CycoCiccio

ERRATA CORRIGE: "I've BEEN drinkin' too much wine". I apologize, it was 4 in the morning when I wrote it.

...I forgot the voting...

I didn't know that the Guns also kept an ear on the Sabbath. An album to listen to, a review to read.

Ah Cool.. If you don’t idolize them, explain to me the reasons for this insistence in defending them.. I just don’t understand you. If tomorrow you give a 2 to << "an important group in their genre" >> I will come to leave my comment under your lines. Maybe I’ll discuss it too, but after a while, it ends there. You (but especially a wise guy named Undying) speak "like Jesuits"... Oh! Rock is a faith, but musicians (not always, thankfully) are really just fools...

I quote the words I wrote in the review: "And to think that there are people like Mudvayne, as skilled as they are full of ideas, who, to stand out in the melting pot of the time, reached the point of having to imitate them." I repeat Galakordi: "reached the point of HAVING TO imitate them." And you teach me that the verb "to have" implies a command, an imperative to fulfill an obligation. In our case, it was evidently "suggested" to them to mimic Slipknot if they wanted to gain notoriety. In the world of labels, it works like that... let alone in America, where they are notoriously much more "trendy" than we are...

The problem with early works is that they are poorly produced. Perhaps the ideas are there and valid, but in the end (alas) it's the final result that matters. The melodic inserts of "Skydancer" do not measure up to those from "Haven" onwards. I repeat, not due to the musicians' shortcomings, but because of insurmountable technological limits. Skydancer especially (already much less "the Gallry") should be re-recorded and rearranged accordingly. The piece aimed to reach those who have never heard them, and Skydancer did not seem like the most appealing starting point.

Once again I agree with alexander77. Full respect for the artist's ideas. But it really doesn't connect much with the music.

"Well done to quote the text of 'Something For Nothing'..."

Perhaps you, dear Cool, are very young (I'm not "an old man," but I always remain skeptical), so completely blameless for your choices. But be careful, not everything glitters...
With time (if Mr. Robinson grants it, we'll kiss his hands), they can grow and have their say. But to say that "the first album is amazing, while the second and third already suck," as far as I'm concerned, is nonsense. This allows labels, if there are those who believe hearsay instead of their own tastes, to discard artists who start thinking for themselves and launch other carnival phenomena. A massacre of our poor ears.

I realize that the review (while denouncing an irreversible status quo) practically "makes a fool" of anyone who has approached metal through this group. In this sense, I can be offensive, indeed. From my side, however, there is no intention to mock anyone. Just to make one reflect on certain "coincidences." If then, Cool, you and many others have chosen to idolize your golden calf, I certainly will never be able to change your mind. And I don't even care to. To me, Slipknot came across as unpleasant and predictable because they showed that even a spontaneous and passionate movement like rock (in a very broad sense) and metal could be commodified. If RoadRunner (which in its market is a "major" as ravenous as the others, indeed perhaps even worse) had given them time to grow, people like me would have felt a bit less cheated. I remember when they started playing them repeatedly on "Superrock" after releasing the first album. Just a few years earlier, when it had been decided that metal "wasn't popular anymore," we would never have dreamed of this. These people of whom you are unaware "victims" (of course in a broad sense) ignored the scene for almost ten years, burying the trailblazers. Then one day they decided that everything had returned to how it was before.