lux

But the review itself is a human work, so it starts from a subjective point of view...it’s not an absolute and indisputable a priori of deterministic imprint. What distinguishes a good review from a bad one is the method of criticism. Come on, let's not beat around the bush... "Thus, even the most complex pieces are nothing more than a sequence of quotations: Overture 1928 or Beyond this life echo King Crimson and Rush, not to forget Pink Floyd or Queen, and Home, with its Eastern-sounding riff, is just a pathetic attempt to seem more original; but in Dream Theater, there is never any true proactive attitude to innovate; everything stops at the surface, even the few interesting insights never touch the piece in its essence; the ballads, relatively scarcer in terms of arrangements, are the exemplification of the total inventive nullity of the band: Through my words or Through her eyes are merely a slightly puffed-up and irregular version of the '80s ballads from not-so-essential groups like Bon Jovi or other horrible Glam Metal bands, while with The spirit carries on, one likely hits the bottom of what the "theater of dreams" has to offer: surrounding a bland melody, here comes a choir of female voices that seems to have been borrowed straight from Dark side of the moon, and a little further on in the piece, there's Petrucci's solo that in some passages is PRACTICALLY IDENTICAL to David Gilmour's in Shine on you crazy diamond." Doesn't that sound like an explanation (more or less shareable)? Of course, it’s obvious that no one can prove anything concretely, we are speculating. It’s all a matter of logic and coherence.

But of course, he doesn't just say that the DTs are bad; he explains why he thinks they are bad. This is consistency, there's nothing to discuss. And in the review, he also points out the plagiarisms. (And he was being generous because there are a couple of EVIDENT ones that he didn't mention). Of course, he expresses and explains his point of view much better in the following posts than in the review itself. But in the end, I understood his point of view; who else here understands it? That's what I would like to know.

So Shirubvr, here we should study a bit of Weber (I suggest this because it fits quite well in this case). Therefore, assuming that every opinion represents a particular point of view, and is thus, let's say, subjective, after the choice of this point of view, the method comes into play, which instead must be objective and consistent with the same point of view. Of course, easycure has chosen a specific value to critique the album, the value of expressiveness, which is contingent and particular (it is one among many possible values), but this also happens in science...one cannot know everything in its entirety; life is a raging river of meanings. But after this act of choosing a value, subjective yet necessary, begins the objective and coherent critique with the value itself. The method of "investigation," in a nutshell. Thus, easycure's opinions and arguments are quite consistent with the initial value of expressiveness. Then I repeat, Easycure articulates its opinions (one can certainly disagree), but at least something is ARGUMENTED. The other reviews from DT fans are merely aesthetic, just formal exaltation for its own sake. And between those who argue in an honestly intellectual manner (albeit particular and subjective) and those who come to tell me "The Drrrim are great because they are ultra-technical," well...who do you think I prefer?

Well, if you're referring to the offensive posts that the Dt fans have left on this review, it's the predictable response from Easy, and I can understand you. But on the other hand, I too responded when I was insulted on my review of the DTs, so in the end, it’s not important to see if someone falls for the provocations of the Dt fans or not; what matters is that, besides "joking uncivilly" with them, something is said about the album and the criticism is justified. Then, a heartfelt appeal: You say that there are better reviews than this one. Surely, it's obvious that there are. But be careful, the reviews you find on the web are often astonishingly flat; there are "reviewers" who praise certain crap that makes you want to throw your computer off the balcony. The issue is that here in Italy, there's a lack of that healthy critical cynicism that would be really useful. One can't always be diplomatic in life; things need to be told as they are (according to subjective opinion, of course). Granted that Easy's review and those of the fans are at opposite ends, there is, however, an abyssal difference between them. The fans' reviews make Easy's look great. Why do I say this? Just look at the arguments, look at the terminology, look at the critical sense. Many fans' reviews make my balls drop when I read them. They exalt left and right what should be harshly criticized. At least Easy's argument has a head and a tail (with the related exaggerations sometimes, but that can happen in a discussion that has lasted for 4 years). Then, you shouldn't be scared by that 1 assigned to the album, because if justified properly, there’s no problem. Truth doesn't always lie in the middle.

All of this to say what? But to say that as far as I'm concerned, easycure can be a serial killer in his private life, but the only thing that interests me here on Debaser is his argument, and trying to understand whether his reasoning holds up or not. So far, you haven't countered on a technical level, you haven’t talked about rock, you've just limited yourself to saying that he is a provocateur. That’s not enough, come on. Let’s shift the discussion to a more cultural level, and less "resentful" (this time the adjective fits well). Let’s talk about the subject of the discussion, the DT. Now, you should explain to him (according to the good manners of dialectics) why this album doesn’t suck that much for you. Stop continuing to say that he holds a grudge... it makes no sense at all.

...Then sometimes he was cocky...oh my, I'm so sleepy.

...I must ascertain whether you have UNDERSTOOD what Easycure wrote and why he criticized the Dt so much...

Oh my God Shirubvr, your comment seemed a little confusing to me, I didn’t quite understand it! "In response to yours: I’m not offended by your review... I feel a bit of sadness for people who behave exactly as you did..." who are you referring to?? Anyway, we must give credit to Easy for the fact that everything he criticized about the Dt he has always supported with arguments; one can disagree with him, but claiming that this is an unobjective review really makes no sense. His point of view is very clear, and you can see it as provocation (I see it as free criticism, righteous criticism) but Easy has always taken the logical consequences of what he has written. Sometimes he got tangled up in a few confusing and mannered posts, but I challenge anyone, out of 8000 written comments, to always remain clear-headed. At times he has been presumptuous, but that’s understandable, especially with the most ardent Dt fans, who don’t exactly come from the Vienna Circle. So now let’s do a "little exam": summarize in a post Easycure's thoughts on the Dt (AAA: technical thoughts, with related logical steps)... I need to ascertain if you have UNDERSTOOD what Easycure wrote and why he criticized the Dt so much, because you must know your "enemy" well if you want to fight on equal terms.

I didn't understand this about the battles, Larrock!

In "Kill 'Em All," there is the raw energy of punk combined with the heaviness of metal. It's no coincidence that from Metallica came a certain Mustaine (whom I personally despise; I really see Megadeth as overrated), who had a rather explicit punk streak. In short, this marks the birth of speed metal (without taking anything away from Slayer and their peers).