lux

Lie, this is the last thing... technically, I thought plagiarism meant the exact reproduction of a melody, whether vocal or instrumental, for a certain number of seconds, and that simply having 2 (or more) chords that are the same as another song couldn't be considered plagiarism (even if the timing of those chords is the same, as in the case of Don't Look Back and Imagine). After all, it didn’t take Lennon to explain to us that playing C and F in succession creates a harmony with a guaranteed effect.

One last thing: I personally don't consider the piano intro identical to that of Imagine a mere embellishment, because to me it's neither baroque, nor redundant, nor pompous. On the contrary, it seems absolutely essential, direct, not rhetorical, played in a mournful and melancholically resigned manner (both in the sound that seems filtered through a layer of dust, and in the actual touch of the piano keys).

But have you read my comment Mike regarding the "plagiarism" factor in rock? But above all, have you listened to the album in question? And even deeper: when can a melody be considered "trivial"? When is it catchy? Okay, then let's throw 70 percent of New Wave, post punk, and hardcore punk down the toilet. So, even your beloved New Wave bands (Depeche Mode SUPER primis). I mean, melodies are never trivial in themselves; the way they are expressed can be trivial. Laura Pausini is trivial because the expressiveness (standardized) she uses to sing and perform them is trivial, but the melodies themselves cannot be considered "trivial." They merely exist (in potential) and that’s it. Take The 15th by Wire: I consider it beautiful, but the melody itself is no "better" than that of Don’t Look Back in Anger. What elevates it? Without a doubt, it’s the way THAT guitar is played, THAT synth, etc. It's the overall result, the final expressiveness that emerges. But then I'm convinced that there are no "better" or "worse" melodies, trivial and non-trivial. A melody is catchy (in some way) by definition; it stays in your mind always by definition. I repeat, it can be trivial in how it's presented in practice, but I don’t see that triviality in Don’t Look Back. It has its own precise style, it refers to a certain Pop; I see no triviality in the rhythm section, I see no triviality in that bittersweet 60's-flavored guitar (like the whole piece, for that matter). I see no cerebralism of any sort, nor do I see pathetic aspects in the singing style (i.e., melodramatic exaggerations of the voice for its own sake). I mean, a song like that only runs the risk of being cloying, and it seems to me that it clearly surpasses that obstacle. Do you really think the melody of Monkey Gone to Heaven by the Pixies is "better"??? Such a question cannot be posed in a vacuum... but how can one say that one melody (in itself) is better than another? But is Imagine really that masterpiece of a song? I mean, we find "easy karaoke choruses" everywhere in rock, even in the underground. A lot of rock tends to be melodic, even in the vanguards. I challenge anyone to find credible criteria for judging a melody and, worse yet, to compare it with another (other than those of instrumental expressiveness, obviously, which are the only valid ones for me).

With all due respect.

Indeed, the 4th for Oasis is another sign of my not-so-acute "Scaruffite." I find Oasis more likable than Editors simply because I consider them better, absolutely more personal than Editors (I’m not talking about the alleged melodies of Oasis borrowed here and there, but rather the WAY they played these supposed melodies, which in practice I deem important). The way, the manner. The Editors' manner is standard, thus derivative in the worst sense of the term. Then... "You have a flaw, which is considering as inexpressive what essentially does not please you; from this point of view, you are little empathetic"... aside from the fact that this is an "accusation" that could be directed at anyone (we all say that we like or dislike an album), I always try, in my small way, to somewhat historically frame my idea: Editors are historically derivative (you admit it yourself, right?) and I don’t see any personal addition to the revival... hence I consider them lacking. That’s all there is to it. Since you know me a bit, you know that whenever emotions are involved in judging an album, I tend to fall silent... and indeed, I’ll say goodbye to you as well!

But here we need to agree on the meaning of plagiarism: taking a melody and playing it in your own way is, for me, not a flaw. Re-playing it as a cover, that's where it becomes a flaw. "Don't Look Back in Anger" does take the two initial chords of "Imagine" (C and F), but then it develops into a completely different track, it doesn't match at all anymore. I mean, these things happen in alternative, underground, intellectual rock that we love so much, right? For example, there's "Fix To Fall" by Loop which is IDENTICAL to "Creep In The Cellar" by Butthole Surfers, but no one cried scandal (or people pretend it doesn't happen, because if they do, they do it because "they want to do it" or discussions like that). The melody is also something universal; it’s up to the artist to re-express it in an expressive and personal way each time.

"You can't deny that you generally associate the term banal with seemingly simple things"... instead, I firmly disagree; just look at what I like and what I don't! In fact, I can hardly stand that cerebral and compositionally complex rock anymore, which mainly relies on mere technical prowess. Regarding this album: let's agree, if it draws EVERYTHING from past influences, it can't be personal by definition. Often, the expression "not expressive" is used to vaguely and abstractly indicate that we don't like something... but never in this case do I feel I can say that Editors are the quintessential non-expressive band, with ultra-polished production, melodies that can be described as stereotypical at best, and an approach to songwriting that feels like "CPU generating songs in industrial quantities, all identical to one another," along with that voice that sounds like the Labie of the new wave... but to each their own. What I want to emphasize is the first part of this post of mine, namely that not only can I not be considered Filo-Scaruffiano, but in some cases, I am even Anti-Scaruffiano X-D (although I generally appreciate many other of Scaruffi's comments on other groups, but as you can see, the situation is heterogeneous: when he positively judges some technically and compositionally complex albums (understood in the cerebral sense), in my opinion, he doesn't understand a thing... whereas when it comes to "alternative, low fi, rough and awkward" rock in general, he is more than competent).

CaptainHowdy aka Emofiliaco, this time you won’t trick me! X-D I assume you’re referring to me and my man, but on what basis do you define us as “Scaruffians/Ondarockists”? I don't recall Scaruffi saying much about Editors (and if he did, I missed his opinion anyway), while Ondarock even gave this album a 7, so… We are anything but Scaruffians/Ondarockists, as you can clearly see. Furthermore, far be it from me to consider an immediate and direct song necessarily trivial; quite the opposite: just take a look at some (many) of my favorite albums, and you’ll see for yourself… bye.

In fact, I’d like to know where the detractors see shoegazer tendencies in the Beatles, since they are actually present in Oasis. But hey, in Oasis the wall of guitars is meaningless and self-serving, existing only to cover a “lack of ideas”; in today’s latest awful shoegazer revival band, it is usually something cool and alternative. And let’s keep going like this.

"The objective merits of Malmsteen are now known to all, particularly that of having contributed 90% to the birth of everything that is now classified as power metal (see Stratovarius, Symphony X, Angra, Dragonforce, Primal Fear, etc.) and having brought guitar technique to an exceptional level." And you think that's a merit??