Stoney

The DT sought popularity but they didn't achieve it as they wanted. Aside from the first album, starting from Images and Words, they tried to amaze the whole world with special effects, melding technique and expressiveness without realizing that it's a trivial and obvious thing because everyone has always done that normally. Therefore, unfortunately, they only resonated with metalheads because only metalheads are astonished when technique and expressiveness come together. Yes, because they are used to listening to only noise, so someone who can string two notes together is considered a genius, and if they can also handle an instrument, they are seen as a god on earth. So, you understand, with Dream Theater, any metalhead went crazy with excitement. For me, saying that a musician is good because they can combine technique and expressiveness is like saying that a driver is good because they can hold the steering wheel while shifting gears. It’s an obvious thing. No one disregards melody or technique; no one considers them two separate and mutually independent things: this only happens in metal, and this should already indicate the kind of musical ignorance in that environment. So pieces like Another Day, with its melody so standard and obvious, become almost the only possible melody in the universe to the ears of a thrash metal fan, while for someone passionate about not just jazz or classical music, but, for example, blues, it could very well be a little piece of crap written by five depressed people. And so what happened? The worst thing that can happen to an artist: being considered a freak show phenomenon. There’s nothing sadder than playing while trying to express your own ideas and feelings and being considered a god just because you can perform technical exercises that are ends in themselves, presenting yourself to the public with an album like Awake, which talks about spiritual crisis, or writing a story like Metropolis Pt. II, using your own music to open up to the world and seeing that the audience doesn’t care about you as long as you’re playing sixteenth notes at a metronome of 130. You’re there wanting to say something but everyone responds “Hey Petru, show us how you strum!” It’s humiliating, truly. Discovering that you've managed to give a dehumanized image of yourself while making music, that is, the quintessential human art, the instrument that should convey feelings more than any other, and seeing that when you do seminars, people don't compliment you for the feelings you communicate but because you can play fast or can hit clean high notes with your voice. It’s grotesque, tragicomic. I genuinely pity them.

"Ah, parentheses: do you know how many bands, even underground ones, have made videos that then didn’t end up on MTV? There are other broadcasters, there are other communication channels." And in fact, that's what I'm saying. It's you who think that to be commercial you have to go on TRL. Metal has its spaces where it is widely promoted, and there is a way of being commercial even while making metal and doing nice solos; it just changes the segment of the audience being addressed, but certainly not the intent of maximizing one's profits. There are plenty of people who react to a piece like The Dance Of Eternity exactly like a teenage girl reacts to Tiziano Ferro, that is, they completely lose objectivity and adopt a sad idolizing behavior, so what's the difference? The form of the final product? And what does it change when the intent behind it is the same? Giving the audience the show they want: this is what’s commercial; the aesthetic form of the product is secondary. The girl wants the handsome boy with the clean face who dances and sings about love, and the metalhead wants the guitarist who does a solo that's half melodic and half show-off (like much of Petrucci's solos). Do you really think that metal is an "uncatchy" genre and therefore not commercial? And where is it written that easily accessible music must be melodic? There are people who are thrilled just by hearing a double kick and a growl; in my opinion, these people and, for example, the hardcore clubbers are two sides of the same phenomenon: using music to pose as something "different" or "better." It's not the music you listen to that makes the difference; you can't save yourself in the corner by saying, "Well, but in metal there are more valid musicians while club music is for idiots," that's an excuse, and it's not always true. A lot of people in metal can't play and just make a racket, or they can play but have no taste whatsoever, yet they sell and are appreciated by that audience that wants just noise and impact. So... And then do you know how many fans of DT I know who can't listen to anything else, who think that DT are the beginning and the end of everything, who are amazed by their technique and melodic ideas thinking they are the utmost possible? Then when you play them bands capable of playing much less trivial melodies using double the technique but half the showmanship, they don’t understand or fail to catch it. Clearly, I think, what these people are looking for in music is the "excitement" that comes from seeing virtuosity taken to the extreme, the trivial spectacle of demonstrating a test of strength that materializes in a solo or in a "hard to execute but also beautiful" piece (as if there normally existed "nice pieces" that are easy to play...), so where's the difference compared to the rest of the audience? Being commercial takes many forms; it can be done by appearing on TRL, playing thrash, brutal, avant-garde music, electronic or classical music; what's important is to exploit the easy grab on the audience, the most immediate and expected effect of entertainment.

But let me understand: do you think commercial = pop = Laura Pausini? We need to stop thinking that anyone who plays metal is automatically non-commercial, because you see, there are a lot of metalheads in the world. Just in Italy, there are millions; don't be fooled by the fact that you don't see them on TV, and in America and the rest of Europe, they are in droves. So, metal is perhaps the music with the widest possible market today precisely because its fans often resemble either devotees of some religion or stadium ultras. It's often thought that metal is not commercial by citing examples from the '80s, and people say that back then it was real music... but we say that judging it by today’s standards. Take, for example, Kill 'em All; when it came out in 1981, it was perfectly in line with the times and followed all the trends of the moment, so I don't see this indifference to commerciality. Another Day, going back to DT, is a song that a 15-year-old girl, who is ignorant of music, could easily listen to because it's very catchy and easy to understand, and I'm sorry to say it, but it was perfectly fitting in a musical context where ballads in the style of Europe topped the charts. Complicated music is a whole different thing. Commercial is anything that has a sufficiently large market to allow the formation of a billion-dollar business, and I’m sorry to say that DT fits this definition. That doesn't mean they’re automatically garbage; after all, everyone listens to whatever music they like, but please, let’s stop objectifying their supposed greatness by saying they are not commercial because that’s bullshit, and a pretty big one at that.

I will not comment on the album, but I will make an observation. You say: With "Forsaken" we reach the lowest point of the whole work, it’s a little song, somewhat pop rock (!!!!) suitable for MTV. But just look, Dream Theater has been on MTV since they made Images And Words. Otherwise, why did they make the videos for Another Day and Take The Time? For personal taste? And the videos for Lie and The Silent Man? Not to mention those released for Falling into Infinity. Coincidentally... the most "catchy" tracks (in the video for Take The Time a nice piece of the instrumental part is cut out). The DT have always been influenced by the trends of the moment; even the albums from the 90s had an eye on the trends, but obviously for those who discover them now, they are non-commercial, given that trends have changed. Today they do the same thing, but when they dip into the commercial, it’s immediately noticeable: the DT have never changed, let’s put an end to this story. Dream Theater certainly doesn’t play on MTV Italy (but they are sold out every time they come to Italy), but on the American one, they’ve been around for a while. Wake up.

Well, what to expect from someone who writes "grange" with an "a"? Pseudo catchy grunge in the style of Nirvana? Uhm, but have you only heard Nirvana's "Come As You Are"? Because the rest doesn’t seem that catchy to me, you know? … And defining this album as "grunge" shows a complete lack of understanding. This album is primarily rock. If only there were more rock like this today, amidst the various Tokio Hotel, My Chemical Romance, and similar crap that infests the minds of this troubled generation. Sure, in the '90s we were in a bad place too, but if the reaction to discomfort was the grunge movement and albums like these, it means we were at least able to find some small references. Ten, VS, Vitalogy, a sign of changing times: the previous generation raised their voices and self-analyzed, producing work of similar depth, while today's generation is just competing over who is cooler and who flaunts their intellectual nothingness more. Sorry waties, but I proudly hold on to my "definitely crappy albums." You go back to listening to metal, emo, or whatever else you put in your stereo before throwing out such judgments.

Unfortunately, it’s not exactly like that: the truth is that as long as you don't make easy, catchy music to the point of ridiculousness and especially idiocy, you don't sell. People don’t like you if you do something intelligent or even slightly demanding; that’s the problem. At this point, I really prefer Pausini with her fake-sentimental clichés; at least when she sings, you understand what she’s talking about. But Ligabue, Vasco Rossi, what are they talking about? What they write in the lyrics isn’t even Italian. Nonexistent syntax, grammar thrown out the window, and all this because the standard has to be low, as low as possible, below the minimum threshold of intelligence and dignity, otherwise, you don’t become cool and no one buys your records. What do you do, write in correct Italian? No, you have to appeal to the kids, who are already forced to think enough in school... That’s the sadness. I stopped believing a long time ago that music could stimulate people and make them more aware (after all, we’re always talking about art); now, as time goes on, I realize that music, besides making tons of money for those who work in it, serves only to make the masses of sheep even more masses and even more sheep.

Maybe: in the end, Pausini is a singer who does what you expect from a chart-topping Italian singer, that is, crappy music, but at least you know it, and no one tries to give her merits she doesn't have. What really irritates me, though, is that in Italy there’s a large group of people who are desperate to praise people like Ligabue and Vasco Rossi, saying they are rock legends...

For me, Subsonica have always represented the involution of human thought, in music and beyond. They are one of the worst commercial bands to ever exist, yet for some reason, they have always been considered a "substantial," "elevated," and "conceptual" band. This undoubtedly indicates, in my opinion, that the Italian music audience has never understood anything and is satisfied with nothingness as long as it is prettily dressed and well packaged. They are just a mishmash of poorly made electronic sounds, stupid poses (just look at how the singer moves on stage), and lyrics like "I don’t know what to write, but if I put together four ambiguous phrases, people will think there’s a hidden poetic meaning." Annoying as a bout of diarrhea. Just associating them with Nine Inch Nails sends chills down my spine. And then another observation. You say, "if they're settling for a generational turnover of new kids who just want the trendy poses, amen." Doesn’t it occur to you that perhaps when you and the people your age started following them, it was exactly the same? Maybe those trendy poses and the electronic samples, adapted to the time when you discovered them, had the same effect on you that they have today on fresh-faced teenagers. It’s not that they suddenly became commercial; they have always been commercial. It’s just that, of course, they adapted the product to the times and changing trends. This means that throughout their career, these guys have constantly thought about the most successful market strategies, keeping a keen eye on fashions to capture the largest possible share of the audience.

Well. The Vibrators are a mediocre band, but there are far worse chart groups that get on my nerves. All in all, they seem harmless to me, the kind that if you don’t think about them, they won’t bother you. Unfortunately, the same can’t be said for the Finley and the whole wave of Emo crap that’s popular these days. I almost find myself longing for the time when "Nord Sud Ovest Est" by the 883 was still on TV...

"The grunge of Nirvana and Alice In Chains is welcomed like a child by trendy broadcasters like MTV." Indeed. After all, metal had already had its time on MTV in the '80s and early '90s, and MTV had filled its pockets. Let's say that for a good 15 years, metal sufficiently shattered the norms and generated a whirlwind of billions that still continues to this day. But we know, metalheads are hard to die off, and heaven help you if you tell them that their music has been and is a trend. Grunge (a genre born on the streets almost by chance, and only later commercialized) had its development and peak within 5 years and then had the decency to die. The same cannot be said for metal, which has sold, sells, and will continue to sell, supported by its die-hard fans who only need a double kick drum and the same guitar riffs that have been unchanged for 30 years to cry miracle. After all, it takes very little to end the discussion: if we want to talk about commerciality, it doesn’t seem to me that Slayer are bums; on the contrary, and I don’t think most of the most praised metal bands, often cited as examples of "non-commercial" music, are either.