47

nice review and.. best wishes

I agree with the discussion about attitude, background, and the stature of the artist who composes a piece. But this definition does not take talent into account. Talent is not just about ideas; it can also be found in very petty personalities. It is what allows even the reworking of clichés to create something valid, a intertwining of notes that has something to say regardless of the artist. Hypothetically removing notions of attitudes and ideological/musical currents, what remains? Music, just that, and if the judgment about it changes based on posthumous knowledge of who made it, well, then the criteria for judgment become contradictory. An exceptional person whose thoughts we widely share is not necessarily a great artist! A hack who picks up a guitar and randomly makes noise can give rise to a great conceptual outburst, to a significant expression, but not necessarily to great music.

@pixies77: now I have to go out, then I’ll reply to you too. (even if your message was directed at lux) and anyway, I still like the first dt as well, even though I haven’t listened to them in ages...

Here, now don't exaggerate (presumptively). I understand what you're saying about artificiality, but generally, I don't agree with you. Intellectual ostentation is negative, just as a display of feminine beauty without underlying sensuality, without femininity, can be. However, greater mastery of "craft" allows for reaching broader shores; the classic example is the writer who has much to say but lacks any lexical mastery. And anyway, let's start from the premise that rock itself has completely different ends, which is why it inevitably clashes. What I criticized in you is an attitude exemplifiable in a situation like this: while Oasis are for the masses, Radiohead are, let's say, niche (or better yet, a niche within the masses), and when even within this niche one wants to create another niche, one can end up defending the spontaneity of Oasis against the artificiality of Radiohead. Or say that The Bends is their best album. Or, in general, to view "indie" to also include prog metal, with entirely different ends and means, and to accuse it of asepticism and inexpressiveness. I start from the premise that even musical content is part of a certain exteriority, of form, so elements like attitude are completely irrelevant to my judgment, at least ideally. Lateralus by Tool is calculated, mechanical, and not spontaneous at all, but I really don't see any presumption or ostentation of means in it, and anyway, such a riff is the same whether it’s played by a genius or some jerk.

You're right, that phrase was kind of thrown out there. And indeed, I'm feeling quite lukewarm about it... I don't know who the cripple bastards are...

In front of mediocre groups, the phrase always comes up: "there are those who love them and those who hate them, no middle ground..."

Here I am again. I wasn't expecting this discussion, but coincidentally, during this time I've been talking to others precisely about Oasis. Intellectual honesty is not a ridiculous pose, but behaving accordingly, a priori, is. It's the "common thread" of a judgment, as if the human mind worked on wires (conductors) and binaries, and not completely according to moods. But then, who’s attacking you? I’m nervous, yes, and I was sure I saw a four on the record, added to the fact that your intervention came to me with arrogance. The affectionate epithet "sgangherato" I replace with "common" and "approximate," even if dressed up for the occasion and forcibly thrust into such ridiculous rock and roll rhetoric. (Genuine and spontaneous, my ass.) To me, approximation and ignorance in music, doing things half-assed (but not with dada awareness, of course), irritate me and stem from a wrong approach to composition; Oasis doesn’t know what they’re doing, but the record labels know very well what they are selling. The result is just a trivialization of all those means that Oasis employs, but without context and understanding. In fact, they deny those aesthetic values that have given rock its artistic dignity.

conforming in anticonformism is hypocritical conformism, I’ve said it before. The "alternative" listener puts on a record, and the listener who doesn’t want to be part of that current (as they are above such tendencies) always boasts some consistency of judgment (intellectual honesty, indeed) which, in fact, is another ridiculous pose that nonetheless misleads from giving an objective judgment. This is you. I care little about my consistency; this record disgusts me because it was released in 1994 and because it’s ugly. Apparently, this record is better for you than Lateralus. The "such artificial production": wall of sound, overdubbing, "open" and grandiloquent sounds, filtered choirs.

genuine and true tracks, you talk about going against massified thoughts at all costs, as if I don't have my reasons for going against the oasis. I couldn't care less about others’ opinions on certain products, to the point that I also appreciate artists from the "blacklist of the alternative listener." Tracks with such artificial production, with an absolute lack of "substance," phoned in like any summer hit but embellished with overlaid rock guitars a thousand times, you call them genuine? A low-quality product remains low-quality regardless of public acclaim (a friend told me, "shut up, they won the Brit Awards, not Radiohead..") which, if excessive, only prompts reflection on the uselessness of this empty and well-behaved society.. and I don't even spare a glance at the ultra-derivative indie.

The Oasis make me feel sick. Whether it's pop or rock, their songs are trivial, the lyrics are idiotic, the production of their albums is vomit-inducing, and those three decent ideas are copied and woefully anachronistic. Often, Oasis fans dismiss any "innovative" musical proposals (and that’s saying something, considering they’re stuck in the early Beatles), and ultimately they resort to the fact that their favorites at least have "style." They don't deserve any of what they have achieved, less than anyone else. It seems pointless to list what came out in '94 (!), but for fuck's sake, 10 million copies make me ashamed to be part of humanity.