lux

Luca-LJ, you are my idol.

Finally, now you listen to it... and anyway, I have expanded my opinion from the album to the band... but you can't say that without knowledge, no. It seems like I'm talking nonsense based on what you say, but as you can see, I've always tried to argue my point. In light of this, I repeat: I do NOT hate Pt and I do NOT find them disgusting, but they do have evident limits. That doesn't take away from the fact that they've done good things, perhaps very good ones, but overall they have clear limitations (at least in the last albums).

I wanted to say "Next Big Thing."

But no hearing has been canceled, dear host. Now let me explain why. 1. In several songs by PT, I see bland melodies with Bridges and Refrains worthy of the worst "big Next Thing" in England (listen to "the Sound Of MuzaK" for that matter). 2. Wilson has a voice, in my opinion, that is decidedly aseptic and expressionless (it sounds like he’s taking a Statistics exam when he sings). I don’t see any feeling, I don’t see any communication. 3. Often, PT falls into a basement-level psychedelic sound (not even parlor-level, really basement, listen to the penultimate track of Deadwing, the one that anesthetizes the testicles, if you get my drift). 4. Wilson doesn't exactly have great songwriting ability (the longer, more pretentious psychedelic songs all have a very similar structure). 5. PT reminds me of Anathema post-Silent Enigma (who, in my opinion, after The Silent Enigma only composed evanescent songs devoid of incisiveness, really irritating and lacking bite, not even catchy... not even that).

Ondarock doesn't dismiss Faith No More; it downsizes the genius aura created around Patton. To dismiss and to downsize are two different terms. Scaruffi's take on the Beatles is an example of a dismissal.

You know, while you continue with over-the-top tones, I have always remained calm… let’s say it might be too difficult to keep up with the criticism and understand what it means? Okay, I’ve often read things I don’t agree with from so-called critics, but criticism is THE reference point. Personally, there is no art without criticism. Without criticism, even Take That could be considered art. And I don’t find that appealing. Then, everyone shapes their own thoughts according to their sensitivity, but, especially considering that even the Velvet Underground have been called into question, I don’t see why I can’t question Porcupine Tree. If I had said they suck... I just said they are a decent band that undoubtedly peaked with their earlier albums. Is that so hard to understand?

Apologies, the correct link is this-----http://www.ondarock.it/recensioni/2002_porcupinetree.htm

Onda Rock | Webzine sul mondo della musica Here is the link that talks about the review of Absentia on Ondarock. Read it carefully. Pay close attention to the final concluding sentences of the reviewer especially. I'm not the only one to think a certain way about this land.

Ninety percent of the people who come in here don't necessarily have to understand more than I do when it comes to talking about Rock.

I'm sorry to hear that, but your last post (if it's referring to me) comes across as aggressive for no reason. I say what I want until proven otherwise, since we are talking about PORCUPINE TREE (AND I REITERATE PORCUPINE TREE, not VELVET UNDERGROUND). On Ondarock, the ratings range from 5 to 7. I don’t see any 8s or 9s. Of course, I would also give "Sky moves Sideways" a 7/7.5. In fact (but pretend not to understand), I said that Ondarock discusses PT in a way that I moderately agree with (except for the review of Deadwing, which I disagree with). So if you want to discuss with me, relax, calm down, and talk civilly. I reiterate that I find them overrated. Bring me a critic from the history of Rock who tells me they are one of the highest artistic quality bands of the 90s, and then we can talk about it.