lux

I did not talk about intelligent and unintelligent people; I simply focus on the average taste in music.

theknife82, I wouldn’t go see Vasco even if someone threw C4 at me, but that’s not the point. The point (which you clearly either overlook or find it more convenient to overlook) is that in this society of "connoisseurs," Vasco reigns and is the "king of rock." Do you think such a situation is fair? And by the way, where do you see these prejudices? What does that even mean? Prejudices about what? Because it isn’t true that "Rock Bottom" is a "bit" better than "Io canto" and "Buoni o Cattivi"? My friend, what are you talking about? If you want to provoke me, at least do it with a minimum of honesty and decency, come on. I don’t see why we should put shit on the same level as gold, just for the pleasure of swimming in the most base atomic relativism. If art were for everyone, the world would function quite differently, but since the commodifiable product always wins out, here I find Systematic Chaos at number 2 in the charts in Italy. Nice, right? I agree that it’s the usual rambling, in fact what I wrote seems so obvious and taken for granted that it feels stupid even to highlight it.

But the term objectivity is obviously historically connoted... It can be objective that the new wave of Pere Ubu was the very first to have that peculiar character of nightmarish industrial alienation, if they were the first to introduce it; it’s worth emphasizing objectively... if it’s an event, it happened, it happened, there’s little to say! We can discuss whether it happened or not, but once it’s established that it did occur, that fact becomes history. Thus, objective. Then, starting from this observation, I don't think it's very difficult to consequently affirm that artistically the better ones between Renato Zero and Pere Ubu are the latter... you don’t need to be some great critics to see it, it’s obvious. You can notice it in the attitude to compose and express oneself. Here’s then “objectivity.” Then the concept of relativism is itself relative: in some cases it may work, in others it clashes and leaves the individual in a multitude of values without a cultural anchor, which gives a sense to it all. Always recognizing that in an opinion there can be both subjective and objective instances, it’s good to see what in an opinion is subjective and what is objective. That then "art is for a few" (staying within rock), seems more and more evident to me; otherwise, if art were for many, they would at least give the Olympic Stadium to Trent Reznor, not Vasco Rossi.

But I explained to you that with power metal there’s no risk, it’s always the same tedious stuff, but what superficiality.

Hemophiliac, why do you have to paint me as a sick person in need of a cure? I feel great ;-). Obviously, the mistakes you assigned to me, I do not consider them such at all... of course, I am not making an emotional argument (but that was already understood), I am simply talking about objective Quality FOR ME (though in many cases, it’s not just for me, you know). But I try somehow to objectify. I have my judgment suspended for more than a few groups (I’ve never understood whether Oasis had real talent or not in their early albums, for example) but that seems natural to me. Perhaps, blinded by the mad desire to write, you didn’t notice that I was referring to underground METAL bands, not to unknown bands in general... regarding Fugazi, they are little-known for the following logical reasons: 1. they are indeed not marketed, so either you’re a fan and seek them out, or you will never listen to them. 2. They would never appeal to the masses, NEVER. But why do you think that? Not because they are catchy... but because, for most, they would be incomprehensible. Although in some cases they can be "catchy," we are talking about a band that makes personality and being "different" their strength. But have you heard that wild guitar?? And what the hell is that bass?? And are they really self-satisfied?? For me, the 90 percent of Metal bands are more self-satisfied, if you allow me, where you wouldn’t see a shred of originality even if you shot yourself... I remain of the belief that art (in every field) is stuff for a few, it might be a nauseating and unpleasant discussion, but socially that’s how I see it. Plus, Fugazi doesn’t play to be niche; they become so because unfortunately the masses have other musical interests... I mean, between you and me, for example, someone who’s madly in love with the latest Dt album and spits on Repeater, honestly, I don't even listen to them. It’s not malice, but it’s neither here nor there as far as I'm concerned. I mean, rock has its own history, with its more or less recognized pillars (something you don’t want to accept, but that’s okay)... if you don’t like Fugazi, that’s fine (I’m not even a big fan of theirs, you know), but they have a style and class that is useless to explain in words, you can only listen to it. They have personality, which is instead lacking in classic metal.

But hemophiliac, I don't think I'm the only one who feels this way... I see power and prog (metal) as MORE than catchy, honestly... power metal, in particular, is pop disguised as metal, which wouldn't be bad in itself, but the way they combine the two genres is often embarrassing. They have succeeded precisely for this reason: these are genres that appear "macho" and sometimes even pseudo-intellectual, but in reality, they often turn out to be smoke and mirrors, geometric compositions that serve no purpose. This is precisely the criticism directed at all of Metal in general, given that it has stagnated on its clichés for centuries. And I, having also had my fair share of a metal phase, can confirm this completely. Metal is by far the least interesting genre in the rock arena (always with the necessary exceptions, but metal can’t always rely solely on its 3 - 4 founding fathers; we are in 2007). We could talk about underground and alternative metal bands, which are undoubtedly better than power and prog metal bands, but even there, the musical constructs often serve no real purpose. In short... metal has been dead for years; it is being dragged out until the end of humanity precisely because it enjoys great success (compared to other rock genres), and it's easily accessible (otherwise, it wouldn't make sense why 13-year-olds listen to Maiden instead of, I don't know, Built to Spill or Tortoi). Don’t you think?

MMM I listened to it better, let's do 2.5...

my dying bride I'm not doing bad anyway, I've listened to two albums by virgin black. At first, I kind of liked Sombre Romantic, but then it bored me. Elegant and Dying, on the other hand, I never liked.

But yes, I ultimately reduce it to the original-non-original dichotomy. Because if an album isn’t original, it doesn’t deserve to be listened to. And by original, I mean a personal vision of life translated into music and possibly not too inflated.

Yes, but the reviewer doesn't need to create a literary painting to describe an album; they need to help me understand through technical (and cynical, if necessary) means whether the album is worth it or not. I'm not interested in the "fantasy" exaltation itself; I like to understand if this damn disc is original or not and if it is innovative or not.