easycure

2) "Such expressive richness in the use of the guitar does not exist in any PROG group." "And this is not a formal statement; it’s not a matter of tricks, but of an intrinsic role that DOES NOT WANT TO BE but FINDS ITSELF TO BE... which is different... hence metal not only as a new expressive medium (compared to the '70s) but also as a new current and philosophy in which music becomes a solid wall of sound like a rampage, a cascade of insults, an avalanche of energy... and this does NOT EXIST in the prog of the '70s." Sure, but where is it that DT embodies this new expressiveness? You later say, "an increase in rhythms and insane frenzy..," but this is the revolution of Thrash; DT didn’t invent anything, rather, as usual, they cited and referenced. Then you specify later: "frenzy... in the music of Dream Theater, there’s this new frenzy: a controlled schizophrenia... but this is not a message contained in the lyrics... it constitutes the mature essence of this new discomfort... a discomfort that is more aware, less immature."

1) Mixing already canonized genres is a prerogative of Progressive music; if you sound progressive, you do it, if not, you don't sound progressive: false, at least in these terms; progressive blends different (and already canonized) genres but gives them a unique expressiveness: that is, it represents those worlds that characterize the object of the process of abstraction and alienation instead described by psychedelia. In other words, progressive has a fable-like and visionary connotation (at least in its most significant cases) that renders any reference to the genres from which progressive draws distinctly obsolete, and above all, it makes them a discourse A POSTERIORI. This is a blatant difference with DT: mixing different genres is a sufficient but not necessary condition for progressive, which has a very strong connotation in terms of themes addressed; in DT, all of this is totally nullified; what matters is the formal expression of a fusion, not the expression AT THE BASE of this fusion, also because such expression does not actually exist. DTs are based solely on the formal aspects of prog, meaning they decontextualize them, which can also be a virtue, as they could re-establish them in a new expressiveness, but this in fact does not exist. In fact:

you keep talking only about innovation, for me originality is the truly fundamental aspect, which is by no means equivalent to innovation. Revisionism is a very simple term that does not necessarily have to be attributed to politics, but has value simply as it refers to a historicity: the DTs are openly engaging in revisionism, in their way of referring back to (and decontextualizing) the past without actually bringing real expressive changes. they are revisionists of progressive. you have tried to describe such expressiveness; your description has in the approach many debatable elements:

So let us understand in what way this album is so immense, since you have grasped this immensity and we have not. "Ridiculous" and "narrow-minded" ahahah but give me a break, let me respond with an amused smile :-D I await in glory the richness of your insights, so we can talk on equal terms. For now, I only see a presumptuous know-it-all who exaggerates with "immense" an album that, compared to many real "immensities," would at least deserve a slightly more modest adjective, even if one wanted to appreciate it. From this, a spontaneous question arises: your great culture, which is evidently so given the presumptuousness of your comment, which "immensities" does it concern in the history of rock? Just to understand what standard you are using to define this album in such a manner. Goodbye

Anyway, okay, you were making a speech about expressiveness... about what it (conveys) to you... but it’s all polished, it’s all random, there’s nothing that conveys a sense of poetry; it’s pure effect, fireworks, there’s no communication of an instance that isn’t self-serving. At least, that’s how I read it.

post-abstractness?? Lux, listen to the "tweez" by Slint. That’s post abstractness.. "Metropolis" (for me) is revivalistic brainy speculation.. it’s the way that is totally obsolete: as Orion himself admits, the continuous dynamic changes etc. are pure progressive stylistic elements, to which other extracts from various genres are simply added. Where are the stylistic elements transcended? Where does it then take on "post" features?

IN WHAT then, do they describe, represent, metaphorize, express the feelings of their time? Once again, the answer is absent; it only refers to form: greater awareness of musical evolution due to crossover, '80s metal, etc. In short, in your demonstration, the underlying contradiction that you cannot overcome is WHERE all this substance and depth lie in the DTs, how they surpass the wretched craft of the touring musician who finds himself jamming, well aware that from his hands can emerge the new frontier of sound elaboration, which is obviously anything but TRUE elaboration. The real difference between progressive and DTs is this (and it is exactly what the person who wrote the comment reported by lac bringuez said): Progressive HAS a meaning, not only musical but also in expressing a culture; DTs do not. For this reason, with them, progressive is de-contextualized because many of the structural and sound themes are violently re-proposed without granting them even the slightest real expressive outlet, without these finding any meaning.

In fact, you misunderstand or evade many of the topics I've mentioned: for example, I've often said that the DTs are not honest; then you reiterate that they have always been "sober" and "honest" towards their audience. But I never denied that; I believe you that the arguments might seem "unfounded" if you constantly brush them aside. I have always spoken of aesthetic dishonesty, not in relation to how they treat their fans. It is precisely that renewal of progressive music that you claim underlies their hypertechnicality, which in reality constitutes the surface of their work: because in truth, there is nothing of renewal; it is a mixing of already ultra-canonized genres, it is a continuous reference to stylistic elements, it is a revisionism that pretends to constitute an avant-garde simply by virtue of its ability to do everything, thus being competent in 360°, thus engaging in a discourse of pure formal apriorism. The fact that such songs evoke emotions (a cliché passed off as "trendy" by 99% of the people who have written here) I have never dreamed of denying.. they evoke emotions precisely in their being ultra-classical; it is no coincidence that you, in attempting to describe this supposed renewal, refer only and exclusively to formal factors: there are fewer keyboards, more balance, etc... there is no reference to meaning, to significance, there is no reference whatsoever to the expressiveness of such devices... would you then claim to attribute a social contextualization to demonstrate such depth? But once again, you avoid citing the connection, a connection that goes beyond mere genre factors/musical "approaches" used, between the fall of the wall, etc., that is, their "time" and their music.

Moreover, the fact that the topics (many of which I solely subscribed to, such as "fashion"??!) have not been demonstrated is once again a highly debatable and evidently very subjective hypothesis. That it did not convince you is one thing, but I have never claimed to necessarily change anyone's mind; the assertion that objectively there has not been much meat on the grill concerning a variety of VERY concrete points of reflection seems ridiculous to me.

For the rest, not to reiterate the usual controversies that seemed to have settled, but there is much more to the "trendiness" than the rampant delirious elegies towards this band, and it would be enough to compare the number of critically negative reviews (I think no more than two) with those that lavish praises (dozens). And it doesn't seem to me, making a brief summary, that such elegies are overflowing with original, meaningful, and profound arguments :-D