lux

They are beautiful, but the Swans are beautiful too, huh.

I used to like them, now they are just a little less bad than the DT.

Ktulu Ktulu... so let's say I misinterpreted that phrase about "bullshit," but getting back to the discussion on "Pull me Under," okay it will be about Hamlet in the lyrics, but musically it remains a little song to mosh to, I mean let’s get to the point. I mean, if I compose an irrelevant song but season it with lyrics about baby Jesus, it’s still a musically irrelevant song. And by the way, the fact that the piece suddenly interrupts doesn’t strike me as a great innovation or original idea, to be honest. The comment about Savage Republic was in response to "On new metallers, ipse dixit. Do they listen to them too? Who cares. My grandmother listens to Beethoven and she's ignorant. So? Until next time." I didn't mention Bach, though, but Savage Republic. Let’s keep the comparisons in the rock realm. And anyway, the comparison was meant to indicate that, since it’s presumed we’re discussing art (art for me, for you, for Stoney) in rock, at 15 it’s easier to enjoy "the art" of Dream Theater, rather than the art of a group like Savage Republic, for obvious reasons. Dream Theater, behind their technical complexity, are very accessible, precisely because they are standard; they touch on aspects like "the cheesy moment, then the moment with the super prog riff that pumps you up, then the final solo that demands an orgasm from the listener." And they’ve had success precisely because this universal language they use is decidedly anti-artistic, impersonal, built on formally abused rules from the past and they can't play anything that truly belongs to them. Take any riff from Petrucci. It sounds like what a computer would play if there was a “play guitar” button. It sounds like the different styles of pre-packaged and standard rhythms you find in a keyboard’s options menu. And the same goes for the other musicians in Dream Theater. They represent the Weberian "ideal type" of rock. (And that's not a compliment.)

Well, well, my thoughts would be "bullshit"... let's just say you don’t know what to say to counter my thesis, which argues the lack of artistic depth in DT. My friend, what are we talking about? Have you ever listened to The Modern Dance by Pere Ubu? I think you've never heard what FOR ME (and for a good part of the critics, I might add) is art in Rock, and that’s why you don’t understand me. Regarding technique, let’s establish the first definition of this concept: I, at least personally, mean "the ability to perform something" when I say technique. Therefore, it takes technique, in this sense, even to play the blessed three chords. What I blame DT for is their assumption of basing their music on a technique devoted to formal virtuosity, which it is. Shakespeare in Pull Me Under?? Oh my god. But it’s a little metal song that says nothing that hasn’t already been said before... I mean, the issue is progressive metal and a certain progressive in particular, not just DT for that matter, but PULL ME UNDER is a song to have some fun at concerts, where is this artistic depth? Sure, they update the progressive by immersing it in metal, but those guitar riffs are metal riffs we’ve already heard before. I don’t even find I&W disgusting, but I still consider it negligible. I mean, it’s form, aesthetic taste, and that’s it. Then Labrie is pathetic, he’s ultra-stereotyped, he has the most expressionless voice ever. He’s the Albano of Metal. Regarding the kids approaching rock/metal: I can find plenty of 15-year-olds listening to DT; you find me one who listens to Savage Republic.

As for the early works of the Dt, I think the only difference between them and the latest albums is simply in the aesthetic taste with which they dish out clichés of rock aplenty. I’ll give you that the aesthetic taste in I&W, Awake, and Scenes is superior compared to SC, but I stop there. Music should be something that goes far beyond mere aesthetic taste. The MTV variable doesn’t interest me either; regarding the poor technique of the Dt that Stoney referred to, I think he meant to say that the Dt possess the least noble technique of rock: a technique based on "technical cleanliness and speed of execution," which does not necessarily embody this grand concept of art. So Stoney wanted to imply that the technique underlying three chords played with a certain expressiveness holds more value (culturally, I add) than 478 overlapping chords, played cleanly and impeccably at an "academic" level, but absolutely meaningless in terms of sense and significance. Thus, the technique of the Dt also becomes mediocre, as it presupposes only itself, demanding to communicate simply because it is clean and fast, and not because it serves to convey a particular vision of life. For me, the Dt have now become (I was a fan of theirs a long time ago) a true insult to intelligence. As for the fact that only newbie metalheads can listen to them... surely they’re not the only ones listening, but they definitely do listen as well. Anyway, I think the average metalhead is a "newbie" of rock, regardless.

I’ve read some comments about the dispute between Stoney and Ktulu. I believe that the extreme artistic poverty of the Dt's proposal is reaffirmed by discussions that are practically exclusively based on the concept of technique. In other words, when talking about Dt, the central reference is technique, not the meaning of the music played. This is paradigmatic of the total emptiness of their albums.

"Impossible to give less than 4" I would say it's impossible to give more than 1.

Beautiful, truly beautiful.

a bit overrated for me.

Camel, Yes, Genesis, Pink Floyd, Balletto di Bronzo... mmm... I don't know. In my opinion, they have just a hint of progressive atmosphere; they sound like rather static songs, basically linear ballads, if I dare make a comparison with Yes. I don't see much of Floyd, Genesis, and Camel in them. I see even less of Balletto di Bronzo. Windowpane seems to me the most "prog." It feels like a record that is definitely Pop at heart (which is not an insult, just to be clear).