lux

Without a doubt, lyrics have a primary function in Italian singer-songwriter music... and it is precisely this focus on lyrics at the expense generally of the music (which seems to me to have a generally traditional flavor) that makes it a bit less interesting. As for the PS: without a doubt it is beautiful, but both interlocutors must want it ;-)

Just to wrap up: I prefer to talk about attitude rather than gender.

On the lyrics, one could limit oneself to a separate discussion, parallel to the music... but it should not heavily influence it. Regarding the Afterhours, who are undoubtedly an alternative rock band (despite being "Italian-style" and the paradox of the label change, etc.), I cannot help but judge the musical aspect as the primary and fundamental one. The criterion of judgment should be the same in order to maintain coherence (and thus credibility) at its core, to avoid the risk of using double standards. In fact, I apply this standard not only to the Afterhours but also to De André, as I have always viewed art as a universal expression that should not be confined to specific categories: for me, either there is art or there isn’t. Then we can discuss it, argue all the social, political, and historical aspects you want. But in the end, it's either "you pass or you don’t." Either you matter, or you don’t. There are no genres that ensnare my brain when we talk about "music of the people" (rock, pop, electronic, and all kinds of avant-gardes and particular approaches applied to them). I start talking about genre when I encounter jazz, for example. There, perhaps the term "genre" makes sense and should be distinguished from rock. (But that's a discussion I absolutely won't start for my own safety). However, I don't have a problem if I’m faced with a singer-songwriter album: it’s always ultimately rock and/or pop. It’s simply one of the possible expressions of popular music. And indeed, I don’t particularly favor Italian singer-songwriter music among my listens.

Regarding form, I will try to explain myself, even if it means relying on clichéd or trivial concepts: Even Aristotle spoke of substance as a composite of form + matter, so I'm not revealing anything new. Having established that form exists even in the most chaotic, haphazard, awkward three-chord songs, the key is to understand how that form manifests and what role it plays. If its role is simply aesthetic, a matter of pure superficial harmony (therefore a rather banal concept of beauty), and it does not contain a substantial message (which is not represented by the subjective feelings the listener finds within it, but by how it objectively fits into the historical musical continuum and the originality that arises from it), then that form exists but is empty, rhetorical, meaningless. History is the most objective criterion (perhaps not absolutely objective, but the most objective) with which one can talk about music.

Ok Chinaski, for heaven's sake, let's leave it at that with your phrase "but we must NEVER lose sight of the fact that a work of art must be COMMUNICATIVE!!!!"—which is incredibly true (the key is understanding what can be considered communicative). ZannaB, regarding the lyrics, since we are dealing with music and not poetry, I think defining them as the best one can miss is excessive. Starting from a trivial observation: there is music without lyrics, but there are no lyrics without music. I believe the main actor in music is indeed the music itself. Personally, I am not so interested in discovering what an artist communicates in words (I believe lyrics objectively have less dignity and relevance than music in a musical piece); I care about the sound fabric and how it positions itself on a historical and cultural level and what it says that is new compared to the past, and especially HOW it says it. Otherwise, one risks, as happens here in Italy, encountering people who appreciate Vasco or Liga because "their lyrics reflect me, they speak about me, etc." For me, this, beyond the very dubious artistic potential of the two artists I mentioned, is the paradigm of Italian musical competence: not even paying attention to the sound aspect anymore, just focusing on the lyrics (painful, in the case of Liga and Vasco), because ignorance is so high that one can only refer to the words of a song (I believe, musically there is nothing noteworthy). So we, who undoubtedly know a little more than the masses who have listened to 5 "rock" albums in their entire lives, should detach ourselves from the "trap" of lyrics when judging whether an album is good or bad, in order to delve deeper into the matter, which is music. Then one can fall in love with all the lyrics they want and read them and memorize them, for heaven's sake. However, if we have to say "this album is beautiful" or "this album is ugly," let's try not to give too much importance to the lyrics, which indeed integrate the subjective sensations of the artist, but musically (literally, eh) say absolutely nothing.

Come on, enough with this stuff, do yourselves a favor, throw the Nightwish albums in the trash!

If you take my advice, I tell you to "criticize yourself," in the sense of being more aware of what you listen to and understanding that in 2008, similar albums are historically unacceptable, beyond personal tastes.

"I've devoured Zen Arcade, my dear know-it-all!..." But if I mention Mould's Wall of Sound, you’re caught off guard, strange. And don’t flip the script on me, but which "evolve," do you want me to listen to shitty records? If anything, it's the opposite, my dear: I milanesi ammazzano il sabato is an album that I might have liked when I was 15, when I hadn't listened to certain things yet.

No, I simply don't care about the lyrics of this album because the first step (that is, the purely musical one) has not been passed by the dear Afterhours. Am I biased? About what? I've listened to the album. Does it seem normal to you that in your beloved "Dove si va da qui" these idiots decide to copy Offlaga (with Agnelli's emphatic singing, of course, thus turning it into pop in the worst way possible)?

The fact is that you've never listened to a single record by Husker Du and you don't know Mould, yet you want to talk about things that don't concern you, dear Chinaski-brain stuck in traffic. De André doesn't say much to me, just like Dylan doesn't blow me away, precisely because I'm interested in the music, understand? I can give credit to the lyrics only if a record appeals to me musically at best, but if a Rock album (like this one by Afterhours) is weak, what do I care about the lyrics (even rhetorical, according to some) by Agnelli? Then I don't know what you mean by "experimental," but it's certain that stuff like Zorn or Patton's works or instrumental fluff like Borbetomagus either doesn't say much to me (Zorn) or I find utterly disgusting (the other two). Yet that is "experimental" avant-garde. Let's say there's a way and a way to be experimental, since one can be original and innovative even with four simple chords.