Raffomaster

I wanted to comment on the review because in certain parts it’s absurd, a sign that something is off ihih:
1) "Metallica" has no thrash elements, apart from sporadic episodes (which is criticizable).
2) The "mediocre" ...and justice =D To call it mediocre, we might refer to the production, the mixing, certain sounds, the massive use of editing on the drums... but calling it mediocre when it’s actually stunning seems a bit excessive =D
3) Blues elements in Death Magnetic? I mean, do you know what blues is? And more importantly, do you believe that Hammett's usual phrases about the minor pentatonic are synonymous with blues? =D
4) Acoustic guitar in the first track? Do you know the difference between an acoustic and a clean electric? =D
5) Nice to say "blues metal" for Cyanide =D I mean, there’s no blues there at all, but to even say "blues metal" is an insult to the blues, you know. You’re not 14, are you? O.o
6) Judas Kiss recalls Reload in certain parts, like in the chorus (very nice and full of grit, in my opinion) and in the solo (awful and totally predictable). But it’s simply a heavy rock song, not exactly Reload material.
7) The instrumental nu metal? Do you even know what nu metal is, for crying out loud? Repeating a riff doesn’t mean you’re doing nu metal, it means you’re just repeating it! Ridiculous!
8) AND WITH COMMENT NUMBER 8, WE REACH THE LIMIT OF TOLERANCE: WHERE THE HELL ARE THE FUNK AND BLUES ELEMENTS????? I mean, do you even know what FUNK is???
Good album, not exceptional, but very enjoyable, aside from some "strange" situations. Hammett’s solos are a bit disgusting, especially the one in Judas Kiss or Cyanide... the others are better, but repeating the same ridiculous licks on guitar for over 30 years while delivering such poor solos seems a bit pathetic. James is in shape on the rhythms, not so much on the vocals... I don’t like it. Lars, well, Lars... terrible, not to mention the really mediocre drum sounds. Thank goodness the "extraordinary" flaws add up to produce a band that can still give something, with Robert on bass always perfect (and damn!).
But none of this justifies the fact that you can write such absurdities. Maybe tomorrow I'll write a review on Madonna and say "this song reminds me of the thrash of the early Metallica, and the melodic death of Dark Tranquility XD.
You call others kids, but you write "there's blues here, there's FUNK here" without really knowing what those genres are.
FUNK AHAHAHHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAHAH.
Alright, goodnight then!

To confirm my idea, take a look at what the Saint Louis newsletter sends me:
"Many musicians and vocalists can perform unimaginable virtuosity but lack the ‘sign’ that can make the difference. There are many ‘clones’ who have absorbed a style and dressed in it without it being their true skin." ... I was right, wasn’t I?

Billy, I can't disagree with you! For example, I have a lot of respect for Dream Theater; they are an incredible band and make exquisite music! John Petrucci, for instance, is a shredder with remarkable taste! So I repeat, virtuosity is not nonsense; on the contrary! I was simply saying that some musicians (guitarists, drummers, pianists, etc.) tend to focus too much on technique, which can impede their ability to communicate. Yngwie Malmsteen is like that, or Michael Angelo! Oh man, Michael Angelo... you hear him and you feel like throwing up... always super-fast, never plays anything with taste! My teacher (the one from my little town) always tells me this when he improvises over a generic backing track: "Start learning to improvise. Knowing the scales is important, but you shouldn’t lose the taste and the right dimension when using scales. You need to find the right 'degrees' (in simpler terms, for those who aren’t musicians, the degrees are the various notes of a scale...). Use degrees to create some tension, then resolve!" Do you know how I felt when he improvised with just 2 notes? I would get chills—two simple, slow notes that conveyed far more than all the technicalities. He always reminds me of guitarist Pat Metheny, a great electric jazz guitarist, who sometimes stays on one note even when the other instruments change chords. So what I want to say is: showing that you are a great guitarist essentially means knowing how to play the guitar. KNOWING HOW TO PLAY THE GUITAR DOES NOT MEAN BEING HYPER-TECHNICAL, BUT ABOVE ALL KNOWING WHAT TO DO IN ANY SITUATION, EVEN WITH THE SIMPLEST NOTE! Pat Metheny teaches that! Back to the album, Kirk Hammett is one of those: he doesn’t use monstrous techniques (also because he can't do them), but with a solo, he manages to communicate so much.

Ehehe finally I managed to explain myself well! I’m sorry to have been misunderstood that way, but now you know my thoughts and I hope you like them! However, there’s one thing I must say: everyone has their own tastes, that’s obvious. For us, for example, the art is what we've explained so far, and for fans of Steve Vai, the virtuosity and all that is their foundation! I mean, in the end, all music can be beautiful and authentic (setting aside the business............), but we all interpret it differently! It’s like saying I love Kubrick (a genius), but many people dislike him because of the difficulty his films present to the "audience"! It’s all a matter of taste! This is why I said that this album is not to be thrown away; if anything, it’s the commercial turn that should be discarded, but in the end, it’s a calm record that can be listened to!

But look Billy, virtuosities can be art! I didn’t say that virtuosities are garbage! Steve Vai, however, in my way of listening, is many times exaggerated, sometimes dreamy and fantastic, sometimes trivial and sometimes genius! Tender Surrender, Sister, For The Love Of God are testaments to this!

No, I took it personally because they told me I was like Steve Vai, you know, someone who makes technique their job. Which, based on these comments, is false, because I hate those things. I was misunderstood because I said I was going to Saint Louis (as a commuter), and they thought I was the classic super-technical guitarist without heart. In fact, I've always repeated in this review that I couldn't care less about technique! For example, I recorded some little songs, just to try, and I never wanted to create super-fast stuff (also because I can't do it) especially because I think they suck. Music is lived in its essence: humility, passion, and courage in proposing. Anyway, after all the comments, I still can't say that Vic's review is exciting, well, it's a matter of tastes!

Exactly, Lux, that’s what I wanted to say! Occasionally showing off can be nice, why not? It obviously depends on the genre you’re playing; if you're doing light music, then definitely not! Look at the difference between Jimy Hendrix (the old school rock-blues guitarist) and Steve Vai (uh... hard rock, guitar rock, acoustic... I don’t know!): the difference lies in expression. I adore Jimy Hendrix because he’s never excessive, he never "clashes" with his pieces; simply put, he made (made... sigh!) the audience dream, with doses of madness and everything! Then we get to Steve Vai, the "rock" guitarist who throws you mind-blowing solos (and sorry if I sound blasphemous)… okay, he’s brilliant, an exceptional guitarist, he knows everything, yadda yadda... but most of the time, what does he leave the audience with, perhaps from different musical backgrounds? NOTHING!! ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Maybe at a concert, all the viewers will say "exceptional," but he can’t be compared to the great guitarists who made history, like Blackmore, Hendrix, Page, Fripp, Knopfler. I repeat: virtuosity can also be beautiful, but most of it is EMPTY! And then the moves on stage that Steve Vai does… the clown, just to say "I’m amazing, take this shred, you’ll never reach where I am"... please, long live serious music, long live music as a passion, and long live HUMILITY, which would be good to recognize once in a while...

Wait, Billy, Steve Vai is a guitar genius (that rock one...) as everyone else says, meaning that a genius is someone who can do everything! But Hendrix is a genius and talent combined, with his "discoveries," connecting the Marshalls in that way to create such raw and distorted sounds (and indeed the 100 Watt heads burned out after a few days, hihhi), inspiring soloing and arpeggios, like Little Wing! Even Steve Vai, Kirk Hammett, Stevie Ray Vaughan, and many other guitarists have drawn inspiration from him! What I mean is that Hendrix is not just a genius, meaning capable of doing everything, but above all a monstrous talent!

Then, I say it one more time: just because I go to Saint Louis doesn’t mean I look down on those who lack technique! But come on, is it really that hard to understand? I MUCH PREFER PEOPLE WHO MAKE MUSIC WITH THEIR HEART, SIMPLE MUSIC, 5 CHORDS AND THAT'S IT, MAYBE ARPEGGIATED AND NOT THE TECHNIQUE. I MYSELF AM NOT A PHENOMENAL GUITARIST, JUST AN AVERAGE GUITARIST WHO PLAYS WITH HIS HEART, AND I HATE A LOT OF USELESS VIRTUOSITY... NOW DO YOU UNDERSTAND? MUSIC WITH HEART, HEART, HEART... for example, I make very simple music, two chords and that’s it, a few arpeggios and that’s it. I’m satisfied with little, and people who listen to simple stuff are usually happier than those who play solos for 10 minutes at 300 an hour and leave nothing for the listener, just emptiness. So, don’t say that I’m “below the school,” because that’s absolutely not true. Just because I go to a school doesn’t mean I identify with all the clones out there… I hope I’ve made myself clear, because I really don’t want to be called “scholastic” when I’m not at all, on the contrary, I’m quite anti-scholastic… I prefer the passion for music over technicalities, which I don’t like very much.