lux

Yes, it's a Synth track that emerges from a wall of distorted guitars; it's an instrumental chorus, but it's still a chorus... or rather fulfills that function, in the sense that it "returns" cyclically. Anyway, the overall structure is linear: "Chorus" - verse x n times, and it closes the piece with a continuous repetition of the Chorus. I've taken a very simple track structurally as an example, but interpreted greatly to give you another idea of my vision of "simple yet unique." Anyway, remedy it right away, Loveless (the album). But have you finally managed to listen to the Spiral by NIN in its entirety? I bet you haven't... X-D

But is it the promo you found on Emule? What is the release date of the album?

Oh, what a sound...Night Time is unpresentable compared to this.

But doesn't anyone have Their Satanic Majesties Request as their favorite Stones album?

No, I wouldn't call it laziness; I would consider it a choice of the author, in every sense. I don't know if you're familiar with MBV, but take "when you sleep." The structure is the classic song form, but it's an example of an implosion of a very original style within the verse-chorus structure: it's as if they self-limit within the form (and deliberately choose an accessible format) only to manipulate it at will with a style that's more unique than rare. In such a way that what stands out is precisely their very personal narrative capacity. Because you see, I think that you either have a narrative style or you don't; it's simple... and if you have it, you're an Artist. Meanwhile, the instrumental part, understood in a quantitative sense, is something that even a non-artist can formally create. It's more of a craftsman's issue, I would say. In short, without going on further, I’m fine with everything: song form, suites, songs that deviate from the song form in general, everything. As long as those playing don’t standardize the final result with an aseptic performance of their instrument/voice. And of course, as long as they don't comfortably sit on the communicative stereotypes of a certain genre. As for Appetite for Destruction, let's cover that with a veil of pietas. Regarding Scaruffi, considering Morning Glory a mediocre album and then assigning an 8 to Guns is, before being unjust, simply incoherent. At least the Oasis don't hide behind guitar solos that are incredibly meaningless, and the Gallaghers at least interpret the song form in their own way (as much as they can).

2.5

Tired record. Diggin the Grave is pretty bland, a punk rock track that, if it had been offered by Green Day, would have been yet another confirmation of their supposed total mediocrity. But since it was created by FNM, it's considered a "masterpiece." The Gentle Art Of Making Enemies seems to have come straight from a Mr. Bungle album (with less cerebral depth and more "style"). The only moments vaguely reminiscent of the glories of Angel Dust, The Real Thing, and the underappreciated (and beautiful) Introduce Yourself are the semi-forgotten Cuckoo For Caca and Take This Bottle (though without the freshness of the good old days). The gospel finale Just a Man is also pleasant (though it doesn't leave a lasting impression). The vague Eastern-meditative atmosphere of Ricochet could have been explored in a more interesting way. Much better was the old guitarist Jim Martin.

"I find, however, that if there is also an intelligent instrumental break in the very predictable sequence of verses and choruses... the point is always the same... I don't judge based on the structural simplicity of the song, but on how the artist 'dresses' that simplicity. I'm listening to Appetite for Destruction by Guns N' Roses for the first time... I didn't think it was really that trivial; the hard rock stereotypes hit you in the face from the very first seconds, it's a terribly worn-out canvas... but the problem is not the canonical verse and chorus themselves, but the ridiculous way they are presented. Sweet Child O' Mine and Nightrain are worthy of Bon Jovi. Rest assured that if the choruses and verses are extremely predictable in a song (based on how they are presented, not just for being what they are), it is unlikely that the hypothetical instrumental section will be better. Most likely it will be stuck to the rest of the song for mere aesthetic function, without having anything substantial to say."

Hi heart, I had to vote for the review.

The sample convinced me enough, let's see how the rest of the album is... I can actually hear the Smiths in it.