easycure

"In the DTs, such expressions are spontaneously driven by the meaning of the piece itself and feed on the schizophrenia of the transitions." If that were the case, as already explained, why does the labyrinthine nature of the structures nevertheless remind one of the progressive approach (I think of "Musical Box," for example, with the same identical tricks)? Why rely on the same non-personal devices in different tracks (Petrucci's palm muting, for example, until proven otherwise just remains Palm Muting, just one example among many, it doesn't renew itself as Hetfield has done, but remains, immobile as it has been conceived for at least a decade)? Why refer to already established canons (the grandiose entrance of the keyboards = progressive, doubling the tempo = classic metal or thrash, the sounds of the keyboard = progressive)? Why, then, all the more reason to continuously try to refer to different genres, like funk, if such music already has a "schizophrenic" structure by itself? And where does LaBrie express such schizophrenia? In shifting from polished sonic embellishments to high notes or screams? :-D ..that honestly makes me smile... Gibby Haynes of the Butthole Surfers is a singer who expresses schizophrenia, LaBrie with his cautious expertise seems only capable of sliding adeptly between the various singing styles expressed in metal... if this is really what you say the sense of the DTs is, frankly, there are singers with much less technique who express it far more effectively: schizophrenia.

Orion, Orion, you've really hit rock bottom! (from your staunch defense, I mean :-D) admit openly (and finally!!) that the ballads of the DTs lack personality and still expect to give them artistic dignity... but for heaven's sake! If a piece doesn't even have personality (which I repeat, is a much more fundamental aspect in terms of historical importance, modernity, or even innovation), by what criteria should we judge it then? You talk about emotion... but Orion, Orion, you're falling into the classic trap of a typical DT fan ;-) any piece can evoke emotions... the songs of teen bands are made SPECIFICALLY to evoke emotions... it's precisely in the uniqueness of the emotional status conveyed that the difference lies, the thin line that separates a jester from a poet (and certainly not in the ability to embellish rhetorical figures, this metaphor regarding arrangement, which obviously alone cannot constitute a difference)... so FROM WHAT and WHERE can we distinguish Tiziano Ferro and the DTs? The only plausible answer, following your own reasoning, is simply as already mentioned, a matter of arrangement, of pure execution, of competence. Essentially, I recognize this, the ballads of the DTs are superior to those of Pausini; let's say they are on par with Vasco Rossi, who also surrounds himself with excellent musicians :-D

but he still hasn't explained to me what the vastness of this album would be. Given the review his comment refers to, that would indeed be the topic that concerns me the most.. moreover, he lacks significant "vastness" in the rock sphere; his undeniable expertise perhaps doesn’t reflect an equally comprehensive culture in that field.. is this perhaps the issue behind such rage towards a band like Muse?

OF COURSE Heatfield was inspired by others, but Orione, why do you insist? When have I ever denied that one can draw from the past? Come on, by now you must have noticed that I'm speaking on another level of analysis :-D but it's clear the SENSE that Heatfield attributes to palm muting generally executed with greater speed, to a style that aligns more closely with Hardcore coordinates (two innovations, already mentioned, are indeed formal) and precisely what you yourself said just above: the post-punk frenzy of a new type of generational discomfort, a society that runs, that disorients, the relentless post-modern. THIS is the absolutely OBVIOUS sense of Metallica... it could be expressed in two lines; now, in DT I find nothing in palm muting, nor in double bass, nor in the use of gospel choirs, nor in keyboard sounds that can be identified as a STYLE (Accelerated palm muting = style in Heatfield) much less as SENSE (that is, the REASON for such a style). This should have already made you understand that I absolutely do not intend to nullify form, believing that form should be SUBSERVIENT to expression. I demand that form serves. To give you another rather extreme example: Jesus and Mary Chain started to smash amplifiers, blending distortion and delay with a lot of feedback and invented the typical wall of sound effect of Shoegaze (style). This was to establish a new form of psychedelia that, born of the New Wave, instead of "expanding the mind," reflected the pressing existentialist need of the '80s generation for intimacy, to lose oneself yes, but within oneself, to close up in a protective and dreamy shell (sense).

And who said that expressing something has to be a "reasoned" matter? On the contrary, it's really the most visceral and submerged aspect of composition.. But you can't just solve it by jamming one afternoon with friends! :-D It's obvious that you need an idea. And the only thing you're able to come up with is, ONCE AGAIN, a matter of mere execution: "everyone has their own expressive style.. but of course everyone has their own expressive style, as a musician, on the execution level, but are they a group or an ensemble of tourists, precisely? Do they pretend to compose or do they limit themselves to doing covers? So where, as a GROUP and on a COMPOSITIONAL level, do they constitute a style? This has always been my question, and I dare anyone to find an answer. Then, of course, you could argue that you can still find meaning in "jamming with friends" and put together an impeccable prog metal piece with various other references, perfect for sure, but absolutely tragically empty.

you say: "in Petrucci's guitars there are flavors and scents that no Steve Hackett could have ever conceived... 30 years of history, of changes..." but precisely we come back here, you are starting to refer to purely formal matters again. But the solos, but the ballads... come on, Orion, how can you say that "Through her Eyes" has personality... good heavens, OF COURSE the ballad is fine, but one thing is Tom Waits, one thing is Tim Buckley, one thing is Nick Drake, one thing is Lisa Germano, what the heck could that ballad possibly have that is minimally PERSONAL (which is not original and not innovative, it is PERSONAL)? And all the others from DT? Those that copy the arrangements of the Floyd? What do they have that is special? What is their MEANING then (because you haven’t yet talked to me about the meaning of the DT ballads, oh right, it's to be melancholic like another 10,000,000 ballads including, not least, Backstreet Boys, Pausini, Tiziano Ferro for example... but what is THEIR meaning?) THIS is where the enormous contradiction lies, in the tragic and frankly unimpeachable expressive sorrow of the ballads juxtaposed with the grandiose complexity (obviously complexity only on the surface) of the other pieces...

Even any stylistic element is not inherently bad (aside from the fact that there are undoubtedly geniuses who totally negate such a concept, like Slint), but it becomes a problem when, as already mentioned, it doesn't carry meaning. Metallica imbue a HUGE sense into palm muting, where do DT stand? When? If the famous schizophrenia is evoked simply by referring, without any substantial difference, to palm muting—not even as it’s used in some band, but as pure executory dogma, in its total stripping down, in its existence for the sake of being there. Because it is palm muting (as an example, of course) that, once used alongside various other dogmas, confers some sense in its purely dynamic and structural application, but indeed it is not THE MEANING that imposes development. Rather, it is the development itself that, in a totally abstract manner, imposes a sense. But how can expression be so constrained by form? What a substantial and terrifying contradiction it is to EXPRESS ONESELF, that is to convey and communicate one’s own needs which are ONLY and exclusively one’s own, while resorting to few indispensable immutable forms of expression? The variety in DT is indeed only constituted by repeatedly turning to different genres, but it is merely drawing on yet more dogmas. This is why in the review I wrote that they are not great musicians: they can do everything but they do it with the mediocre status of those who cannot break free, and tragically cannot express themselves, except by resorting to a reference form, which is that of the abstract stylistic element, not their own style.

Which is not a flaw as such (just to address the issue of originality) but is a flaw insofar as it obviously does not express anything on a personal level: the schizophrenia you speak of is evoked only by referring to stylistic elements, that is, by revising: can this be defined as real expressiveness? Can an expression that defines itself as such not be unique? At the very least, it is a mediocre expression, as a clear example teaches us, in an art form like poetry.

"and the ideas so articulated have found an outlet only through this mix of genres, where funk and metal carry the essence of blues... where the now established rhythms of modern living find release in the rapid-fire of guitar and keyboard... where an increasingly multifaceted world finds its image only in the frenetic fusion of atmospheres, of languages. The DT are the result of this new expressive evolution, which derives from the past but carries within itself the signs of change, and the SENSE of expressing prog with a new guise, with new ideas to convey... dictated by a new world in constant evolution... by a new society" once again nothing new, at least 10 years late, but above all, nothing unique: where indeed does this take shape on a personal level in pure musical essence? But in nothing, how could it? Everything is ultra-formalized, it's strictly impossible to break out of a few established canons (as it already was in much of the worst prog), how is the famous "schizophrenia" evoked? with time changes, with accelerations, with doublings, with the greater epicness of the keyboard, with the turn of phrase from an overly "elegant" brie and from here one cannot escape. A matter of genre, yes, but above all nothing remotely new.

but all of this is completely contradictory, and thus intrinsically dishonest: how is it that such frenzy is expressed through La Brie's polished voice? how is it that such frenzy does not avoid the continuous and bland expedients, purely formal, of the solos? how is it that such frenzy is diluted and negated in totally amorphous ballads from an expressive point of view that live solely on a polished and pompous melodic attitude? where does expressiveness survive in these ballads? And why, if such expressive urgency were prominent, do they continue to impose blatant formal references to the past? From arrangements that cite the Floyd, to pure stylistic elements that could be avoided if there truly existed a poetics that, as such, embraced coordinates of uniqueness, like palm muting, double bass, those typically prog keyboard sounds, etc. You will say, it's a matter of genre, otherwise they wouldn't be doing prog metal... BUT EXACTLY, a matter of genre is made A PRIORI as something indispensable that exists only as a stylistic element, that is, as form.