lux

So, I'm not the only one who has noticed Professor Darkheam's artificial, pompous, sterile, rhetorical writing style. From now on, you are my Kappler.

"Melodic Death Metal. As the name suggests, the genre in question is a blend of Death metal and typically old-school melodies/harmonies: think Iron Maiden or Judas Priest, to be clear"---- what originality! They've literally invented a genre, there's no denying it! Practically one of the most innovative bands since Chuck Berry.

Anathema... I just can't stand them :-/

It doesn’t seem prohibitive to me to intuit that the Offlaga tell stories about something that, probably, as the "wise" beast suggests, they have never experienced themselves, and certain gruesome events they may have truly seen “through binoculars”… and this makes an album like their debut (not this one perhaps, but Socialismo Tascabile does) even greater, where situations never really lived are recalled, where melancholy seems at times to stem from having been mere spectators rather than protagonists… where the aim is universal rather than contingent experience, with the regret of not being able to live simultaneously in every place and every era, thus the imagination finds release in the melancholy of experiences never lived but easily intuited, and vice versa. Magnificent. Not to mention that with Socialismo Tascabile one could be moved while smiling (even more magnificent). It's too funny that someone up here gave the Offlaga a 1, and then went on to give a 4 (QUATTRO - QUATRE - FOUR - QUATRO) to the latest gag-inducing outburst from the Afterhours. Yes, that’s truly some fine stuff, not pseudo-intellectual at all. The beauty of it is that this someone also feels entitled to berate you if he gets upset, simply because you think differently from him.. and he tells you that you don’t understand a damn thing. That’s the beauty of it. The ugly part is that this someone could be 40 years old. A mountain of sadness.

"Progressive revelation of the twenty-first century"--- it sounds like an oxymoron.

Pixies not only represent pop but also rock in a broad sense. The two bands are certainly very different, but not so much because the material they handle is different, rather because their approaches to handling this material are completely distinct: one could be described as much more conservative than the other. For me, these approaches can be comfortably compared not only between the Beatles and MBV but among all the bands in the world that, in one way or another, fall into the rock category. Regardless of the sub-genres they belong to (progressive, punk, industrial... pop or shoegaze), because I believe it's misleading to judge an album or any band based on their genre. For instance, punk albums are judged among punk records, metal among metal, and so on. I think this is very limiting and overly relativizing, as it would create absurd and prejudicial hierarchies (like progressive being better than punk, noise being better than new wave... assuming that "The noise," "The new wave," and so forth actually exist in reality). That's why I focus on how something sounds rather than what it sounds like. Take care, goodbye! :-)

The Beatles (generalizing for convenience) play songs with the same vigor that a novice would have when picking up a guitar for the first time and trying to compose their first song. Why is that? Because their way of understanding the song was classic; you can add all the psychedelic tricks you want, but it seems evident to me that these were just a backdrop to "differentiate" otherwise completely normal pieces. What you call the "same sound" of the MBV represents the homogeneity of the band's non-traditional sound. A homogeneity that, in turn, hides influences that don't need obvious aesthetic embellishments slapped in your face to be noticed. The brilliance is right there: a unique sound and approach, but multi-referential. A bit like the Pixies, whom you undoubtedly know ghgh.

"Groups divide between those who respect traditions and those who violate them" — how true! But why is it necessary to claim that the latter are superior to the former? It seems to me an almost tautological consequence, not to mention necessary... It's true that we should look at how the latter violate (the Royal Trux, for example, do violate, but I’m not convinced by them), but generally speaking, the former will lose regardless, if with "traditions" we don’t simply mean a vague concept, but rather a precise synonym for clichés.

"One example above all: 'Twin Infinities' --> I find it COMPLETELY unbearable."--- in fact, it IS totally unbearable! :-DDDDDD A shining example of historical importance that, in my opinion, does not align with artistic value... you couldn't have found a better example.

Here’s one of the many comments from David81 randomly taken: "I don't think Syd (a talent!!) could take on Lennon in one bite... no way!! Lennon was definitely more influential on world music and at the same time capable of writing masterpieces that Barrett and even the Floyd can only dream of. There’s no comparison... Strawberry Fields and Lucy in the Sky are by the Beatles, and the Floyd have never reached such masterpieces of bucolic psychedelia. It’s pointless... the intro of LSD by the Beatles is worth as much as the entire discography of the Floyd... The Floyd are saved only by the first album, Atom Heart Mother (only the suite), and The Final Cut... the rest is mediocrity." ------ Who will have the courage to comment on such a whirlwind of assorted nonsense?