lux

I am completely free to criticize any album, even harshly. And you can't afford to tell me that I’m ridiculous for an opinion you don’t share, for obvious reasons of tolerance for others' ideas. And Larrok told you that too. Let's see if you have any functioning neurons left in your head to understand it.

FJELLTRONEN mercy. "But know that if we had been face to face, no one would have stopped me from slapping you in the mouth," is not a threat. "If you bother me again, I'll slap you in the mouth," this is a threat.

Hell, to make it into the ranking of human cases, you need to do something truly special.

No, you're not mistaken; even the Flashtones don't convince me, but I definitely prefer them to the DT. The approach, even though it can't be measured, can be perceived, and it's pretty obvious that a Petrucci is irredeemably less imaginative than a Lee Ranaldo or an Ash Bowie. However, my concept isn’t necessarily “the more I find equals from the past, the worse they are,” because one can be formally fresh (applying metal distortion to their pieces and having a polished and well-crafted production) but essentially 30 years old. In this regard, the DT worsen, negatively extremizing the intuitions of Rush, Yes, ELP, and even Mahavishnu Orchestra, in my opinion.

"Perhaps no one before them had the courage to play the manual of metal so shamelessly." I wrote this because I believe (and we detractors do too) that no band has ever been metal in such a standard, textbook way, so I can't name names. They were and still are a formal abstraction of funk, progressive, pop, psychedelia, all in a metal sauce, aesthetically pleasing in their early works. They borrow a lot from FW, I see Queensryche as different, but aside from the references, I still see DT as one of the most formal and impersonal abstractions of all rock, and I don't blame Labrie for the timbre, but for how he sings: it's the manual of the syrupy love song, epic in a kitschy sense. Petrucci’s solo in, I don't know, Under a Glass Moon sounds like a guitar should never sound: AOR style, with all the attached defects. Portnoy has 9 in technique and 1 in groove; he's a machine gun that personally means nothing to me apart from the aesthetically pleasing tum tum tam tam. But the problem with DT has never been aesthetics.

Pixies, for DT, it’s not so much a problem of who played like them before 1989; the issue is that they had the courage, perhaps among the first, to concentrate all the stereotypes of rock and pop music into metal, in a crystalline way. So they could paradoxically have been original in proposing their eclectic yet hyperconformist style. So much so that Labrie’s syrupy highs, Portnoy’s solos, the double bass from Portnoy, etc., are immediately stereotypical, with an aseptic execution. Indeed, perhaps no one before them had the courage to play the metal manual in such a blatant way. So much so that I personally no longer reproach them for some plagiarism per se, although evident (no problem, after all), but I criticize the manner in which they present these other people's passages.

FJELLTRONEN you are completely out of your mind, I can’t even imagine how you behave in real life. Just know that if we were face to face, no one would stop me from giving you a nice slap in the mouth, just to make you lower that little crest. And you fully confirm the stereotype of the average metalhead.

I've got it... unbearable

Still with the Opeth, but what can I say? Should I tell you they're the best of the last 40 years just to make you happy? You're seriously mind-blowing.

Listen, do I have to apologize to someone if this The 3rd and the Mortal is really pissing me off? What are you looking for? What do you want? I don't think I've tried to forcefully convince anyone of my opinion, to me it's not music, in the sense of junk. So what do we want to do?