Originally posted by Charles Gunn
all i was saying was S.O.D. of the "speak english or......" period was a racist,sexist,misanthropic project.at the time they never tried to justify the albums lyrics.they were very ambiguous about their own beliefs(b.m. particularly)it was only when the hardcore scene at the time (on which anthrax were desperately trying to hitch a ride on) rallied against them they came up with there "its only a joke,we're being confrontational on purpose(shut up billy)" line.the difference between S.O.D. and comedians like bill hicks is that when bill hicks is confontational he does it with well balanced,intelligent arguments(goat boy aside).S.O.D.'s lyrics (on speak english) were just bigoted misanthropy.billy milano wasn't trying to be confrontational for some satyrical purpose ,he just hated everything,particularly things different to him.
my main argument against your opinion on music/covers is that you seem to suggest you have to write yourt own songs to be considered a talented musician.in the centuries(more) of musical history its only recently that this opinion seems to have come to prominence,only since the beatles.there's plenty of examples of extremely talented acts who never wrote a song(frank sinatra springs to mind)
finally what do you want to know about my horizons?do you mean where i get my S.O.D. opinions from.if so they come from what i remember happening at the time.i remember the furore in the thrash scene when "speak english.." came out.i also remember the deafening silence from Dan Lilker(anthrax and B.M. 's political views weren't really respected at the time,nobody was that surprised they would say things like that)
oh i forgot my opinion on covers.when done well they're great(fever-elvis,think we're alone now-snuff,could it be magic-take that,low rider-exodus,anything by me first and the gime gimmes)when done badly they're not(anti-social-anthrax,eternal flame-atomic kitten,whisky in a jar-metallica,killing me softly-fugees)
pretty much like my opinion on any decent song.
But did they really need to justify the album, intelligence can be just as convincing said, as unsaid. Now I'm not saying S.O.D were trying to bring an intellectual mindset to the scene, but if your questioning the bands justification I believe your wrong. Just because music isn't tangible on the outside, doesn't necessarily mean the music should be consequently thrown in the bin. Speaking from a fans point of view, with such broad statements, justification would probably of only confused matters anyway. Thrash isn't exactly strewn with mental holes and ideals of progression after all. But, look around the net, tracks have been justified, every record has been dissected by the band (usually whenever they could be bothered with the public eye) and behind all that noise, there certainly are justified agenda's, hidden but still accordingly bumped in place. S.O.D weren't an accomplished band, it was a side-project and as a result people couldn't really understand the material with the amount of perception that was allowed. It's perfectly understandable how many can't see any greatness though, or, for that matter take a particular liking with the music.
This music isn't for everyone, it's almost not for anyone; and don't think that death metal fans like myself would have it any other way. The marvel of this music is that so much effort and skill is channelled into such an unrewarding medium.
They were a technically superior group of musicians, fan or not. And yes, bigoted it may be, but as for the material contrast between S.O.D and Bill Hicks, well I think it'd be a little hard-pressed for Milano to fit such intellect into the track lengths of a generic thrash band don't you think? Oh and I'd say hating everything was very much the sole purpose for being confrontational. His satire included sarcasm, wit and irony... all means to confronting issues in a satirical manner. I mean "Bigger than the Devil," "Live at Bukodan" and "Speak English or..." are thrusted with satire all over. Take "Celtic Frost", "The Ballad of Kurt Cobain/Jimi Hendrix", "Freddy Krueger"... I mean even the broad "Speak English or......" has hidden connotations.
Just because a band is criticised for whatever other reason though, doesn't necessarily mean it's good or accurate criticism. I followed the band for quite some time and I've heard many interviews and for the most part I believe Bill was very clear of what he wanted to achieve. You had one or two where he was given bad rep or generally f**ked out of his face, but that comes with the environment and an army of overbearing journo-monkeys who had it in for him. It probably comes down to coverage; you could have been cryogenically frozen through WWII and wake up just hours before Hitler's suicide. You wake up with a greeting, a cup of tea (sausage possibly) and think, "hmm, nice man" without the forever gone conclusion that he's slaughtered millions. It depends how you again perceive the person in contention. Milano wasn't a liked man, he was a hated man and therefore I think you may have got the short end of what was just a group of guys getting together to create contemporary chaos, to stir things up... nothing more.
I only used the band as an example for the cover tracks debate anyway, but you seemed almost compelled to proclaim the "racist,sexist,misanthropic project" statement and I just found it a little deceiving, more to the point one sided. Was there in actual fact any point to why you wanted to know if there was a relation between Storm Troopers of Death and S.O.D? Ah, just curious, ok. j/k But yeah, sure the band and it's albums can be illustrated in such a manner from an exterior level of perception, but S.O.D were simply complacent with being critically acclaimed anyway. (Feed your thoughts, fuel your mind ) They left it to the fans to see the real motive... and that was to rage against, rage against in a way if it even meant people would dispute and disregard. Respect comes in many forms and for me anyway, Milano, over the years gets mine.
Ironically the issue of Terrorizer I received today had a fifth page article on S.O.D finally splitting.
🙁
I'm sure you're quite the distraught bunny.
😀
As for the music/cover discussion, well no, not really. Your off-rooting, lol. I weren't suggesting you have to write your own lyrics to be a talented musician, but surely if a musician can write great lyrics aswell as play an instrument, they should (using two neutrally based musicians) have a greater musical ability? My point wasn't solely this anyway; it was used in conjunction with the fact that covers achieve little to any ability as a musician. Well in my opinion anyway. Music is an art form, it's there to create, not to replicate, promote, publicise, prize. Again, "Use B-sides, bootlegs, rarities... there's just something about a musicians pride that succumbs to a certain level of dignity with me."
You state a bunch of covers with good merit and I fully agree, it's your own view as to what's a great cover and what isn't. (
Jo seems to agree too.) But again your missing my main motive, the pop industry. "so why the hell can't these idolised, piggy bank pop groups do the same and take the time to actually release their own material... or AT LEAST already written tracks made for them?" I never subjected covers against great covers. I was only pinpointing a specific area; therefore I think I'm finished here.
