lux

"Then comes the form, the fact that resorting to pre-packaged styles constitutes the basis of expression, for me it is a deformity, it is ugly." I don't believe so. It's simply not innovative, not ugly. Moreover, Opeth started as a Death Metal band, and if you have listened to anything from Death Metal, you would have noticed the difference between them and Obituary, for example. The song structure is certainly not innovative (they draw on progressive influences already heard), but the NATURALNESS of the succession of "growl, the more reflective part, the epic and grand finale" evokes sincerity; it’s not crafted around a table. Sincerity and naturalness are important because they give the composition a reason to exist. It is easy to be "expressive and original" in the avant-garde; it is easy to be genius in the seemingly rule-less noise of the guitar distortion walls of My Bloody Valentine (whom I appreciate a lot). What is more difficult is to be genuine and respectable in the communicative message when one does not have the ambition to revolutionize rock at all costs... I don't know if you understand me.

I know it's easy, but these are his words: "it means it's a masterpiece and should be purchased immediately."

Thank you for listening to them, but what exactly do you mean by "in the second part they resort to the usual somewhat embarrassing special effects in their expressive naivety"? Also, "the fact of having to inevitably resort to a stylistic device in order to evoke a feeling is an inconceivable deformity"? Do you find these stylistic devices so canonical? Why??

So Easy, I've looked into it for a long time, don't worry. You're a sly one because you consider two exceptions that confirm the rule. It's true about the MBV and Wyatt and also the Soft Machine, but that doesn't change his general disdain for English rock. This isn't an observation I made up, you know. On the contrary, the 9 he gives to The River by Bruce Springsteen is, let's say, abnormal. The 6 he gives to Madonna is horrifying. Maybe it's true that English rock, in general, isn't of the highest quality, but I can't believe that American rock is so superior. Oh by the way, when Scaruffi gives an album an 8, it means it's a masterpiece and should be bought immediately (words from Scaruffi himself). Considering that his 8 corresponds to a 16 from other more "canonical" critics, I would say that an 8 for Images and Words is really too much. I agree with him about The Cure though, when he states that they have never had any significant artistic impact (or something like that, I don't remember exactly).

Hi Easy.. I was thinking back to what you said about Opeth and your outright rejection of them.. I’ve never been able to stomach it! I invite you to listen to just two more of their songs, Face of Melinda and The Night And The Silent Water. Listen to them, then tell me what you think and if you find those just as awful.. they’re not innovative in the strictest sense, but in my opinion, they’re conceived in a decidedly original way.

and I was talking about artistic quality.

from collapse

The 6.5 that Scaruffi gives to Octavarium is absurd. How the heck does he rate it 6.5? He should explain it to me.

Scaruffi is pro-America. Out of 10 American rock bands and artists, he speaks well of at least 8. In contrast, out of 10 English rock bands and artists, he only speaks well of 2 (at most). This is his biggest limitation. If the Dt had been English, he would have given 6 (at most) to I&W, and then 4 to all the other albums. However, regarding Anathema, for example (whom he intellectually annihilates and in terms of ratings), he’s right; I also think they are overrated.

For heaven's sake, ENOUGH!!!!!!!! To Tommy, how can you come out with this?? Reread silently all the posts above and just stick to this, please.