not logged in
| re: Alive is the best track there for me. | |
Posted by:  |
pidunk 03:49 pm UTC 04/03/07 |
| In reply to: | re: Alive is the best track there for me. - rockfenris2005 02:03 pm UTC 04/01/07 |
> > I don't get the Spanish thing either. And why label the > bat a monster? I always thought the bat was something more > interesting, like a god, or a fallen angel, or a vampire > that transforms into a towering figure igniting New York. > > > > I mean, as long as it's trying to use the Bat name anyway, > > it may as well put in a LITTLE fucking effort to have > > earned it, right? (Why is there even a motorbike on the > > front cover? Did theys top and think about what they were > > doing at ALL?) > > The front cover doesn't make sense, conceptually. The > title doesn't make sense conceptually. On the first album > we very clearly see that it's a guy erupting out of hell, > in a cemetery, because he's died and gone to hell, yet > he's breaking out of hell and there's a big bat. > > In the sequel, he's riding back into hell, he's going > "BACK INTO HELL". If you go OUT of hell, surely you must > go BACK INTO HELL. Wtf has THE MONSTER IS LOOSE got to do > with any of this? And why would the bat breathe fire? It's > totally out of sync with the previous two. If there is any > shred of continuum between the BATS, they obviously > disregarded it here. I have never thought of the imagery of "Hell" as something literal. I think of a metaphoric "Hell" probably because the cliche "Bat out of hell" didn't automatically say to me the song is about a bat leaving hell. It is "like a bat out of hell" not "ama bat out of hell" and this gives me that impression. The impression not to take it literally. It also can't be taken literally that someone's heart would fly out of their chest at the moment of death. The imagery seems to be more like a lament of a life unfinished even as the body is done, but with an added twist like the environment was so bad that the innocence of the heart can't stand it any longer than it is chained to it. Then the metaphor to be considered for "Back Into Hell" might be a return to the environment, a courageous foray into the known evils of life, after a respite. If this is an interpretation that holds together, and if there is some conceptual effort at the Bat metaphor being continued, and if that metaphor is being continued with the cover art of "Bat III", then the focus might be changed from "Hell" to that of the "Bat" that either leaves hell or comes back into hell. Is this a good bat or a bad bat? Is the bat a tame mousy like creature or is the bat a monster? It seems like the artist interprets the bat as a monster. Maybe I would not agree with this as a continuation because the heart being like a bat out of hell does not indicate the bat metaphor as an evil thing. But if Bat III does not actually continue the metaphor, but is more to the real perception of what a bat is, there is much to be thought monstrous of bats. Nobody really likes to see a bat. And apparently the original character, like in the original conception of Bat Out of Hell prior to Meatloaf, has some company. Maybe Bat 1 is leaving one, Bat 2 is coming back to one, and Bat 3 is having one. Hmm. Now you will trounce me. The cover art is not something I connect to the album, though. As a series in a conceptual stream, I can appreciate it. It could have been better if Desmond Child would have been a little less Desmond Childly. | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | Second Thoughts about Cover Art - pidunk 04:46 pm UTC 04/03/07 |
| Next: | re: Alive is the best track there for me. - Markus 11:12 pm UTC 04/03/07 |
| Thread: |
|