Hmmm, bit of a tricky one really...
Seems that the writer (it has to be pointed out as early as poss) is referring to Meat not as a man but as a rock star/celebrity/symbol. This seems an obvious thing to say but then Meat Loaf is a performance isn't he? So Bruce Springsteen, in all his slim majesty (alongside Keith Richards despite his excesses), represent everything that overweight, middle-age America could be. That fat in the realm of celebrity/iconland conversely represents something hideous, perhaps the hidden, unwanted side of everyday life that is the very reason we go to a Meat Loaf concert or put on a Meat Loaf record - in order to escape it. That Meat Loaf somehow throws our own physical failings back in our face when what we want to see is a "streetwise Hercules", maybe? It is unclear whether this is the viewpoint of the writer or not, but I do not think this is necessarily a bad thing. Is anyone else sick of seeing supermodel rock-stars with designer geek-boy fringes? I for one can no longer see past this into the music, which may be the point - is all this new geek-boy rock music for the eyes rather than the ears? The music is not at all amusing, not even when it is trying to be, it's gone too far up the rectum of the past and is too busy laughing at it's own jokes.
|