Stoney

Geeno, what struggle between worker and boss? It seems to me that everyone, both right and left, is ashamed to bring up these topics. Yes, the truth gets boring after a while; reality isn't as fun as a movie, unfortunately. Even those who once voted for the PCI and raised their fists at rallies while singing the Internationale now turn away or change the subject when they hear talk of workers and bosses. By now, the logic of "the dog is well when the master is well" is just as much on the right as it is on the left; it only changes in opinion about how the dog should be treated (forgive the metaphor, but I believe it's fitting).

Erratum: second line, "the cover that the DT do of Time"

Ah... I knew it. I didn't want to include that part about Dream Theater because I knew it would cause a stir. Anyway, to support Lux's thesis (Pixies, don’t take it the wrong way, you know how I feel about DT), I invite everyone to check out on YouTube the cover that DT does of Time (unfortunately yes, that one by Pink Floyd). It's like "we who are good are now revisiting the pieces that made the genre we belong to great (but maybe not)." The result is shocking. I've never heard anything like it. The sounds are okay, they pass... but the expression? When the drums kick in during the first verse, Portnoy unleashes two blasts on the snare that make the intro of Raining Blood look weak. Clearly, if one goes to read the comments on the video, everyone is there praising the immense mastery. That’s what I mean when I say that metal listeners see it as the origin and the end of everything, a kind of prism through which all other music must pass to refract, a sort of "test of the 9" that involves all musical knowledge, not just rock, which must always be scrutinized by metal to be exalted (many say "played as it should be") or appreciated.

@Pixies, seems like we've had this conversation before. You can say that someone is a metalhead because they like Meshuggah, but that’s not true. Being "metal" in my view means having that kind of critical attitude that leads you to think that if a musician is good, they must play in a certain way, and conversely, that if someone plays in a certain way, they are good. To me, Meshuggah are as good as Pearl Jam, because I consider a musician "good" when they do their job, which is to convey something that is possibly not trivial. That’s why I don't appreciate Dream Theater, for example, and the reason isn’t “functional” but musical. That's something many don't understand when they respond, "yes, but you can't say they aren't good." Being metal also means going around spreading the word of this revealed truth, standing against the "amorphous mass" that listens to Laura Pausini (because it’s either metal or Laura Pausini, obviously). Ultimately, being metal means being convinced you have refined tastes while actually listening to a type of music that is instinctual, raucous, and simple (yes, even the hypertechnical bands that play in 173/16 are simple, because it’s easy to associate “oh my god, I didn’t understand a thing” with “the drummer is a monster” and therefore “this music is complex so it’s better than the others”), where only a few examples in history have gone beyond this expressive limit. Being metal means considering metal as the beginning and end of the musical universe, thinking that every musician must arrive there or at least pass through it if they are truly valid. It’s not just the ones who dress in chains and wear Manowar shirts who are metal; it’s a matter of perception of music, typical of those who listen to this genre. My point might seem trivial, if you want, it’s a reflection on the attitude with which many today consume musical art. But hey, let’s be clear, it’s an attitude that exists a bit everywhere today. Take a rapper, for example; they will surely tell you that rap is the best music because it’s sincere, true, etc., when we know that that genre also produces its own monstrosities. However, there it often involves issues related to attitude, the themes (often ridiculous) of the street gangster, etc., while for the metalhead, yes, there is also an attitude component, but ultimately the matter is purely musical, that is, he/she is convinced they know music. The fact is... when I found myself commenting on a review of Meshuggah some time ago and said that one shouldn’t focus so much on the technique but rather on the "why" they use it in that exaggerated way (everything is exaggerated in Meshuggah: the sound, the complex time signatures, the drums... it’s a bit too much to be just a display of skill, considering that the drummer often relies on a drum machine for his parts), when I said their compositional methods resembled those of certain composers of concrete music, and it couldn’t be a coincidence, when I invited those who appreciated that album to consider if there was a communicative and “poetic” aspect beneath those purposely desperate sounds, they threw a bucket of shit in my face. They can’t even understand the music they’re obsessed with, and to think I was attempting to give it a much greater dignity than that of the "hypertechnical band" that many limit themselves to criticizing or idolizing. As you can see, I don't receive backlash only when I criticize but also when I praise.

Taxirider, I don't even know what Rumore is, and if you really want to know, for what it's worth, I think I'm one of the few human beings under 30 who has never touched a joint in his life. Moreover, just to be clear, I would gladly see Tom York hanging by his balls along with everyone in his band and all those who make such a fuss about how much of an artist he is. As you can see, the stereotypes are in your head, and you haven't hit a single one. I've just noticed that your review is written superficially, in my opinion, and I've said it. I might have been rude, mean, impolite, a jerk, but whatever the reason, I assure you that bourgeois intellectualism has nothing to do with it. But do we really have to get into sociological reasons in a discussion like this? It seems important to you, so let's do it. First of all, let's assume we're all bourgeois, and it’s certainly not the type of music one listens to that makes the difference. Today, the most fooled of all are those who think they are buying something alternative to the masses but are part of the same market system, and if I were you, I would think about that for a long time. Then: metalheads more spontaneous than others? That's rich. Because if someone locks themselves in their room to listen to classical music they must be repressed, fake, hypocritical, BOURGEOIS? By the way, spontaneity where, when trying to talk about music with one of them you have to be careful, otherwise you’ll get pages of insults if you even suggest that a certain band might suck? They are so spontaneous that they have to listen to certain albums because they're considered "essential," otherwise it’s not okay, and isn't that a form of intellectualism? Yes, it is, or do you need to wear glasses and sport a clerk hairstyle to be considered intellectual? Let's call it as it is: they are not spontaneous; they are superficial, just like all the other "music lovers" who think they have discovered the key to the world because they listen to one genre of music over another. In the end, it’s just a peculiar way for them to have fun, and whether they build an entire universe on that way of enjoying themselves to give it some sort of dignity is another story, and everyone does it, from metalheads to the weed enthusiasts who get hyped up about Tom York: the essence is the same, only the caption under the picture changes. For my part, I’ve always tried to listen to music without falling into idolization, and above all, without taking it as a label or an excuse for a non-existent identity. I can enjoy Meshuggah without being a metalhead and write a review about how they remind me of dodecaphonic music, being less pompous than a metalhead who locks himself in a room thinking, "Listen to how heavy these guys are." And if it’s convenient for you, no one stops you from imagining me with little glasses while I roll a joint.

The Queen are also a part of me; I have tied many strong feelings to their songs, but the criticism must be fair, ruthless, and impartial. So: many tracks recorded on this album are valid, while others are nothing more than clever commercial choices. In fact, you forgot to mention the most important thing, which is that there was too little material to release a full-length album, and so they had to resort to recycling old tracks released under May and Taylor's names as solo artists a few years earlier. And then, I remember the buzz on MTV at the time of its release, and anyone who remembers it like I do knows how much they publicized Mercury's death. Not even with Cobain did they exploit it this much, and that's a bit shameful. The last paragraph of the review was deliberately written while ignoring the latest releases by May and Taylor under the name Queen: pitiful and senseless, with a clear begging intent. Unfortunately, I don't see all this "heartfelt" production. P.S. "one of my greatest musical and vital examples" is brilliant.

@Lux. Slow down, slow down! It’s obvious that our dear Taxirider comes from noble stock, which is why he stands out so much from us bourgeois, excuse me. He feeds on caviar and culture, while we have to make do with our subordinate little niche of "indie" music and Joyce's books. Oh, it’s a matter of lineage: not everyone has the mental refinement to understand the music of Katatonia or My Dying Bride. So let’s resign ourselves to our smallness. Too bad I can’t light up a joint today to fight the system, because I’m at work. Damn, you see? The system has already screwed me. Ah, if only I had really bought Katatonia’s discography at 18...

@Cornell, yes, I missed it, apparently. You never stop learning. But I'm glad to discover that the grunge scene was broader than I imagined. I don't know why, but I consider it the last historical act of rock as a genre. Maybe many will say I'm heretical, but after the grunge phenomenon, there hasn't been another one so spontaneous and coming "from the bottom" like that. Well, I'm not very objective; I have too many memories and too many emotions tied to it...

Great album... maybe the comparison with Soundgarden and Pearl Jam is a bit daring, as they are much more "heavy" in attitude (I read on Wikipedia that they started out as an hard/heavy band and then abandoned electric instruments altogether), let's say that if I really have to think of a grunge comparison I see more similarities with the rock of Alice in Chains and Jerry Cantrell's solo style, but the atmosphere is the same. There were a lot of bands during that period that moved in the wake of the grunge trend while being conceptually and physically distant from the Seattle scene, and evidently this was one of those. Anyway, a pleasant discovery, thank you, vulgarbaro. P.S. Solitude is beautiful.

Do you know what makes me laugh? That anyone interested in Nordic culture has to deal with this stuff and call themselves by names that are unpronounceable to most in order to show that they are into Nordic culture. But at the Faculty of Languages, for those studying Finnish, is the folk-metal exam mandatory? And how many credits is it worth?