VIRTUAL SOAPBOX
RANTS-N-RAVES
The World According to Scott
This is the section of my site that is strictly reserved for my opinions, my beliefs, and whatever I feel like talking about at the moment. It's updated generally on a fairly regular basis, so check back to see what the most recent things on my mind are.
_________________________________________________________________________
This coming weekend is "Guy's Camping Weekend." We're going to be in Dippikill. This should prove interesting - a bunch of idiots in a cabin with enough beer & meat to sink a ship.
_________________________________________________________________________
GWB - where are they???
_________________________________________________________________________
Well, I bought the Metallica CD, "St. Anger," last week. I'm having a hard time making up my mind on this one. I keep reminding myself as I'm listening, "You want to like this!", but it's not always working. The overall production of the album has pretty much just left me scratching my head & wondering "What the hell were they thinking?" It's all high-end, there's no bass whatsoever, & WHAT is up with the awful drum sounds? Lars Ulrich's snare sounds like he's banging on an old pot & there's this perpetual ringing sound each time he hits it, that is like having someone scrape your teeth while you listen, as it continually resonates for a good second or two - every SINGLE time he hits it. How can he be happy with the sound of his drums? He's valiantly trying to bring back his drumming of old, with lots of double-bass thunder, but it gets lost & the mix is so muddied, that all you end up hearing are the guitars & the vocals. What happened???? The lyrical content of the album is questionable as well. While you can see how James Hetfield's stint in rehab has given him plenty to think about, it's not strong enough to carry an entire album of material. I'm not begrudging the band the right to try new things or go in new directions as musicians & lyricists, BUT, it's just not that good of an album. To me, the guitars sound like everything is in the same minor key type of thing as Korn & Slipknot. (And I'll be honest, I can't stand either of those bands, & I have tried to like them, but I'd rather eat broken glass than have to sit through an entire album than either of them.) Has Metallica just tried to play it safe & appeal to an already established fanbase of bands like these? Have they been out of it for so long that they just don't know what good metal is anymore? What good Metallica is anymore? And where the hell is Kirk Hammet on this album? Did he even show up for recording sessions? There is not one single solo on this album anywhere to be found. Granted, I respect Hammet, but he's never been one of my favorite guitarists, so while an absence of solos is odd, it's not necessarily a bad thing in my opinion. If you've been a fan of metal for the last 20 years or so, you can't help but notice that the guitar solo has become a thing of the past. Personally, I believe this is because of two things: 1) most "nu-metal" guitarists aren't that good & therefore do not solo & 2) without a solo, a song can be cut shorter, therefore giving it a better chance to be released as a single & a video, thereby earning more money for the record label & the band (don't tell me that they don't take things like this into consideration during the recording process). Metallica actually worked as a group with a therapist in order to get it back together. If this is all they could come up with after even going through that, maybe they should just consider it might be time to let it go & hang it up. Even after all this, I'm going to keep trying to listen to the album, & hoping that I will end up liking it. My guess is that I will end up liking a few tracks, & then this CD will gather dust in my CD rack, right next to "Load" & the black album.
_________________________________________________________________________
Went to see "The Matrix Reloaded" last night. I really can't say I was impressed. Visually, the movie looked great. The stunts & special effects were as good as the first movie, & maybe even a little better in some cases. But, what was forgotten in the making of this film, was that no matter how good or flashy it looks, you still need a decent plotline to carry a two hour plus movie. Kathryn made a really good point when we were talking about it later - the characters in the movie have become almost machine-like & robotic in the way that they speak & act. Droning on in monotones as if they're afraid to show real human emotion. Isn't that somewhat ironic, for a film who's story consists of a war against machines? Considering that this is the second in a trilogy of films, it never really felt like it could have stood alone as a movie/story in & of itself. I expected something different, certainly something more, & definitely something better. What I got was a few very well filmed action sequences, drowned in a bunch of filler, masquerading as a story. I really felt like the first film was somewhat unique & original - as much as you enjoyed watching it, it left you with something to think about, ideas to consider, & interesting notions that put the hook in you to want to watch it again & again, to pick up more each time. All this sequel did for me, was to re-confirm why I don't go to see as many movies as I used to, if only for the simple fact that I'm tired of being disappointed by films that are never as good as their hype.
_________________________________________________________________________
[HOME] [WORK] [KATHRYN] [RASH] [RANTS-N-RAVES] [PETS] [LINKS] [SOS] [CHEMYSTRY SET]