easycure

well.. style is not execution, otherwise everything would be style.. that style comes from substance is obvious, I don’t understand how the form of the DT configures a substance.. what do they want to say? Where is the meaning? What's the point? All the foundations are missing for there to be a substance from which a style could arise.. I still haven’t listened to Ayreon :-) ..lately I’ve been too busy with the discography of the Butthole Surfers

Well... I really don't know how the style of DT can be defined as recognizable. It’s not just about palm muting and double bass combined with the time changes of prog to create a style.. in any case, it seems to me that Porcupine Tree (who I don't particularly like anyway) are definitely more artistically honest than DT. They don't try in every way to hide and mask their references beneath a blanket of hysterical dynamism and citationism; formally, they are completely '70s.. yet their visionary approach tries to be updated to the times, albeit with methods that have already been proposed.

on soulseek you can find great stuff

very very interesting (it seems). Great Sanjuro, always generous with great proposals.

Yes, but in fact it's not true that classic prog has always contained the elements you mentioned: I think of "Atom Heart Mother" and "Meddle" by Pink Floyd, which are far from filled with technical flourishes, time changes, etc. I think of bands like Magma, Robert Wyatt, the early King Crimson. I believe the difference lies precisely in this clarification: in classic prog, technique is not at all a fundamental factor, or if it is, it becomes so when the aim of merging rock with classical music or similar genres demands a certain approach; that this approach eventually turns into formalism at a later stage is quite established (with many thanks to the New York New Wave and punk, which erased much pretentiousness!). But with DT, technique is clearly the starting point, as it is a competent and academic approach that allows, regardless of any judgment, the citationism that is essentially the only real expressive difference between DT and classic prog. If there were not a continuous attempt at recycling in terms of formal devices, they would indeed seem totally devoid of logic. Then one can reflect on this approach, which for me remains rather horrid. Cheers :-)

And what would this "immense potential" be? Enlighten me because it's not clear to me.. :-) From my point of view, based on what I've heard, they are three of the worst and most skilled bullshitters that rock has had in the last two decades.. clever in managing to combine flashes of trendy sound, equally skilled (but clearly lacking in credibility as well as creativity) in playing a bit visionary, a bit existentialist, a bit depressed.. in short, the classic standard for an alternative band with guaranteed success. And yet their poetics are clearly elementary, clichéd, referential, overly expressionistic, very, very self-referential, essentially mediocre.. don’t take offense, perhaps everyone has their own good reasons, but you don't exactly need an encyclopedic culture to consider this band of heavy rotation single-makers on MTV noteworthy :-D

I'm not at all convinced that virtuosity has always been present in progressive... and certainly not in the same way that the DT mean it... and I'm definitely not convinced that the DT can be defined as creative :-) ...anyway, happy to see you back here and glad that you've broadened your "horizons" ;-) Bye!

heheehe :-)

I miss it (them) even when I was a pseudo-rapper... I probably missed something.

they were, they weren't ;-)