Stoney

Well, everyone is like that, always! First, you write lavish reviews in which you say that your favorite bands are OBJECTIVELY more powerful than Jesus Christ and the Almighty combined, then as soon as someone says "a," you clarify that it was only "FOR YOU," or "in your taste," and that it wasn't meant to be an objective judgment but a personal one.

Well, everyone is like that, always! First, you write lavish reviews in which you say that your favorite bands are OBJECTIVELY more powerful than Jesus Christ and the Almighty combined, then as soon as someone says "a," you clarify that it was only "FOR YOU," or "in your taste," and that it wasn't meant to be an objective judgment but a personal one.

Well, everyone is like that, always! First, you write lavish reviews in which you say that your favorite bands are OBJECTIVELY more powerful than Jesus Christ and the Almighty combined, then as soon as someone says "a," you clarify that it was only "FOR YOU," or "in your taste," and that it wasn't meant to be an objective judgment but a personal one.

@ actingout

I quote from one of your previous comments: "Symphony X have certainly not been fundamental to the history of rock, but to say that Tool has!!! I made that reference in the review not by chance: I meant to say that FOR ME a band like Tool, which I find pretty trivial, repetitive, and massively overrated (but what class?!), should play their own pieces with the approach and setup of Symphony X to do something good... just my personal opinion!" Let's talk about it. What do you mean they should play THEIR pieces with the setup of SYMPHONY X? It’s like saying that since I like Pink Floyd then Sepultura should play with their same approach to do something good. Doesn’t it occur to you that Tool plays that way because they want to? Doesn’t it occur to you that the sound and final result of any Tool album have been studied, researched, exactly like that of Symphony X (if not perhaps more), and that the members of Tool are satisfied with how the albums sound and their ideas? Doesn't it occur to you that if Tool played with a different sound and approach they wouldn't be Tool anymore? No, it doesn't occur to you, and do you know why? Because like all metalheads, you believe that either you play like Symphony X, Dream Theater, and so on, OR you can't play. It's an either/or situation. For you, there exists a single great genre reserved for the gods of music and instrument, while all other genres are a "fallback" for those who cannot afford to enter the pantheon of virtuosos. Perhaps I exaggerate, but I really think you believe that those who play grunge, punk, rock do not do so by conscious choice but rather because they are incapable of playing "properly" (i.e. adhering to mandatory criteria that, coincidentally, exist in progressive and nowhere else), as if that were by definition the genre everyone aspires to, and I don’t know whether that makes me laugh or angers me more. Doesn’t it occur to you that a huge number of musicians (myself included in my small way), couldn't care less about playing like Michael Romeo or John Petrucci, not out of insensitivity or laziness, but because given an instrument there are a billion different ways to play it, and it doesn’t make sense to say which is "better"? I don’t go crazy over Tool, but I appreciate them immensely and recognize them as having a great personality and an extraordinary expressiveness, and I think they’re perfectly fine as they are; I would never dream of saying they should play like another band...because that would simply be crazy. Only a prog-metal fan would go so far, only a prog-metal fan is capable of making such nonsensical comparisons that are so sadly indicative of musical ignorance; in all other genres, the concept of "comparison" is something alien. Have you ever heard two art critics, or two music critics, making comparisons between, say, two painters, two sculptors, or two classical composers to determine who is "better" or "worse", as if it were a boxing match or a foot race? I haven't. But you did it in the review, and in the comment I quoted, and I pointed it out to you with a thousand arguments. I am neither a casual detractor nor do I wish to set myself up as a "paladin of truth", I simply call it as I see it when certain things seem to me to be nonsense.

To the "sociologist" from the comment above. If your ex was a loser who pretended to be Elio e le storie tese to compensate for his frustrations, that's not our fault, and you can't generalize. Judging by how you talk, though, the real loser seems to be you, you know?... like one of those who spends all their time studying and making bizarre conjectures instead of looking for a normal guy. Regards.

Everything is really possible. For example, that these 4 idiots made an album with a billion-dollar production and promotional videos that cost a fortune, and that they actually became successful. I'm not even that upset with them, because in the end, they have the opportunity to play and earn a lot of money, so what should they do? I'm upset with those who produce them and especially with those who listen to them, who should at least be ashamed.

If these "musicians" (and I can barely suppress a gag when associating that word with these people) are "the best rock band in the country" (which country in which universe?) then ANY group that plays in clubs across Italy for fun or in their spare time would deserve to be remembered in history alongside the Beatles and the Rolling Stones. And unfortunately, this is not just a joke, as the fact that these incompetents (pardon the compliment) are stealing the spotlight and the market from those who actually know how to play is a very serious issue both musically and culturally, and it fills me with a sadness I can't even begin to describe. The only thing that might bring me some peace is hoping that the person who wrote the review is no older than 10 years...

When music becomes so self-referential that it focuses the listener's attention solely on technique and beauty of form, it means it has nothing left to say. Like a speech in political jargon that talks about nothing, but with elegant and grandiose words, managing to astonish the dazed audience into believing that the speaker has said something important. This is what SymphonyX, Dream Theater, Stratovarius, and all their ilk represent. To me, music is an expression of content, not form. Someone who spends their life learning to play perfectly without having anything to say is not an artist, nor a good musician: they are simply a poor soul who has failed to use their time constructively. Better a tape from the worst punk band of tone-deaf, inept 15-year-olds recorded in a garage with a broken microphone, at least there's a willingness to play and passion, unlike the records of these mercenaries of nothing disguised as music. To me, they could be wiped off the face of the earth along with all the pseudo-musicians who have managed to strip rock of all its deeper meanings (and that takes some doing...). Wretched exhibitionists, party tricksters capable of impressing only kids. If there weren't so much musical ignorance, these people would be forced to toil the land to earn a living, and that would be just fine.

This record is really interesting... I never would have believed I’d spend even a single positive adjective in favor of Richard Benson in my life, but it seems I have to! Really beautiful!

Allevi is part of that (unfortunately large) group of musicians that the record market sells as "cultured" music, so a lot of people buy the records and feel "cultured" as a result, allowing them to boast or engage in discussions about music feeling like connoisseurs. "Oh, damn, Allevi... an exceptional pianist," and they might have never understood jazz, maybe someone in the past tried to make them listen to Jarrett or Miles Davis, and they thought, "What is this chaotic noise of meaningless notes?" It’s not my intention to offend anyone; this is a general observation, and I assure you that I've met quite a few people who have made similar statements, which has raised some doubts for me. I don't want to pretend to be a connoisseur myself because I understand very little about jazz, but enough to not scream miracles regarding Allevi's records. Of course, this doesn't mean that ALL those who listen to Allevi think this way, nor is this discourse meant to be a critique—far from it... I consider it more of an invitation to simply take him for what he is, without exaggerating and without getting into heated arguments, for example, if you compare him to Mozart... because then you're perhaps losing a bit of the sense of proportion, that's all.