it. "to
> secure peace is to prepare for war." you develop a peace treaty, and
> pretty soon it gets broken and war breaks out.
I took that line as justifying large miltary buildups because they help secure peace.
> "the eyes, they never
> close, emblem of vigilance." we are always on the lookout, we're
> paranoid. war is inevitable. i don't see anything there that means it's
> good--all i see is that it's gonna happen.
Vigilance is a good thing. Calling the US the emblem of vigilance is like calling it
the guardian of the world. And if the song isn't pro-US, how do you explain the line
"Love it or leave it" ?
> hm. i don't remember him saying that. of course, i don't remember what i
> had for supper last night either. when did he say that? 1984? if so,
> again, it's been a long time, and things change. maybe they wanted to do
> something different (as if they've never done anything different before).
I believe that Lars said that Metallica will never make videos on several occasions.
Once around Master of Puppets and once after the making of the "One" video when he said
that they'll never make another video. I realize that this might be idle talk because
the group just got done with the tedious process of making a video. Whether it is or it
isn't, it doesn't really matter to me. I think videos are pretty cool and that people
can change their opinions when they see something from a different perspective. I was
just citing an example.
> they might look like the alternative bands out there, but is that *why*
> they cut their hair?
I don't know. According to them, no. According to many fans, yes. Personally, I don't
care what they look like, and I don't care about their motivations are anymore. I'm
sure that there are people who can justify anything that they do (I think those same
people could probably justify the holocaust). When it comes to Metallica these days, I
just say that I'm a fan of the music, and not of the musicians.
> as for lolla: metallica has millions of fans, many of which like the
> alterna-shit. it makes sense that they would play something at a concert
> like lolla *sometime*, doesn't it? oh well, i'm not too concerned with
> it. it's just a concert, in my mind
They already have played Woodstock '94 and the Molson Ice festival. Now they're doing
it again. Sure, Metallica could make many of their fans happy by playing with
alternative bands like Soundgarden and Rancid. But, there's all this talk about how
Metallica never caters to anyone's needs, so why should they start now? If Metallica
really wanted to make its fans happy, it would tour alone or with other metal bands.
=Parasite
brandon of borge
: Actually, the narrator of the song confesses to the crime. He says, "Guilty as charged,
: they're killing him.
oops--you're right. i guess i overlooked that line somehow. my mistake.
: The song doesn't deal with war as much as it deals with America itself.
: Let's see, it goes:
:
: LIBERTY OR DEATH, WHAT WE SO PROUDLY HAIL
: ONCE YOU PROVOKE HER, RATTLING OF HERE TAIL
: NEVER BEGINS IT, NEVER, BUT ONCE ENGAGED...
: NEVER SURRENDERS, SHOWING THE FANS OF RAGE
:
: To me this says that the US would die for liberty, it never attacks unless it's
: provoked and when it attacks, it will fight to the end and never surender. I guess the
: writer of the song overlooked Vietnam and Korea, but it's still well-written. I don't
: know, it seems like it's an attempt to justisy American miltary intervention. Maybe
: you're right. Still, I don't think they'd ever write a song like this back in the
: Master of Puppets days. "Disposable Heroes" goes against it.
the question i have is who the "her" in the second line is. in the first
line, it's "liberty or death, what *we* so proudly hail", but then it
changes to "once you provoke *her*, rattling of *her* tail". the shift
between these two lines indicates to me that the narrator switches
subjects; in my interpretation, from america (or americans, perhaps) to
war.
wars don't just start themselves, but once they're started, they're awful
difficult to stop. that's where i think the "never surrender..." part
comes in. i suppose one could maybe try to do a line-by-line
interpretation of the song to see how it all fits together...
about your last comment, that metallica wouldn't have written a song like
this in the days of puppets: i'm not sure on that. metallica's earlier
stuff *definitely* is anti-war, and stuff like that, so when you bring up
disposable heroes, you're right--but my hesitation comes in because i'm
not sure that tread is pro-war (or pro-military or whatever). i
wonder...has metallica ever discussed their interpretation of this song?
Herman Bovens
>> But did Lars write the lyrics to RTL?
>
>Well, the album sleeve says it was written by Hetfield, Ulrich, Burton, and Mustaine.
Ulrich probably only wrote the drum track...
>> Also, maybe Lars already supported the death penalty in extreme situations,
>> and they tried to sell out with RTL becaus it's more radical anti-death
>> penalty (and people love radical thoughts!).
>
>That's a theory. But I never accused Metallica of selling out. This is simple an
>example of Metallica going against something they previously stood for.
I'm still not sure... they aren't really going against it imho. Besides,
the song is not only anti-death penalty, it's also anti-killing in general.
In extreme situations (which are very rare, I think), you might endanger
the life of other (innocent) people if you don't kill someone. So you'd be
killing other people indirectly. Killing that one person might save
other's lives, so it may be the only solution left.
Also, you could say that Seek And Destroy is pro-killing, so RTL is the
opposite to that.
>> No, you don't, because most younger people just love anti-gov lyrics.
>
>Most young people don't care about lyrics.
At least my friends do. Besides, most fans of a band know the lyrics by
heart. And if they wouldn't care about lyrics, then why did you say that
the song RTL excludes a part of the market because it's so radical
anti-death penalty?
>For example, White Zombie writes lyrics
>honoring, almost worshipping Satan. There aren't many satan-worshippers who buy White
>Zombie albums, but they are still extremeley popular.
I still think that a lot of younger people just find those lyrics cool,
although they don't worship Satan. Would WZ be just as popular without
those lyrics?
>> I'm still not sure if "Don't Tread On Me" is pro-military. We'll have to
>> ask James. The song is certainly not pro-war.
>
>I guess that's a question for philosophers to debate in the future. But lines like,
>"Love it or leave it," "To secure peace is to prepare for war," and "The eyes, they
>never close, emblem of vigilance," leave little doubt in my mind that the song is
>patriotic.
It's not because there are patriotic thoughts in it, that these thoughts
are Hetfield's. He could be writing about people who feel that way...
Hmm "the eyes, they never close" reminds me of "Big Brother's watching
you" :)
>like. It's the Lollapalooza thing that bothers me. Someone told me that on a radio
>interview in Buffalo, Metallica claimed to have cut its hair in order to conform to the
>Lollapalooza image.
Lars didn't say this on the AOL chat when thay asked him about it (don't
remember what he said, something like 'I felt like it' or 'because I wanted
to')
brandon of borge
: Well ,the issue is, 'Has Metallica ever gone against what they previously stood for?' I
: that?' One theory is that they simply changed their beliefs or opinions. Another is
: that they wanted to appeal to a wider range aof people and sell more albums.
assuming the answer to that question is yes (for the sake of discussion),
those are both extremely valid theories. one other possible one could be
that there are two sides to all issues, and metallica is just presenting
the other side (a standard technique in argumentative papers).
: That's why Metallica
was part of a comment lost here?
: Yes, and Metallica has plenty of fans who loved their previous attacks on the
: government. But those particular fans wouldn't have given up on Metallica just because
: they wrote one song supporting the government.
i feel the same way, but recently there have been some people that seem to
be abandoning metallica for reasons as pathetic as "they cut their hair!!"
i think most people, even the ones that don't support their decisions,
will be around for a while, though.
: > i don't feel tread is pro-government or pro-military. to me, the song
: > says war is going to happen regardless of what you do to prevent it. "to
: > secure peace is to prepare for war." you develop a peace treaty, and
: > pretty soon it gets broken and war breaks out.
:
: I took that line as justifying large miltary buildups because they help secure peace.
i hadn't looked at it from that angle. that does seem plausible, although
it makes more sense to me the other way. oh well, it's a matter of
personal interpretation, i guess.
: Vigilance is a good thing. Calling the US the emblem of vigilance is like calling it
: the guardian of the world. And if the song isn't pro-US, how do you explain the line
: "Love it or leave it" ?
yes, vigilance usually is a good thing. however, in another posting i
mentioned this, but i'm not so sure metallica is calling the us the emblem
of vigilance. to recap my argument:
the first line of the song is "liberty or death, what we so proudly hail"
the second line is "once you provoke her, rattling of her tail"
the switch from "we" to "her" indicates to me a new subject. the "we"
means america (or perhaps americans), and the "her" means war.
so, in my interpretation, this means that war doesn't start itself, but it
is ever _vigilant_, and it will strike at first chance. further, it will
not back down--it will be extremely difficult to stop once it starts.
"love it or leave it, she with the deatly bite"...once again, this goes
back to how you interpret "she" and "it". to me, the she is the same
(war), and "it" is also the same. you can either embrace it (join the
military, support the government, whatever), or you can turn your back on
it, spurn war. either way, it's gonna be there--it's a fact of life.
: I believe that Lars said that Metallica will never make videos on several occasions.
: Once around Master of Puppets and once after the making of the "One" video when he said
: that they'll never make another video. I realize that this might be idle talk because
: the group just got done with the tedious process of making a video. Whether it is or it
: isn't, it doesn't really matter to me. I think videos are pretty cool and that people
: can change their opinions when they see something from a different perspective. I was
: just citing an example.
maybe they changed their minds. i know i've done that several times
(i.e., i claim i will never do something again, and i turn around and do
it anyway). metallica is not infallible, no one is, so even if they
*promised* to never make a video, and they did anyway, i think i could
forgive them :)
: > they might look like the alternative bands out there, but is that *why*
: > they cut their hair?
: I don't know. According to them, no. According to many fans, yes. Personally, I don't
i suppose metallica's claims are more likely to be accurate than the fans.
: care what they look like, and I don't care about their motivations are anymore. I'm
me neither. the music is what counts. if i don't like the new albums, i
won't complain *too* much, i'll just go listen to the other five, or maybe
i'll find something else to occupy my time with.
: They already have played Woodstock '94 and the Molson Ice festival. Now they're doing
: it again. Sure, Metallica could make many of their fans happy by playing with
: alternative bands like Soundgarden and Rancid. But, there's all this talk about how
: Metallica never caters to anyone's needs, so why should they start now? If Metallica
: really wanted to make its fans happy, it would tour alone or with other metal bands.
touring alone or with other metal bands would certainly make *some* of its
fans happy. i'm not sure what angle metallica is heading at the moment.
i think it would be best (at least for me) to wait and see what they do
after their new album is released. if they go touring with rem, i'll shit
my pants, but i never know what they're going to do, so i think i will
just wait and see.
brandon of borge
: Parasite <N...@address.com> wrote:
: >That's a theory. But I never accused Metallica of selling out. This is simple an
:
: I'm still not sure... they aren't really going against it imho. Besides,
: the song is not only anti-death penalty, it's also anti-killing in general.
: In extreme situations (which are very rare, I think), you might endanger
: the life of other (innocent) people if you don't kill someone. So you'd be
: killing other people indirectly. Killing that one person might save
: other's lives, so it may be the only solution left.
:
: Also, you could say that Seek And Destroy is pro-killing, so RTL is the
: opposite to that.
i'm not sure seek is pro-killing, but assuming it is, and assuming rtl is
anti-killing, aren't you just supporting his point?
: >Most young people don't care about lyrics.
:
: At least my friends do. Besides, most fans of a band know the lyrics by
: heart. And if they wouldn't care about lyrics, then why did you say that
: the song RTL excludes a part of the market because it's so radical
: anti-death penalty?
sure, there's lots of young people who do care about them, but i think
he's right--i think *most* of them don't care. you can know the lyrics to
a song by heart but still not care for them.
um...i don't think he said anything about rtl excluding a part of the
market. if i recall correctly, he said rtl (and some other songs) allow
metallica to stand on the line, thereby satisfying *more* people.
parasite, can you help us out here?
: I still think that a lot of younger people just find those lyrics cool,
: although they don't worship Satan. Would WZ be just as popular without
: those lyrics?
i personally feel zombie would be just as popular without those lyrics. i
love listening to zombie, and i basically ignore the messages in the
lyrics.
: It's not because there are patriotic thoughts in it, that these thoughts
: are Hetfield's. He could be writing about people who feel that way...
true--he could be just pointing out the other side of the issue. however,
i don't know if he would actually do that or not...
: Hmm "the eyes, they never close" reminds me of "Big Brother's watching
: you" :)
oh! what's that from? 1984? it's been a while... if that's where it's
from, look at the lyrics to eye of the beholder--they fit perfect! i even
convinced my english teacher to let us listen to that song in class after
we finished reading the book.
Eric B. Mallett
>writer of the song overlooked Vietnam and Korea, but it's still well-written. I don't
The goal of Vietnam and Korea was more to keep the peace than anything. There
wasn't really a way to win, other than to stay there until the two
sides became friends. Had the US decided that it would be beneficial to
annihilate one side or the other, then they would have fought to the death.
Given no real interest in which side won (other than the world should have
some form of democracy rather than the freedom to choose their
own gov't), there was no reason not to back out of both.
>know, it seems like it's an attempt to justisy American miltary intervention. Maybe
If one is attacked, it is usually wise to attack back and then negotiate an
end, rather than watch them destroy your military might and then they take
over your country . The statement is "piss us off, and we'll blow you away"
>you're right. Still, I don't think they'd ever write a song like this back in the
>Master of Puppets days. "Disposable Heroes" goes against it.
Disposable Heroes is a single person's outcry against using people's lives
to get what you want. i.e. an unprovoked act of war. It also has some
meaning about not treating soldiers as individuals. I hardly think that
saying that the US can kick your ass if you ask for it is equal to saying
"we think it's fun to abuse people's human rights"
--
Eric Mallett | (e...@mv.mv.com)
"King George III vs. current US legislature, whose tax policies make more
sense?"
Parasite
>
> > Parasite <N...@address.com> wrote:
> Ulrich probably only wrote the drum track...
You can't tell by the information supplied. You have to assume that all of the members
contributed in every area of the writing process. If it read:
Lyrics and rythm guitar: Hetfield
Drums: ulrich
Bass: Burton
Lead guitar: Mustaine
It would be a different story. But as it stands, they all wrote it.
> I'm still not sure... they aren't really going against it imho.
In Rolling Stones magazine, Lars specifically said that back when the band wrote "Ride
the Lightning," he believed that the death penalty was wrong. Then he said that he
thinks differently now, and that if someone killed his family, he'd want that person to
be killed.
> Besides,
> the song is not only anti-death penalty, it's also anti-killing in general.
> In extreme situations (which are very rare, I think), you might endanger
> the life of other (innocent) people if you don't kill someone. So you'd be
> killing other people indirectly. Killing that one person might save
> other's lives, so it may be the only solution left.
That may be true, but that's not what Lars addressed.
> Also, you could say that Seek And Destroy is pro-killing, so RTL is the
> opposite to that.
If you took "Seek and Destroy" real seriously you could say that, but I honestly don't
think it's a pro-killing song.
> >Most young people don't care about lyrics.
>
> At least my friends do. Besides, most fans of a band know the lyrics by
> heart. And if they wouldn't care about lyrics, then why did you say that
> the song RTL excludes a part of the market because it's so radical
> anti-death penalty?
Most fans know the lyrics by heart, but they don't analyze them to see if they believe
in them or accept them. And "Ride the Lightning" would exclude potential buyers because
anyone who cares about the issue would analyze the lyrics.
> I still think that a lot of younger people just find those lyrics cool,
> although they don't worship Satan. Would WZ be just as popular without
> those lyrics?
I think they would be. Most of the lryics are incomprehensibble anyway. People don't
care what they're singing about, as long as it's loud, ugley, and it pisses of their
parents. However, people who are really against Satanism would probably dislike the
group and refuse to buy their albums.
As for "Don't Tread on Me" being patriotic, here's what Metallica Unbound has top say
about it:
"Don't Tread on Me" was patriotic anthem...a positive, pro-America
statement...expressing four minutes of faith and optimism."
And the guy who wrote that has pretty close ties with Metallica.
> Lars didn't say this on the AOL chat when thay asked him about it (don't
> remember what he said, something like 'I felt like it' or 'because I wanted
> to')
So, Motley Crue may have 'felt like' wearing high heels and makeup, but the early
Metallica guys still held that against them.
=Parasite
Parasite
> um...i don't think he said anything about rtl excluding a part of the
> market. if i recall correctly, he said rtl (and some other songs) allow
> metallica to stand on the line, thereby satisfying *more* people.
> parasite, can you help us out here?
Here's how it goes. "Ride the Lightning" is anti-death penalty, that's not disputed.
Therefore, people who support the death penalty would be alienated by the song, and
probably would not buy the album. Now that Lars has stated that he supports the death
penalty in extreme situations, he satisfies both sides of the issue.
=Parasite
Parasite
>
> assuming the answer to that question is yes (for the sake of discussion),
> those are both extremely valid theories. one other possible one could be
> that there are two sides to all issues, and metallica is just presenting
> the other side (a standard technique in argumentative papers).
Well, if Metallica's intention with "Don't Tread" was to present a counter-argument to
their anti-government songs, they did a damn good job of it. And then again, their
intention could have been to appeal to potential patriotic fans. But, as I said before,
I don't care about intentions. The end product is a song that seemingly contradicts
previous songs.
> i feel the same way, but recently there have been some people that seem to
> be abandoning metallica for reasons as pathetic as "they cut their hair!!"
> i think most people, even the ones that don't support their decisions,
> will be around for a while, though.
Yes, but I think you have to draw a line somewhere. I keep telling myself, "It's okay
that Metallica is playing with alternative bands," "It's okay that Kirk DJs techno
music at gay LA clubs," "It's okay that the new album is going to be called Load and it
will feature a song titled, 'Aint My Bitch.'" At some point, you have to tell youself,
"No, this isn't right, this isn't a good move by Metallica." Some fans have drawn that
line a long time ago, some refuse to even consider drawing it. As for me, the chalk in
in my hand and I'm ready to draw it. I hope they don't make me do it.
=Parasite
J. Walker
>
> Well now that you asked, I'll mention a few things. The song, "Ride the Lightning," is
> penalty in extreme situations. After all, if you appeal to people on both sides of an
> more albums.
Not necessarily true. Personally, I cannot morally justify the death
penalty, but I support it in special cases. I'm not trying to apeal to a
larger audience. It is just how i feel.
>
> Another example. The songs, "For Whom the Bell Tolls" and "Disposable Heroes," and
> several songs off of the album, ..And Justice for All, are clearly anti-government,
> anti-war, and anti-military. But, as it turns out, when you make such dogmatic
> statements, you alienate a large portion of potential buyers. That's why Metallica
> wrote a pro-goverment, pro-military song like "Don't Tread On Me."
Bull shit. Bells and Disposable Heroes both point out the horror of war
and the stupidity of many wars. Few will disagree with this, including
most veterans - those who truly know how much war sucks. Thus these two
sons plus "ONE" make people not so willing goto war for some pathetic
reason. DON'T TREAD ON ME is mearly the other side of the coin. There
are times when it is necessary to fight. Few would argue that the Allies
were wrong to fight back agains the Axis powers in WWII. Additionally, it
makes the point that if you are prepared to defend yourself against an
agressor, you are less likely to be the victim of agression. All of these
songs merely show the different sides of one coherent point of view, not
some clever marketing scheme to sell more albums.
>
> Another example. Lars once said that Metallica will neve rmake videos.
Big fucking deal. Personally I am glad Metallica started doing videos.
The videos for ONE and THE UNFORGIVEN are the two best videos ever made!
Hmmm..... and if I remember correctly Metallica never got the credit for
these two videos. ONE was nominated but lost to Guns and Poses' SWEET
CHILD O'MINE. And UNFORGIVEN was ignored. The only video to get an award
is SANDMAN, but that was just MTV giving recognizing that METALLICA is the
most powerful band in metal today.
>
> In the song, Damage, Inc., Metallica says, "Following our instinct not a trend / Go
> against the grain until the end." Now they've cut their hair to look like all the
> popular alternative bands out there and are playing the commercial, Lollpalooza. Is
> that really going against the grain?
Read the first line dipshit. "Following our instinct not a trend." If
the guys in METALLICA want to cut their hair, I dont give a care. Having
long hair is not a requirement to be non-conformist. Being conformist
these days is doing what ever you can to look, act, and sound like you're
being non-conformist. METALLICA is just doing what they want to do, and I
will continue to listen to the music, buy the albums, and goto the
concerts as long a i like the music. If the latest fad is shaving all of
your pubic hair, and they do it, I'll still listen to them as long as the
music still kicks ass.
>
> =Parasite
>
>
zorloc
Jameson Calantoc
> Parasite (N...@address.com) wrote:
> : Actually, the narrator of the song confesses to the crime. He says, "Guilty as charged,
> : but damnit it aint right," meaning that he did committ a crime, but it's not right that
> : they're killing him.
>
> oops--you're right. i guess i overlooked that line somehow. my mistake.
There are sevreal ways to interpret that line. Perhaps the subject in
the song is dreaming that he/she is in the situation. Just dreaming about
a crime not committed by the subject and being wrongly accused and sentenced.
I've had dreams like that where in reality, I'd done no such thing...
Jameson Calantoc
>
> Yes, but I think you have to draw a line somewhere.
I agree. For each person, that will be drawn at different places.
Unless you totally blindly accept everything that is spoonfed to you.
However, I would question your arguments about choices for song titles
and album names. A title like LOAD is very ambiguous and I'm sure that
once it comes out, It's meaning will get clearer and paradoxically, more
interpretataions will be created by us here in the newsgroup. I wouldn't
worry about a song titled, 'Aint My Bitch.' We have NO IDEA what it means.
It could be about lots of people complaining (also called "bitching"),
and it is of no concern to the subject in the song: "That ain't my
complaint...that ain't my bitch..." Who knows...Come June, a lot of
questions will be answered and a lot more questions will arise...
Parasite
> Not necessarily true. Personally, I cannot morally justify the death
> penalty, but I support it in special cases. I'm not trying to apeal to a
> larger audience. It is just how i feel.
That's not the whole story. If the fact that you didn't like the death penalty caused
some people to dislike you, and you went to them and told them that you thought the
death penalty was okay in certain situations, that would be comparable to what Metallica
did. I'm not ragging on Metallica for doing that, I'm just stating that Metallica did
do that.
> Bull shit. Bells and Disposable Heroes both point out the horror of war
> and the stupidity of many wars. Few will disagree with this, including
> most veterans - those who truly know how much war sucks. Thus these two
> sons plus "ONE" make people not so willing goto war for some pathetic
> reason.
I guess the US going to war for oil in the Gulf a few years ago was a great reason. And
I don't think that "Don't Tread" is a pro-Gulf war song.
> DON'T TREAD ON ME is mearly the other side of the coin. There
> are times when it is necessary to fight. Few would argue that the Allies
> were wrong to fight back agains the Axis powers in WWII. Additionally, it
> makes the point that if you are prepared to defend yourself against an
> agressor, you are less likely to be the victim of agression.
I didn't get that out of it.
> All of these
> songs merely show the different sides of one coherent point of view, not
> some clever marketing scheme to sell more albums.
From everything I've heard from sources close to Metallica, "Don't Tread" isn't saying
anthing about war in general. It's about a specific subject in a specific time.
> Big fucking deal. Personally I am glad Metallica started doing videos.
> The videos for ONE and THE UNFORGIVEN are the two best videos ever made!
I never said that making videos was bad. I'm just citing an example of when Metallica
contradicted itself, for better or for worse. And I agree, One is a very good video.
> Hmmm..... and if I remember correctly Metallica never got the credit for
> these two videos. ONE was nominated but lost to Guns and Poses' SWEET
> CHILD O'MINE. And UNFORGIVEN was ignored.
It's the Grammies, it's a popularity contest, not a contest of qualilty.
> The only video to get an award
> is SANDMAN, but that was just MTV giving recognizing that METALLICA is the
> most powerful band in metal today.
Awards. Who cares about awards. I think Metallica would agree with me. If you're
playing music that you want to play and making people happy, no award can add or detract
from that.
> Read the first line dipshit. "Following our instinct not a trend." If
> the guys in METALLICA want to cut their hair, I dont give a care. Having
> long hair is not a requirement to be non-conformist. Being conformist
> these days is doing what ever you can to look, act, and sound like you're
> being non-conformist. METALLICA is just doing what they want to do, and I
> will continue to listen to the music, buy the albums, and goto the
> concerts as long a i like the music. If the latest fad is shaving all of
> your pubic hair, and they do it, I'll still listen to them as long as the
> music still kicks ass.
So you're saying that what they want to do, for once, is exactly the popular thing to
do. What a coinsidence. This has to be the first time in Metallica's existence where
what they want to do is exactly what MTV and the corporate machine wants them to do.
=Parasite
brandon of borge
: In article <316D34...@address.com>, Parasite <N...@address.com> wrote:
: >writer of the song overlooked Vietnam and Korea, but it's still well-written. I don't
:
: The goal of Vietnam and Korea was more to keep the peace than anything. There
: wasn't really a way to win, other than to stay there until the two
: sides became friends. Had the US decided that it would be beneficial to
: annihilate one side or the other, then they would have fought to the death.
: Given no real interest in which side won (other than the world should have
: some form of democracy rather than the freedom to choose their
: own gov't), there was no reason not to back out of both.
first, he was simply saying that some of the lines of don't tread on me
indicate to him that american will not attack unless provoked, and will
never back down until it's all over. this was not the case in either
vietnam or korea--the us attacked first, and they backed down before the
other side. that's why he was saying the song writer overlooked those
wars.
second, vietnam and korea weren't to keep the peace. the us attacked
because they (speaking as a third person omniscient here) wanted to
contain communism. they feared it and struck out to prevent its
spreading. what it really amounted to was a power struggle--the us
wanted to ensure that there was no country more powerful than itself. and
yes, if the us wanted to totally annihilate one side or the other, a
couple of nukes woulda done it quite effectively--course, there woulda
been a helluvan uproar about that...
Hedbanger
>Actually, the narrator of the song confesses to the crime. He says, "Guilty as charged,
>but damnit it aint right," meaning that he did committ a crime, but it's not right that
>they're killing him.
I always interpretted Ride the Lightening in this way:
"guilty as charged" is a quotation of the pronouncement at the trial
rather than an admission of guilt -- and the person is saying that
they didn't do it ("damn it, it ain't right" -- the accusation is
wrong). "There's someone else controlling me" -- he *was* strapped
into an electric chair against his will. That line could be
interpreted as his saying that he was possessed when he committed the
unnamed crime, but I don't think for a moment that that is the correct
interpretation. the song is a protest on behalf of the many innocent
people that have been punished for crimes that they didn't commit --
people who didn't have the big bucks for a good lawyer.
The horror depicted so well in the song is the horror of being falsely
accused and finding oneself strapped into the electric chair. No
opinion of capital punishment in general is expressed.
The entire album reflects the musings that one goes through in
adolescence. That it is so amazing that we were (at least relatively)
fortunately born. There is a fascination with horror stories and worse
case scenarios. Who hasn't sat after watching a documentary on wartime
war-crimes and atrocities and visualized what it must feel like to be
a victim? Who can resist reflecting on what it would be like to be a
person capable of carrying out such horrors?
>The song doesn't deal with war as much as it deals with America itself.
>Let's see, it goes:
>LIBERTY OR DEATH, WHAT WE SO PROUDLY HAIL
>ONCE YOU PROVOKE HER, RATTLING OF HERE TAIL
>NEVER BEGINS IT, NEVER, BUT ONCE ENGAGED...
>NEVER SURRENDERS, SHOWING THE FANS OF RAGE
>To me this says that the US would die for liberty, it never attacks unless it's
>provoked and when it attacks, it will fight to the end and never surender. I guess the
>writer of the song overlooked Vietnam and Korea, but it's still well-written. I don't
>know, it seems like it's an attempt to justisy American miltary intervention. Maybe
>you're right. Still, I don't think they'd ever write a song like this back in the
>Master of Puppets days. "Disposable Heroes" goes against it.
>=Parasite
Don't Tread on Me is saying don't fuck with me. I've got my country,
my house and property, my personal space. It is in honor of the good
and noble fight. The sentiment is born partially out of the
realization that, as megastars, the guys have had to come to terms
with necessity to draw a line and maintain a buffer between them and
the outside world.
Disposable Heroes is definitely about the bad wars (like Viet Nam)
where soldiers were tossed in as cannon fodder to feed the egoes of a
bunch of megalomaniacs.
Joan
brandon of borge
: brandon of borge wrote:
: > i feel the same way, but recently there have been some people that seem to
: > be abandoning metallica for reasons as pathetic as "they cut their hair!!"
: > i think most people, even the ones that don't support their decisions,
: > will be around for a while, though.
:
: music at gay LA clubs," "It's okay that the new album is going to be called Load and it
: line a long time ago, some refuse to even consider drawing it. As for me, the chalk in
: in my hand and I'm ready to draw it. I hope they don't make me do it.
you're right on that account--it doesn't matter who you are, you're gonna
do something that somebody else doesn't like. if the new album really
sucks, i just won't listen to it much. what the band does in its spare
time is not really any of my concern--i don't know them, i probably never
will, so until they do something that affects me personally, i won't get
all upset over it.
about the titles, though: i don't see anything wrong with the titles.
yet. i don't want to speculate about them. after they actually come out,
if i hate them, i will gladly admit it. but not until then.
Parasite
> I always interpretted Ride the Lightening in this way:
> "guilty as charged" is a quotation of the pronouncement at the trial
> rather than an admission of guilt -- and the person is saying that
> they didn't do it ("damn it, it ain't right" -- the accusation is
> wrong).
I think the person is saying that he did do what they say he did BUT it's not right for
them to execute him.
> "There's someone else controlling me" -- he *was* strapped
> into an electric chair against his will. That line could be
> interpreted as his saying that he was possessed when he committed the
> unnamed crime, but I don't think for a moment that that is the correct
> interpretation. the song is a protest on behalf of the many innocent
> people that have been punished for crimes that they didn't commit --
> people who didn't have the big bucks for a good lawyer.
Well, that's an interesting interpretation. But I think a key line, "Who made you God
to say, 'We'll take your life from you!" really says the meaning of the song: Only God
has the right to destroy a life, capital punishment is wrong.
=Parasite
Hedbanger
>Well, that's an interesting interpretation. But I think a key line, "Who made you God
>to say, 'We'll take your life from you!" really says the meaning of the song: Only God
>has the right to destroy a life, capital punishment is wrong.
That's not necessarily true. "Who made you god" is a common expression
that can mean simply that the speaker thinks that the person is
calling the shots too much. I say that to my boyfriend when he
announces what kind of pizza we are going to have. Does this give the
impression that I feel that god should decide what we are going to
eat? If it does, it is an erroneous impression because I am an
atheist -- not an agnostic -- an atheist. I think it is quite likely
that few people that use that expression are really devoutly
religious.
I will go out on a limb and say that I am willing to bet that Jaymz is
not against capital punishment -- he is a realist not an idealist.
j
Hedbanger
>brandon of borge wrote:
Folks that are secure in their beliefs don't feel alienated by someone
else expressing their opinion.
Does Metallica really care if they hurt somebody's feelings? I think
that they value the right free expression too much to profess popular
opinions when they don't really believe them.
Song lyrics (or movie plots) don't have to be an expression of the
author's beliefs. Does Stephen King believe that cars can be
possessed by a demon? Or did he just think the story might be more
entertaining that a story about a car being repossessed by the
financing company.
When Axl Rose sang "niggers and fags don't make any sense to me" he
was speaking from the point of view of the rube he portrays in the
'Jungle' video that gets off the bus with a haystraw gripped between
his teeth. After all, he has a black (1/2 black) lead guitarist. Of
course Axl is still a butthead... I love the part in A Year and a
Half... where Jaymz reads Axl's contract rider, "... so [the cheese]
can go down his skinny little turkey neck".
I listen to Slayer, but I just ignore the lyrics.
Joan
Hedbanger
>J. Walker wrote:
>> Big fucking deal. Personally I am glad Metallica started doing videos.
>> The videos for ONE and THE UNFORGIVEN are the two best videos ever made!
>I never said that making videos was bad. I'm just citing an example of when Metallica
>contradicted itself, for better or for worse. And I agree, One is a very good video.
You're right there, Parasite. And of course, as fans, we are very
pleased that they changed their minds.
It would be a pity if they had never made One just because they knew
that people would dredge up what they'd said.
Not only did they once say they'd never do a video, there was a time
when Jaymz swore he'd never shave his skimpy (at the time) little
muttonchop sideburns -- ever. He's done that and grown them back
several times since then. big deal! We're all lucky that people don't
record and print and circulate everything we say we'll *never* do or
will *always* do, huh?
Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
Joan
Ziad Kanna
r>Well now that you asked, I'll mention a few things. The song, "Ride
the Lightning," is
r>cleary anti-death penalty. But Lars has recently stated that he
supports the death
r>penalty in extreme situations. After all, if you appeal to people on
both sides of an
r>issue, you satisfy everyone, appeal to a wider range of people, and in
the end, sell
r>more albums.
r>
r>Another example. The songs, "For Whom the Bell Tolls" and "Disposable
Heroes," and
r>several songs off of the album, ..And Justice for All, are clearly
anti-government,
r>anti-war, and anti-military. But, as it turns out, when you make such
dogmatic
r>statements, you alienate a large portion of potential buyers. That's
why Metallica
r>wrote a pro-goverment, pro-military song like "Don't Tread On Me."
r>
r>Another example. Lars once said that Metallica will neve rmake videos.
r>
r>In the song, Damage, Inc., Metallica says, "Following our instinct not
a trend / Go
r>against the grain until the end." Now they've cut their hair to look
like all the
r>popular alternative bands out there and are playing the commercial,
Lollpalooza. Is
r>that really going against the grain?
r>
r>=Parasite
They wrote "Lightning", "Bellz", "Disposable Heroes" and "Damage Inc"
many years ago! Their opinions change over many years as well. They are
all in their 30's for God's sake! I'm sure that you don't have the same
opinions about everything as you did 10 years ago. They were immature
back then, and had their own opinions, now they understand everything a
little better(which is expected as they get older).
Herman Bovens
>Well ,the issue is, 'Has Metallica ever gone against what they previously stood for?' I
>believe the answer to that is 'yes.' Therefore, I asked myself, 'Why would Metallica do
>that?' One theory is that they simply changed their beliefs or opinions. Another is
>that they wanted to appeal to a wider range aof people and sell more albums.
But you said that most people don't care about lyrics, so...
Anyway, IMHO, people that do care about lyrics generally love clear,
radical thoughts and opinions.
>the guardian of the world. And if the song isn't pro-US, how do you explain the line
>"Love it or leave it" ?
I just changed my opinion on this since I just remembered something that
everyone here seems to have overlooked... the beginnig of the song, that's
the theme from 'West Side Story', right? 'I wanna be in America...'
You're right, the song must be pro-US.
That, or the whole song is meant to be sarcastic and not taken litterally.
>They already have played Woodstock '94 and the Molson Ice festival. Now they're doing
>it again. Sure, Metallica could make many of their fans happy by playing with
>alternative bands like Soundgarden and Rancid.
Lars said they're doing this because it gives them the opportunity to play
with bands that they normally never play with.
Also, they toured with Candlebox back in 1994, which is more like an
alternative band. (and a pretty good one too, if you ask me... they also
have good lyrics IMO)
About Woodstock '94 : last year, a guy from my class bought a double live
album of WS '94 with 1 song from each band on it. Guess which Metallica
song they picked? FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLS! Is that an alternative song?
Parasite
> That's not necessarily true. "Who made you god" is a common expression
> that can mean simply that the speaker thinks that the person is
> calling the shots too much. I say that to my boyfriend when he
> announces what kind of pizza we are going to have. Does this give the
> impression that I feel that god should decide what we are going to
> eat? If it does, it is an erroneous impression because I am an
> atheist -- not an agnostic -- an atheist. I think it is quite likely
> that few people that use that expression are really devoutly
> religious.
> I will go out on a limb and say that I am willing to bet that Jaymz is
> not against capital punishment -- he is a realist not an idealist.
Well, you can twist the lyrics into any message that you want if it makes you happy. I
feel that there is an abundance of evidence that suggests that the song is anti-death
penalty. And to top it off, Lars stated that he was anti-death penalty at the time thw
song was written.
=Parasite
Parasite
> Folks that are secure in their beliefs don't feel alienated by someone
> else expressing their opinion.
I don't think that's necessarily true.
> Does Metallica really care if they hurt somebody's feelings? I think
> that they value the right free expression too much to profess popular
> opinions when they don't really believe them.
Now THAT would be ideal. But the truth is, people do a lot of shit that they don't
really want to do for money and popularity.
> Song lyrics (or movie plots) don't have to be an expression of the
> author's beliefs. Does Stephen King believe that cars can be
> possessed by a demon? Or did he just think the story might be more
> entertaining that a story about a car being repossessed by the
> financing company.
Stephen writes shock fiction for the masses. I don't think that Metallica does that.
I'd like to think that they're sincere in their writing, not just writing fiction. I
think most Metallica fans would agree with me. Do you think that ...And Justice for All
is just Metallica presenting someone else's beliefs, and are indifferent to the subject
themselves? No way. They are sincere.
> When Axl Rose sang "niggers and fags don't make any sense to me" he
> was speaking from the point of view of the rube he portrays in the
> 'Jungle' video that gets off the bus with a haystraw gripped between
> his teeth.
There's a difference between entering a role and stating your own beliefs. I mean, in
"Disposable Heroes," the lines "Back to the front..you will die when I say...you will do
what I say," are obviously not Metallica's beliefs, but rather their perception of an
officer in the military treating the soldiers like puppets.
> I listen to Slayer, but I just ignore the lyrics.
I bet you could also have fun at a Neo-Nazi rally if you just ignored what was being
said.
> Joan
=Parasite
Jameson Calantoc
>
> Well, you can twist the lyrics into any message that you want if it makes you happy. I
> feel that there is an abundance of evidence that suggests that the song is anti-death
> penalty. And to top it off, Lars stated that he was anti-death penalty at the time thw
> song was written.
Well, that is exactly what Metallica (James) wants us to do. The lyrics
he's written have always been vague enough so that we can extract what we
need out of a song to make it understandable to us. James writes the
lyrics, so I don't know how much influence Lars' opinion had on James's
lyrics.
arel...@cnsvax.uwec.edu
> Jeez, Barracuda! You were pretty vicious there...I wonder if there will
> be a rebuttal to your remarks?
>
> _________________________________________________________________
>
> Jameson Calantoc <jj...@axe.humboldt.edu> B-) <--- turn your head sideways!
>
I enjoy reading the various comments, debates and discussions here, but
that guy was just begging to be flamed. <shrug>
I guess I wasn't the only one who felt that way, either. S;)
- Barracuda
J. Walker
> That's not the whole story. If the fact that you didn't like the death penalty caused
> some people to dislike you, and you went to them and told them that you thought the
> death penalty was okay in certain situations, that would be comparable to what Metallica
> did. I'm not ragging on Metallica for doing that, I'm just stating that Metallica did
> do that.
just how i feel. And Lars probably feels the same way. When some fan
asked him about the death penalty, he gave him his opinion. Not because
he pissed someone off and wanted to kiss their ass to get that person to
listen to his music. That just doesn't sound like Metallica.
> I guess the US going to war for oil in the Gulf a few years ago was a great reason. And
> I don't think that "Don't Tread" is a pro-Gulf war song.
Specific wars are really not the issue. The three anti-war songs simply
display vividly why war is serious business not some glorious romp. There
are real consequences to war and they must be kept in mind before moving
toward war.
>
> > DON'T TREAD ON ME is mearly the other side of the coin. There
> > are times when it is necessary to fight. Few would argue that the Allies
> > were wrong to fight back agains the Axis powers in WWII. Additionally, it
> > makes the point that if you are prepared to defend yourself against an
> > agressor, you are less likely to be the victim of agression.
>
> I didn't get that out of it.
>
How can't you. I don't have the album with me 'cause I am at work, so I
can't quote lines. The thesis (for the lack of a better word) of the song
is simple...Don't tread on me, because you won't like the consequences.
And by "tread on me" it does not mean interfere with me, it means attack
me. DON'T TREAD ON ME is very old, in the US from the Revolutionary War,
and possibly earlier.
> From everything I've heard from sources close to Metallica, "Don't Tread" isn't saying
> anthing about war in general. It's about a specific subject in a specific time.
What? I know it originates at the prelude to the Gulf War. But it does
not really say anything that would relate to that war.
> I never said that making videos was bad. I'm just citing an example of when Metallica
> contradicted itself, for better or for worse. And I agree, One is a very good video.
This neads to be put in context. The videos of the early eighties really
sucked. Most of the Metal videos were just T&A shows, with no deapth.
Metallica said they would never participate. Then with ONE they made it
there way and MTV played it once or twice and took it out of rotation, but
they receive so many calls that they put it back on.
> It's the Grammies, it's a popularity contest, not a contest of qualilty.
I was talking about the MTV awards. The Grammys don't deal with videos,
just albums. And I agree, It is a contest that those that play along with
the establishment win... and METALLICA hasn't, thus they don't play along.
> Awards. Who cares about awards. I think Metallica would agree with me. If you're
> playing music that you want to play and making people happy, no award can add or detract
> from that.
I agree that awards are shit. But as James said after they won best Metal
album for Sandman, "We worked our asses off, we deserve this."
> So you're saying that what they want to do, for once, is exactly the popular thing to
> do. What a coinsidence. This has to be the first time in Metallica's existence where
> what they want to do is exactly what MTV and the corporate machine wants them to do.
Why would the "corporate machine" want them to cut their hair? METALLICA
has earned ELECTRA untold millions of dollars. The "machine" supposedly
wants successes to stay exactly the same. What works now, keep it and
copy it. METALLICA is just moving on and growing. With RIDE THE
LIGHTNING (your favorite album) they grew a lot. They moved to a much
more musical album, and were accused of selling out to ELECTRA then. But
as Cliff said at the time and METALLICA says now "IT IS JUST WHAT WE WANT
TO DO, AND IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, TOUGH." Each album is different, and
METALLICA's look has changed. James looks a hell of a lot different than
he did in KILL 'EM ALL. And quite frankly, I think his hair looks much
better now than it did after he was blown up. And with out the mustache,
Kirk no longer looks like Ceech of Ceech and Chong. This is good.
>
> =Parasite
>
>
zorloc
Carl Mercier
>On Fri, 12 Apr 1996, Parasite wrote:
>>
>> Yes, but I think you have to draw a line somewhere.
>
>I agree. For each person, that will be drawn at different places.
>Unless you totally blindly accept everything that is spoonfed to you.
>However, I would question your arguments about choices for song titles
>and album names. A title like LOAD is very ambiguous and I'm sure that
>once it comes out, It's meaning will get clearer and paradoxically, more
>interpretataions will be created by us here in the newsgroup. I wouldn't
>worry about a song titled, 'Aint My Bitch.' We have NO IDEA what it means.
>It could be about lots of people complaining (also called "bitching"),
>and it is of no concern to the subject in the song: "That ain't my
>complaint...that ain't my bitch..." Who knows...Come June, a lot of
>questions will be answered and a lot more questions will arise...
You know what would really kick? A song about net posers like "..." (3
letters, everybody knows who i talk about!). A song about people complaining
BEFORE the album is out. A really kick ass song... would be really great!
Wouldn't?
Hedbanger
>Hedbanger wrote:
>
>> Folks that are secure in their beliefs don't feel alienated by someone
>> else expressing their opinion.
>I don't think that's necessarily true.
A feeling of alienation is symptomatic of not being secure in one's
belief.
>> Does Metallica really care if they hurt somebody's feelings? I think
>> that they value the right free expression too much to profess popular
>> opinions when they don't really believe them.
>Now THAT would be ideal. But the truth is, people do a lot of shit that they don't
>really want to do for money and popularity.
[Stephen King snippage]
>Stephen writes shock fiction for the masses. I don't think that Metallica does that.
>I'd like to think that they're sincere in their writing, not just writing fiction. I
>think most Metallica fans would agree with me. Do you think that ...And Justice for All
>is just Metallica presenting someone else's beliefs, and are indifferent to the subject
>themselves? No way. They are sincere.
Now THAT would be ideal. But the truth is, people do a lot of shit
that they don't really want to do for money and popularity.
... does the above look at all familiar to you?
>> When Axl Rose sang "niggers and fags don't make any sense to me" he
>> was speaking from the point of view of the rube he portrays in the
>> 'Jungle' video that gets off the bus with a haystraw gripped between
>> his teeth.
>There's a difference between entering a role and stating your own beliefs. I mean, in
>"Disposable Heroes," the lines "Back to the front..you will die when I say...you will do
>what I say," are obviously not Metallica's beliefs, but rather their perception of an
>officer in the military treating the soldiers like puppets.
Those lines from DH were written in the first person and depicted an
officer sending his cannon fodder forward into battle.
>> I listen to Slayer, but I just ignore the lyrics.
>I bet you could also have fun at a Neo-Nazi rally if you just ignored what was being
>said.
Is that really what you have gotten out of what I have said? You don't
even know what color I am.
Joan
brandon of borge
: Hedbanger wrote:
:
: > That's not necessarily true. "Who made you god" is a common expression
: > that can mean simply that the speaker thinks that the person is
: > calling the shots too much.
: Well, you can twist the lyrics into any message that you want if it makes you happy. I
: penalty. And to top it off, Lars stated that he was anti-death penalty at the time thw
: song was written.
i would agree that the phrase "who made you god" usually means the other
person has too much power. however, you need to consider the rest of the
context:
"who made you god to say"
"'i'll take your life from you'"
taken directly out of the song, these lines indicate that the speaker is
against the death penalty (at least in this instance). the speaker is
angry and bitter that someone else is in the position to kill him,
especially under the law. i would tend to agree with parasite on this
point.
Cyborge
Ed Jankovsky
: I just changed my opinion on this since I just remembered something that
: everyone here seems to have overlooked... the beginnig of the song, that's
: the theme from 'West Side Story', right? 'I wanna be in America...'
: You're right, the song must be pro-US.
: That, or the whole song is meant to be sarcastic and not taken litterally.
Right.. I could have sworn I read interviews somewhere back where James
had stated that it wasn't a pro/anti war song, but more of a pro-america
song.
--
+=- . . .. -=*
| e...@azfms.com |
.. He who laughs last, thinks slowest. syr...@primenet.com .
| Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies. .
+=- .. . . -+
Parasite
> A feeling of alienation is symptomatic of not being secure in one's
> belief.
So, if you feel alienated, it means that you're not secure in your beliefs. Let me
allude to the neo-nazi rally once again. If there's a Jew at a Nazi rally, he's going
to feel alienated. Does that mean that he's not secure in his beliefs? No, it's
because the people there go against everything that's essential to the fabric of his
being. Alienation is imposed by others. Isolation is what is self-imposed. And I
can't see anyone who is strongly pro-death penalty headbanging away to "Ride the
Lightning."
> >Stephen writes shock fiction for the masses.
> >I don't think that Metallica does that.
> >I'd like to think that they're sincere in their writing,
> >not just writing fiction.
> >I think most Metallica fans would agree with me.
> > Do you think that ...And Justice for All
> >is just Metallica presenting someone else's beliefs,
> >and are indifferent to the subject
> >themselves? No way. They are sincere.
>
> Now THAT would be ideal. But the truth is, people do a lot of shit
> that they don't really want to do for money and popularity.
>
> ... does the above look at all familiar to you?
If you want to believe that Metallica has been putting on an act for the last 15 years,
go ahead. I'd prefer to believe the Metallica was simply sanitizing its music for the
last 4 years.
[Disposable Heroes stuff]
> Those lines from DH were written in the first person and depicted an
> officer sending his cannon fodder forward into battle.
I know, that's my point. That's an example of Metallica talking froma character's
points of view. In "Ride the Lightning," Metallica was stating its beliefs, by talking
through a character.
> >> I listen to Slayer, but I just ignore the lyrics.
>
> >I bet you could also have fun at a Neo-Nazi rally if you just ignored what was being
> >said.
>
> Is that really what you have gotten out of what I have said? You don't
> even know what color I am.
That's irrelevant though, the Nazis are against everyone. <j> I'm not saying that
Slayer's "Angel of Death" in Nazi progoganda, it's obvious that it is entering the role
of Joseph Mengele, I hope so, at least. It's usually pretty obvious. I'm sure that
there are times when Slayer in sincere, though. Do you bother to distinguish between
the two or do you just ignore everything? I think I'm pretty secure in my belief that
everyone has the right to live, but I could never listen to anything like Cannibal
Corpse or Gwar. Does this make me weak in my beliefs? I don't think so. I just can't,
maintain a clear conscience and enjoy music reveling in the delights or murder, sodomy,
necrophilia, rape, and immorality. That's why it's to a bands advantage to just appeal
to the lowest common denominator and make everyone happy. For Metallica, that lowest
common denominator was the Black Album.
=Parasite
Jason Barker
On Thu, 11 Apr 1996, Herman Bovens wrote:
> Parasite <N...@address.com> wrote:
>
> >> But did Lars write the lyrics to RTL?
> >
> >Well, the album sleeve says it was written by Hetfield, Ulrich, Burton, and Mustaine.
>
> Ulrich probably only wrote the drum track...
>
> >> Also, maybe Lars already supported the death penalty in extreme situations,
> >> and they tried to sell out with RTL becaus it's more radical anti-death
> >> penalty (and people love radical thoughts!).
> >
> >That's a theory. But I never accused Metallica of selling out. This is simple an
> >example of Metallica going against something they previously stood for.
>
> I'm still not sure... they aren't really going against it imho. Besides,
> the song is not only anti-death penalty, it's also anti-killing in general.
> In extreme situations (which are very rare, I think), you might endanger
> the life of other (innocent) people if you don't kill someone. So you'd be
> killing other people indirectly. Killing that one person might save
> >> I'm still not sure if "Don't Tread On Me" is pro-military. We'll have to
> >> ask James. The song is certainly not pro-war.
The song Don't tread on Me is about a Militia back in the Revolutionary
War. It is from the point of view of the men in the war. You have to
admit, the colonists had a lot more love of their country than half of us
Americans do nowadays. What percentage of the population could you see
saying "give me liberty or give me death"
the song is not about the US today, it couldn't possibly be because there
just isn't the same patriotism overall. Would you die for America?? (a
question only posed to US citizens)
> >
> >I guess that's a question for philosophers to debate in the future. But lines like,
> >"Love it or leave it," "To secure peace is to prepare for war," and "The eyes, they
> >never close, emblem of vigilance," leave little doubt in my mind that the song is
> >patriotic.
>
> It's not because there are patriotic thoughts in it, that these thoughts
> are Hetfield's. He could be writing about people who feel that way...
>
> Hmm "the eyes, they never close" reminds me of "Big Brother's watching
> you" :)
>
> >like. It's the Lollapalooza thing that bothers me. Someone told me that on a radio
> >interview in Buffalo, Metallica claimed to have cut its hair in order to conform to the
> >Lollapalooza image.
>
> Lars didn't say this on the AOL chat when thay asked him about it (don't
> remember what he said, something like 'I felt like it' or 'because I wanted
> to')
sleeping nuclear
: > Ulrich probably only wrote the drum track...
: You can't tell by the information supplied. You have to assume that all of the members
: contributed in every area of the writing process. If it read:
: Lyrics and rythm guitar: Hetfield
: Drums: ulrich
: Bass: Burton
: Lead guitar: Mustaine
: It would be a different story. But as it stands, they all wrote it.
If you're speaking in terms of lyrics I think Hetfield writes them. Check
your AJFA insert. Before the lyrics to each song it credits various band
members, but at the end it says all lyrics by Hetfield. I think when
various band members are credited it means they helped write the song.
: =Parasite
Rob
Someone
>Hedbanger wrote:
>
>> A feeling of alienation is symptomatic of not being secure in one's
>> belief.
>
>So, if you feel alienated, it means that you're not secure in your beliefs.
> Let me
>allude to the neo-nazi rally once again. If there's a Jew at a Nazi rally,
> he's going
>to feel alienated. Does that mean that he's not secure in his beliefs? No,
> it's
>because the people there go against everything that's essential to the fabric
> of his
>being. Alienation is imposed by others. Isolation is what is self-imposed.
> And I
>can't see anyone who is strongly pro-death penalty headbanging away to "Ride
> the
>Lightning."
I am strongly pro-death and I thrash to it on a regular basis.
l
Hedbanger
>Well, you can twist the lyrics into any message that you want if it makes you happy. I
>feel that there is an abundance of evidence that suggests that the song is anti-death
>penalty. And to top it off, Lars stated that he was anti-death penalty at the time thw
>song was written.
Do you have access to any statements from Jaymz?
Joan
Jameson Calantoc
> I can't see anyone who is strongly pro-death penalty headbanging away to
> "Ride the Lightning."
I'm right here. Headbanging to RTL...I support the death penalty. Wanna
know why? Because I can interpret the song in a different way than you.
> If you want to believe that Metallica has been putting on an act for the last 15 years,
> go ahead. I'd prefer to believe the Metallica was simply sanitizing its music for the
> last 4 years.
I think you'd be fooling yourself it you believe that. The only thing
they sanitize is their toilets at home. What is so sanitized about the
concepts set forth in "The God That Failed"? Or "Sad But True"? Or the
existentialist "Through The Never"?
> That's why it's to a bands advantage to just appeal to the lowest common
> denominator and make everyone happy. For Metallica, that lowest
> common denominator was the Black Album.
Did that album appeal to everybody? If I recall, there are a lot of
naysayers in this here ng that frown on that album. So how can EVERYONE
be happy? I hardly think that Metallica's last album is the lowest
common denominator. But I will agree that it is probably the closest
we'll see to Metallica in its simplest form. And when was simplicity a
bad thing?
Andrew Ariens
>> And I
>> the
>>Lightning."
>
>l
Same here. I am all for the death penalty, and i'm listening to RTL
as I am typing this.
Parasite
>
> I'm right here. Headbanging to RTL...I support the death penalty. Wanna
> know why? Because I can interpret the song in a different way than you.
Do you also interpret "For Whom the Bell Tolls" as pro-war? It would suprise me.
> I think you'd be fooling yourself it you believe that. The only thing
> they sanitize is their toilets at home. What is so sanitized about the
> concepts set forth in "The God That Failed"? Or "Sad But True"? Or the
> existentialist "Through The Never"?
Man, those songs are exactly what people want to hear. What's profound about "Sad But
True"? Nothing, that song was made for the radio so rebel-wannabees could think they
were listening to the epitomie of heavy metal. "The God That Failed," "Though the
Never," that's just telling people, 'Hey, there is no God. Throw morality out the
window.' And that's exactly what adolescents and even people in their 20s want to hear.
They don't want to be held accountable for the shit they do, so it fits their needs not
to believe in God or anything like that. That's why existentialism is so popular these
days. What is Metallica wrote a song that preached the virtues of Christian scientist
ideology, opposite to "The God that Failed." Nobody would like it (the lyrics at least)
because they hate religion and that is the most extreme form of religion.
> > That's why it's to a bands advantage to just appeal to the lowest common
> > denominator and make everyone happy. For Metallica, that lowest
> > common denominator was the Black Album.
>
> Did that album appeal to everybody? If I recall, there are a lot of
> naysayers in this here ng that frown on that album. So how can EVERYONE
> be happy?
Okay, when I said everybody, I didn't mean every single person in the world. I was just
referring to the 15 million people who bought their last album. Did all those people
but their previous albums? No way. If you don't think that Metallica compromised with
the Black Album, you are the one who's fooling yourself.
=Parasite
Parasite
> >I am strongly pro-death and I thrash to it on a regular basis.
> Same here. I am all for the death penalty, and i'm listening to RTL
> as I am typing this.
Strongly pro-death penalty. What is that? You want to kill people who get pulled over
for speeding tickets?
I know a jewish kid who regularly listens to Nazi metal and he claims to be strongly
anti-Nazi. It makes me wonder if he really knows what he is listening to.
=Parasite
Tommy Sollen
>
> On Tue, 16 Apr 1996, Parasite wrote:
> > "Ride the Lightning."
>
> know why? Because I can interpret the song in a different way than you.
>
> > go ahead. I'd prefer to believe the Metallica was simply sanitizing its music for the
> > last 4 years.
>
> they sanitize is their toilets at home. What is so sanitized about the
> concepts set forth in "The God That Failed"? Or "Sad But True"? Or the
> existentialist "Through The Never"?
>
> > denominator and make everyone happy. For Metallica, that lowest
> > common denominator was the Black Album.
>
> Did that album appeal to everybody? If I recall, there are a lot of
> naysayers in this here ng that frown on that album. So how can EVERYONE
> common denominator. But I will agree that it is probably the closest
> we'll see to Metallica in its simplest form. And when was simplicity a
> bad thing?
"And when was simplicity a bad thing"- Exactley.
I don't understand people who say that the black album sucks, its so
simple, Bob Rock has destroyed everything... and so on. I'm not going to
bitch about "trure members/fans" but some fans who say that the black
album sucks call themselves true fans. They should take a look at
themselves in the mirror once more.
Simplicity is not a bad thing. It is in fact an artform. Any
guitarrist can throw a ripping solo or a cool riff but to create a heavy
rythym and an overall heavy/cool feeling -and at the same time channel
the context of the lyrics throug the music- that: is an artform. An
artform that Hetfield possess and an ability he has graduately developed
throug out the years.
To quote Kirk: "Hetfields ability to come up with these incredible riffs
is amazing. And they are so simple!."
This is what i'm talking about.
- Tommy
ya...@voyager.net
god, do what you want..." It's about Jaymz mother dying of cancer and
not allowing herself medical treatment due to her religous beliefs.
Kyle
>
> Jameson Calantoc wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 16 Apr 1996, Parasite wrote:
> > > I can't see anyone who is strongly pro-death penalty headbanging away to
> > > "Ride the Lightning."
> >
> > I'm right here. Headbanging to RTL...I support the death penalty. Wanna
> > know why? Because I can interpret the song in a different way than you.
> >
> > > If you want to believe that Metallica has been putting on an act for the last 15 years,
> > > go ahead. I'd prefer to believe the Metallica was simply sanitizing its music for the
> > > last 4 years.
> >
> > I think you'd be fooling yourself it you believe that. The only thing
> > they sanitize is their toilets at home. What is so sanitized about the
> > concepts set forth in "The God That Failed"? Or "Sad But True"? Or the
> > existentialist "Through The Never"?
> >
> > > That's why it's to a bands advantage to just appeal to the lowest common
> > > denominator and make everyone happy. For Metallica, that lowest
> > > common denominator was the Black Album.
>
Man- Like I really care about the political views of a band I happen to be listening
to-geez.. Everybody has their own opinion, I dont mind if its different than mine- ITS
THE MUSIC STUPID!!!
P.S- The Black Album, may not have been Metallicas best, buts its better than any piece
of dung that Pearl Jam, Alice in Chains, Candlebox and any other bullsh*t
alternative/metal has put out in recent memory- Thanx fer lettin me vent!!
-Kyle
http://www.goldengate.net/~kyleg
"Will surf Internet for food"
Jameson Calantoc
>
> Do you also interpret "For Whom the Bell Tolls" as pro-war? It would suprise me.
I just kinda picture "Bells" as a narrative of an 3rd person omniscient.
I'm not sure what I believe the narrator's position is.
>
> What's profound about "Sad But True"? Nothing, that song was made for the
> radio so rebel-wannabees could think they were listening to the epitomie of
> heavy metal.
That's your take on the song. I believe it is the study of an irrational
hypocrite trying to rationalize his or her behaviour. Speaking, aloud or
internally to him- or herself looking in a mirror (which could also represent
the sane side to an insae person, or a conscience).
"The God That Failed," "Though the Never," that's just telling people, 'Hey,
> there is no God. Throw morality out the window.' And that's exactly what
> adolescents and even people in their 20s want to hear.
You liken these songs to a "free for all" mentality? OK. To each, his
or her own. I just don't see it. Can you explain what you see in the
lyrics? I'm truly interested...
> They don't want to be held accountable for the shit they do, so it fits their needs not
> to believe in God or anything like that.
The only people artists have to answer to is themselves. They, like us,
are responsible for their own actions. I really don't see Metallica
forcing their beliefs on someone else. In fact, almost all of their
songs avoid taking a position. Have you ever noticed that everyone
has an interpretation for a song?
> What is Metallica wrote a song that preached the virtues of Christian scientist
> ideology, opposite to "The God that Failed." Nobody would like it (the lyrics at least)
> because they hate religion and that is the most extreme form of religion.
I've never heard anywhere that Metallica hates religion.
>
> I was just referring to the 15 million people who bought their last album.
> Did all those people but their previous albums? No way.
Who cares when someone becomes a fan? What matters is that they new ones
are brought up to speed to discover what they missed. If those who can't
accept Metallica as a continuum of evolution think they are true fans, I
think they are wrong. No matter how early they jumped on the bandwagon.
_________________________________________________________________
Parasite
> I just kinda picture "Bells" as a narrative of an 3rd person omniscient.
> I'm not sure what I believe the narrator's position is.
It amazes me that anyone would feel that this song wasn't extremely anti-war. Sure,
everyone has his own opinion of what the song is about. But opinions are perspectives
of the truth. There aren't multiple truths, there is only one. There is one
message that the writer of that song intended to convey when he wrote it. I mean, you
can always argue that the author was speaking from the position of another character,
but there are some times when the author is so blatantly stating his own position that
it is obvious. "For Whom The Bell Tolls," and "Ride the Lightning" are examples of
this. I would bet my blood that when James or whoever wrote, 'Bells,' he was trying to
show how shitty and stupid war is. And whoever wrote "Ride the Lightning" was
expressing his owon views of capital punishment. You can argue, 'I thought that...',
or, 'I interpreted it as....,' but when it comes down to it, the song says one thing.
> That's your take on the song. I believe it is the study of an irrational
> hypocrite trying to rationalize his or her behaviour. Speaking, aloud or
> internally to him- or herself looking in a mirror (which could also represent
> the sane side to an insae person, or a conscience).
I'm sure I could come up with some profound meaning to any song, but when I hear "Sad
But True," I hear a short little jingle with no real insight, a lot of yelling and a
relatively heavy beat making a song that was designed for the radio.
> You liken these songs to a "free for all" mentality? OK. To each, his
> or her own. I just don't see it. Can you explain what you see in the
> lyrics? I'm truly interested...
Just about anything that is existentialist advocates that kind of mentality.
> The only people artists have to answer to is themselves. They, like us,
> are responsible for their own actions. I really don't see Metallica
> forcing their beliefs on someone else. In fact, almost all of their
> songs avoid taking a position. Have you ever noticed that everyone
> has an interpretation for a song?
Nothing off the Black Album takes much of a position, but anything for Ride the
Lightning to ...And Justice for All is very dogmatic. But I'm sure that you interpret
"Blackened" and "Fight Fire with Fire" to be indifferent towards nuclear war and "Eye of
the Beholder" to be supportive of the US and its justice system.
> I've never heard anywhere that Metallica hates religion.
No, but the people who buy their albums do. You said that Metallica isn't playing it
safe because of songs like "The God That Failed," which tears apart Christain scientist
ideology. I'm saying that this song is playing it safe, because it attacks an ideology
that is almost universally discredited. Also, because the mainstream audience would
support just about any attack on any religion, because the current trend is to be
atheist and/or existentialist. If Metallica didn't want to play it safe, they'd write a
song praising relgious people for their faith or something. If they wrote a song like
that, people would accuse them of being Holy Rollers, like they accused Dave Mustaine of
Megadeth when he wrote some songs that expressed faith in God or religion.
> > I was just referring to the 15 million people who bought their last album.
> > Did all those people but their previous albums? No way.
>
> Who cares when someone becomes a fan? What matters is that they new ones
> are brought up to speed to discover what they missed. If those who can't
> accept Metallica as a continuum of evolution think they are true fans, I
> think they are wrong. No matter how early they jumped on the bandwagon.
I don't care about when someone becomes a fan. I, myself, didn't become a fan until
after the Black Album was released (but not because of the Black Album). What I saying
is that Metallica, in its purest and most uncompromising form was the Metallica of
Master of Puppets and maybe of ...And Justice For All. But Metallica wanted bigger
things, so it had to appeal to a greater range of people. I think that's what they did.
=Parasite
Parasite
> to-geez.. Everybody has their own opinion, I dont mind if its different than mine- ITS
> THE MUSIC STUPID!!!
If it's only the music, why do people go to concerts? Why not just stay home and listen
to the CD? That's the music in its purest form, after all.
If it's only the music, why have lyrics at all? Why isn't there just some guy humming
along with the guitar? Why isn't everything just instrumental?
If lyrics aren't important, why do bands have lyric sheets, and why do people read them
all the time?
=Parasite
Herman Bovens
>P.S- The Black Album, may not have been Metallicas best, buts its better than any piece
>of dung that Pearl Jam, Alice in Chains, Candlebox and any other bullsh*t
>alternative/metal has put out in recent memory- Thanx fer lettin me vent!!
Well, I only know one Candlebox album and I happen to think it's very good,
not as good as TBA, but still good. And Alice in Chains is one of Lars's
favourite bands... but as you said, every one has is own opinion...
Jameson Calantoc
> > Man- Like I really care about the political views of a band I happen to be listening
> > to-geez.. Everybody has their own opinion, I dont mind if its different than mine- ITS
> > THE MUSIC STUPID!!!
>
> If it's only the music, why do people go to concerts?
> If it's only the music, why have lyrics at all? Why isn't there just some guy humming
> along with the guitar? Why isn't everything just instrumental?
> If lyrics aren't important, why do bands have lyric sheets...
Agreed! There's more to Metallica than even music and lyrics. It goes
way beyond that for many of us here. If it's just the music, go make
your own instrumental versions of the songs. There are several different
ways to do this!
Herman Bovens
>that is almost universally discredited. Also, because the mainstream audience would
>support just about any attack on any religion, because the current trend is to be
>atheist and/or existentialist.
Maybe they just *are* atheist and/or existentialist.
>If Metallica didn't want to play it safe, they'd write a
>song praising relgious people for their faith or something.
But if they don't feel that way (maybe they're even sorry for people whith
blind faith in religion), why should they?
>> > I was just referring to the 15 million people who bought their last album.
>> > Did all those people but their previous albums? No way.
I think it has a lot to do with the overall sound, not the speed, the
lyrics,... but just the thick, fat sound that the album has. The earlier
albums sounded more thin and dry, that's why they didn't appeal to most
people.
Parasite
> >Also, because the mainstream audience would
> >support just about any attack on any religion, because the current trend is to be
> >atheist and/or existentialist.
Maybe, but that doesn't change what I said.
> >If Metallica didn't want to play it safe, they'd write a
> >song praising relgious people for their faith or something.
>
> But if they don't feel that way (maybe they're even sorry for people whith
> blind faith in religion), why should they?
They shouldn't. The person I was replying to claimed that the Black Album obviously
wasn't sanitized. As an example of this, he pointed out the song, "The God That
Failed." I claim that this song isn't extreme or radical. To support this, I claim
that the antithesis of this song would be considered extreme.
> I think it has a lot to do with the overall sound, not the speed, the
> lyrics,... but just the thick, fat sound that the album has. The earlier
> albums sounded more thin and dry, that's why they didn't appeal to most
> people.
Well, everyone has their theory. Personally, I think that any givensong off of Master
of Puppets is 'thicker' and more mult-demensional than any given song off of The Black
Album.
=Parasite
Jameson Calantoc
> There aren't multiple truths, there is only one. There is one message that
> the writer of that song intended to convey when he wrote it.
I think you don't give some people, especially a lyricist like James
Hetfield, enough credit. It's very easy to create something that can be
taken different ways. Think political speeches. They say nothing
substantial, but say lots of things to many different people. Also, it
isn't what the lyricist writes that is important; in the end the meaning
lies within the receiver of the information. Are there any communication
majors out here that can back this up? Thus, a song has as many
different meanings as there are listeners.
>
> > I've never heard anywhere that Metallica hates religion.
>
> No, but the people who buy their albums do.
Ah! My point is proven...The meaning lies with the listener. The
anti-religion factions who are Metallica fans will do so because of what
they can find in the material.
> You said that Metallica isn't playing it
> safe because of songs like "The God That Failed," which tears apart Christain scientist
> ideology. I'm saying that this song is playing it safe, because it attacks an ideology
> that is almost universally discredited.
This may be a bit off topic, but there are reasons other than Metallica
that many forms of religion are discredited. An unwillingness to empower
women to the point of equality, child molestation by church officials,
and in the past- polygamy. Maligned religion shames itself. But of course,
this is not to say that all forms of religion are bad...
Parasite
> I think you don't give some people, especially a lyricist like James
> Hetfield, enough credit. It's very easy to create something that can be
> taken different ways. Think political speeches. They say nothing
> substantial, but say lots of things to many different people. Also, it
> isn't what the lyricist writes that is important; in the end the meaning
> lies within the receiver of the information. Are there any communication
> majors out here that can back this up? Thus, a song has as many
> different meanings as there are listeners.
That's a good point. But songs like 'Bells' say a lot of substantial things. I know
that many political speeches are often ambigious, but if someone were to say something
like, 'Abortion is wrong in every form and in every situation no matter what the
circumstances are!' It would be hard to interpret that any other way. I'm sure that
someone could think, 'That guy is pro-choice!' But that person would be obviously wrong.
Sometimes the listener has to look at things analytically and try to figure out what
the author/writer was really trying to say, despite his/her own beliefs on the subject.
For example, someone who is militanty pro-war and pro-consription could listen to
"Disposable Heroes" and interpret it to fit his own personal beliefs, but that person
would have to ask himself, 'Is this song really pro-conscription?' 'Do I really agree
with what this person is saying?'
> > > I've never heard anywhere that Metallica hates religion.
> > No, but the people who buy their albums do.
> Ah! My point is proven...The meaning lies with the listener. The
> anti-religion factions who are Metallica fans will do so because of what
> they can find in the material.
That's not what I was trying to say. I was saying that the major portion of metal and
alternative music listers do not like religion. And while "The God the Failed" might
not be anti-religion, it definitely isn't pro-religion.
> This may be a bit off topic, but there are reasons other than Metallica
> that many forms of religion are discredited. An unwillingness to empower
> women to the point of equality, child molestation by church officials,
> and in the past- polygamy. Maligned religion shames itself. But of course,
> this is not to say that all forms of religion are bad...
Of course that there are reasons that religion is discredited. Most of those reasons
are very prevalent today. It's just ammunition for atheists. Christian Scientists take
so much abuse, refusing medical help on the basis that God will cure the sick. I mean,
who's going to support people that sit around and let their children and loved ones die?
It sure doesn't give religion a good name. I for one, disagree with Christian
Scientists. I think that God gave us brains so we can help ourselves and find cures to
make life better. Anyway, I just think that it wasn't very courageous or extreme for
Metallica to criticize something like that. It's like beating a dead horse. But, it is
the popular thing to do, and if that's what Metallica wanted, so be it.
=Parasite
One
Christian Scientists take
> so much abuse, refusing medical help on the basis that God will cure the sick. I mean,
> who's going to support people that sit around and let their children and loved ones die?
> It sure doesn't give religion a good name. I for one, disagree with Christian
> Scientists. I think that God gave us brains so we can help ourselves and find cures to
> make life better.
MOST christian scientists agree with your last sentence. (only
a very few don't).
-Rob
WSUT2
really stupid ar anything along those lines. To me its more of a view of
what is happening around a dying soldier in a battle.
As for "The God That Failed", I read somewhere that it was written by
James (the lyrics) and that it was about how his mother died from some
kind of sickness. And apparently James' mother was a devout religious
type of person and refused to take medication and believing in her faith
so much that she believed that God would heal her. As I said, she died
because of it.
Motorhead
fission chameleon
: Jameson Calantoc wrote:
: >
: > I'm right here. Headbanging to RTL...I support the death penalty. Wanna
: > know why? Because I can interpret the song in a different way than you.
: Do you also interpret "For Whom the Bell Tolls" as pro-war? It would suprise me.
I interpret it is as being an awesome song, that tells of war, but does
not glorify nor condemn.
: > I think you'd be fooling yourself it you believe that. The only thing
: > they sanitize is their toilets at home. What is so sanitized about the
: > concepts set forth in "The God That Failed"? Or "Sad But True"? Or the
: > existentialist "Through The Never"?
: Man, those songs are exactly what people want to hear. What's profound about "Sad But
: True"? Nothing, that song was made for the radio so rebel-wannabees could think they
: were listening to the epitomie of heavy metal. "The God That Failed," "Though the
: Never," that's just telling people, 'Hey, there is no God. Throw morality out the
: window.' And that's exactly what adolescents and even people in their 20s want to hear.
: They don't want to be held accountable for the shit they do, so it fits their needs not
: to believe in God or anything like that. That's why existentialism is so popular these
: days. What is Metallica wrote a song that preached the virtues of Christian scientist
: ideology, opposite to "The God that Failed." Nobody would like it (the lyrics at least)
: because they hate religion and that is the most extreme form of religion.
Yeah I know, tell me about it. They also wrote fucking Master of Puppets,
oh great, James, should I just say no? Then there's Leper Messiah, well
lets jump on the bandwagon and give teenagers some anti-religion song.
How about Eye of the Beholder? another freedom of speech, we got our
first amendment rights song. ...And Justice for All? oh god not another
whiny our government is a bureaucracy song.
In case there's any idiots out there I was being sarcastic. You can't
make the case that Metallica now writes lyrics to please the masses but
didn't before. I say they write whatever they want to write about.
Sometimes it deals with current issues and takes a stance that happens to
be popular, sometimes not, either way I doubt it is intentional.
: > > That's why it's to a bands advantage to just appeal to the lowest common
: > > denominator and make everyone happy. For Metallica, that lowest
: > > common denominator was the Black Album.
: >
: > Did that album appeal to everybody? If I recall, there are a lot of
: > naysayers in this here ng that frown on that album. So how can EVERYONE
: > be happy?
: Okay, when I said everybody, I didn't mean every single person in the world. I was just
: referring to the 15 million people who bought their last album. Did all those people
: but their previous albums? No way. If you don't think that Metallica compromised with
: the Black Album, you are the one who's fooling yourself.
15 million? I'd like to know where all these people are. I don't know
anyone around here who is into heavy metal and I never hear Metallica on the
radio. Anyways, how the hell would Metallica know whether or not their
album was going to be a success?
: =Parasite
Rob
Jameson Calantoc
>
> like, 'Abortion is wrong in every form and in every situation no matter what the
> circumstances are!' It would be hard to interpret that any other way.
Agreed, but I've yet to hear such a speech that was meant for large
numbers of people from all walks of life (like the music of Metallica).
Sure, there are speeches that are more concise, but they are intended to
be heard by a very homogenous group of people. That kind of mentality
would not fly in a Metallica song because it would isolate those who
disagree. That's why Metallica is not an exclusive group created for
only one type of individual. They never were. They have always been for
them selves and the rest of us can do as we see fit.
>
> That's not what I was trying to say. I was saying that the major portion of metal and
> alternative music listers do not like religion.
How do you know this?
> And while "The God the Failed" might not be anti-religion, it definitely
> isn't pro-religion.
Kinda vague in the degree to which it agrees with, or disagrees with
religion, isn't it?
> I for one, disagree with Christian Scientists. I think that God gave us
> brains so we can help ourselves and find cures to make life better. Anyway,
> I just think that it wasn't very courageous or extreme for
> Metallica to criticize something like that. It's like beating a dead horse.
I see your point here, Parasite, but you seem perfectly free to proclaim
yourself as courageous enough to criticize CS in your second sentence of
the prior paragraph, while frowning upon
Metallica for doing the same thing. Metallica are just an ordinary bunch
of people like you and me. They do have the right to criticize the same
things we do.
Jameson Calantoc
> >
> > blind faith in religion), why should they?
>
> They shouldn't. The person I was replying to claimed that the Black Album obviously
> wasn't sanitized. As an example of this, he pointed out the song, "The God That
> Failed." I claim that this song isn't extreme or radical. To support this, I claim
> that the antithesis of this song would be considered extreme.
Hey, Parasite! Jameson here! :-) Wouldn't either side of the spectrum
(thesis and antithesis) be extreme, with the large continuum of varying
points of middle ground? Just a thought...
Herman Bovens
>> I think it has a lot to do with the overall sound, not the speed, the
>> lyrics,... but just the thick, fat sound that the album has. The earlier
>> albums sounded more thin and dry, that's why they didn't appeal to most
>> people.
>
>Well, everyone has their theory. Personally, I think that any givensong off of Master
>of Puppets is 'thicker' and more mult-demensional than any given song off of The Black
>Album.
Now you're talking about the music itself, I was talking about the SOUND of
it, it's more "round". Take for example the beginning of Sad But True.
MOP just doesn't have that kind of sound (maybe The Thing That Should Not
Be, that's why it's one of my favourite songs of the album, next to
Sanitarium and Orion).
Metalex
On Tue, 23 Apr 1996, Herman Bovens wrote:
> Kyle <ky...@mail.goldengate.net> wrote:
>
> >P.S- The Black Album, may not have been Metallicas best, buts its better than any piece
> >of dung that Pearl Jam, Alice in Chains, Candlebox and any other bullsh*t
> >alternative/metal has put out in recent memory- Thanx fer lettin me vent!!
>
> Well, I only know one Candlebox album and I happen to think it's very good,
> not as good as TBA, but still good. And Alice in Chains is one of Lars's
> favourite bands... but as you said, every one has is own opinion...
>
>
> Bye,
> Herman Bovens
> her...@michotte.psy.kuleuven.ac.be
>
> * PGP Public Key available upon request *
>
TBA is a good album and Metallica are my best band, but TBA can't compete
against "Dirt" by Alice In Chains.
Ziad Kanna
says...
r>
r>Tommy Sollen wrote:
r>P.S- The Black Album, may not have been Metallicas best, buts its
better than any piece
r>of dung that Pearl Jam, Alice in Chains, Candlebox and any other
bullsh*t
r>alternative/metal has put out in recent memory- Thanx fer lettin me
vent!!
r>-Kyle
You are so very right. Even Metallica's "least great"(if I can say that)
effort is still better than most of anything out there, that's why
they're the best band in the world.
--
"When a man lies he murders
Some part of the world
These are the pale deaths which
Men miscall their lives
All this I cannot bear
To witness any longer
Cannot the kingdom of salvation
Take me home", (Cliff Burton, R.I.P.)
Ziad Kanna
r>
r>I'm sure I could come up with some profound meaning to any song, but
when I hear "Sad
r>But True," I hear a short little jingle with no real insight, a lot of
yelling and a
r>relatively heavy beat making a song that was designed for the radio.
You don't know what you're talking about, please go back and listen to
the album again, then make some insightful comments.
You said that Metallica isn't playing it
r>safe because of songs like "The God That Failed," which tears apart
Christain scientist
r>ideology. I'm saying that this song is playing it safe, because it
attacks an ideology
r>that is almost universally discredited. Also, because the mainstream
audience would
r>support just about any attack on any religion, because the current
trend is to be
r>atheist and/or existentialist. If Metallica didn't want to play it
safe, they'd write a
r>song praising relgious people for their faith or something.
Or maybe if Metallica didn't want to play it safe they could have
released a song like "Nothing Else Matters", ooops, they already did! So
you see, they took a HUGE risk in writing that song, especially James
because he knew that he would be ridiculed by the superficial, intolerant
people like yourself.
Parasite
> > They shouldn't. The person I was replying to claimed that the Black Album obviously
> > wasn't sanitized. As an example of this, he pointed out the song, "The God That
> > Failed." I claim that this song isn't extreme or radical. To support this, I claim
> > that the antithesis of this song would be considered extreme.
>
> Hey, Parasite! Jameson here! :-) Wouldn't either side of the spectrum
> (thesis and antithesis) be extreme, with the large continuum of varying
> points of middle ground? Just a thought...
It's not extreme to its target audience. Say a bunch of headbangers are sitting around
in a basement getting drunk and smoking pot and a song that condemns religion comes on,
they're going to love it. And if a song that encourages relgion comes on, they're going
to turn it off.
=Parasite
Parasite
>
> Yeah I know, tell me about it. They also wrote fucking Master of Puppets,
> oh great, James, should I just say no? Then there's Leper Messiah, well
> lets jump on the bandwagon and give teenagers some anti-religion song.
> How about Eye of the Beholder? another freedom of speech, we got our
> first amendment rights song. ...And Justice for All? oh god not another
> whiny our government is a bureaucracy song.
Yeah, you've got a point. But "Master of Puppets" isn't exactly the safe road. I mean,
a lot of the Metallica fans I know are into drugs big time. But then again, their drug
dealers are their best friends, and give them the weed for free, so I guess the song
doesn't really apply to them. As for "Leper Messiah," yeah, it is a cliched song. I
don't think it was contrived though. It's seems pretty spontaneous and insightful to
me.
> In case there's any idiots out there I was being sarcastic. You can't
> make the case that Metallica now writes lyrics to please the masses but
> didn't before.
The songs "Damge Inc." and "Escape" don't really please the masses. Those songs are
anti-conformity. Sure, they please the small demographic that listened to Metallica at
the time, but they didn't please the masses like "Nothing Else Matters," and "Wherever I
May Roam" do.
> I say they write whatever they want to write about.
> Sometimes it deals with current issues and takes a stance that happens to
> be popular, sometimes not, either way I doubt it is intentional.
> 15 million? I'd like to know where all these people are. I don't know
> anyone around here who is into heavy metal and I never hear Metallica on the
> radio. Anyways, how the hell would Metallica know whether or not their
> album was going to be a success?
Do you live in the Bible Belt or something? Those 15 million people are out there,
and their numbers are growing. In fact, I looked at the top 10 selling hard rock
albums on the Bill Boards chart and The Black Album is up there again, it's like #7!
And that's after, what, 6 years!?
On the radio stations around here, they have soemthing called 'Mandatory Metallica'
where they play a few songs from Metallica every night, and those songs are from the
Black Album more often than not. And I can't tell you how often I'm shoppinng for music
and I see some 10 year old kid begging his mom to get him the Black Album.
The way I figure it, the awards that Metallica got for "One" gave them a taste of the
big time. They could have gone back to hating the industry and that kind of awards bull
shit, but I think they liked it and wanted more. Metallica knew what people wanted from
them, they weren't idiots. They knew that they could become one of the biggest bands in
the world if they would just write an album that almost everyone would like.
=Parasite
Parasite
> Agreed, but I've yet to hear such a speech that was meant for large
> numbers of people from all walks of life (like the music of Metallica).
> Sure, there are speeches that are more concise, but they are intended to
> be heard by a very homogenous group of people. That kind of mentality
> would not fly in a Metallica song because it would isolate those who
> disagree. That's why Metallica is not an exclusive group created for
> only one type of individual. They never were. They have always been for
> them selves and the rest of us can do as we see fit.
Now we're back to the same arguement. I think that they were exclusive, especially with
songs like "Ride The Lightning," "Disposable Heroes," and "...And Justice For All." All
of those song make some strong statements, statements that you won't find much of on The
Black Album.
> >That's not what I was trying to say.
> >I was saying that the major portion of metal and
> >alternative music listers do not like religion.
> How do you know this?
It's a fact that atheism is growing at an unprecedented rate, especially in young people
these days.
> Kinda vague in the degree to which it agrees with, or disagrees with
> religion, isn't it?
"It feeds, it grows, it coulds all that you will know. Deciet, decieve, decide just
what you believe." What do you think that's talking about?
How about, "Follow the God that Failed" ?
> I see your point here, Parasite, but you seem perfectly free to proclaim
> yourself as courageous enough to criticize CS in your second sentence of
> the prior paragraph, while frowning upon
> Metallica for doing the same thing. Metallica are just an ordinary bunch
> of people like you and me. They do have the right to criticize the same
> things we do.
There's a difference though. I'm wrote mine in a computer newsgroup with the thought
that maybe 5 other people who consider me their equal would read it and maybe challenge
it. Metallica wrote theirs on an album for millions of other people who consider them
role-models to listen to and accepth without question.
Well, I can see this debate isn't going anywhere. It's all dialectics, thesis,
antithesis, new idea, antithesis of that idea, ect. I for one am tired of it.
=Parasite
Parasite
> You don't know what you're talking about, please go back and listen to
> the album again, then make some insightful comments.
I've listened to it. I don't think any differently now.
> Or maybe if Metallica didn't want to play it safe they could have
> released a song like "Nothing Else Matters", ooops, they already did! So
> you see, they took a HUGE risk in writing that song, especially James
> because he knew that he would be ridiculed by the superficial, intolerant
> people like yourself.
Sure, they chanced pissing off die-hard fans with its slower-tempo, but most of those
fans probably cancelled their fan club subscription long ago. I think Metallica probably
gained more fans that it lost with "Nothing Else Matters." Of all the Metallica songs,
that's the one that gets played the most on radio stations around here. Did you ever
see the scene in "A Year and a Half" where they were playing it live and there were a
bunch of clean-cut preps who looked like they just came from a high school football game
singing it word-for-word? Yeah, what a risk.
=Parasite
Jameson Calantoc
>
> It's not extreme to its target audience. Say a bunch of headbangers are sitting around
> in a basement getting drunk and smoking pot and a song that condemns religion comes on,
> they're going to love it. And if a song that encourages relgion comes on, they're going
> to turn it off.
Parasite, I think this is where your argument is weakened. Metallica
doesn't have a "Target audience". There not out to do anything for a
piece of the demographic. They do it for themselves, primarily and for
those who understand. I also think you are sorely mistaken if you
believe that we, as Metallica fans, sit in a basement, drink, and smoke pot.
If you take an informal tally to see how many Metallica fans drink to the
state of drunkeness and smoke pot while listening to music, you'll find
that you are wrong.
Jameson Calantoc
>
> a lot of the Metallica fans I know are into drugs big time. But then again, their drug
> dealers are their best friends, and give them the weed for free, so I guess the song
> doesn't really apply to them.
I think you are hanging out with the wrong Metallica fans. I don't know
how you interpret MoP, but I interpret it as a rather negative portrayal,
which seems to be pretty realistic to those not involved with the drugs.
Personally, I think that if one's life is "crumbling away" and the drug
is in fact, controlling one's life, their life ain't a peachy bowl of
freaking happiness. So the song DOESN'T apply to them then...what was
your point?
>
> The songs "Damge Inc." and "Escape" don't really please the masses. Those songs are
> anti-conformity.
However, didn't you claim that the anti-conformity sentiment found in
Metallica's songs is what attracts druggies and atheists to Metallica?
You also state that Metallica wants to make an album that everyone
likes. If that's the case, why don't they appeal to you or those like you?
You seem to contradict yourself in a couple of places here.
Jameson Calantoc
>
> these days.
If this is the case, there must be a reason for it. As I've said before,
I don't believe Metallica is responsible for it, nor are they encouraging
atheism in any way.
> "It feeds, it grows, it coulds all that you will know. Deciet, decieve, decide just
> what you believe." What do you think that's talking about?
>
> How about, "Follow the God that Failed" ?
Well, gee...Are they saying to follow the God that failed in a satiric
or literal sense? The line about deciding yourself what to believe
follows the notion that we are free thinkers, whether we decide to follow
a religion or not is a personal business. It sounds as though you are
forcing your religious viewpoints on us.
> > I see your point here, Parasite, but you seem perfectly free to proclaim
> > yourself as courageous enough to criticize CS in your second sentence of
> > the prior paragraph...
> There's a difference though. I'm wrote mine in a computer newsgroup with the thought
> that maybe 5 other people who consider me their equal would read it and maybe challenge
> it. Metallica wrote theirs on an album for millions of other people who consider them
> role-models to listen to and accepth without question.
I think that those who choose athletes and entertainers as role models
are the problem, though, not the tokens of affection (ie, the athletes
and entertainers. Their only responsibility is to entertain and
perform. I don't see being a role model as their responsibility. Whose
is it, you ask? That responsibility lies with the adults who come
directly into contact with the children of this world on a day-to-day
basis, not with some stranger. Would you trust that kind of
responsibility with a stranger. I certainly hope not. I would
definitely like to see parents and teachers take more responsibility and
take active roles in the lives of the children touched by their presence
daily.
I'm really sorry that this seems to be a circular argument. I'm not
trying to get anyone to see things my way. I just want to give another
point of view. I've fully enjoyed participating in this continuing
dialogue. While it would be presumptuous to think that either of us felt
the need to change the person's opinion, I feel that it was healthy to
see a viewpoint alternative to mine.
Jameson Calantoc
>
> ago.
Most probably have. I bet most never even joined the Club in the first
place. I've been hearing cries of sellout since 1985. It's nothing new
to me. Besides, who cares who is or isn't a fan? I don't care. I'm not out
to condemn anyone. When the time comes that I am no longer a fan, I
won't be bitching and moaning; I'll leave that to the others. I'll just
walk away and continue my life. My life doesn't begin and end with
Metallica. That responsibility lies with Metallica.
Herman Bovens
>Now we're back to the same arguement. I think that they were exclusive, especially with
>songs like "Ride The Lightning," "Disposable Heroes," and "...And Justice For All." All
>of those song make some strong statements, statements that you won't find much of on The
>Black Album.
>> >alternative music listers do not like religion.
>> How do you know this?
>
>It's a fact that atheism is growing at an unprecedented rate, especially in young people
>these days.
True, but those young people are also often anti-government, so they love
the statements in the older songs...
>> Kinda vague in the degree to which it agrees with, or disagrees with
>> religion, isn't it?
>
>"It feeds, it grows, it coulds all that you will know. Deciet, decieve, decide just
>what you believe." What do you think that's talking about?
>How about, "Follow the God that Failed" ?
So this song DOES make a strong statement, doesn't it? But it's not really
anti-religion, it's against brainwashing, and blindly trusting religion.
>it. Metallica wrote theirs on an album for millions of other people who consider them
>role-models to listen to and accepth without question.
Hmm, blind faith... that's exactly what TGTF is against...
Herman Bovens
>Yeah, you've got a point. But "Master of Puppets" isn't exactly the safe road. I mean,
>a lot of the Metallica fans I know are into drugs big time. But then again, their drug
>dealers are their best friends, and give them the weed for free, so I guess the song
>doesn't really apply to them.
Oh, but Cliff smoked pot too... MOP is about drug _abuse_ and drug
_addiction_. Those things are usually associated with HARD drugs.
Hedbanger
Jameson Calantoc <jj...@axe.humboldt.edu> wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Apr 1996, Parasite wrote:
>Parasite, I think this is where your argument is weakened. Metallica
>doesn't have a "Target audience". There not out to do anything for a
>piece of the demographic. They do it for themselves, primarily and for
>those who understand. I also think you are sorely mistaken if you
>believe that we, as Metallica fans, sit in a basement, drink, and smoke pot.
>If you take an informal tally to see how many Metallica fans drink to the
>state of drunkeness and smoke pot while listening to music, you'll find
>that you are wrong.
Way to go Jameson!
*This* fan sometimes drinks too much coffee while listening to
Metallica. I've been know to get the house *real* clean when I'm
playing KEA and doing my chores.
I don't drink alcohol at all. (And nobody's called them Alcoholica for
a while, thank goodness.)
j
P. J. Remner
In a previous article, N...@email.sorry.com (Parasite) says:
>
>Yeah, you've got a point. But "Master of Puppets" isn't exactly the safe road. I mean,
>a lot of the Metallica fans I know are into drugs big time. But then again, their drug
>dealers are their best friends, and give them the weed for free, so I guess the song
>doesn't really apply to them.
Thot is was about cocaine in particular... basically, you start doing the
drug thinking how good it makes you feel, and then as you keep using it, you
need it more and more until your life is a withdrawal hell. I know lots
of pot smokers, and they're pretty mellow, they don't kill people for $5
because they need a hit to think straight (many also grow their own) and
plus, they're okay when not smoking weed. Coke users...
>
>The songs "Damge Inc." and "Escape" don't really please the masses. Those songs are
>anti-conformity.
Be different! Everyone else is doing it! :-)
I dunno, I liked the "do your own thing and destroy all that is not you"
kind of mentality in Damage, Inc. I like all of their old shit, except
Jump in the Fire because I'm not satanic, and "Hit the Lights" because
it just sounds like a few junior-high kids fucking around with guitars
and drums and screaming.
>Sure, they please the small demographic that listened to Metallica at
>the time, but they didn't please the masses like "Nothing Else Matters," and "Wherever I
>May Roam" do.
They didn't please the Metallimasses, but they sure pleased everyone else!
They seriously have played NEM on a light-talk easy-listening station,
and my friend swore that he heard Unforgiven on the same station.
Metallica should be played on late-night college radio shows with
names like "Heavy Metal Blitzkrieg" and "The Mosh Pit". I heard
"Unforgiven" on "The Mosh Pit", and apparently tons of listeners
COMPLAINED about it! The DJ played "Four Horsemen" as penance.
Much, much better.
>Black Album more often than not. And I can't tell you how often I'm shoppinng for music
>and I see some 10 year old kid begging his mom to get him the Black Album.
Tell the mom that they call it the Black album because the band went all
satanic and shit. Recommend "Master of Puppets." It's all anti-drug,
donchaknow? :-)
--
'72 429 Thunderbird: Because size *does* matter.
"Yeah.... I'm fit-shaced"
- the ever-erudite Beavis
Chris Wagner
In article <4kmdk8$2...@news.sdsmt.edu>, blb...@silver.sdsmt.edu (brandon of borge) says:
>
>first, he was simply saying that some of the lines of don't tread on me
>indicate to him that american will not attack unless provoked, and will
>never back down until it's all over. this was not the case in either
>vietnam or korea--the us attacked first, and they backed down before the
>other side. that's why he was saying the song writer overlooked those
>wars.
>
>second, vietnam and korea weren't to keep the peace. the us attacked
>because they (speaking as a third person omniscient here) wanted to
>contain communism. they feared it and struck out to prevent its
>spreading. what it really amounted to was a power struggle--the us
>wanted to ensure that there was no country more powerful than itself. and
>yes, if the us wanted to totally annihilate one side or the other, a
>couple of nukes woulda done it quite effectively--course, there woulda
>been a helluvan uproar about that...
Whoa where the hell did you learn your history? The US did not attack
North Korea in the Korean war. And the US did not attack North Vietnam
either. In both wars the objective was to contain communism but the
communists started both of them. In the Korean war, North Korea invaded
South Korea. Since South Korea was our ally, we were obliged to help.
In fact an entire UN army was assembled to stop the North Koreans. In
the Vietnam war it was originally just the North and South Vietnamese who
were fighting. But again we came to the aid of our South Vietnamese
allies. We just gave them small aid at first but we gradually got sucked
into full scale war. The problem with Vietnam was that Lyndon Johnson
decided it would be a limited war instead of total war. You cannot
successfully fight a limited war against a determined people as the North
Vietnamese. By the time we switched to total war it was too late. The
public relations war was lost long ago and no amount of military victory
could reverse that.
--
Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer. --Deep Throat