Showing posts with label Guns 'n' Roses. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Guns 'n' Roses. Show all posts

Sunday, November 03, 2024

Book of the Month - A History of Heavy Metal

This book was a makeweight in a 'buy two for £7' deal in HMV, which used to be a record shop but now is a more general emporium of random things. Including books. (I bought Slaughterhouse Five and The Boys from Brazil in a previous deal - both reviewed back in September.) It felt sort of suitable that I would be buying a book about music from HMV despite the company's drift away from selling music.


A History of Heavy Metal by Andrew O'Neill is based on a stand up comedy show about heavy metal. Without wishing to be too rude, that's pretty apparent from the way it's written. The narrative goes off on tangents. There are a lot of opinions. And it gets quite repetitive after a while, like he's forgotten what he has previously told you (twice) about a particular album or how he thinks Metallica declined in greatness when they went commercial. 

The thing is that heavy metal is inherently ridiculous. Andrew sort of recognises this, but rather than let the stupid excesses of the movement speak for themselves, he feels the need to put his own gloss on it by telling you they were stupid. And fair enough, if you despise 'glam metal' as much as he does, maybe recounting stories from those bands is tedious. I did like his comment about forcing himself to watch a documentary about Motley Crue as research for the book. I understand how painful that must have been - but really it did feel like the minimum amount of effort in terms of actual research. 

But although Andrew is willing to admit that metal is often just very silly, he also tries to paint it as an important movement, uniting outsiders and providing a community for people who don't feel they fit in. Which is all fair, I suppose. He tells his own story of getting into metal a couple of times in the book and that was more interesting than being told, again, how his favourite Death Metal albums were amazingly innovative and genre-defining.

Overall the book could have done with more stories, more nuggets gleaned from research and fewer opinions (or at least just being told those opinions once). There was plenty left out and glossed over - the entire Satanic Panic in the USA in the 1980s, for example. But maybe he didn't know much about that because I'm aware that religious moral panics are often opaque to people outside the religion. 

Several times he alluded to stuff, but didn't return to the topic to explain it further. The reader is just assumed to know what went wrong with Celtic Frost, for example. That's the one that really stuck out but there were several others. It feels like the book is aimed at people who don't know much about heavy metal; the interrupted explanations wouldn't be helpful.

He also has a very annoying authorial habit of putting jokes and tidbits of information in footnotes. These really interrupted the flow of reading. A long time ago I was told that if a point (or a joke) is worth a footnote, then you should really think about including it in the main body of the text. The continual footnoting did make me wonder if he doubted his ability to land a joke. Truthfully, many didn't land. They just got in the way. 

Although I wouldn't particularly recommend the book, it did have some highlights. I liked this comment on page 84 so much I read it out loud to Cathy:

"Def Leppard's enormous success in the States is what the other... bands were aiming for, though none went for it with quite the same ferocity, plus of course they possibly lacked the shark-eyed commercial killer instinct and pop chops to write the sorts of songs that millions of people want to hear. Bear in mind that most humans are awful, and so if millions of people want to buy your art... it's probably not good art."

That final sentence really made me laugh. 

And towards the end of the book (p.271) this rather astute comment caught my eye:

"One of the major advantages of cassette tapes was the lack of random access - you just started it where you'd left off. As a result albums and mix tapes got listened to more evenly. Records and CDs favour the beginnings of albums, and MP3s lead to the universal experience of listening to someone dj-ing at a party and skipping tracks halfway through. Being spoiled for choice means many people give albums less time to grow, and fewer listens in general."

I remember listening mainly to cassettes in my formative musical years in the late 80s and early 90s (when, I admit, I really liked Def Leppard) and I think he is on to something here. There are a lot of album tracks I listened to in order to get to the bits I liked because fiddling about with fast forward or rewind was annoying. Even the few albums I had on CD got taped onto cassettes because I didn't have a CD played in my bedroom, but I did have a succession of tape-players.

(It's strange, because at the time there was a big movement saying 'home taping was killing music' but I got introduced to a lot of bands whose albums I have subsequently bought and rebought in different editions because a mate taped me a copy to listen to.)

There's a certain level of nostalgia at work there, and that is a theme for the book. The chapter titled 'In the Late Nineties Every Band I Loved Went Shit' gives it away. The following chapter slagging off Nu Metal feels a bit like an old guy complaining the music the kids are into is rubbish. The nasty comments about Linkin Park felt awkward given Chester Bennington's suicide - which was actually in the same year this book was published. I'd have taken them out for the paperback release because it really comes across as punching down. 

The book ends with a rather silly series of predictions that heavy metal will eventually take over the world, which mainly seems to be a rather long gag about the heat death of the universe arriving before the release of a new Guns & Roses album. It felt like unnecessary filler when the previous chapter about the current state of heavy metal had ended on an optimistic high point. 

And a note on indexes - the book really needed two, an index of bands and artists and an index of topics. 

So, this is 'a' history of heavy metal. I think 'the' history is probably still waiting to be written.

Monday, July 11, 2022

Marvel's religious pluralism in Thor: Love and Thunder

We went to see the latest Thor film on the weekend. It was highly enjoyable, and is the latest film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe that has theological implications that piqued my interest. There are some spoilers below the film poster - read on at your own risk of spoilerisation. There are also some spoilers for some of the Marvel TV shows, especially Ms.Marvel.


There was a lot to like in this film, from the opening few scenes that showed Thor trying the patience of the Guardians of the Galaxy until they went their separate ways, through to the reunion of Thor with Jane Foster in her guise as The Mighty Thor. I felt it was Natalie Portman's best performance in a Thor movie as she was given some material to work with both as Jane and as her version of Thor. 

Mining the same vein as Thor Ragnarok, this film contained a lot of comedy. It was fast-paced, thanks to the direction of Taika Waititi, who also voices the character Korg. It does feel like the difference between the first two Thor movies, which were helmed by Kenneth Branagh and Alan Taylor, and the most recent two is linked to the choice of director. There is also a strong musical theme in the movie, with Guns 'n' Roses songs prominent during major set pieces.  

The plot is fairly basic. There is a being called Gorr who possesses - and is possessed by - the Necrosword, a black sword that can kill gods. He embarks on a revenge mission to wipe out all gods in the universe after his god fails to intervene and save him and his daughter who are the god's last faithful worshippers.

Thor gets involved when Gorr attacks the Asgardian colony on Earth. That's more than just an attempt to kill another god - Gorr wants something else, which will lead him to his ultimate goal. 

On returning to New Asgard, Thor discovers his lost love, Jane, now possesses Mjolnir, Thor's hammer that was destroyed in the previous Thor movie. This begins a very funny sequence where Thor tries to reconnect with Mjolnir, causing his new weapon, the axe Stormbreaker, to get jealous. That sounds ridiculous, but it works surprisingly well and provides some light relief. 

Thor also tries to reconnect with Jane as they go into battle together. This includes a detour to Omnipotence City, where all the gods live. And that's where the theology gets interesting.

Marvel has gradually been co-opting every mythology into the MCU. That includes Greek myths in Eternals, Egyptian gods in the series Moon-Knight, and most recently djinns from Arabian and Muslim stories in Ms.Marvel. Now it seems they have decided that all gods exist somewhere in the universe and they are all characters. 

But - and this is an important point - Marvel have also decided that gods are not worthy of the worship afforded to them. Zeus basically says this when Thor challenges him to intervene and do the right thing. Humans - and presumably other creatures - exist to suffer for their gods and there is no eternal reward. It's an incredibly bleak perspective from a mortal point of view. 

Back when Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.2 was released, I wrote about how the movie depicted deicide. This film goes a step further into active antitheism. The gods are depicted as powerful and capricious, only interested in their own affairs. 

Marvel are hedging their bets a bit with this stance, though. Nobody really cares about the Greek, Norse or Egyptian pantheons. Marvel can do what they like with those redundant religions because nobody will get upset about what's said about those gods. Things would change quickly if Marvel started turning the gods from the big current religions into movie characters. 

Marvel might be testing that water with having a Muslim superhero in Ms.Marvel, where her religion is an important aspect of her character. However the supernatural characters in that show are djinns, which are a bit like Christian beliefs in demons. They're supposed to be real, but not something that can be blasphemed against so it's reasonably safe to make them aliens from another dimension instead. 

There has been a definite trend in the MCU from a god-like character being evil in Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.2 to the sheer narcissism of "actual" gods inviting the audience to question whether any gods are worthy of worship in Thor: Love and Thunder. Especially gods - or Gods - who let children die while the prayers of their followers go unanswered. It leaves me wondering where they might go next.