easycure

Then, your idea of expressiveness is quite confused: the expressiveness you talk about (I know well since I study social psychology) is a purely functional/adaptive expressiveness, which is obviously not the result of a conscious process, being a consequence of continuous internalizations: the purpose of such expressiveness is action. Every communicative expression tends to change or to maintain something in the environment. Now, do you think all of this is applicable to art? Do you think that adaptive functionality is the basic concept of artistic expression? How could that ever be imaginable? How could one think this of poetry? How could one think this of a musical piece that indeed makes sense? That is, is consciously aimed at a type of communication (the process of which is obviously first and foremost unconscious but not for this reason spontaneous, reflective)...

Orion, honestly, you make me a little sad... is it possible that after months and months you are still here trying to prove that I haven't evolved, that my perspective is limited because it's extreme, etc. etc.? With all due respect, I think you really don't have arguments to prove that in the end... as usual, I notice that you find yourself playing the Inquisition, which shows a certain weakness in genuinely countering with real arguments: regarding my evolution, your criticism of me is quite "dishonest": you don't really try to see any evolution, you only demand to read between the lines every time I repeat the same concept to another person who writes here: but if certain concepts need clarification for other commentators, it’s obvious that I will repeat them, regardless of whether I have already explained them to YOU. Yours is a perspective that is really not objective. Just to clear any doubt, though, all you need to do is take a look at the posts from 2004 to now and you will finally have an idea of this blessed "evolution," without having to wait for the next detractor to explain for the umpteenth time concepts that are already known in an attempt to prove my presumed stagnation.

"ranging from heavy metal to hard rock, from progressive to psychedelic space rock, with various acoustic parts and folk touches in addition to orchestration; all mixed, even within a single piece, with great mastery" - metalinside.it "Take a brilliant mind raised on rock, then take 18 of the best musicians and singers in the world, add a healthy dose of eclecticism and a stellar production" - psycobite.net "Over a hundred minutes of music in which heterogeneous styles blend into a highly effective sound ensemble" .. "The technical level of the pieces is relatively complex, but never exaggerated: the author has focused much more on the arrangements in this album" .. "But what characterizes and enhances The Human Equation the most? Certainly the singing, which is of great style and craftsmanship." - extramusic.it :-) Dear Fabio, reality, as always, has a thousand faces. And in any case, with great honesty, I have also reported some excerpts from the "extravagant praises" for this album: their evaluation metric seems to me, how can I say, rather superficial (which explains among other things where many of the reviews on DT from this site come from) and in any case it further validates the necessity of a point of view like mine.. anyway thanks for your input :-D

"The music of 'The Human Equation' has a more tired and lackluster progression, not replacing the grandeur (which, for better or worse, had its reasons) with a memorable musical structure and themes. Overall, this double CD (oh yes... because did you think you were going to escape the law of the double CD?) is rich in beautiful illustrations and, of course, horrifically played, and it didn't excite me..." - www.arlequins.it "I must admit, however, that this new double CD (it now seems that surpassing 100 minutes is the norm for the Dutch) slightly disoriented me at first and bored me by the end." - metalized.it "Equally likely, it is not his best work, nor a piece worthy of lavish praise and classical panegyrics. We are faced with a perfectly produced album, masterfully played, extraordinarily arranged, and well cared for in terms of concept, but some defects, in my opinion not secondary, undermine the final effect, reducing it to a good work. Which, for an important and intriguing piece that 'The Human Equation' wants to be, given also the amount of work and production efforts, is a meager consolation." - hardsounds.it

Orion Orion, days and days of long and detailed posts from both sides, and you're still here asking me something like that? :-) ..go read above again, the answer is already all there. In particular, I suggest you pay attention to our exchange about the song "Home," where there's a lot on the topic of "total lack of expressive intent." ..regarding the total absence of a vision or expressive intent, I'd like to know YOUR opinions, which I've never had in this regard (also because if you remember well, our last discussion was interrupted, and I didn't get any further replies from you), because as usual we end up right there: no evidence (and in this case the term is appropriate) to the contrary; specify to me where, according to you, expressiveness would be, and where a real vision would shine through in the music of DT.

But it’s not like that, it’s not true: prog can be considered bourgeois and aestheticizing at a certain period, but not throughout its entire evolution; if you refer, just to simplify and avoid having to cite every single group, to the post '72-'73 period, we can agree, but before that it was anything but reducible and definable as aestheticizing and bourgeois... just listen to the bands, just notice its initial heterogeneity... and its path in this regard has been VERY different from that of metal, which intrinsically cannot even be defined as such without referring to a certain type of stylistic elements, which certainly cannot be applied to Progressive as well. It’s not a matter of the taste of a solo or a time change; it’s definitely a more a priori issue. It’s the approach that’s wrong, because it is not aimed at expressing anything, there’s no uniqueness, there’s no vision, there’s no real expressive intent, there’s no real communication, except for the communication of one’s own communication (but without even seeking in that direction, as already mentioned and as is well observable). Time changes aren’t that I don’t like them per se, but they must have a sense, a meaning; they must stem from a precise and conscious choice... any device can be liked or not from my point of view; it’s how it’s used, it’s what one wants to express through it that matters.

Don't worry, Kosmina... you finally saw it, anyway... I was just waiting for your comment... oh, how did the review story end up? Make sure to send it, okay? ;-)

To tell the truth, the Velvet Underground would definitely sound unique and unmatchable even today. They might not be innovative since they are the result of decades of influence they themselves created, but they would certainly be one of a kind. You keep attributing to me the need to be innovative, but I repeat that for me it's not that fundamental :-) And anyway, you yourself say: innovation and originality are relative to historical contexts. Right, historical, not presumed genre contexts.

"It is a serious act of arrogance on the part of many metal maniacs to consider it a genre apart"... I meant to say a type of music apart, not a genre.

And on the other hand, regardless of whether Metal is part of rock or not, what sense would it make to judge it differently from EVERY other form of music? Because if the standards of beauty in metal must be technique and grandeur, this practically contradicts a good part of the criteria with which the rest of music is evaluated (regardless of the relative importance that each person gives to each of these criteria). And anyway, what sense would it make to evaluate a metal album only in relation to other metal albums? A completely illogical vicious circle, totally decontextualized, decidedly presumptuous, and nonsensical.