Stoney

the rest of the piece (so they aren’t melodies in the full sense of the term, they are interludes, other notes from the same scale could fit in and nothing would change at all). "Outrageous" is a power piece that could fit on "Angels Cry" right after Carry On and everything would sound perfectly normal. In short, Kiko Loureiro here, in my opinion, accomplishes what has been the mission of every metal guitarist dealing with a solo album for the past 20 years: sneaking into the folds of every musical genre that isn’t metal and smashing everything with alternate picking, only to say “see, I’m good, I can play other genres too!” However, it’s actually false because these “other genres” are played with exactly the same scheme as metal, in a rough manner, simply called in from afar, juxtaposed one after another and not skillfully fused as a musician attempting such an endeavor should know how to do. Once again, this album confirms how those who play this genre, even if prepared and with the best intentions, are unable to fully detach themselves from a banal intuitive and compositional simplicity characteristic of this genre, falling into yet another attempt to dress up the already heard with a bunch of seemingly new frills in form but always the same in substance. However, I don’t deny that this album can be found enjoyable, that it can be listened to without necessarily applying one’s critical sense: after all, music is also and above all meant for fun. Best regards.

Acqualife, I finally listened to this album. Honestly, I didn't expect anything different from what I found, which is an album so steeped in prog like Dream Theater that it overshadows any desire to play other genres. Take "Desperado," for example; the only Latin thing about it is the percussion and the groove (or rather, the intention of the groove...), and by the way, that lasts for about 10 seconds in total on a 4-minute track. Let's be honest: the "Latin" genre is quite complicated to play, requiring a lot of technique that, in my opinion, this guitarist does not possess, because he has a different kind of skill. Should we perhaps compare the complexity of rhythms, the touch, and the class that Latin American musicians possess with the same, hyper-compressed sound that permeates this album from start to finish? The image that comes to mind is that of a steamroller flattening everything, smoothing out every dynamic to a standard state. The "planing effect" of metal is felt everywhere, always lurking and never missing an opportunity to flatten the compositional approach, which is always the same in every part of the album. Take "Se Entrega Corisco," which starts in a salsa style (or at least wants to, because two diminished chords played rhythmically are not enough to make salsa music), only to have the same old sound knock everything down. Every 3 seconds, there are completely gratuitous notes as instructed by the manual of the perfect prog musician since 1990, cliché upon cliché that do not stray from the dictates imposed 20 years ago but instead do everything to revel in them, and manage to trivialize even those few interesting ideas that occasionally peek through. It seems almost as if the guitarist cannot play a meaningful phrase (musically) without succumbing to the temptation of indulging in completely unfounded, baroque, verbose runs, or bursts of palm-muting and hyper-technicalities already heard on any album by Angra, Dream Theater, Symphony X, Pain of Salvation, Helloween, Gamma Ray, Stratovarius, and whoever else... "A Clairvoyance" is the slow piece that MUST be on every metal guitarist's album because it MUST answer the unspoken question, "let's see if you can play without distortion; otherwise, everyone can." This intent behind it prevents me from judging a piece like this objectively; even if it were beautiful, it was played solely with the intent of demonstrating something to the listener. The same goes for the other "slow" pieces on the album, including the closing "Ad it is, infinite," which, besides being strictly standard in its genre (once again, it opened the "manual" and followed the instructions to the letter), has nothing to do on an album like this. It could have made two albums, one prog and one of South American music; why shove a piece like that after a power ballad if not for mere demonstration? This album, like all those in its genre, is therefore more of a demonstrative essay than an artistic product created with a communicative intent (because let's face it, if you want to be considered a good musician, you have to say something; you can't just rely on form), and personally, this prevents me from liking it. You talk about genre blending, but in reality, I see only a certain number of vignettes with a vague South American flavor that occasionally pop out from behind the wall of double pedal and saturated sound, moreover played with the same approach, if not even in some cases with the same dynamics as the metal pieces. "Corrosive Voices" is a piece that could very well be played by Petrucci or Michael Romeo; nothing different. Personally, I find this type of composition very banal, alternating moments where the listener doesn't understand anything and thinks, "oh my god, how many notes did he play in a second?" with "melodic" phrases where the melody is not sought after, but just 3-4 random notes thrown in to break up the technical fury dominating the rest of the piece (so they are not melodi

@Taxirider, if the left were to go and speak in factories today, they would be pelted with tools and machinery. This is because it has been ridiculed in every possible way; at this point, even Christ himself could run with the left, and they would find a way to label him a charlatan. Unfortunately, the left has been playing the role of the insecure child being mocked by classmates for 20 years, relying solely on the understanding/compassion of a few sensitive souls still capable of being moved. Now, I believe it’s time for this child to grow up and earn some respect; otherwise, someone will need to throw him out of the classroom to send him to a good psychologist. Evidently, the representatives of the left don't see it this way, as they are now simply saying, "vote for us, please, do it even if we annoy you, because if Berlusconi wins again, there will be chaos." All of this is very shameful, and even more shameful is the fact that this time it seems they are right...

I disagree, The Punisher, people are capable of killing for Fregna... :D

Exactly, Hardrock, exactly, I like this expression "work regardless". Let's say everyone is working hard to be first among the slaves, and even brag about it.

@Taxirider, I believe you, it's easy for everyone to engage in low populism to gain consensus, the real issue is: why in 2009 are people unable to understand with their own heads that programs like the ones you describe are populist, sensationalist, and ultimately a bit dangerous? Because if people were a bit more aware, perhaps the equation populism=consensus wouldn't be so immediate. Speaking of the left, the point is that precisely because image matters now, immediacy, and ease, the left, which has always focused on a more "reflective" attitude, struggles to reach the people. In this cultural climate, anyone who tries to express any political content is immediately labeled as incapable or idealistic, and there you go—no matter how many evolutions leftist thought may undergo, it remains confined to an increasingly smaller and restricted circle. Personally, I see a surge of instinctiveness and immediacy everywhere, not just in politics, and this concerns me quite a bit. A community of people who do not think is destined to last very little.

@Hardrock92, don’t say that to me. I’m a few years older than you, and at work, I see worse cases. Here, being considered a slacker is the default assumption, and it doesn’t depend on how much you do or don’t do; you will always be seen as someone who doesn’t put in enough effort. People doing different jobs where the salary is just decent are considered "lucky"—with a lot of envy—without realizing that they are not the fortunate ones but we are the exploited ones. The market rules, money demands, and there’s no room for such a simplistic thought. And to think that thirty years ago the State was distributing public jobs that allowed employees, working half a day, to afford a house, a family, and a decent life. For a moment, we deluded ourselves that widespread prosperity could allow for the tolerance of human imperfections at work that today are absolutely taboo, or for a balance between work and private life: today, people with that type of job are ostracized, viewed with suspicion. Instead of getting angry to ensure everyone is treated with dignity, people loudly demand grueling jobs to punish "slackers" and “lazybones,” until they find themselves exploited and underpaid. But they never think that it’s their fault, no: they blame political ideologies, large systems, those who vote right or left, when in reality the biggest scam comes from themselves, and they are too stupid to even understand where the screw-up comes from (excuse the French).

@Telespallabob: "many are fed up with ideologies and would like someone to address the many daily problems with reason and seriousness." Such extreme groups do not deal with daily problems "with reason." Extremely radical groups only find excuses to justify yet another blow to the head of someone who, in 99% of cases, has nothing to do with it. Because I find it very difficult to think that among the ranks of these movements there are great thinkers, or attentive observers of society, or people who seek to deeply understand the incredibly complex social phenomena happening around them with the intention of making distinctions; these are people who don't care about anyone, shout slogans adapted to the current situation, then wrap themselves in that aura of "social struggle" that always sounds cool, but in the end, all they do is look for the right moment to vent their desire to throw punches. I don’t want to come across as just another do-gooder/pacifist; I am well aware that throughout history many uprisings have emerged "from below." I completely understand that when the people are exhausted, they take to the streets and smash roads and shops, but that is not the case here: there isn't even a shadow of a will to channel anger toward a common goal that would benefit society, quite the opposite. So the discussion becomes different: it's not true that people are tired of ideologies; people are tired of A CERTAIN TYPE of ideologies, and are now embracing others. If this new type of fascism is resurfacing today after decades, it is a sign that global culture has shifted and has become fertile ground for this type of thinking. After all, it's easy to notice; for at least thirty years, lifestyles based on strength, supremacy, hyper-work, and perfection have been promoted, not just by political bodies and mass media, but also by the loving parent who worries about raising their child to secure a dignified future. All this to adapt to an increasingly insidious and inhumane market where you either win or you are nobody: the essence of extremist right-wing thought, funny enough. Observe the youth of today, see the hatred with which they attack thinkers and intellectuals, who used to be prominent figures taken seriously (or criticized, depending, but certainly not discredited by default), and you will have confirmation of what I say. So it is obvious that a movement of thought that favors violence over dialogue, and imposing oneself over understanding one’s own space, is accepted with conviction by many people. The fact that they pretend to fight "against" this type of modern mentality is just one of many contradictions; the truth is that they are the perfect product of the same thing they claim to be fighting against.

P.S. Quoting Genoo

@Telespalla, no matter how many "good" initiatives and "concrete actions" these people accumulate, their ideology remains the same and unfortunately doesn't budge from there. Perhaps they are fighting for the cause of housing emergencies, but I'd like to see if they would fight to provide housing for an unmarried couple, or a gay couple, or a transgender person. The idea of "giving homes to people" fits into the vision of a welfare state, which is inherent in that type of ideology, but it’s just the tip of the iceberg that hides everything else. The question one should ask, in my opinion, is: why, in the face of such significant problems, are the only ones trying to do something minorities - often extremist - like these? Because it’s serious, and not in a small way, that social distress and people’s most immediate emergencies find release only through these channels and not others, often associated with ideologies that have never hidden their approval of the use of violence. And, in a corner of my mind, the mere thought that someone could join these movements under the pretense of "they're the only ones doing something to provide housing for people," without considering all the consequences that come with it, unsettles me quite a bit.