Stoney

The Meshuggah on Catch 33 used an electronic drum kit, an attitude not quite fitting for those wanting to flaunt technicality and complex time signatures, don't you think? The distinguishing feature of Meshuggah is the exaggeration: sound (is it a guitar sound? To me, it sounds like sheets of metal bending), screams, tempos that dissect the pieces with cold industrial and mechanical precision, all within a vortex of psychotic accuracy that is so deliberately useless as to feel almost insane. Well, whether you like it or not, this makes sense, and not just because I dream about it at night, but because, for example, I read the lyrics and watch the videos. Few have succeeded like Meshuggah in depicting the anxiety and dissociation of modernity, along with a concern for a future where emotions will become increasingly chemical and claustrophobia a dominating feeling (a recurring theme in the lyrics). If you dig a little deeper, you’ll realize that Meshuggah, unlike many other metal bands whose work begins and ends with recording a "cool" riff, has a key to interpretation that is anything but trivial. They are a band that fits directly within that literary genre that includes films like Blade Runner and books like Neuromancer by William Gibson. If you think this is nonsense, analyze the compositional method used by Meshuggah: it’s much closer to twelve-tone compositions or concrete music than to rock, let alone metal. It’s no longer so much about individual musical phrases as it is about the sequence of sound events as a whole. Then again, I might be talking nonsense, but I find it hard to make such a profound discourse about many other metal bands. Just a thought? Regards.

A record that marks the end of an era and rightfully earns its place in the history of rock music of all time.

Great, I was hoping for a response like that. It seems that starting today, the number of people I can tolerate in here has to rise by one.

Did I say that the genre is superficial? Quite the opposite, I said that the people who listen to it are superficial. It’s different. The genre itself has its meaning, or rather, it did in the past; then it became a topic that people talked about endlessly until today, extremizing and folding in on itself, apart from a few rare exceptional cases. But when you analyze it, the discussion always revolves around the same four clichés: power, violence, how bad the singer is, etc. But enough already; nearly 40 years after the release of Paranoid, metal hasn’t moved an inch; it still revolves around the same clichés, both conceptual and sonic. Perhaps it has only refined the sound quality (and that’s not its merit but rather a technological advancement), and anyway, it always and only goes in one direction: that of violence. Few have bothered to contaminate the genre (I mean in a SENSIBLE way; I know very well that there are people who have mixed jazz with metal, but we must see what it has served) or to give this violence a meaning that goes beyond the surface. The Metallica did it, to some extent, and then a few others like Slayer. Perhaps today Meshuggah can be saved with albums like Nothing and Catch 33 (but we're talking about not-so-recent albums), for instance, where beyond the sound wall there is a dialectic, something to understand, a message to convey that isn’t “Satan, evil, fear, hate.” Yet if you read the reviews of those albums, you'll notice that no one bothers to dig deeper, to understand; they all stop at the odd time signature or the executive impossibility of some parts, effectively missing out on important pieces of very valid works. So I’m sorry, but I maintain my opinion that metalheads are indeed a strange breed, mostly ignorant, and often quite proud of it.

I certainly wasn't attacking Cornell, especially since he's one of the few here who writes sensible things while still keeping his tastes with which I sometimes might not agree. In particular, I was struck by the comment about the "faggots" Metallica that Kembruck brought up, which I find very enlightening for understanding the attitude with which many people approach this kind of music, and that’s where my comment came from.

@FRITHURIK: There are people around who believe that to be experimental, one shouldn't practice, people who think that writing a review doesn't require any writing skills, and people who leave serious comments but then turn it into the semi-infantile nonsense of "I'm participating in the conversation but I don't really care," so typical of girls who want to show off and polarize attention. :P

I haven't read the book but I've seen the film, and I still have to decide whether I liked it or not. The only thing I've read by Ammaniti is Branchie, which literally made me sick. I'm afraid that "Come Dio comanda" might be a confused tale that plays on the tension created by extreme characters and situations to keep the reader glued to the book (or the film), much like a "Pulp Fiction" from our own backyard. The only reason I don't feel comfortable trashing it is the nagging question raised by the title, which suggests there might be a rather interesting key to interpretation: what does God command? And who is God? Is He the father of Cristiano as seen through Cristiano's own eyes, or is He the God that Quattroformaggi believes "gifted" him the girl to be raped, or are they the ideals that drive Rino in his actions? Each protagonist indeed has their own "higher power" reference that suggests the meaning behind the often desperate actions they take. Perhaps viewed from this angle, the book/film could be reassessed, but unfortunately, the suspicion that it's a scam remains very strong.

The problem is that you don't really listen to the music... you have paradigms in your head and determine who is valid or not based on how close they are to those paradigms, you aren't even free to listen and judge. Paradigms that, by the way, have been the same for 50 years: wickedness, violence, etc. What a drag. I’m fine with you saying that Load and Reload aren't valid, but why do you say that? Because they aren't "bad" like Master of Puppets? Or because Metallica have become "gay" (so it’s really a matter of toughness, of violence, of flexing muscles)? Well, I think that’s a bit of nonsense, even if it weren’t, it’s a superficial analysis that doesn’t really matter. After all, considering this kind of music, what should one expect, perhaps discussions of high musical philosophy? Take care.

I wish I had been the bouncer who kicked him in the ass. I would have left it in his shoe, no doubt...

I'm not exactly right-wing, but I hate the so-called "leftist" music because it succeeds in betraying one by one all the ideals it claims to convey, and I can't stand the typical social center type who talks about communism without having the faintest idea of what it means. I live a bit further north than Campania, and I must confess that one thing I hate about 99posse is their choice to sing in dialect. Not because I hate the Neapolitan dialect, which is indeed rich in history and rare poetic expressions, but because I find it used inappropriately and for no reason. I believe that when someone develops their own style, they must make choices that mean something and are driven by an expressive intent: it's one thing to want to tell the soul of a city or a people, as many do (for example, Pino Daniele, the early Venditti, De André), and to use dialect in a purely musical way, demonstrating how the "vulgar" speech is loaded with meanings that could not be expressed otherwise; it's another thing to sing in one's own dialect just because it happens to be their "mother tongue," ostentatiously flaunting "low" and popular roots in an unnecessary and annoying way, as 99posse do and generally all the "alternative" rap groups that are so loved by the people I've described above. Regards.