What's the Good of Art That Never Changes?

Thinking about this article.

Here's the deal.

LULU was NOT a "Metallica" album. It was a Lou Reed album on which Metallica performed as his backing band, and they did that because an artist they respected asked them to. I get why people don't dig it, as it's vastly difficult to listen to. It's atonal and Reed's vocals are simply not for everyone.

My original review, if you're interested.

That said, I cannot fathom why people feel the need to continue harping on a creative enterprise, vehemently and aggressively, years and years after they already claim to have written it off. Just look at the comments on that article (I know - NEVER read the comments). It's cool to say "I don't dig it" (I'm still, to this day, not sure if I dig LULU). Hetfield does, the band has, repeatedly, said they do. They reached beyond their comfort zone and tried something different.

We should be encouraging artists to do more of that, even when/if they fail.

No one can argue against the fact that, as a commercial enterprise, LULU landed with a thud. Thing is, did anybody involved with this really think it was going to sell like a "traditional" Metallica album? I highly doubt it. Metallica said yes, and did it, because they wanted to do something different. There will come a time in every artists life where they will ask themselves, "what if I do exactly what I'm not supposed to do?"

When that moment comes, if you're brave enough to actually do it, one of two things usually happens. Either the whole thing is a mess, possibly an interesting one, or it could touch on genius. I classify LULU as the former, with a significant number of tracks that fall into the "interesting" description.

Yet, the band is vilified, for nothing more than taking a risk. No one says you have to like it, but the sheer, vehement hate that tends to spill out on to anything that isn't what we expected, or thought we wanted, seems like a call of surrender, to me. I feel like we, as a culture, are so very trapped in the "more of the same" mindset.

Regurgitate, regurgitate, regurgitate, and I think it's spilling over into a lot of different conversations.

I, like many people, have found myself watching various "fan films" that have cropped up on-line. At first, probably like you, I was in awe of the technical skill on display, the commitment to detail. Who isn't excited to see Batman face down a Predator, or to see a thrilling lightsaber duel. As time went on, however, something began to dawn on me.

What is the point?

I mean, really, what is the point?

Why are obviously talented and resourceful filmmakers regurgitating this stuff, rather than creating new material? Material they can own and possibly profit from? Material that actually moves the genre forward? The sci-fi and fantasy genres are littered with homage and "theft." Instead of making a Batman film, create your own dark avenger of the night. Even better? Make the character a woman, or black, or Muslim, someone reflective of a culture who's entire range of touchstones wasn't set in the 1960's, when it was all set by white men.

Add something to the discussion and the tapestry that is our popular culture.

We don't need a Masters of the Universe movie. We don't need a Thundercats movie. Those were junk culture for my generation. It's only our incredible greediness that's keeping them alive, and the fact that there are way too many professional filmmakers are acting like they just want to make fan films. We shouldn't be up in arms about Jem and the Holograms tanking because "girls need their films,too." The girls of 2015 should most definitely have their own thing, but our generation has get it in our heads that the healthy thing would be for it to not be a re-hash of our thing.

I mean, look, I'm as excited as the next guy about Star Wars next week, but what's cool is that the entire saga is designed to be a generational thing. There's a new generation of heroes for kids to attach themselves to that are theirs with each trilogy. Which, of course, doesn't sit well with the fundamentalists....leading us back to the same kind of anger and hate we were talking about with LULU.

When the digital media revolution happened, there was so much talk about the democratization of media. If music and movies could be made in your bedroom, what amazing stories might we get? What we got was more of the same, and we've become painfully attached to making sure we get more of the same. People like to blame Hollywood and the movie studios, but they respond to what we respond to, and right now, we're plopping our butts in seats to see the umpteenth variation on the Marvel Studios formula. So they do what they've always done...gave us more of the same.

Well, I Think It's Pretty Cool

Lotta hate going around.

The piano solo before the riff-o-rama bridge is a little odd, I'll admit, but I liked the intro.

(Video content now blocked)

Stuck In My Head: For Whom the Bell Tolls

Possibly my favorite Metallica track.


For Whom the Bell Tolls
by Metallica

Make his fight on the hill in the early day
Constant chill deep inside
Shouting gun, on they run through the endless grey
On they fight, for the right, yes but who's to say?
For a hill men would kill why? They do not know
Stiffened wounds test their pride
Men of five, still alive through the raging glow
Gone insane from this pain that they surely know

For whom the bell tolls
Time marches on
For whom the bell tolls

Take a look to the sky just before you die
It is the last time you will
Blackened roar massive roar fills the crumbling sky
Shattered goal fills his soul with a ruthless cry
Stranger now, are his eyes, to this mystery
He hears the silence so loud
Crack of dawn, all is gone except the will to be
Now they will see what will be, blinded eyes to see

For whom the bell tolls
Time marches on
For whom the bell tolls

Metallica: Through the Never

I think Metallica takes WAY too much crap.

I certainly don't love everything they do, and, yes, they're thirty years, and multiple millions of dollars, from the greasy-faced kids that cranked out Kill 'Em All in 1983. You can read multiple online rants about how they've lost the "fire" that drove their early work. That's probably true, but, folks, you can't be 20 years old forever, and if you try to, you end up a giant act of fakery like David Lee Roth.

The trick is to find a new kind of fire.

They aren't those kids, nor should they be. Too many years, deaths, arguments and dollars have passed. One can mock and criticize them for standing up to illegal downloading, making a documentary about their group therapy sessions, the resulting chaotic, ugly album, or creating art-house rock with Lou Reed. To be clear, much of the criticism would have valid points, but I would also ask how many major, world-renowned music acts would do those things? Would take those risks? Very, very few, and frankly, the vehemence and unreasonable nature of the criticism the band has endured probably has more to do with fans who can't get past not being who they were in 1983, rather than a band who's run out of ideas.

I am nowhere near the rabid fan I was for many years, but I will always be interested in what Hetfield, Ulrich, Hammett and Trujillo do. They've given me enough enjoyment, excitement, and straight-ahead anger management that I figure I owe it to them to give a fair listen to what's turning them on, rather than just demanding they hew to my vision of what "Metallica" should be.

I don't have to like everything, and I haven't, but I get it. I get the desire to create, and not be placed in a box, forbidden from exploring anything outside of a rigid fan's desire.

So, Metallica put up a bunch of their own money, and made a movie. Metallica: Through the Never. It's been playing in IMAX 3D at select locations, and will go wide tomorrow, October 4th. I managed to make it to the Navy Pier IMAX last night to check it out (frankly, I didn't know it was playing there until Monday - somebody at Navy Pier needs to get their stuff on Fandango, something).

For the most part, Through the Never is a pretty straight-ahead concert film. There is a "narrative," of sorts that plays out as the concert goes on. With Dane DeHann playing Trip, a Metallica roadie sent into a nightmare city of revolution and violence to procure, and return, a special item needed by the band. Really, this whole element of the film is complete hooey, and I mean that not as a criticism.

The band didn't want to just do a concert film, citing Led Zeppelin's The Song Remains the Same, with it's fantasy sequences starring each member of the band. Metallica, probably wisely, based on the Zeppelin example, felt they should not be directly part of these sequences. Trip travels through a series of surreal episodes tied to each song the band plays, as well as the concert staging, giving the entire enterprise the feel of a giant music video. Sometimes this works perfectly, the sequence around Cyanide, from 2008's Death Magnetic, is legitimately creepy and disturbing, not just for the surreal landscape of hanging bodies Trip walks through, but the video imagery of people finding themselves sealed alive into coffins that surrounds the band as they play.

It's these moments when the narrative really works, even if it makes not a lick of sense. Trip's journey is illogical, with the character apparently dying at least twice during the film. However, Director Nimrod Antal effectively sets up the entire world he's operating in as wildly dreamlike and surreal, even before Trip leaves the arena. The introduction of each band member, as Trip first sees them, play as weird jokes (My favorite being Hammett conferring with a tech about a damaged guitar that is gushing blood).

So, yeah the entire narrative is silly and rife with heavy metal horror movie cliche'. Never bothered me, because the film knows what it is up to. It's more than happy to poke fun, as with the "first in, last out" screaming uber-fan who opens the film. When the film, and filmmakers know that this is all sizzle for the steak, I can roll with that.

Because the steak is so good. Antal's cameras are everywhere in the arena as the band plays. At several points you see the crews dodging flashpots, and band members, on the stage to get up close. When the advertising says that you'll best seat in the house, it's not hyperbole, the cameras are literally inches from the band members, and the audience.

It's also a really effective use of both the IMAX format, and 3D. As with most of my favorite 3D films, the effect isn't Count Floyd poking something at you moaning, "sacry, scary," but a sense of depth and actually being in the arena. Frankly having a wall of people behind the band in nearly every shot really helps. Not to mention that the IMAX format makes all those people, and the silly things people do at concerts, very, very clear.

The spectacle of the whole thing is also tied to the truly amazing stage set the band had constructed for these shows. Featuring props and gimmicks from throughout their career. It was kind of amusing to see things like "Doris" the lady justice statue from the ...And Justice For All tour constructed and destroyed just like the old days. Each new prop and bit brought back memories for me.

As pure spectacle, the film is well worth the money. If you want to hear the band sound spectacular in full surround sound, it's worth the money.

It's worth the money.

The Frankenstein Playlist: Track Six

The Playlist So Far:

• 1- The Creature Lives by Mastodon
• 2- My Father's House by Bruce Springsteen
• 3- Cold Water by Tom Waits
• 4- The Apparition by Iron Maiden
• 5- Rusty Cage by Johnny Cash

I look at this next track as sort of a gimmie. It's pretty cheesy to pick it, but...what the hell, right? There is a great vibe in it, and there's something about the idea of injustice that seeps out of this track.

Yes, the creature suffers under injustice. He is betrayed and rejected, thrown out into the world with hardly a second thought. From that point onward, he is struggling to find where he belongs, and finally comes to the point where he must make a place to belong. For such a old story, there's a remarkable sense of self-determination over fate. The events of the story do not just happen.

Victor sets into motion the events which define his fate, and the creature moves to determine his own. To thwart the injustices that have been thrust upon him. It's these elements that make Frankenstein, in many the most human of the classic horror stories. It truly is about two beings, two men, attempting to re-shape their worlds. To overthrow the miseries that life has imposed.

The key is, one of them reached too far.

Ride the Lightning
by Metallica


Guilty as charged
But damn it, it ain't right
There's someone else controlling me
Death in the air
Strapped in the electric chair
This can't be happening to me

Who made you God to say?,
I'll take your life from you

Flash before my eyes
Now it's time to die
Burning in my brain
I can feel the pain
Wait for the sign
To flick the switch of death
It's the beginning of the end
Sweat, chilling cold
As I watch death unfold
Consciousness my only friend

My fingers grip with fear
What am I doing here?

Flash before my eyes
Now it's time to die
Burning in my brain
I can feel the pain

Someone help me
Oh please, God help me
They're trying to take it all away
I don't want to die

(SOLO)

Someone help me
Oh please, God help me
They are trying to take it all away
I don`t want to die

Time moving slow
The minutes seem like hours
The final curtain call I see
Im through with this
Just get it over with
If this is true, just let it be

Wakened by a horrid scream
Freed from this frightening dream

Flash before my eyes
Now it's time to die
Burning in my brain
I can feel the pain

Stuck In My Head 8.24.2012

After the last week or so of rehearsals...this song seems appropriate. I have bruises on bruises.

Broken, Beat & Scarred

by Metallica

You rise, you fall, you're down then you rise again 

What don't kill you'll make you more strong 

You rise, you fall, you're down then you rise again 

What don't kill you'll make you more strong  

Rise, fall down, rise again 

What don't kill you'll make you more strong 

Rise, fall down, rise again 

What don't kill you'll make you more strong  

Through black days, through black nights 

Through pitch black insights  

Breaking your teeth on the hard life a-coming  

Show your scars 

Cutting your feet on the hard earth running 

Show your scars 

Breaking your life, broken, beat and scarred 

But we die hard!  

The dawn, the death, the fight to the final breath 

What don't kill you'll make you more strong 

The dawn, the death, the fight to the final breath 

What don't kill you'll make you more strong  

Dawn, death, fight, final breath 

What don't kill you'll make you more strong 

Dawn, death, fight, final breath 

What don't kill you'll make you more strong
They scratch me, they scrape me 

They cut and rape me  

Breaking your teeth on the hard life a-coming 

Show your scars 

Cutting your feet on the hard earth running 

Show your scars 

Breaking your life, broken, beat and scarred 

But we die hard!  

Breaking your teeth on the hard life a-coming 

Show your scars 

Cutting your feet on the hard earth running 

Show your scars  

Braiding your soul in a hard luck story 

Show your scars 

Spilling your blood in a hot sun's foray 

Show your scars 

Breaking your life, broken, beat and scarred 

We die hard!  

We die hard! 

We die hard!

The Lure of Live Albums

I had a conversation a while back, almost a year ago, I guess, where I was discussing music with a friend. I said that I really loved live albums, and often prefer them to studio records. The response was interesting, that how she preferred studio recordings because they we exactly the way the artist wanted the songs to sound.

Which, I suppose, is true. However, my response to that is, basically, a live recording is how the songs really sound. In the best cases and examples, it's the band, as it exists on stage, playing full-out and without any chance to go back and fix anything. Even if there's a bunch of hired-hand backup musicians, it's still what the "band" can generate right in front of you. I find that vastly more enthralling.

Yeah, sometimes a "live" album is full of overdubs, re-recorded vocals, and other studio trickery. Kiss' Alive! and Alive! II being two rumored examples of "live" albums that took almost more studio work than the original studio albums. Ace Frehley all but admits this outright in his autobiography.

You can contrast that with Metallica's LIVE SHIT: Binge and Purge box set, which was actually 3 full shows, two on video, one on audio. I'm always impressed when on one of the video shows, Kirk Hammet's guitar solo goes pretty blatantly out of key. Impressed because they left it there, because that's how the show went down. It would've been so easy to fix it, especially at that moment, right after the Black Album release, when they were as popular as they would ever be. I admire that.

Even beyond the idea that a live version is the song in it's most natural form, I also find, more often than not, that live versions are far more energized and exciting. The Who, for example, I will take a live version of pretty much any song in their catalog over the studio version. Even something like "Squeeze Box," which sounds almost nothing like the studio version (no accordion on stage), but just screams with energy. I'll admit that part of the factor with The Who is that some of their studio stuff just sounds awful. My copy of Tommy (admittedly an older master) is embarrassing in how poor the sound quality is. I don't think anybody ever really captured the best of The Who, as musicians, in a studio.

Now, of course, it can backfire, too. I've commented before that Led Zeppelin, when they let their impromptu jams get out of control, could be stultifying. How the west Was Won is OK, but The Song Remains the Same is a nightmare. Neither of them even brushes at the greatness of the studio albums.

Now, in these last two cases, I'll admit, I never actually saw them live, but I'm talking about live albums and recordings. I'm sure, if I was in an arena with Led Zeppelin, I'd be much more open to the musical digressions. Alas, I never had that chance, and I do regret it. Same with The Who prior to Keith Moon's death.

Rush is a band I love, and, for such a detail-oriented, technical group,  it's kind of amazing how much more often I'll reach for one of their live albums (and there are several), rather than a studio disk. Now, here's a group where there is tons of on-stage augmentation, samples and other pre-recorded bits. Of course, they're all triggered by one of the three guys on stage. It's kind of amazing to watch Lee, Lifeson and Peart not only play their instruments with such technical perfection, but also trigger all this other stuff at the right moments. There's also a goofy sense of humor and playfulness that isn't always as readily apparent on their studio tracks.

On the flip side of the power trio coin is King's X, who really only have one "real" live album out, Live in London. Whereas Rush wields much technology to hit the nuances of their material, King's X is three guys, and...well, that's pretty much it. It's a master course in forming your sound around what you can do with what you have. Bassist Dug Pinnick often wields a 12-string bass, and his tone, in general, fill in a lot of sonic room. One of my absolute favorite live acts, and, when you see them, it's almost always up close and personal.

Of course, for me, Springsteen is the quintessential "you HAVE to see him live" artist. I, personally, have over forty-eight hours of Springsteen music on my Zune. Most of that is live recordings, and most of those are bootlegs. I'm happy to say I own recordings of every Springsteen concert I've seen.

Obsessive? Sure.

However, I can tell you that every, single show I've seen has unique moments. Unlike, say, Rush, where every show of a tour is, essentially, the same, The Boss' show are constantly in motion and evolving. The set lists, while adhering to a structure, are always changing. I don't know how many other acts I could see two nights in a row, and feel it's worth it. I tried two Rush shows 3 days apart, and I have to admit, I got a little bored the second night. I mean no disrespect to the boys in that, but to point out (and I'd bet they'd agree) they craft a great show that they can repeat for every audience. So, it's not "organic," but it is awesome.

There are relatively few Springsteen live albums, I can recommend  Live: '75-'85, Live in New York City, and Live in Dublin. For a neophyte, I'd recommend the New York City disk. It's from the E-Street Band reunion tour, and the show is on fire. The first is a box set, and is rather sprawling, and the Dublin show is from the Seeger Sessions Band era (which is AWESOME, but not "classic" Bruce).

Ultimately, I do love live albums. They may not be as "perfect" as the studio recordings, but I think they more than make up for it in energy and direct performance. There's something magical about a really good live album.

Now, Why is He Cool and Metallica Sucks?

Dave Mustaine, frontman of Megadeth....

 

Just endorsed Rick Santorum for President.

People should forgive Lulu on this factor alone. That's just an ill-considered artistic move.

Stuck In My Head 12.20.2011

Broken, Beat & Scarred
By Metallica

You rise, you fall.
Your down then you rise again.
What don't kill you make you more strong.
You rise, you fall.
Your down then you rise again.
What don't kill you make you more strong.
Rise, fall, down, rise again.
What don't kill you make you more strong.
Rise, fall, down, rise again.
What don't kill you make you more strong.
Through black days, through black nights,
Through pitch black insights.


Breaking your teeth on the hard life a'coming.
Show, your, scars.
Cutting your feet on the hard earth a'running.
Show, your, scars.
Breaking your life, broken beat and scarred.
But we die hard!

The dawn, the death, the fight to the final breath.
What don't kill you make you more strong.
The dawn, the death, the fight to the final breath.
What don't kill you make you more strong.
Dawn, death, fight, final breath.
What don't kill you make you more strong.
Dawn, death, fight, final breath.
What don't kill you make you more strong.
They scratch me, they scrape me,
they cut and rape me.

Breaking your teeth on the hard life a'coming.
Show, your, scars.
Cutting your feet on the hard earth a'running.
Show, your, scars.
Breaking your life, broken beat and scarred.
but we die hard!

Breaking your teeth on the hard life a'coming.
Show, your, scars.
Cutting your feet on the hard earth a'running.
Show, your, scars.
Raiding your soul in a hard luck story.
Show, your, scars.
Spilling your blood in a hot sun's a'glory.
Show, your, scars.
Breaking your life, broken beat and scarred.

We die hard
We die hard
We die hard

Art is Not Black and White, and We Don't Have to Agree

I recently put up my feelings about the Lou Reed & Metallica album, Lulu.

My reaction, as I would describe it, is that it's hard to like, unlistenable in places, but worthy of more thought than, I felt, most people were giving it. I think any project this odd, and, I'll say it, brave, deserves a bit more consideration than was being afforded to it.

Immediately, I was getting reactions like "you love Lulu?!?!?"

No, I don't "love" Lulu.

I think I love Junior Dad, and I might love Iced Honey. Both of those tracks are very interesting, and got stuck in my head. So, yeah, I dug those tracks. My endorsement of the album, as a whole, would be as an interesting experiment that, as experiments often do, fails most of the time.

But, you know what? It IS art. It is an expression of an emotional state. The lyrics can be repugnant, but they're repugnant with a point. The co-mingling of the Reed and Metallica sensibilities apparently was exciting to Reed for this material.

It has to be understood that Lars Ulrich must've been the spark of Metallica's involvement. Lars has grown into a guy who's into artistic expression, with his love of modern art. It's easy to see that putting the band, that he has put so much of himself into, into a box with limited freedom is something he wants to fight against. I think the rest of the band agrees. Who wants to be doing the same thing you did at 20, when you're 40? No artist does.

But I digress....

The point is, how the fact that I find some interesting things on Lulu, that I don't HATE it, suddenly translates to "I love it." Trust me, I don't expect to be popping that CD on all the time. Listening to that kind of record is work, and frankly, most people (including myself) usually don't want music to be work. I get that, and it's a completely valid opinion.

But, well, OK...This is what I'm feeling:

I love Jackson Pollock. LOVE his paintings. If I was looking at  "Number 8," just marveling at it (because I would), and some guy came up and said, "y'know, I dig the colors, it's kind of pretty, but my 3 year old could do that," I wouldn't jump down his throat, screaming "why do you hate it!?!!?"

Because he doesn't. He may not appreciate the technique, or the intent, Pollock put into his canvases, but he does like the colors. That's not "getting it," but neither is it hating it.

Even if he did HATE it, walked up, stood next to me, and said "looks like somebody took a dump on the canvas," what's that to me? How does that impact my reaction to it, and why should I care that the beauty I see is completely lost on him? I'm the kind of person who'd be interested in why he feels that way (hence I love reading well-written reviews), but I don't consider that a referendum on if I'm "right," or not. 

Of course, I blame the internet, and our world of easy slander. What the fuck, right? They're rich and famous, and don't have a "real job," so I'm justified in saying they suck. Plus, it makes all of us feel better if there's a "right" and "wrong," and we can position ourselves as firmly, without question, on the right side.

Every, single time I think about this subject, I think about when Superman Returns came out. I saw it, I cried at John Williams' Superman Theme during the opening credits, and when I walked out of the theatre I was happy. I thought it was a well-made film, that captured the tone of the character correctly.

I, by no means, thought it was perfect. I felt like it was shackled by the connections Director Bryan Singer wanted to make to the Richard Donner's first film, as well as Superman II. I felt Brandon Routh was a decent actor, who had a good feel for the character, but was hamstrung by the clear direction to "do it like Christopher Reeve."

When I mentioned these criticisms on a couple of message boards I frequented, you would've thought I'd burned a flag. People were raving mad that I had "trashed" the film. Which I couldn't get, because I was always clear to say I liked the movie quite a bit. It just seemed like, and here's the rub, the second I said something that these folks disagreed with, they stopped reading what I was saying. From that point on, my posts were only there to find grounds to say I was "wrong," making them "right."

Now, hell, I'll still defend Superman Returns, but it's become a rather reviled film. I find some of the people who were so mad at me using the very same arguments I did, and proclaiming that the film "sucked."

Hey, everyone's entitled to change their minds.

Still, I wonder how much more communication we'd have, how many ideas might be really heard and considered, if we'd just start applying "I think." Your opinion is just what you think, period. Mine is just what I think. No more, no less, and none of us has a direct line to the universal worth of any work of art. Art is supposed to inspire discussion, but when that discussion ends up feeling like a competition, what's the point?

With that, your moment of zen...Pollock's "Full Fathom Five," from 1947.

Lou Reed & Metallica's LULU

Good Lord, what a hornet's nest.

Judging from the critical reaction to Lulu, the collaborative album by Lou Reed and Metallica, that was released on Tuesday, you'd think all the CDs arrived slathered in shit. As usual, this move generated a massive freak-out from the "old school" Metallica fanbase, questioning the band's apparent desire to "destroy" their reputation. Leading to yet another round of "why do they call themselves 'Metallica?'' and other assorted fan wankery that basically amounts to telling an artist that they can only do exactly what they did when said fans discovered them, ever.

Of course, with that kind of thought process, Master of Puppets would never have happened. Metallica would be in a basement club, somewhere, cranking out a revised version of Seek and Destroy for the 25th time. That would be fine, but they also wouldn't be Metallica, a band that, from day one, was progressing. Progressing toward more melodic songs, longer, more complicated arrangements, and then back to more simplistic ones. The watchword was "change," and change motivated by whatever was turning them on at any given time.

Which, folks, is how it should be. As Eddie Van Halen once said, in his more lucid days, "As an artist, I'm egotistical enough to think that what excites me will excite other people" (or something like that). Any artist, in any medium, can only create things that draws an honest reaction from themselves. Personally, I've always felt Metallica was better at this than many other bands, and honest about it. You could love it, hate it, or endure it, but they were giving you where they were at the time.

Which doesn't mean it always works, but, come on, it's just a fucking album, people. It's not even a "Metallica" album. If everyone was being honest here, this would've been released as a Lou Reed album, or ever "Lou Reed featuring Metallica," the interviews seem to indicate that Metallica saw themselves as supporting Reed's vision, rather than influencing it. Honestly, the fact that the boys tried something completely out of left field, and in most respects, dropped the ball, doesn't bother me as much as the fan whining.

All that is prologue to my actually talking about Lulu. If you want the short form, it's a mess, clearly a project conceived and recorded in a hurry, a huge swath of it just does not work, but with some really interesting things going on that make it well worth the time, in my opinion. If you don't want to slog through the weirdness and bad choices to get to the good stuff, I understand, and more power to you.

Again, I point out, this is more of a Lou Reed album than Metallica album, and to try to judge it in terms of the latter is a fool's errand. Metallica contributes some pretty spectacular riffing, but the songs are rather one-note and monotonous, as Lou Reed is sort of known for. The ultimate result is "hey cool riff," followed by, "is it gonna change at all?" This is further compounded by the fact that all the songs are at least eight minutes. Point? It's a Lou Reed album, with Metallica contributing some riffs. If you're absolutely compelled to view this record in comparison to the artist's prior work, Reed's work provides the only fair comparison.

The first two tracks, Brandenburg Gate and The View exemplify all the criticisms heaped on this album, they're atonal, without melody and Reed's vocals are utterly jarring over the music. It's just a goddamn mess, and harder than hell to sit through. Track three, Pumping Blood, gets a bit better, as Reed's vocals become more intense, and I found myself actually trying to understand what he was trying to convey lyrically. Then Mistress Dread, which offers up the most "thrash metal" riffing on the album, and that caught my ear.

Perhaps it was low expectations, or maybe my ear was acclimating to the album, but, as I listened, I was getting drawn in. Then Iced Honey, where things start to really come together. Not easily, in fact, downright painfully, but with this track, you feel the "Lou Reed" and "Metallica" gears start to mesh. I actually think I may love this track, I've found myself re-listening to it several times. You see the ambition, the musicians working together to make somethign different, and I admire it. Cheat On Me, the next track, which ends the first disk, continues along these lines. On both these tracks it's still atonal and not melodic, but the cadences are coming together, it feel like a unified song. So, if nothing else, I can say the first disk ended strong, for me.

The second disk is stronger than the first. Frustration, Little Dog and Dragon continue along the same lines, it's not top-tapping, or pretty, but things feel unified and the lyrics are certainly provocative and interesting. Then comes Junior Dad, which is, and I mean this, quite amazing. Like most of the album, it's too long, at nineteen minutes, but here, finally, we have melody and Reed actually doing his "talk-sing" thing, rather than the more spoken-word style of the rest of the record. It's a real smack in the face, as to what this collaboration could've brought us. I get why James Hetfield and Kirk Hammet said they found the song very moving. The lyrics, which I interpret as being about feeling like a disappointment, hit home for me, as well.

This sentiment will likely continue

I'm not going to make any sort of case for Lulu as album of the year, or anything close to it, because that would be silly. It's not an inspired album, but it is an interesting one. It may not be of interest to you, personally, but I can certainly see the reasons for doing it. Lars Ulrich has always had the "bohemian artist" streak, and I'm sure part of him just loves doing these projects because of the fan reaction. This is not a mass-market album, and I can't imagine that anyone who worked on it ever thought it would be. The audience for Lulu will find it, and I would guess that audience will be a Lou Reed audience.

Best Tracks:

• Iced Honey
• Junior Dad

I used to be an INTENSE headbanger

I mean a total heshian. (At least that was the term in my day, now, apparently, it's some sort of skateboarder.) Gave myself whiplash many times. Hair down to my ass, and the whole bit. Loved Metallica, Megadeth, etc...

Not saying I don't still like those bands, I do. A lot. I've just also really connected with a more, um...lyrical form of rock and roll. Springsteen is the king for me, as he plays as hard as any of those bands mentioned, but also writes true poetry. I've also gotten really into the "prog" area, Rush, King's X, etc...

In the old days I was very taken with an act you might have heard of, Anthrax. Specifically, when they picked up a new lead singer, a guy named John Bush, for their 1993 album The Sound of White Noise. LOVED that record.

I'd been a fan of John Bush with his original band, Armored Saint. Symbol of Salvation is, for my money, one of the best metal albums ever. The guy has a fantastic voice, and was even asked to join Metallica, at one point, early in their carreer. (James Hetfield just wanted to play guitar) Armored Saint was a great band, but they never really "made it." Plus, one of their founding members succumed to cancer, so I guess Bush was ready for a change when Anthrax came calling.

The pairing was fruitful. I consider every one of the Anthrax albums with Bush, Sound of White Noise, Stomp 442 (1995), Volume 8: The Threat is Real (1998), and We've Come For You All (2003), to be top-notch metal records. I also like them much better than any of the earlier albums with Neil Turbin (1 album) or Joey Belladonna (5 full-length albums).

However, Joey is considered their "classic" singer. Among the Living (1987) and Persistance of Time (1990) are probably the two best with Joey. Where the impression of "classic" exists, there's money to be made, and from 2005 to 2007 Anthrax toured with the "classic" lineup (also with original lead guitarist Dan Spitz). Apparently, the original idea was to tour with BOTH Belladonna and Bush singing.

They had tried this before, after releasing the Attack of the Killer A's Greatest hits package in 1999, covering both the Belladonna and Bush eras. They even recorded a cover of "Ball of Confusion" with Joey and John dueting on vocals. The idea was to put both signers on stage. Belladonna apparently balked at this, and opted out. The tour went on with just Bush.

This time, Bush went home. The reunion tour with Joey was pretty successful (saw it myself), but I always felt that Bush was the best singer for the band. The fan community felt that Bush had gotten the run-around. As Bush said later:

"No. Bitter is not the way I wanna be about anything. I'm not bitter at all. There was probably not a perfect way to do that, what they did. It was like, how are they gonna say...? I mean, they asked me to do it—the tour with Joey—and it just wasn't right for me, I couldn't do it. So, whatever...if they felt they had to do that, I understand. It wasn't like I was going, 'Yeah, do it. That's great.' But once it happened, I was like, 'okay.' It was like a book ended. It's okay. I mean, it's much better to look at it that way than to be angry or frustrated, 'cause I really don't feel that way."

But the tour went on, and was successful enough that the band started thinking, "hey, new album with Belladonna." Surely it would sell well.

It probably would've, but Joey ultimately opted out. Was this beacuse the band wanted to treat him like a hired gun, and pay much less, or because Joey was an egomaniac, and wanted more than his fair share? Who knows? The fact is, Joey left, again, and apparently, the band went back to John Bush, who also said, "no."

"I was asked to write, and it just wasn't right for me. I couldn't go back and say, 'Here I am...' It would be like coming in with my tail between my legs, and that's not right for me. I just couldn't do that. It just didn't feel right to do that. It was about soul, your gut. How does that feel? Does it feel right? Good enough. Sold. Answer."

So, now what does Anthrax do? As any good aging metal band, they go looking for a new singer. Who do they find? Some dude no one's heard of named Dan Nelson. The band starts working on a disk called Worship Music, and plays a few gigs. Introducing Nelson to the fans with a show at The Double Door here in Chicago, which was apparently well received.

So, all is well, right? Nelson's in, they're touring Europe, including a date at the Sonisphere Festival on August 1st, Worship Music is set for release in September, with a US tour supporting Slipknot. The band is on it's way back....

Then, SOMETHING happened.

On July 17th, 2009, via a press release, Anthrax cancelled all European dates, indicating it was because Dan Nelson was ill. On July 21st, again via press release, that Nelson was out of the band, the tours were cancelled, and Worship Music was pushed back. Also added; the Sonisphere date was NOT cancelled, and John Bush was returning for a "one-off" date with the band.

Nelson's reaction to all this?

"I was never seriously ill or sick at all, as reported in Anthrax’s 7/17/09 press release. This extremely inflammatory statement hurt me tremendously. This statement misled fans, friends and family members into believing that I was seriously ill when I was not. I was not aware such a statement was being issued and it came as a total shock to me, as I’m sure it did to all of you. It was the other band members’ decision to cancel the tour dates, not mine. I was ready, willing and able to do my job. After issuing the press release the other band members decided, on their own accord, that I had 'resigned' from the band. I never resigned from the band."

What the HELL is going on here? I mean, I'm happy as a clam that footage such as this:



Is available, even if this is Bush's last fling with Anthrax.

I can't even say I really care anymore. I was planning to buy Worship Music, give Nelson a shot, but in the back of my head, I knew it was all wrong. They sorta pushed John aside to tour with Joey in what was a naked cash grab. Then came back when they needed him, and Bush (Rightly!) told 'em to take a hike. They find some nobody, and they can't get along with him. (though the rumors of what exactly happened are NASTY, and paint Nelson in a very bad light.) This seems to be a whole mess of crap they brought on themselves.

I LOVE this band with John Bush, but even if this one-off leads to a full reunion (and Anthrax members have flat out stated this is "right at the front of their minds"), I don't know that I can follow them again. The well seems poisoned.

Bush had been working on some new music with a reunited Armored Saint, which I KNOW I'll buy. I think I'd rather he stuck with that.

What's really become clear here is that John Bush is a class act, in every way. The video makes it clear he came, he saw, and he kicked ass. He brought his A-Game, no matter what the backstage situation. These guys he'd spent a ton of time working with called and needed a solid, and he delivered.

That's the kind of person I strive to be.