easycure

Dave, you still don’t get it… strange, because things like this should be easily understandable coming from someone who writes music critiques; so let's start over: I didn't say I'm humble, I give it a 4; I said that in being a much humbler band than the Floyd (the Blur make pop, the Blur write 3-minute songs, the Blur do not have the grandiose arrangements of the Floyd, the Blur never had the pretension of playing more or less "cultured" genres like psychedelia or progressive, the Blur start as representatives of a genre, Britpop, of which they are in fact precursors and "outliers", not precisely an intellectual and evolved genre) the Blur have managed to evolve and deepen their work, arriving at at least interesting albums like their self-titled and 13th, which by now have little or nothing to do with Britpop or pop in general. The Pink Floyd, in their decades-long career, have reached the sad epilogue of many mummies like them, such as the Rolling Stones, the classic multi-platinum band that knows it has been great and milks it with the pretentious arrogance of those who live to self-celebrate. From here, despite personal taste, Division Bell is an album as refined as it is stale, unnecessary, superficial… it’s hard to evaluate it any other way… so I don’t want to compare anything (if anything, you’re the one doing that) I’m just saying that everything should be contextualized. And most importantly, nothing should be judged a priori. Which YOU keep doing.

Once again you speak without knowledge of what I have written about palm muting: I used Heatfield as an example of how a stylistic element (palm muting is just one example among others, don’t worry, I won’t touch this sacred monster of metal :-D) can be used in a CREATIVE and especially EXPRESSIVE way. As for the meaning you would attribute to the music of DT, thank you! :-D You have fully confirmed my argument and denied what Orione has argued: from your words it clearly arises that DT makes no sense except as they are... pure self-referentiality, as I have always maintained. For you, this is beautiful music, well, that's something we could discuss... as for the Beatles, I don’t deny that they aren’t totally wrong... they were also quite the deceivers of catchy tunes... but the Beatles need a bit of distinction: are you referring to before or after "Rubber Soul"? Before or after "Abbey Road"? We need to make distinctions… after Rubber Soul, they became an important vehicle for the universalization of rock as popular art; that is, while casually continuing to write basically catchy tunes, they still experimented enough and well to have a huge significance in meta-musical terms...

Matt7, next time you need to step in, do it with a bit of relevance.. come on, otherwise it's better to stay quiet.. I understand that it's hard to read through all the exchanges from the last two days we had with Orione.. but indeed, no one ordered you to write here .-D and in fact it would have been better if you had stayed silent: you didn't understand anything of my reference to the Pixies, but above all you've obviously never listened to the Pixies; in my description did I ever use the term "random"? did I ever say they do it out of incompetence? What are you talking about.. that effect is intentional, very intentional indeed.. it’s achieved with a lack of resources, of course, but that’s an additional quality, not a flaw, given the results :-D you keep judging a priori.. there’s no study, there’s no quality.. that’s complete bullshit, get over it, you chose the wrong genre.. and start listening to the Pixies before you shoot off more nonsensical blasts.

No, giups, we're still not there.. and I'm telling you this because you keep missing the point and distorting what I've written. Read your comments again (I know it’s a pain, but after all, you’re the one who wanted to intervene :-) from Orion's comment yesterday starting with "lac bringuez" onwards... it's MUCH MUCH higher up :-D

But in fact, Dave, no one compared Blur to Pink Floyd.. pay attention ;-) you simply tried to nullify my statements by saying, "said by someone who gives a 4 to Blur" or something like that.. and I wanted to humbly point out that with the proper context, the humble Blur of 13th truly deserve a 4, in the face of that spectacle of Division Bell which, in its grandeur, deserves a 1 (just like this gaudy live).. and come on guys, don't be fooled by appearances like 13-year-olds.. it's not that the more pompous things are, the more beautiful they are :-D

Sure, in fact you should have read them all. I did not say, in the terms you described, anything that you attribute to me. And it certainly doesn't seem like I'm the one who gets hung up on the details :-D

To me, it sounds obvious to call the Pixies schizophrenic, but with DT it sounds much less evident... and why? Because, to return to the previous point, when I hear Black Francis singing slightly out of tune and Joey Santiago arpeggioing over it with a dissonant, distorted phrasing, and the vocal chorus contrasting in ways that are anything but predictable, along with the off-beat drumming, well, I can't help but say, these are crazy people. Truly, extremely crazy people... where such an imprint, such a personality within the "schizophrenic" DT fits, I frankly can't understand, and I'm not talking about using similar tricks; I'm talking about the magnitude of the approach, about how much it manages to express such a status, to convey it... where? In LaBrie's polished vocal runs? :-D ...but let's not repeat ourselves, it's understood...

so in the end you justify yourself with a historical reason: one that is also debatable, very simply for the reasons mentioned above: whether there was a real renewal and what those terms are, if they exist, is frankly questionable. It is no coincidence that there is no historical evidence that "prog metal" is considered an avant-garde of the '90s... rather, historically the vanguards of that period are on the COMPLETE OTHER SIDE...

"At a group and compositional level, they have certainly constituted something unique and original." Ahi ahi :-D here we return to the dangerous discourse of originality: what is it in their sound that is new? This point has yet to be clarified; and I certainly don't want ridiculous answers (which I have already been given) like: "putting funk in a prog metal piece" because that is not an original sound, that is just merging two genres that have nothing to do with each other, which doesn't in itself constitute style; but then where does originality lie? In the approach perhaps... no no, not even in that, as various bands had already thought about blending different styles and genres at least ten years ago... Jane's Addiction and Faith No More in Los Angeles, for example... oh right, but no one had ever put together prog and metal... well no... maybe not in those terms... of course in the '70s there were Rush, and I mean, the intuition wasn't much different... and in any case, the approach remains the same as many avant-gardes of the '80s, it's just that DT arrives a bit late to be avant-garde... anyway, let's admit that the (for me very much debatable for the reasons already mentioned) sense of DT is to be schizophrenic, to narrate this feeling (theirs) and that of a generation... would this be original? Not a chance, obviously... there were the Butthole Surfers, before them the Suicide, and then there were the Pixies, who were also quite psychotic.

It seems much more plausible to me that they are trying to extract a minimum of expression from an ultra-canonical form in a haphazard way.. which I don't even see, anyway, but I respect your viewpoint in this regard, even though it seems decidedly forced to me. Deep down you know that your position in this is weak: you indeed refer to the example of the texts, which can express whatever you want, but the expression of a piece is obviously measured in terms of pure musical essence.