JammerMatt Chase IV on "The Shameless"

jammermatt

New Metal Member
Jan 9, 2007
8
0
1
58
With the exception of some articles forwarded to me by Ben, this was my first exposure to LotFP, or any other web-zine for that matter. I must preface my review by saying that I'm a child of the 80s, a 40-something, west-coast metalhead, and if we were to check the METAL borometer, I'm on the more popular side of 80s metal than the underground side. Coming from a small coastal town, I didn't know about METAL until I saw an Iron Maiden T-shirt in abouts 1983, and never heard METAL until I saw Judas Priest on MTV. I didn't get Metallica from an underground tape, but read about it in Kerrang or some other mag. But I suppose to my credit, 'tallica hasn't done anything since AJFA IMO. But, I digress as I notice James Edward Raggi IV does on occasion, so at least he can relate. On with the review.

Like another reader, didn't care much for the cover. My wife called me at work saying I had a package from Sweden. So I had her open it, and she didn't care much for it, so you can guess the rest. We're practicing Catholics, and though I'm pretty rugged with religious jokes, jabs and general art, I thought it a bit too far to compare the two. But, I suppose it makes for good METAL. It didn't bother me much, but I just think it's a little too "forced." (more on the whole corporate discussion later).

I was surprised to read Raggi's editorial. I'm not needed, not wanted, and I'm a Fuckin' idiot all in the span of four paragraphs? C'mon Jim, we're all adults here, the whole "Rebel Metalhead" thing is growing as thin as my hair, isn't it? By now, most of us do have jobs, do have kids, do have the trappings of real life. It would be unrealistic to think that the majority of the world could live on the fringe - there would be no fringe then after all. However, one comment I did like was the "digital outlaw" jab, which I could not agree more about. Unless you drop some hard-earned bread, it is really hard to appreciate anything. Too many choices (free ones at that) leads to too many doubts about your choices - and ultimately dissatisfaction. Dropping an investment requires one to put forth the effort into that investment, to make it good even if it's just okay. Probably part of the reason I love my old stuff the best - it cost alot (at the time)!

However, having said all that - no matter how much I want to dislike Raggi, I simply can't. The dude can write, has a great sense of humor, and is truly passionate about his crusade. The writing is dense (meaning many lines per page), so after I got used to the style, the writing became quite easy to read. There are some great one-liners - nuggets if you will - in Raggi's writing (along with the other writers). Very very cool prose. Raggi and Crew definitely do their homework with the topics and have a great grasp of the subject. I personally could not listen to one CD for days on end - through headphones no less - so it's nice to know some folks who can and then live to write abou it.

One small critique I had of the writing - and very nitpicky no doubt - was that it took a few articles to finally figure out that the individual song titles are capitalized. They sort of blend in with the prose and is cumbersome at first. I kept wanting them to be set off with quotes or italics or underlines or some such. No biggie.

I especially liked the reviews of Assaulter, Battlewitch, Blood Seal, Chaos Theory, and some of the other postive reviews. I will definitely be checking out those (that are available - too bad about Chaos Theory though, sounds like a real winner).

I can't stop without addressing the whole corporate thing. The "Corporate is killing metal" drum beat is out of tune in my opinion. There have always been companies, there has always been music, and there has always been sales of music. It just IS. It will never be not IS. So, can we move onto something else? A corporation is a living breathing thing like anything. It survives by eating and shitting, usually eating something smaller and shitting on something comfortable. Everyone poops - everyone gets pooped on. It's the cycle of life. It would be almost impossible for a band to become known without some sort of connection to commerce. In fact it seems oxymoronic for a band to want to have monetary success without commerce. The opposite is utopian, but not realistic. The company survives by providing a product or service to it's clientelle, the clientelle buys what it wants, and the company survives. The band wants to survive, it needs to sell, it does not have the resources to sell, but the company does. It just IS and will aways be. Has the mass-media helped to dumb-down the listener and feed them crap? A definite HELL-YES! Is it the company's fault? I'm not sure, since survival depends on getting the most for putting out the least. I lay the dumbing down to the hands of society in general, not necessarily the companies.

Is LotFP helping to combat this dumbing-down and lack of knowledge of how good METAL can be? HELL YES!!

In the end, I really liked the mag. Thanks James.
.
 
Oh, and forgot to mention: The Twilight Odyssey interview was great. Ben's a great guy and a great musician. Y'alls should do yourself a favor and snap up his CD.

-Matt
 
Thanks for the feedback... a couple points...

I was surprised to read Raggi's editorial. I'm not needed, not wanted, and I'm a Fuckin' idiot all in the span of four paragraphs?

The point of that was not to just insult everybody (although it is great fun), but to throw readers off-balance. Of course anybody who has read LotFP for awhile is completely immune to that by now, but I have to think of the new people that might see any particular issue.

Most zines tend to want to be all buddy-buddy with the reader, holding hands and off skipping together to explore the big wonderful world of metal. That just seems so wrong for a genre where the songs are all about conflict and the exploration of themes that polite society would rather see left alone.

The tone of the writing should match the tone of the material the writing is about, I think.

That, and I have this thing where if I can provoke the reader and still get him to go along with things I say, it's worth a lot more than being all friendly and getting the same result. I can't do anything the easy way.

It would be unrealistic to think that the majority of the world could live on the fringe - there would be no fringe then after all.

I think it's rather unrealistic to think that the world should live in some "mainstream" existence where people like Martha Stewart and Dr. Phil make sense.

I can't stop without addressing the whole corporate thing. The "Corporate is killing metal" drum beat is out of tune in my opinion.

It goes far beyond metal... the very idea of a "corporation" as a legal entity at all, in any industry, has me rather down on life. I also voted for the guy in 2004 that thought zip codes were unconstitutional apportionments of the US, so that's how far out of touch I am. :)

There have always been companies, there has always been music, and there has always been sales of music. It just IS. It will never be not IS.

Not against the selling of music, just against the money going to all sorts of people that aren't making the music that is generating the money. Perhaps it is unrealistic to cut those other people out entirely, but it shouldn't be acceptable for the artist to always be the last person to see money out of the arrangement. But that's the way it is now, and it doesn't have to be.

A corporation is a living breathing thing like anything. It survives by eating and shitting, usually eating something smaller and shitting on something comfortable. Everyone poops - everyone gets pooped on. It's the cycle of life.

But it's not a living breathing thing. It's an artificial construct made by people to remove personal accountability for decisions made... and squash competition.

The band wants to survive, it needs to sell, it does not have the resources to sell, but the company does. It just IS and will aways be.

The solution is an informed listener and buyer who is willing to purchase from the source, and not a middle-man. Getting that to happen in mass numbers is the problem.

An independent media whose goal is not to work with labels in order to sell, but rather examine and critique their subjects, would do wonders I think.

Being silent on the matter and just accepting the way things are never helps.

edit: And about the cover... it's not just offensive, but it has a point... even if you get big business out of your business... it'll be back, sooner or later.
 
Thanks for the response Jim. I work for a smallish company (40+ employees) that struggles year to year, so a different worldview here I guess. We'll have to agree to disagree, but in all I really enjoyed the read. Thanks
 
... I have this thing where if I can provoke the reader and still get him to go along with things I say, it's worth a lot more than being all friendly and getting the same result. I can't do anything the easy way.
That is Jim Raggi in a nutshell. I'm printing that and putting it on my fridge!! (Yeah, I'm so mainstream ... I have a fridge, a stove AND electricity at home!!!! ;) )



My personal belief is that major labels have become fat, bloated, and totally out of touch with what music is about, regardless of genre. Too many 'independent' labels are following the same bloated archetype.

Before LPs, there were only singles! I'm all for bringing those days back. Which, incidently iTunes is doing, but it's at a cost (crappy quality).
 
The solution is an informed listener and buyer who is willing to purchase from the source, and not a middle-man. Getting that to happen in mass numbers is the problem.

I couldn't agree more, and I think your 'zine does a great service towards this end. However, I'm thinking that you are listening on a level far above the average listener - myself included. Whereas the typical consumer is operating from a much lower common denominator on the music quality scale (whatever that means - very subjective of course). The Corporation will never thrive off of folks like you since your expectations are quite high. On the other hand, the other 75-percent of listeners are quite happy cranking up the latest nu-metal doodie, and I say "good for them". If it makes them happy then fine. The Corporation is happy to sell it to them, it's easy and everyone's happy. I suppose my point for consideration is that it might not matter if Corporation put forward super high-quality Kings-X/Queensryche-ish/Old School Maiden type material at the cost of your local Disturbed type band. High quality deep complicated music doesn't sell to the masses - they don't care to hear it - it's too difficult - it just won't work. The market is not operating at that level.

Fortunately though, there are smaller labels selling to select audiences. They have found their niche.

A personal story of relevance. I just recently gave a good critical listen to Extreme "III Sides to Every Story." Not a metal band by definition - but a great band. When I first bought it years ago I didn't like it - it didn't "Rock." It wasn't "Pornograffiti". It was at the back of a bin for YEARS. On insistence from an acquaintance I dusted it off again. Friggin WOW!! Side one is just simply brilliant. No, it doesn't "rock", it's not "pornograffiti", but it is so full of cool shit it's unbelievable - Hendrix to Beatles to VH to whatever. It was always unbelievable, but I just was not ready to hear it - my ears were not mature enough. For the record though, sides II and III are still unlistenable for me - or it's just above me and I'm not mature enough yet for it.

-Matt
 
jammermatt said:
The market is not operating at that level.
I'm not convinced.

Were people in the 1980s much more intellegent than they are now and able to sit through and appreciate albums like Live after Death, And Justice for All or Gretchen Goes To Nebraska?

I think that there is something to be said about the splintering of consciousness due to the explosion and extension of cable television, the Internet and what have you, but the level of sales are not there for genres across the board once you move beyond pap like Timberlake, Spears or some CMT-sponsored monstrosity.

Some of the most financially successful metal bands of late (Lamb of God, Mastodon) and critically feted "metal" bands* (Sunn O))), Boris, Isis) are pushed and promoted as being difficult and esoteric pieces or more complicated and challenging than the dunderheaded fare of the '80s.

Hell, A Matter of Life and Death entered the U.S. Billboard chart in the top ten (the counting system has been modified to take some of the rot out), and anyone who can listen to that from front to back has much more patience than me. Christ Illusion landed at number five.

So it seems that a "market" for metal is still there--it is just that the metal market has been structured and shaped in a way that closes avenues of exposure to many bands.

The record industry thrives on planned obsolesence, so the nu-metal wave that is long gone as a significant force, metalcore, and whatever is next in the pipeline will be presented as the natural and logical heirs of heavy metal while bands who are playing metal which is both innovative and traditional will be passed over and presented as backward, narrow, or unimaginative.

The market it is not a disembodied elemental force--it a cultural, social and political arena formed by humans who claim that they have nothing to do with the climate they create.

*Sunn O))) has sold at least 20,000 albums, so critical acclaim does translate into some sales.
 
Were people in the 1980s much more intellegent than they are now and able to sit through and appreciate albums like Live after Death, And Justice for All or Gretchen Goes To Nebraska?

I agree with every word you said (I think - hey it's 8:00 AM here), but the Lynch pin (I threw Lynch in there) was your second sentence. To which my answer is HELL YES.

Think back to when we were young. We didn't have all the choices that kids do now. When you wanted an *album*, you scraped up your allowance went down to the *music store* and *bought* an *album*. You took it home, put it on your *turntable* and spun it. If you were enterprising, you had your axe with you and were constantly picking up the stylus and moving it back to learn that lick. Anyway, if you didn't quite dig it at first, you listened to it again and again because you dropped a hard 8 bucks on the album. You couldn't return it, you couldn't download it to your friends, and you had no other choices of free shit to download off the WWW. Eventually, you found things you liked about a single song.. and then another and then another, until finally Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner was just the greatest thing this side of Eddie. Try laying Rhyme on a 16-year old kid these days - no way would it go over (except maybe the 2nd standard deviation from the norm - and he would be a guitar player or something). I guess my point is that our lack of choices forced us to learn to appreciate certain things we normally would not have. These things turned out to be great and timeless, but it took awhile to get there (for me at least).

Kids today have way too many choices, and way too many "redo's". They download without paying, listen for a few seconds, and discard because it doesn't grab instantly, and move onto the next free thing. To add fuel to the fire, the attention span of a typical teen is probably 30 seconds - the duration of a commercial, a cell phone call from a buddy, or a text message (stuff we didn't have back in the day - 'cept the commercials). This is the world they are brought up in. For them if the hook isn't set in 30 seconds, it's off to the next free download.

Is it the music industry's fault? Perhaps they are partially to blame for pandering to this (which they do since their survival depends on it). MTV is the greatest culprit of course, and without argument is the worst thing ever invented for music. I point the finger at society and technology gone rampant without regards to limits or it's proper use. In fact I'll go as far to blame the interweb for the demise of music.

Music appreciation is a learned thing. It takes time, many repetitions to dig out the stuff you like. Corporate is just trying to survive and you can't blame them for that.

Eventually the worm will turn - it always does. It's not 2112 yet.
 
I think it's important to put blame in the proper place.

Choice is not a bad thing. It's never a bad thing. "Too many choices" is not a complaint I can take seriously.

The problem is that people themselves don't seem to have any grounding. It's almost as if people can't be responsible for their actions and don't know what they want, so they go insane wanting all of the choices and feel like they've missed out if they haven't had a taste of everything. Even if they couldn't for the life of them explain why they wanted it.

Blaming the choices themselves is easy, but that smells to me of blaming music, video games, movies, or whatever for a person's actions. The fault is with the person.

To continue the Rush references, I always took the line "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice" to be a bit of a jab at people who don't want to be involved and don't want the responsibility, but these days I see it differently. All the TV channels, all the choices one has every single week in whatever genre one looks at... video games and movies and this and that and the other thing... I am choosing not to decide between any of them. And it's surely saving whatever sanity I have left.

I also don't like the implication that a lot of the old classics are classics simply because people had no choice but to listen to them over and over once they had them. I came into the Iron Maiden game late enough, and am just now getting into other Deep Purple eras besides MkII... quality is quality. Maybe it does take a few listens to get into it, but that's because it's not served up on a plate. (I'll throw in my favorite little detail from recent listening... Coverdale/Hughes change all the "we" to "they" when they perform Smoke on the Water... nice, nice touch...)

The idea that I might like, say, this new Astarte album I was recently sent (not asked for) if it was all I had to listen to is fairly unlikely. At best. :)
 
The problem is that people themselves don't seem to have any grounding. It's almost as if people can't be responsible for their actions and don't know what they want, so they go insane wanting all of the choices and feel like they've missed out if they haven't had a taste of everything. Even if they couldn't for the life of them explain why they wanted it.

This is a very good statement, and I think explains alot of what is happening in society today.

I saw a presentation involving a study between lottery winners and parapalegics. Participants were interviewed, studied, or whatever you will - a year after their accident or winning. The conclusion of the study was that 1/2 of the para's were satisfied in life, and 1/2 of the lottery winners were also. The people doing the study were astounded with this.

The theory about the lottery winners sort of echoes your above statement. Too many choices, and not being able to be satisfied with one thing for fear that another choice would yield more better results. Too many choices and not enough time spent on any particular choice to grow accustomed to it. There can be such a thing as "too many choices" when one has not figured out already what makes them "happy."

The theory about the para's was that choices became rather limited for them. This required some adjustment of expectations, and "learning" to be happy with limited choices. This sort of echoes my explanation of learning to like certain things. Perhaps Maiden is a poor example (but not the latest CD for sure!).

Man, this is getting heavy.
 
I've been thinking about this a bit, and... well... I'm wondering if the problem isn't just the "kids don't listen to those that have been there and done that, they need to find out for themselves" being blown out of proportion by us old fogeys that refuse to believe we're old fogeys quite yet. (Although the idea that Schiffmann is in that category at this point would be scary.)

I'd like to say, "No, the problem is greater and more insidious than that," but I can't articulate why I think so.
 
(snip)To continue the Rush references, I always took the line "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice" to be a bit of a jab at people who don't want to be involved and don't want the responsibility, but these days I see it differently.(snip)

Funny thing there ( I agree with the rest of your reply Jim). The cd liner notes before the 1997 remasters of Permenant Waves had that lyric written as "... you still haven't made a choice". When the band was asked continuously about that possible misprint, their response was "It was always correct in MY version. Which,, of course does NOT answer the question, and yet, ironically, does.