Metallica SUCKS!

[hijinks at UTARLG.UTA.EDU]

Metallica's music is mostly just uninteresting to me. But it should
be noted that these "dreadfully uncommercial moves" are nothing less than
a duplication of what all those 70s superstars did on their "solo"
projects. You know, in the name of 'artistic growth.' Since Metallica
predicated itself, at least early on, as being a reaction against 70s
excesses, it only stands to reason that, like a child who reacts against
his mother or father too much and then as an adult becomes just like them,
Metallica has turned into one of the purest examples of egotistical,
excessive 70s-ness. Much more so than all those other 70s influenced
bands, like on the MansRuin label, who mix their 70s with a 90s edge and a
new millennial ironic-but-serious sensibility. So, maybe its not quite
'selling out,' but it certainly seems to lack much aesthetic credibility.


just an observation,
thomas

On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Andy Gilham wrote:

>  I hardly think they've sold out, when they've been guilty of some
> dreadfully uncommercial moves (wearing makeup, ditching their logo, an album
> of covers by 70s acts, Hetfield's alt-country tendencies, a fucking
> *orchestral* album!, etc).  Lars is given to pretension, but he always has
> been.  Heavy metal drummer in articulacy shock.
>