easycure

Oh right, then there's "Non si finisce mai d'imparare." "Expressiveness is also something else... it’s about conveying emotions, it’s about touching the intimate sensitivity of the listener." Look, you got it wrong... this is just the emotionality of a piece, one of the most dispensable things there is. According to your reasoning, someone like Captain Beefheart wouldn’t be expressive because he sings clumsily with the band improvising underneath, meaning he doesn’t convey emotions in the classical sense... but this is obviously ridiculous, as Captain Beefheart is UNANIMOUSLY considered one of the greatest geniuses of the '60s. Expressiveness is the personality of style, the uniqueness of form. Do you understand better the reference to Heatfield now? Do you understand why he is expressive? ...and then, that term again, innovation... you’re obsessed :-D one thing is innovation, another is originality (a concept already QUITE different), and yet another is personality (a concept even further different)... I have never spoken simply in terms of innovation, you bring this up because it suits your belief :-).

Oh right, you didn't like the one about the Beatles either... why, excuse me, did they write nothing but pop songs? I didn't know they had done suites or major rock blues improvisations... but maybe we have a different idea of the Beatles' journey... I must have missed a few albums :-D ...look, anyway, "pop song" doesn't necessarily have a negative connotation... it's simply what they've always done, just like the Beach Boys, for example... well, you really got fired up, Orion :-D why is that? hehehe ;-)

"putting funk in a prog metal piece" ah, and what would be the expressive need to put funk in prog metal? (by the way, if we talk about demonstrated things, it has been shown that funk was already present in prog, and even more so funk with metal..) ..above all, I don't understand where the expressed concepts, as undoubtedly deep as they are, must be necessarily "demonstrated" and "real".. and then I would be the extreme one EHEHEH :-D

Then the other gem: "declared will not to want to open up" ahahah :-D but excuse me, Orion, what a cheeky face! Why have you changed or shifted even a comma since we started discussing? ..I don't know, what a cheeky face. And finally, the last big statement: "I believe it’s you easy, with these last desperate interventions of yours who have hit rock bottom (of your attack I mean ;-D)" oh yeah, huh? :-D then how come all this waste of words trying to dismantle me (and not dismantle my arguments)? eheheheh, come on Orion, who do you think you're fooling.. I'm certainly not the one who suddenly stopped talking about music ;-D

"And you ask me why refer to established standards, why resort to the same unoriginal tricks in different pieces, and where Labrie recalls schizophrenia? What kind of questions are these?? So why did Led Zeppelin choose to play with a bass and not a trombone? Why did Kurt Cobain sing with a male voice and not a female one?" ..ahhhh, now that's a good one: :-D excuse me, what does that have to do with the fact that DT can't help but draw from the past? And then I would be the one distorting concepts.. orione orione.. :-D not only that, but in your post, there are other gems: "avversione", "incapacità" oh really? Then why not continue with the calm tones of your earlier posts, orione? Why turn it personal (as you've always done in past discussions, avoiding musical topics whenever it suited you)? ..if you truly believe it’s simply a matter of "incapacità" and "avversione", I would have expected a much more detached and consciously "superior" tone.. instead, you get heated... Orione orione, who are you trying to convince? ;-)

Then we come to the most beautiful self-judgment (and I repeat, thank goodness the problem would be my questions that I answer myself :-D). You say: "I know where they were original and where they weren't. I know where they hit the mark and where they flopped. I know what they can express well and what they can't." ..and no, the discussion is a bit different. Let's say that they communicate what they communicate to you; whether they are expressive in an absolute sense is another matter :-) I, again, don’t claim to "prove it absolutely" ..but how can one do that with art? And is this perhaps the claim that you or I had at the beginning of the discussion? I hope you have been sensible enough not to think that :-D ..the point has always been another one: namely to articulate one’s point of view referring at least, I repeat, to historical criteria and trying through these to make sense of one’s own way of seeing things. No more, no less. I don’t know why you’re now coming up with this last attempt to reduce it all to what you "know" evidently for sure.. I repeat: is it a lack of arguments? ;-D

acc. acc. Orion, now you're exaggerating :-D unfortunately, I notice that you're starting to talk about me and my "style" rather than focusing, as you have been so far, on the music... what's this change? Worn-out topics? ..meanwhile, you're absolutizing a question that is very, very relative: I would be extreme, and you would not. Wow, you really know how to sing your own praises... and thank goodness I'm the one with the problem for asking myself questions... you jump straight to firing off judgments, all on your own :-D regarding the issue of objectivity, we could discuss it for various reasons, but I’d like to point out that both you and I have always used REFERRAL CRITERIA in our previous posts. Now, when one uses referral criteria, we can talk about interpretation, about points of view, but if these criteria have some historical value, it's difficult to speak of extremism, I'm sorry, truly not easy to demonstrate :-)

But Orion, what are you doing?? :-D Are you going to instrumentalize what Matt and Giups said now? Look, they're not doing justice to you either: they've reduced, simplified, and distorted (in good faith, of course) everything we've written in these two days.. oh well, let's move on: sorry, but why does it bore you if I ask questions and answer myself? And then, what does that have to do with it? :-D I could make a coherent speech and express the same concepts; it’s simply a way to make them clearer. It’s not like changing the punctuation from a question to an exclamation changes the meaning of the sentences :-D

In other words: a group of clever people, who somehow, despite having high artistic aspirations, constantly end up on MTV and sell millions of copies, providing further evidence (and beware, I’m speaking of evidence, no "determinism" between being on MTV and being a subpar group) that their renowned modernity is actually quite superficial and very misleading. As musicians, they have an excellent rhythmic foundation, and the bass is the only element within the group that has truly found a personal sound (because, I repeat, the baroque elements constitute everything but a personal sound, serving merely as decoration), but it’s not enough: the style of an individual musician cannot resolve the expressiveness of a group, and Bellamy, despite his undeniable skills, is truly pathetic in rehashing that melancholic style which is a bit morbid and a bit unsettling, with that same tiresome suffering voice which is really anything but a novelty… obsolete and annoying, truly useless. As for my "skills," I certainly won’t flaunt what I have as a musician, simply because it would be ridiculous since criticism has little to do with musicians. I’ll just tell you that at a cultural level I’ve been listening to rock for 12 years and I have about 700 records.

As an album "child of the anxieties of our time," Absolution is a weak record, rather superficial, and quite false as well: its expressiveness is actually very little deepened and adds very little to what has already been said and written by others; it is neither unique nor remotely original. Their "baroque little theaters" are the classic bait-and-switch; a pure exercise in form, presumptuous as such, passed off as an original device. In reality, it contributes nothing except at the level of pure "special effect," of "arranging idea" to a piece that constitutes itself simply as a sort of "post-grunge" (not my definition) that draws far too much obvious inspiration from the white rage of Cobain's generation as well as much more openly from the neo-existentialism of Radiohead. As for Radiohead, the expressiveness of Bellamy and the pieces of Muse is really all there. And I’m not saying, mind you, that Muse "are the same" as Radiohead; that would be generic and imprecise; I am saying, however, that the expressiveness, the message, the substance is the same... same atmospheres, same idea of vocal interpretation, a voice that is quite similar, same existentialist melancholy that in Muse tragically becomes pathetic, not only because it is blatantly borrowed but also because it is obsolete in its repeated ostentation (three monochord records in this sense, the last one definitely more honest in being truly the first to attempt a personal path), an ostentation far too obvious to be credible.