easycure

And what is it, that by distancing itself from such a mediocre and artistically dishonest attitude truly stands out as a unique expressiveness? The baroque and classical references? Please... what do these references really change on a substantial level? The structure remains the typical rock song format, the instruments are still rock (except for a piano that, even when weaving the main riff of the song, does not change in the slightest the meaning already expressed by the equation Nirvana + Radiohead, a simplistic equation but already sufficiently exhaustive) the way of understanding the guitar remains rock, just like the bass, the voice remains rock, except for a few pale digressions that once again do not change the meaning at all: when does Bellamy actually stray from the usual stale melancholic drama? Never, not ever... beyond various special effects that mutate to cover the aforementioned shortcomings, their expressive module is clearly terribly repetitive... and don't even bring up the ridiculously trivial discussion of the ballad and the fast piece, such a distinction has been obsolete for at least three decades... it's not a matter of "taking from others," it's about failing to create a genuine personal expression, it's about a lack of poetic substance, it's about mediocre communicativity.

Haven't I argued? And is arguing instead "well executed"? :-D Well... a matter of opinions... I never said that Bellamy doesn't evoke emotions; I said that his poetics, that is, his way of stirring feelings, is stale, reheated and superficial, frankly mediocre... it's a waste of effects, of expressionist violence, of sonic paroxysms aimed solely at creating emotional tension, but with the most banal tricks in that regard... what should be surprising, the fury of the drums? The suffering of the vocals? The compressed distortion of the bass? In what way do these special effects surpass both the frenzy of Nirvana and the morbid melancholy of Radiohead? That's what I'm asking, and that's what I am arguing... my answer is: obviously in nothing... and it is all too evident upon listening... with his pompous trills, Bellamy even positions himself as a sort of "disciple" of Yorke (a definition not mine, scaruffi.com), which has the one obvious and hypocritical (aesthetically speaking) trick of attracting the crowds who already applauded Yorke... the instrumental part, with its constant references to "trends" and styles that are so overtly cited, has exactly the same effect...

Damn, "easycure go and save yourself," you're right.. well, I didn't realize you were his defense lawyer? :-D Why does it matter so much to you? In any case, he asked for it.. actually, he had.. seeing that he finally had the foresight to express it, an opinion.. so now there's no scandal, don't worry ;-)

But Orion, for heaven's sake, what does it change? It's purely a grammatical issue... anyway, if it bothers you so much, I will stop using question/answer in my posts... so I’ll just end up wasting a lot more space. Let me give you an example; here’s a sentence from one of my previous posts: "but then where is the originality? In the approach perhaps... no no, not even in that..." etc. etc. Now, the only thing that would change if I phrased it without a question is that it would come out like this: "But then originality is found in nothing... unless maybe in the approach you will say... and actually not even in that since etc. etc." Now, on a meaning level, what would have changed? Come on... :-)

but larrok, my issue was one of method, not merit.. I wasn't delving into the content of the review, I was just trying (with great difficulty by now) to explain to Matt that if an album, from a critic who is undoubtedly serious, as he says, is rated 8.5, it’s hard to believe that it’s only for "historical" reasons, and anyway, such issues will obviously be closely tied to the artistic and musical quality of a group.. phew :-D

But I, dear one, have indeed refrained from offending her in person during this last stretch... since I obtained from her what I wanted, namely her finally clear point of view on the Muses. If anything, it is about that which I have spoken, the merits and flaws of her much-praised perspective... as usual, between her and me, the differences in style are abundant... it doesn't really seem to me that I am the one "venting my frustrations" eheheh ;-)

I only see a group skilled at manipulating overly obvious quotes; the poetics of Radiohead is never truly surpassed... it only magnifies the Pathos, with a pseudo-expressionist attitude that is tragically too insistent... the presumption of a continuous waste of attitudes aimed at creating emotional tension is a blatant ploy to hide expressive emptiness and an overly conscious lack of originality... there’s nothing that genuinely suggests a style... where do baroque and rock blend to create a new sound? Isn’t the insistent dramatic warbling of Bellamy far too reminiscent of Yorke’s singing? And why should an arpeggio or a piano phrase in a baroque style constitute personality by itself? In reality, their personality is purely performative; it never builds a truly personal poetics, theirs is a trend that is all too clear, their riffs are obsolete, Bellamy’s singing is outdated.

But let's get to the point.. (as much as one can get from such a waste of superficiality) I find myself asking you.. and therefore? You have only talked about form, you have not contextualized except in terms of "taking this or that back," you have described only the formal tricks they use and the pseudo states of mind elicited, you have not explained the why, you have not explained the meaning, let alone the significance.. it follows that Muse are a band skilled at blending classical/baroque elements with various shifts from rock elements.. for example, you say: "It’s a song that clearly defines the state of uncertainty, halfway between anger and hope, between drama and trust, which is one of the main threads of the album." but why? In what way? Where do the formal elements connect to this type of meaning? You are completely missing the connection.

which analysis seems to resolve itself very superficially into a description of the pieces, nothing more.. certainly very accurate, with many references and even (obviously useless for as curious as they are) quotations of the chords used and a great squandering of the names of various references (thank goodness it would be me who refers to the names).. the adjectives she uses go no further than "accurate," "well conceived," "well executed," and things like that.. furthermore, she describes the emotions evoked, but once again it is just a description, nothing more than the sensations they might have stirred in her, but I find nothing that really analyzes the album, there’s nothing that goes to the substance, to the deep... overall, the value of her analysis is that of a middle school essay description..

Ah, so this is what you consider to be criticism; let me immediately present a methodological critique: describing every single piece in detail is, in most cases, absolutely pointless. It obscures the overall view of the album, which, if understood as something more than just a simple sum of songs—if it has value in itself and not merely based on the quality of each individual track—should be appreciated as a whole. It may reference certain pieces, but it should focus on the essence of what the record is, a factor that otherwise risks being lost, as it seems to happen in your lengthy analysis.