lux

Why is it so hard for you to talk about music? You really can't conceive that one could discuss it? I wonder why people like you are afraid to even bring this topic to the table… could it be that you have nothing to say (hypothesis), or is it that you don't want to risk hearing that what you listen to might be just fluff (another hypothesis)? The fact is that when it comes to music, people like you put up the wall of "feelings" and "personal sensations," as if we were dealing with Faith and the relationship between a man and God. Music is something of this world, you know, and (surprise!) it is a cultural aspect that can be described and approached as such. It's only with music that we have these childish discussions about "feelings as an obstacle to freely discussing music" (as if one should be judged based on that). Mah.

"setting aside the need to indulge in necessary revisionisms regarding the appeal of certain populist drifts compared to the sterile closure in scholarly ivory towers"... then we would be the representatives of the artistically pretentious bourgeoisie of the smug and elitist left... but speak as you eat and be aware of what you listen to!

nzùcobr, what a populist comment you made.

Sure, in fact, no one here has ever questioned anyone's personal emotions.

Longliverock has grasped the point, namely that the gilding in the metal universe has sought to formally diversify with great vigor, but the underlying platform has remained the same: one either falls into the kitsch or into the artificially pseudo-intellectual special effects. This is broad strokes, of course, exceptions abound.

"I Cynic are the striking example of technique serving music"----honestly, I don't see this service of technique; it seems to me that an overly technical way of playing stands out immediately, without much coherence. Of course, the technical preparation is not in question, but the little tricks with the instruments are, in my opinion, very evident...it shifts from more death metal moments to sweet arpeggios, like stomach pains...well, different visions.

Blackdog Soros has pissed on us... I told you so.

Calm down, I BELIEVE that Larrock meant that... I don't want to put words in his mouth that he doesn't think. Between Rhapsody and Cynic, I also prefer the latter, but just barely. They are very different in style, but neither reaches heights of excellence; the former because they are pitiably baroque and bombastic, the latter because they possess a good dose of technique for its own sake and are still cerebraloids. Another group, Spiral Architect (for example), is the same with techno-potatoes... but I don’t want to convince anyone, for goodness' sake.

I believe there is a fundamental misunderstanding with Larrok; he was referring to the metal that is most popular (the conservative one that has great success among the "faithful"). In short, just go to the Home of Truemetal, and you’ll find an example of what he meant.

"Yes, but at least in Metal there have been innovators who have been imitated; in other genres, innovators have never existed and everyone does the same thing." ----- Come on, tastes are tastes, but let's not come up with obvious falsehoods. Metal is a branch of rock, an expression of it, that has now crystallized into overused clichés for the most part. Instead, only in the 90s were there examples of innovative and/or original Rock (in the broadest sense of the term), my favorite decade... metal is the moldiest branch of rock because it continues to be played with the same attitude as in the 80s (only the production has improved). However, to understand this, one would need to listen to some Post-hardcore, shoegazer, indie, industrial, psychedelic, etc. etc.