easycure

x lux: I base myself on pure musical expression, because that’s what interests me. As for the lyrics, I don’t know what was going through their minds; regarding the purely musical expression, I perceive a piece that is essentially prog, epic, and certainly not alienated. For this reason, the growl seems to me like a purely formal expedient, neither more nor less.

Of course not. The Velvet Underground, and therefore much of the indie production from the '80s, is also in the genes of the MBV. For example, I see quite a few analogies with Yo La Tengo, even though Yo La Tengo have a more classic approach to the song.

On Scaruffi you missed: I'm turning your own words back at you; he is the one who uses the definition "masterpiece" for albums rated 9. Consequently, THOSE are the albums he defines as masterpieces, not the albums rated 8. Scaruffi said it, I'm not taking it out on you.

I understand you, but I completely disagree. The My Bloody Valentine you mentioned are an incredibly communicative group; there is not a single melody of theirs that isn’t absolutely accessible. They can easily be defined as pop, yet, as you yourself stated, they are also avant-garde. Therefore, things cannot stand as you have presented them; there isn’t "avant-garde" on one side and "communicativeness" on the other. The best avant-garde, for me and not just for me (though perhaps not so much for Scaruffi, for example), is precisely that which manages to be communicative. The growl in that piece is, in my opinion, anything but natural. It is rather a pathetically attempted way to seem like something unique (using a death style in what we might call prog), recycling the same underlying elements they can’t seem to escape from. In fact, it is completely unnatural, since it makes no sense at an expressive level except as such; it doesn’t serve to communicate anything social, nor a particularly alienated emotional state, as is generally done in death metal, but not only there—also in certain hardcore derivations, for example. As such, it has no expressive reason, but is rather a pure a priori concept used in an entirely decontextualized manner. It is thus the antithesis of communicativeness; it is communicative only because it caters to what a certain type of audience expects to hear, but in fact communicates nothing other than its existence as such—that is, it is a pure stylistic form and has nothing artistic about it.

useless, not unuseful :-)

really useless disk. Annoying.

But if Masterpiece means masterpiece (according to the dictionary), then the albums rated 9 will be masterpieces. And after all, if masterpiece is the non plus ultra, it’s obvious that only the highest-rated albums will be considered as such, don't you think? Also, "masterpiece" is a rating of its own; I'm not making it up, it's all on its site.

In the second part of the ballad, they inevitably have to change with the distortions to emphasize the emotional upheaval of the piece; in short, they enhance it. But as a device, this is rather obvious, overused, and therefore naive. As for your second point, those seem to me to be enormously canonical stylistic elements. But how, of all people, can you, who listen to more metal than I do, be surprised? The growl, the more reflective part, the epic and grand finale—these are things that have been heard, over-heard, and re-heard; they are predictable, frankly banal. And the fact that they should evoke an emotion in themselves is a priori and rather silly. After all, that’s precisely why they are stylistic elements: because they are used a priori, as a fundamental and indispensable component of expression. This, to me, is a sign of ugliness, as in any respected form of art, the true essence lies in shaping the piece according to one's vision and sensitivity, conveying it according to a certain purpose. Then comes the form; therefore, resorting to pre-packaged stylistic elements that constitute the basis of expression, to me, is a deformity—it is ugly.

Lux, lux, and then I would be the sly one? :-) A rating of 8 is not a masterpiece. Masterpiece means capolavoro in English, and corresponds to albums with a rating of 9. Eight means "Buy it now," but not masterpiece. Besides that, I already pointed out that I have neither the claim nor the desire to agree with him in everything. I don't agree on DT, which I wouldn't even give a passing grade, and I don't agree on the Cure, to which, it's worth specifying, I wouldn't give even a nine (so I'm also responding to Tommy regarding my alleged lack of objectivity in this regard), but I would give several eights. As for English rock, you are right. My examples were nonetheless to show that "accanimento" is a strong word. In any case, his analysis of a lot of English rock is accurate and sensible (and I agree), needless to say that most of the avant-gardes (in fact, maybe all) were in the USA. Besides that, I agree with you on Springsteen; he seems totally out of place. But I repeat, I would never claim to be in line with Scaruffi on everything.

Lux, I’ve heard the tracks: The Night And The Silent Water doesn’t really change my opinion. It does have remarkable and non-trivial dramatic tension, that’s true, but the fact that they necessarily resort to a stylistic device to evoke a sensation is an inconceivable deformity. And even though they try to reinterpret it, they don’t come out as winners, in my opinion. As for Face of Melinda, I have to admit it impressed me quite a bit: as a ballad format, it's not trivial at all; at least in the first part, it’s genuinely convincing, even if it’s not modern at all (which they don’t claim to be); in the second part, they resort to the usual somewhat embarrassing special effects in their expressive naivety, but overall, even though their personality doesn't fundamentally go beyond the execution factor, it’s a decent ballad and much better than the pretentious and hypocritical melodic digressions of the DT. I even dare say that a bit of the arrogance of bands like Opeth would be welcome in today's rock. Ultimately, the other side of this arrogance is the quest for epicness, for an absolute, for a real emotion that is totally missing from the empty post-modern citationism into which tragically most bands of this decade fall; at least Opeth still believe in rock, which, despite all the aforementioned flaws, is no small feat.