easycure

But Lux, the DT are from the '90s (at least their most significant works, you'll agree..) but in the '90s there were numerous strains.. and there were numerous groups that, as you said, captured the "post" era; however, they also sought its essence in music. I’m talking about groups like Slint, Tortoise, Godspeed You! Black Emperor, Cul de Sac.. but these are groups that made a poetics of the "post".. theirs was a new genre. Don't you see that it's clearly contradictory (artistically speaking) for a group that lives in a fragmented and heterogeneous era to approach it with "classic progressive metal"? :-)

We have only talked about purely formal tricks, can't you see? We are reasoning only in terms of pure quirks from the rock encyclopedia, we are not saying "they were the singers of something..." or of a movement, or of an era, city, year, or they were the expression of something... how many times is this phrase: "to be the expression of something" used in criticism? :-) In conclusion, we are conducting a discourse (carried forward by you) that already validates the essence of my argument. Ultimately, you yourself validated it by talking about "creating atmosphere" and "feelings," even though you defined it as extreme.

:-) I'm sorry to contradict you, but it's not an extreme argument at all. One only needs a somewhat superficial knowledge of rock culture to grasp the meaning of my discourse, and to understand that this meaning is quite unassailable, historically speaking: it creates atmosphere, it creates sensations, yes, but it makes no sense; in the literal sense of the word "sense" I mean (excuse the repetition), that is, a total lack of expressive purpose. That device is a vacant object, which has no function in the expressive alchemy of the piece other than being there as such, functioning beautifully by itself and artistically pointless, it has no meaning: what does it want to express? You see that you've contradicted yourself with your own words? :-) It's precisely that "creating atmosphere" which is its only purpose, a purely hedonistic one, not expressive... exactly the same purpose that a piece composed by ten hands behind the scenes of Britney Spears might have... with much greater competence and opulence, obviously... :-) The fact that it effectively blends with the rest means absolutely nothing in itself, unless of course it's just the expression of great proficiency... but many things can be fused together... at a very basic level, you just need to respect the same key (which isn’t the case here, but it's just an example) and it's unlikely that two parts of a piece won't merge... but again: what’s the purpose of this fusion? None, other than that each part exists as such and fits well with the other.

:-D to tell you everything I would include in the new review, it would take me to dust off two years of comments (with particular attention to the discussion with you, among other things, surely one of the most interesting), make a summary and organize it all; it’s no small task... in any case, I didn't express the specific arguments because, ultimately, it seemed quite obvious to me; they are the ones we have already addressed in the countless posts that made up our exchange of views on the topic of DT. There's a lot of material, it seems to me :-) ...I would certainly take into account, as I always have, the fact that people like you enjoy them; let's say in general, with considerable culture, etc., etc., but that doesn't change at all what I have to say about them, it really doesn’t touch it at all... regarding Fripp and Petrucci, I don't want to revisit what I already said; however, I certainly didn't say they are the same, I said that Petrucci among his various academic citations includes quite a bit of Fripp as well.

oh my gosh, how much this album attracts me!

Superpanta, I have no intention of wasting time on another review of the DT (that's how I replied to Matt too), but for sure if I had done one on Images and Words, I would have given it a 2, not a 1, no no, absolutely :-D

The spine-chilling comparison between Petrucci and Fripp? :-D .. I notice that the recent discussion we had hasn’t moved you one bit from your initial stance.. yet it seems I’ve already explained that it’s a comparison far from being "spine-chilling" (unless you mean how obvious that comparison was).

I would definitely rewrite it with fewer comparisons; I have much heavier topics to support my point. However, I would certainly keep the comparison with Gilmour; we have abundantly established his uncomfortable existence, it seems to me. I would also mention the identical use of the choruses in "spirit.." with "brain Damage" eheh :-) However, I would probably take a more global approach. As for Home, you didn't understand the meaning of that statement: the misguided attempt to sound original doesn't lie in trying out Eastern-flavored solutions in that particular case; it lies in the way they use a device like this (which was merely an example), which is a use that is completely senseless, devoid of meaning. It's not an expression aimed at conveying something; it’s an expression that exists as such, entirely self-referential; thus, quite presumptuous, by the way, in its claim to extract any context without it surviving for its function, but violated and dis animated by a mere exercise in style.

Fortunately, anonymous comments haven’t always been a constant in this review... the reason I opted for a response rather than indifference is because the guy who commented anonymously in recent weeks had previously tried this trick during the time we were discussing things with you, if you remember.. I ignored him at first, but by the second time, I felt it was necessary to highlight the mediocrity of the character.. after all, he chose that path, so he should take responsibility for it.. ;-) As for your second post, I understand it might be convenient for you to believe that my issue is a failure to "connect" with this group's wavelength, and it’s certainly true that I acknowledge they are practically at the opposite end of my sensitivity, but what you haven't considered is that I have always made historical references (which doesn’t equate to overly simplistic comparisons), I have always provided context. In short, my judgement is shaped by culture (of course! By my interpretation of culture), not simply by my sensitivity.. for this reason, there’s never a Nutella that tastes poco di nocciola, relevance in my words has always been there. :-)

And finally, regarding evolution, from our long discussion, you clearly did not grasp the fact that I may be radical in my methods, but I don’t see why my content should be considered particularly radical, as in their essence they really wouldn’t need any additional "diplomacy." Aside from that, I reiterate that I don’t see how I could have become more "diplomatic" with posts like those from the past few weeks... goodbye!