easycure

Dave, I don't know much about prog metal in general.. I think you can understand, after what I've listened to from DT horrified me so much that I didn't feel much desire to explore further ;-) anyway, the persistent Lux made me get to know Ayreon better, and I have to admit that while I don't like them, they had something more interesting than DT (for me).. as for DT, of which I've listened to almost everything except for Train of Thought, which I know almost nothing about, yes, their entire work evokes a certain repulsion in me. For the reasons thoroughly expressed in almost three years and 3,500 comments.. it all stemmed from the fact that during that time on Debaser there was a flurry of deliriously enthusiastic reviews about DT, and so I felt compelled to share my opinion, to bring another perspective to light. Thank you, Lux, for your very honest analysis on years of comments :-)

Lux, you forgot holy mother Psychedelia among my preferences ;-D

Where is the particularly creative underlying idea in all this that goes beyond their cross-genre competence? In nothing. Sure, the dark or metal atmospheres don't really remind anyone in particular, but their approach is so school-like that it merely takes fundamental stylistic elements from every genre, centrifuging them thanks to their omniscience with various stylistic elements from various genres. It's the typical way of playing of the tourista; there's not much to be surprised about, compounded in the arranging phase by various tricks borrowed here and there from 30 years of evidently beloved bands (like Floyd, of course, or Rush, obviously).

Orion, I know you didn't say that sentence in full: I was saying that you explicitly admitted that Dream Theater abundantly references the past. Aside from that, it's obvious that any artist relies, I would almost say biologically, on the artists that preceded them, but this is such a triviality that I never even considered it. That's not the point: the point is that you would expect to attribute them a consistency and originality based on purely formal aspects, thus fully confirming my argument. "They combine funk with prog," well, beyond the consideration already made by Lux that would somewhat dismantle the presumed originality of such a gimmick, these are fireworks that frankly defining as original is decidedly superficial. I had already gone beyond this discussion (I don’t remember if with you or someone else) and had talked about SENSE: what is the expressive reason behind such a gimmick, what do they want to communicate, what do they want to express? Restricting themselves to just mixing, or let’s say fusing funk and prog like they evidently do, is not art, it's provocation, it's exhibitionism. Furthermore, let’s get to the substance, please: isn’t the idea behind it the same not only as prog (which intrinsically and in its very genes carried the blending of even very distant genres) but also for a good part of the avant-gardes of the '80s, which, among other things, started from a mixture of rock and black music like funk or hip hop? What's so original about the moment Dream Theater debut in fusing genres that are themselves very distant from each other? Answer: absolutely nothing.

Fusillo, even accepting your definition of parody, the discourse doesn’t change in the slightest. In fact, precisely by admitting that parody "creates" a certain genre, it does so all the more by distancing itself, not being able, I hope, to deny that parody is a desecration. As for expressiveness, you might be right; I perhaps didn't clarify this point well. However, I already specified in the above post: it lacks expressiveness in the "classical" sense of the term. That is, it never seeks to communicate an emotional instance; rather, it communicates a reasoning, it communicates what its immense intelligence reads about its time and the music of its time, but I, I repeat, find absolutely no empathy in it. Thus, Zappa is expressive and certainly original, but certainly to me "Peaches in Regalia" communicates absolutely nothing, other than its amused, whimsical, somewhat intellectual being.

Well, evidently we have a different idea of the term plagiarism: it seems to me far from "explicit" the "reference" to Floyd that I hear, in a blatant but I repeat far from explicit way, in "spirit carries.." or in "regression" ..but we’ve already talked about it, evidently we have different views. As for their presumption, I wasn’t so much referring to the act of plagiarizing, but rather to their approach: which is intrinsically presumptuous because it assumes to resolve composition as a mere display of musical competence, absorbing the expressive factor simply by citing the past (something you yourself very explicitly admit). This, for me, is the worst and most retrograde attitude one can have, as well as the antithesis of everything that rock has left as a legacy as an art form, if that is how one wants to interpret it. I don't know what chronological idea the keyboardist of Area has about the development of the genres "psychedelia" and "progressive," but it is clear that if he speaks with the understanding of a musician, he has arrived a bit late to pontificate... if he speaks with the understanding of a historian, then I would be curious to hear what considerations he is based on... I assume, however, he is referring to the more "progressive" period after Barrett.

The term parody, even more so than satire, requires a degree of detachment by definition. Parody indeed has a “genre” it references, but approaches it in a deliberately and consciously desacralizing way, which necessitates a distance. As for its lack of empathy, I did not say that ANY reasoned attitude is necessarily non-empathetic. However, Zappa clearly engages in a reasoning process about the music of his time that, in itself, does not seem to have anything deliberately expressive in the classical sense of the term. It’s a melting pot where everything coexists and nothing is anything other than musical speculation; it’s a pastiche of genres that, by denying genre, also denies an emotional approach to music. Frankly, it seems absurd to claim that Zappa, BEYOND everything he manages to impose on music, is even empathetic. This, I repeat, is not meant to belittle him; it’s simply the reason why I do not like him. It’s not that parody itself lacks empathy; on the contrary, it is a “reasoned” attitude in itself, but Zappa lacks that, and he does so willingly, but also necessarily, given his approach.

I never said that Zappa lacks style; Zappa has a very distinctive style, meaning it's recognizable, but that doesn't mean his approach is particularly expressive. These are two different issues: at least for me, it's quite clear that his attitude is detached and reasoned, which is anything but empathetic; that this might mean he has no style, I would never dream of claiming. The satire that you assert is the foundation of his music, even without revisiting the discussion about "sociology," is already, in itself, a clear form of detachment; and considering that Zappa certainly did not shy away from showing immense erudition in this satire, it appears rather pretentious to me.. but again, this is a very personal view.

Yes, but from another point of view, Rock Bottom is the exact opposite of Zappa: while Zappa continuously seeks to mix genres and instruments, showcasing parodic catalogs of the widest ranges of musical languages all entirely devoted to a discourse on music (as we've already mentioned), Wyatt completely disregards genre (thus making an argument that, if viewed closely, even surpasses that of Zappa, at least for me): he is interested in the expression of his own SELF; in fact, in a more metaphysical sense, he is interested in EXPRESSION as such. That is to say, a music that, as an art form, conveys being, even in its most unconscious forms. Wyatt's music is always born to be as empathetic as possible, and in fact, it aspires to be empathy in musical form. This is precisely what Zappa, with his approach, completely negates by definition. At most, he arrives at it inadvertently or "rationally." For this reason, at least for me, there is no doubt about who among the two has constituted the most significant avant-garde, at least in the realm of rock (sorry if I bring up the usual discourse mentioned above) ;-)

'Wow, you’re right! Well, but sugar is also famous for plagiarism... did you know about that one plagiarized from Skunk Anansie? :-D