Senmayan

Anyway, music has really sunk into the abyss if now someone who knows how to play an instrument has to be ashamed because there’s some jerk who claims that just because he shows off his technique, he’s an egocentric. Symphony X follows a musical trend called neoclassical, which has its own stylistic elements and peculiarities to adhere to, so it’s normal for some compositions to seem repetitive. This is called passion for a genre; if you don’t like it, that’s a matter of taste. Neoclassical is partially influenced by classical music and baroque scores. It’s natural that it doesn't possess the musical and intellectual taste of that music; let's say the founding fathers of this genre were Emerson, Lake & Palmer, so I think you get what neoclassical means. Blind Guardian (who have nothing to do with this group) are a band with great songwriting, at least in "Nightfall on Middle-Earth." Now they are excessively verbose, baroque, and pompous, and I agree with you, but they are among the few bands that have abandoned the stereotypes of power metal and have built their own personal and distinguishable sound. Then, as usual, if you don’t like them, that’s taste, but they are anything but trivial; it’s a matter of sensitivity and taste, but the work behind those albums is enormous, and there is passion above all. Complain about pop-punk, about Biagio Antonacci; that’s crap that peddles disposable, pre-packaged emotions!

good and nice!!!

In live, I don’t know how they are, but the solos shot out randomly (at least according to you) are typical of that neo-classical style started by Malmsteen and picked up and even copied by bands like Stratovarius and, indeed, Symphony X. So if you don’t like that genre, I get it (because it is indeed repetitive). The only show-off to me seems to be Malmsteen; the solos of Symphony X only appear haphazard and meaningless after one or two listens. Let's say the technique is displayed (and not by little), but I've never seen it as an end in itself; it had a purpose, at least in the previous albums. However, I don't think I'll be listening to this album; currently, the band is far from what I enjoy.

For trickykid: in this sense, I agree with you. I also don’t like exaggerated praise for a genre.

alessioride but why do you get mad instead of sending me a hair from your ass?:-) If I make these considerations about you, it’s because you said those things seriously. If you want to take them back, then you’re just being hypocritical, and leave aside the personal insults; here I was critiquing your musical vision and not your person, who I honestly have no interest in knowing, so don't stretch it!

Tricky, I personally do not have a Manichean view of pros and cons, and in fact, I have always criticized, for instance, Alessioride (I mention you often because I care about you), but also Azzo, who claims that true music is only that which conveys anger and frustration, while Alessioride believes that anything that isn't alternative or punk is awful. This is Manicheanism, not the belief that prog has been important and that masterpieces have emerged from it. I don't understand what's Manichean about this perspective, especially since no one here has criticized punk; rather, it has been pointed out that this latter genre stands in stark contrast to prog, having even emerged as a reaction against prog bands and their grandiosity and the "old mummies who only thought about making money," like Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple (I'm talking about the late 1970s phase, when Led Zeppelin themselves became too self-satisfied and ostentatious in their sound). Prog, then, is a term that should define progression, continuous evolution; that’s why many include Tool in it as well. The flaw lies in the fact that some insights that were innovative in the 70s have been crystallized, stereotyped, and copied by many groups, giving rise to a label for various 70s experiments. In other words, prog shouldn't have a defined, recognizable sound; prog should be experimentation. When clone bands or those inspired by Genesis or ELP (especially) emerged, the prog genre was born, but in the 70s, it was known as "Canterbury sound" or avant-garde rock; only the subsequent crystallization and the clone bands created the term prog, which has lost its original meaning. But prog had a true innovative charge, and the same trajectory applies to punk and new wave, so it seems foolish to have a debate about which is the best genre and which records are masterpieces, because those who fanatically love prog come to tell you that those who play new wave are depressed fags trying to be miserable and misanthropic at all costs, and those who play punk do so to mask their deficiency and poor musical preparation. Those who fanatically listen to punk and new wave will tell you that prog bands are cold, self-serving, false, and purposeless. Who is right? Neither, of course; the truth lies in the middle.

I quote oleeinar and arnoldlayne. It should be added that alongside psychedelia, with bands like the early Pink Floyd, prog has destroyed the song form, introducing suites; often in prog, tracks would last 20 or even 30 minutes, a logic that is completely anti-commercial. Often, prog bands would simply improvise (not just them, but they had this approach), so whether you like it or not, prog has paved the way for many musical genres that are light years away from prog. It has moved away from the concept of popular music, that is, the simple verse-chorus song, pre-packaged tracks, etc.

Arnold there will be a fake pretending to be me, but I have never made anti-Maria comments. I am innocent, it wasn't me ;-). In which review would I have made this comment?

Your sentence didn't seem to imply this; I noticed quite a bit of mockery in it. Anyway, I take the blame, but that doesn't change the fact that, regarding prog, in my opinion, you’ve said a few nonsense things. Surely, prog was born from people who loved a certain cultured music, but they also loved the instinctive and primordial energy of rock, and so these two passions simply came together. If these people had wanted to be mere intellectuals, they would have thrown themselves into jazz or something else. Whether you like it or not, from a certain perspective, prog has elevated rock, transforming it from a merely tough and instinctive genre that anyone can play into something with musical sophistication. In the end, from a certain point of view, prog has also ennobled the most ignorant rock. All the virtuosos on their instruments (not just in prog), and later the guitar heroes, have somehow drawn even those listeners who are completely opposed to this genre closer. Sure, the children that came out of this, but also some of the fathers have closed themselves off in their self-satisfaction and self-referentiality, becoming technique for its own sake. However, degenerate offspring can be found in every musical genre. Moreover, Genesis never flaunted their technical skills; they always prioritized melodies and songs. There are no sterile technicalities, not even in Fripp, who has influenced much of the music you listen to as well. That's why we should never generalize.

and rinse your mouth when you talk about Genesis (at least the ones with Peter Gabriel), don't shoot nonsense, just say you hate them but don't say stupid things!