easycure

My reference to Linkin Park was purely to demonstrate a mistake (at least what I believe to be a mistake) in the method of evaluation. You indeed say that Opeth are particularly original in metal: But this further confirms my reasoning. If we speak purely in terms of genre, then Opeth can indeed be considered original. But as far as I'm concerned, such analysis makes no sense. Because metal is not something that exists a priori, free from any history and culture. Metal is part of rock, which is not merely a chronological consideration, but absolutely a musical one: its interpretative patterns are those of rock, its rhythms belong to rock, its structures are of rock, its instruments and compositional bases are those of rock. It is a grave act of presumption by many metal enthusiasts to consider it a separate genre, forgetting that this is definitely more a flaw than a virtue: because it is precisely for this reason that metal has always remained stuck on elements deemed essential, hence dogmatic, and therefore by definition absolutely non-creative. In fact, it has always tended to incorporate other influences rather than merge them, and there is a significant difference between the two. Now, I am not denigrating metal in general with this, mind you, I am discussing a matter of evaluative criterion. Assuming that, in my opinion, it cannot be considered except within a broader system, my standard of judgment cannot possibly be "in the context of metal, it is original," because that makes no sense.

Is this the prog? But where? When? When has prog ever been so homogeneously intent on self-referentiality?? When has it ever been so baroque and pompous? When have King Crimson been that way? And Pink Floyd? And Soft Machine? And Area? And Magma? And Colosseum? Who do you mean? Who are you referring to? Because, stated like that, your assertion makes no sense. You can say: "Emerson Lake and Palmer were like that," and then it makes sense, but ELP were A band. You can say post-"Lamb Lies Down..." Genesis were like that, and THIS would make sense. Progressive, as a genre, has been so varied (which, per se, already undermines your assessment) that it really cannot undergo such comparisons.

Well... I’ve heard Opeth... and they don’t seem all that unique to me... maybe you mean they are original within the metal genre, but it’s obvious that if you narrow the evaluation to the genre, then even Linkin Park are probably "original" compared to other bands in the nu-metal scene. That doesn't change the fact that when viewed in a broader perspective, their depth is obviously zero. As for Ayreon, the fact that there are no solos, as I’ve already mentioned, seems to me a mere detail... it’s the expressive intent that seems identical, or rather, the total absence of any real expressive intent that appears the same. The same ultra-conservative, ultra-aesthetic approach... any pseudo-meaning conveyed is communicated through an absolutely narrow range of canons, obviously in the name of the great highfalutin technical interpretative skill they claim should be enough to resolve the expression... obviously, their interpretive styles are countless, but when you narrow it down, their way of communicating is ultra-canonical, much more so than many humble bands that choose the path of the classic song structure A-B-A-B-C-B.

Doesn’t it have anything to do with the DT? They seem practically identical to me in how they approach the piece: same interpretation, same structures (maybe just a bit less labyrinthine), same way of arranging... they don’t seem more modern, more original, more personal, so the differences seem like pure details to me... after all, if both they and the DT are defined as prog metal, there must be some logical reason for it, I think.. :-) I’ve already told you that I haven’t yet listened to a prog metal album that meets my standards... I’ve definitely heard a few, and those I’ve heard don’t deviate at all from everything I’ve already stated about the DT. Clearly, if my approach to prog metal has been the Dream Theater, and they made me quite curious, it’s hard for my curiosity to push me to seek out other similar bands, which also seems logical to me: In any case, your example was further confirmation that compared to classic prog, prog metal is also decidedly more standardized and repetitive (which, by the way, was to be expected after listening to the DT).

But then excuse me, I don’t understand... what were you expecting? :-D ...they don’t seem all that different in substance from the DT. So how could my judgment change? If you did it to "prove" that I don’t like all prog metal (I certainly still have to hear a prog metal album that meets my creativity standards), you probably still brought a rather insignificant example.

Alright. Link me or suggest who or what defines it as a masterpiece. I’m curious (I’m not joking) to know their reasons.

Yes, and keeping the feedback high risks blowing the amp's cones :-D ..I used it for a while but then I switched because it's quite difficult to manage.. but it has an enormous depth, not like digital delays, which sound plastic..

I listened... I didn't listen to everything to be honest, because what I heard was enough for me :-) well.. the first thing that jumps out is how incredible the naivety of groups like this is: so little interested in the facts about expression that they always resort to the most predictable solutions to create a mood. I mean, the sounds are really embarrassing, but not because they are bad, rather because they are so dated and stereotypical that they end up sounding rather obsolete. And then the way they use them, so insistent and accentuated, so dynamically reckless, makes it seem really quite lacking in awareness. Still, it's already better than the DT.. the first part of Pain, for example, I liked especially for the beautiful vocal melody. But then at 3.13 it completely falls apart, the usual pretentious gaudiness that allows one to make total changes in expression purely based on competence, provocatively and exhibitionistically. Bad taste is indeed perfectly correlated with naivety: when the first shines, the second can also be observed. Like in the unnecessary and truly gaudy female voice that comes in halfway through "mistery".. which is not bad in the first part, despite the usual lack of real direction in its expression... in short, it seems like the same old song more or less, although as already mentioned perhaps more enjoyable (from my point of view) .. but isn't Labrie's plastic and flat voice also there at the beginning of "Pain"?

You're right, it was indeed a blurry consideration and I apologize for that. It's just that, frankly, I don't find Interpol particularly original and/or modern at all. Their interpretative and expressive approach is identical to many new wave bands, regardless of the individual ideas of the musicians, and regardless of the beauty of the individual songs (like Untitled, which I also think is beautiful). But they really started to annoy me with the second album, a shocking lack of artistic ambition. They absolutely deny the possibility of evolution, being intrinsically mediocre in not wanting to admit that rock today can still be original and truly have something to say. In this, they are indistinguishable from many of the mediocre new revelations of the moment.

Heheheh I still haven't found Albini.. but if I do, I'll post it for you! :-D