easycure

4) If, as mentioned before, it is very debatable that the DTs are original, it is a mystery to me how they could even be innovative. As the good "Non si smette mai di imparare" said above, originality can exist without innovation, but not vice versa. Furthermore, I have mentioned the term "innovation" several times, but what I was trying to explain to you above is that I have definitely framed my analysis within a much broader discourse than simply that of innovating.

3) ORIGINALITY I think that in this case there are no doubts about the definition :-D ..when it comes to the intuition of the DTs, I always think of a band called Rush, and it would seem ridiculous to claim that the difference lies in the fact that metal at the time of the DTs was different from that of the 70s.. thank you, but this is, I would say, a biological reason.. as for the rest, their approach is not original, since blending different styles was an attitude that had already been present in rock for at least a decade. So it’s still not remotely clear to me in what way the DTs were original. But this is not news :-)

2) expressive: "that effectively conveys a thought or a feeling" note: have you ever wondered what "effectively" refers to? Do you think an expression that draws on what others have expressed can be effective? Moreover, I have never denied that it is subjective.. but according to your reasoning, there shouldn't even be criticism, according to your reasoning it is even pointless to discuss.. but then what were you intervening for, first of all? :-D

Now let's move on to the dear Matt: 1) the definition of art you provide from the dictionary is certainly valid, but you haven't taken into account a couple of aspects: first, I have never denied the concept of EXPERIENCE, which I have always considered fundamental. Second, I have never denied the concept of STUDY either. The difference is that for you, study is fundamental and a priori, while for me IN ROCK it is neither fundamental nor a priori, but I certainly wouldn't claim that to make rock one must intentionally NOT study; I said that one can bypass it at various levels... and to understand this, it's enough to listen to some rock records without needing to resort to the dictionary.

Dear, one never stops learning, and the fact that Heatfield is rough should mean it’s not expressive? Come on, come on... Moreover, you focus on the idea that "kill 'em all" is innovative but not expressive... hmm :-D it's a matter of opinions... However, I believe that to establish a genre, to indeed guide a different way of EXPRESSING oneself in the metal scene, one must be a bit expressive ;-D

even worse: "His is the culture of ignorance: gross musical incompetence, but a great display of mnemonic glitter" did I perhaps say that I have never touched an instrument and know nothing about music? Come now, read above again.. if I haven't expressed my skills it's purely a matter of style, which you clearly lack, and I will continue not to show them off, since, I repeat, it is perfectly useless: you are indeed decidedly ignorant when it comes to criticism, but if you had the foresight to inform yourself about the great critics who have written on the history of rock (to whom I humbly refer since we are talking about rock) you would know that they are anything but excellent musicians.. more often than not, they aren't even musicians.. but this is a mild, trivial point in the history of criticism: why do you think all film or literary critics are great directors or great writers? Come on, please.. the basics are missing here, foundational knowledge is lacking.. I beg you, don’t make me waste time dismantling your terrifying assertions again, it’s truly degrading..

The only thing she does is throw herself into a priori, senseless, evidently biased, and unfounded criticism of my style and my analysis. She says: "For me, you may have listened to all the albums in this world, but if these are your conclusions, it seems that your critical ability is reduced to a mere display of names..." This statement is literally terrifying in its, forgive me, blunt lack of objectivity. She asserts that if I arrive at certain conclusions, NECESSARILY my critical ability would reduce to a display of names... Why? What is the reason? On what basis does this statement stand? And above all, how is it possible to label in this way (I repeat, without even explaining) someone else's opinion? You have remained in the pre-Enlightenment period, dear friend; you do not grasp the fundamental concept of opinion... Not only that, but you demand to judge without providing any minimal support for your hypothesis, failing to place yourself on the same level... In summary, I expected everything, but not the disconcerting stupidity of comments like the ones you had the audacity to post a little above.

it's not a matter of criticism, it’s purely a matter of "knowing how to write" in the sense of knowing how to argue: every statement that aims to be a demonstration must, in general, provide a cause and an effect; you limit yourself to childish, and unworthy of your pompous style, little phrases thrown in without any explicit understanding of the subject. I suggest you read Aristotle, just to get a basic idea of "logic" :-D

Incredible! Really incredible: point number 1) she allows herself to make certain statements about style and, in fact, says absolutely nothing: Her only response to my analysis is: "The baroque theater that you call a decoy, is actually an integral part of the Muse's style, which proposes a new way of doing rock." Well, but why? What are the reasons? In what way do they propose a new way of doing rock? She hasn't said anything, hasn't explained, her opinion stays superficial, says nothing, even the most dispassionate of readers would simply find her ridiculous :-D

"expressiveness uniqueness of form".. obviously the uniqueness of a form that EXPRESS, that is, that communicates something .. before giving rise to sterile arguments ;-) ah, I thank Lux for his great objectivity.. always very objective, Lux :-D