lux

I have Spiderland by Slint, anyway I understand what you mean. Obviously, when I said "post," I was referring to the expressiveness of the message, to the final result, not so much to the musical expressiveness itself. And whether it’s all random...mmm...I wouldn’t be so sure. It’s just that, without a doubt, the approach to playing by DT (90 percent of Metal, let’s be clear) is different from what, say, an indie rock band might have. In fact, they are two completely opposite approaches. I swear I’ve done everything to notice this "non-expressiveness" in DT that you praise; let’s say that in some cases I "realized" and could understand you, while in others the doubt still lingers. Maybe it's because, for me, there isn't an "ideal" form of rock. It would be easy for me to say, now that I’ve listened to certain things in the rock scene, that DT now disgust me and are trash, banal, derivative, etc. Yet, even now, I wouldn't throw their entire discography in the trash. I would save something. Perhaps because the criterion of "musical expressiveness" convinces me, yes, but only up to a certain point.

I believe that the expressiveness of certain songs, like Dance of Eternity and the instrumental central part of Metropolis Part 1 (for example), can be derived from the geometric and abstract forms that these songs manage to suggest to the listener. They are instrumentals that, in their almost total abstraction, a typically post-abstract nature, communicate a sense (for me) of anxiety and urgency, overlapping lines that intersect with speed and geometric precision. Not conveying any specific feeling, each listener can get lost in the total abstraction they communicate, creating their own images in their mind. It is extreme intellectualism, indeed, but that is precisely what makes it fascinating. It is precisely because there is nothing defined and precise in their message.

It’s true, songs like Ghost of Perdition and The Baying of the Hounds are made up of disconnected pieces, making them feel inorganic and unnatural in their progression! Before, everything flowed much more smoothly and naturally… not forced. Here it seems like they have to impress with special effects and obligatory shifts between growl and clean voice. The growl is even put on the back burner in some cases, in favor of greater catchiness. Among the "prog" tracks, the one I prefer is actually Harlequiem/Forest, because it has a more classic Opeth sound.

No! In fact, I wasn't very satisfied; it's all very catchy and precise in production, and it doesn't seem very organic as a work... Isolation Years is the best in my opinion!

No doppler, I have no intention of getting the liz, I assure you... I'm certainly not looking for partners on Debaser, eh eh ;)

But what do you know if I haven't read various critics' opinions, excuse me? The reference point is created through multiple listens; I have informed myself a bit about the history of rock from the 1960s onwards, that is, artistic criticism is inferred from reviews and different opinions. I admit that I might like a band or artist who is objectively poor, but I acknowledge it. When I say that Evanescence are worthless, I say it first of all because they haven't given anything to rock; that they personally disgust me is another matter altogether. I try to objectivize my opinion based on general criticism as well, because criticism is THE reference point. The more you listen to, the more the previously incomprehensible mysteries are devalued.

we are more... "I don't care at all about what you think they have given to music or others, I only care about what I think they have given because theirs is a unique and unmistakable sound." Perfect, if you are not interested in a critical conception of rock, you are free to ignore it. By saying this, however, you only confirm that "you like Evanescence because you like them, and that's it." A statement that is a bit self-serving, since "everything is relative," is a bit of nonsense in my opinion, because the emotions that music evokes are subjective, but artistic relevance is a tad less so. Is beauty and ugliness relative? Tastes are relative, which is somewhat different.

Here’s what your first post was... "lux is different, it's those who judge it so harshly without reason who don't understand a damn thing about music." Think about how much you're talking nonsense, my daughter.

Liz, have you spent all this time crafting this post of yours that says absolutely nothing? Am I speaking to the wind? I explained to you that speculation cannot materialize into something concrete because we’re talking about Music, not the war in Iraq. Besides, you were the one who started to offend, and it's incredible how you combine ignorance with arrogance. I use my brain independently; I just listen to more than you do in the rock realm. So I have more reference points. Do you consider yourself superior to us? But you've said absolutely nothing in 56 posts?? Of course, critical thinking is lacking in Italy, huh? What if you tried to question yourself once in a while? I try to support what I say in some way; you just say that "Evanescence aren’t terrible" WHY? You still haven't told me. And try to contextualize this lousy band, and you’ll see why it's irrelevant in history. And remember, the first one to start poking was you, re-read your posts, darling. You can’t fool me.

"I've listened to this album for whole days. I should say that I’ve been a fan of Dream Theater for almost 12 years, so I've gone through all of their work, and despite this, I am fortunately able to be objective." ...it's clear how objective you are. Ridiculous introduction lacking humility, and above all, you’ve been anything but objective.