lux

Pixies, if it is true that the hypodermic needle theory has proven to be partial and incomplete (but not totally false), it is equally true that any theory that postulated the total independence of the receiver from the message itself would be just as partial and implausible. Rather, I tend to see a sound as existing in nature, just like, say, a stroke of a pen, and as such describable in the way the senses perceive it. Therefore, a musical piece can never be a product of my imagination; rather, it will be the emotions I feel while listening to that piece (which exists in itself). But I have never been interested in discussing emotions, the only things that are truly personal and subjective and, as such, irrefutable by definition. However, by definition, it seems quite obvious to me, from a conceptual and thus logical perspective, to define an original product or idea as superior to a more banal product or idea. This is logically very different from saying that everyone indiscriminately seeks or is attracted to originality in music, because that is simply not true. There are people who listen to a piece because it is catchy or because they simply enjoy the melody (and this can happen to me too, I don’t want to act like I’m above it all). But this does not negate the existence of originality (and thus the existence of attitudes that are more creative and honest compared to others that are more predictable and sycophantic). It’s just that many people couldn't care less about this fascinating concept of attitude, but that’s not my problem!

And on the 4th at Umber Fiquà?? Only for History?

Terrible Lie!

Am I the only one who finds the psychiatrist's final monologue, where he explains everything in detail (removing the mystery and allure of Norman Bates), just a tad inappropriate?

Looking at the genres, Bitch Magnet came to my mind. Do they have something to do with it, or do the guidelines still stick to Slint and Fugazi?

"Objective value" is too categorical of an expression; it’s better to add a "presumed" nearby. It's not always easy to agree on the value of a work, quite the opposite. Of course, regarding this reviewed album by the Queen, I feel more confident in what I say than I usually do when discussing music with someone, because AKOM really seems to me to be the most obvious negative limit that can be considered.

Exactly, Percy, but I want to emphasize that I like Queen up to A Day At The Races, then a few scattered songs here and there. I wouldn’t want to generalize more than is appropriate.

I didn't bring up the story of communicative intentions because I know that many don't like it and consider it metaphysical, but that's where the discourse lies. In theory, every sound is born to communicate (sound is a sign and should refer to something else like any sign) and music should communicate by definition, because it is a language. This, however, is theoretical; then you have to see how communication happens, and that’s where the discussion of attitude, style, philosophy, approach, and originality comes in. I cannot place original style on the same level as an artificial and inflated one: I will always prefer the former to the latter, for a thousand obvious reasons. An artificial style ends up paradoxically communicating nothing (except itself as a mere, empty aesthetic sign) because it is crystallized; it does not synthesize anything new or peculiar. And mind you, I steer clear of boring discussions about innovation, not because it doesn’t exist in rock music (in fact, it might be the most easily observable aspect), but because innovative albums have not always proven to be communicative in a strict sense. A name above all, Royal Trux.

Yes, I understood that you also don't share a certain way of thinking :-) However, I also understand that some people may only be interested in recognizing their personal tastes as such, without absolutizing intentions... as long as it doesn’t fall into the aforementioned incoherence :-)

Franci, anyone can talk about whatever they want, even just about particular and personal emotions that an album, book, or movie evokes, of course... but I can't understand those who, first, deny any expressive and cultural objectivity of a work and then, immediately after, want to absolutely recognize its worth legitimately. This is exactly what Percy and JACK DANIEL'S have done: they have posted 50 times repeating "where is it written, who says that A Kind sucks" (and I could also explain why it would suck) assuming that it's a valid album instead... but who says it's a valid record, where is it written? I would call it inconsistency.