lux

None, NONE! On the contrary, Punk, exemplified by the Ramones, is worth much more artistically for critics (in its entirety) than a record by Dt (I repeat that for me I&W is an album that influenced the Metal to come, and ultimately it is the most important album in their discography). This isn't about Diletto Matt, it's about ART. ART. ART. The Ramones create ART. You may dislike them, but they are artistically relevant. Furthermore, the average Rock critic tends to downplay the artistic contribution of Progressive (the '70s, not just neo-prog metal) because it's often considered too redundant, too self-indulgent. Of course, masterpieces exist in the Progressive of the past, no doubt about that. But why don’t you ask yourself why a Rock critic might always have more artistic sympathy for Punk rather than for Progressive, for example? BECAUSE GOOD ROCK FOR THE "INTELLECTUAL" HISTORIAN OF ROCK is ABSOLUTELY NOT WHAT contains more academic and compositional theory? Why does a critic (not just those who focus on expressiveness, I think) tend to love the four chords of the aforementioned Ramones and not particularly get excited by Petrucci's virtuosities? This should make you think.

Sure, I used to think that a song had to have at least a couple of hyper techno prog solos to be cool; now I can get emotional listening to "When you sleep" by My Bloody Valentine. But above all, I have shifted my view of Art from "if the guitarist doesn't shred, I don't like it" to a more historical-cultural perspective. It's very easy to understand. Since I like to have a global view on everything (not just music), in order to discuss with someone, you need to perceive their cultural background, their cultural "capital," otherwise how can you empathize with the other person? How can you truly understand their point of view? Just understanding it is already a big step forward. There's absolutely no need to share it. Because it's pointless to suggest that they listen to Angra (!) when Easy is into Mudhoney. There’s a huge gap in cultural instances and viewpoints. But you need to abstract, ABSTRACTION of the fundamental concepts, read the particular interrelations within a discourse, and finally arrive at the THEREFORE.

Dear Matt.. let me guess, you're right-wing, right? X D.. because that's the only way to explain phrases like Discipline and Study applied to Rock.. to Rock, which is evident (since I've informed myself a little, but just a little) that the most important bands in this field are precisely those with the least Discipline(?) and Study(??).. You are the classic Progster, so you have a particular view of rock. But go ask a TRUE music critic (with at least some competence and culture in rock as a whole) if the Pixies or DT are worth more ARTISTICALLY. Let’s see what they answer you. The fact is not that I defend Easy (it doesn’t need it anyway), but that Easy gave me the impetus to inform myself about things I didn't know before (or didn't know well). I recommend the same to you.

You never stop learning! ...you're right, you never stop learning! Kill 'em All is one of the fundamental albums of metal, of significant historical relevance; it gave rise to a genre...it's a masterpiece. Octavarium? a useless (and even ugly) album, except for the title track which is still pleasant to listen to.

Rock is everything; I used to make a distinction between Metal and rock as well, but that was out of my ignorance. Rock is the Velvet Underground, the Grateful Dead, just like the Nile, NIN, the Pixies, and DT. They are all rock. Blind Guardian is rock, Fugazi is rock. It may sound strange, but it is so. Because we are talking about the history of rock.

No, I mean, as long as we’re talking about Dt it’s fine, the issue divides the parties, everyone has their say, okay… but if you have to speak poorly of the Pixies, it’s a lost battle from the start, I’ll tell you right away… if they’re not rock, what would Dt be, classical music really????

"If you could remove from your mind the idea that every group on earth has to be innovative (which, by the way, I don't see the innovation in the pixies, except for the various noisy and psychedelic distortions that if removed, reveal a conception of MUSIC so basic and mediocre that it becomes disarming). You're talking about things that don't concern you, Matt, just let it go... Rock is not Discipline and study, you're probably confusing it with classical music."

oh oh, I foresee some serious trouble...

Well Orion, stating that a song lacks personality (a glaring example being "through her eyes," perhaps the lowest point of the entire DT discography) is equivalent to saying it is artistically deficient. Or not?

"to pure stylistic elements that could be avoided if there truly existed a poetics that, being such, embraced coordinates of uniqueness, like palm muting, double bass, those typical prog keyboard sounds, etc.... I don't quite understand... is using palm muting and double bass a bad thing? Is it a denial of poetics? Or is using them TOO MUCH a denial of poetics?"