easycure

But in their theatricality, there is no real expression of a state of mind. There is no glimpse of a worldview, a poetics, a discomfort, a feeling. It's sheer theatricality. Totally self-referential, it doesn’t evoke emotions; it demands them with a musical articulation that, from an empathetic standpoint, never takes shape as a construction of reality, nor even as a description: simply as a collage of quotations.

I don't respond to Matt7 anymore, it would be pointless :-) ..I do notice with pleasure, however, that he takes the opportunity to comment only when there’s someone else to comment alongside him; it’s like saying, I’ve got your back... how sad.. :-D

oh shit! Portnoy the most voted drummer of the last 10 years, what heresy to criticize him..:-D the tendency to overdo it is due to the fact that this useless pile of meaningless feels plays with an extravagant drum set (which is absolutely unnecessary in itself), he is not capable of fluid and linear rhythms, he has no inventiveness in rhythms regardless of the ongoing questionable technical exercises; he is, like his peers, an absolutely amorphous musician, he has no personality, no style, no touch.. in metal there are dozens of drummers far more important and memorable than him, from Vinnie Paul to Igor Cavalera, in rock there are drummers with far less technique who are immensely more expressive and creative than him, from Jimmy Chamberlin, to Jack Irons, Matt Cameron, Chad Smith just to name a few of the most famous. Also, that Bonham influenced everyone is historically false: the same can be said for dozens of contemporary drummers, from the same Ginger Baker, to Phil Collins to Palmer.

Mario, just to give an example (which may or may not be to your liking, I'm doing it purely for explanatory purposes), Tom Morello is someone who can FUSE different elements: you can't define him as either funk or hardcore or metal, but he's not ALL these things put together; he's actually unique, perfectly recognizable, personal.

I said the exact words: "it's indistinguishable from May in how it arranges" ...this is part of one of my latest posts. Clearly, you should read more carefully. Did I change my stance? No. I'm not shooting at zero; it's you who is desperately struggling to find flaws in my argument while continuing to not actually counter anything. You criticize, but you don't propose. You're not saying anything.

It may be my very personal point of view, but the fact remains that for me it is evident, and not just for me: Furthermore, Mario, you missed my point: of course Musical Box is not homogeneous, but 1) it is not homogeneous at a dynamic level, NOT in terms of genre. 2) It is true that prog is heterogeneous to a very small extent: in reality the atmospheres and the expressive intent are very uniform, as well as at a purely musical level, symphonic music does not transpose into its stylistic features just as, for example, metal is clearly transposed in DT. The Genesis perform a rather uniform fusion, and in their interpretation they even position themselves as innovators.

Point 1) Having emphasized in the review that Dream Theater is essentially about arrangement, and making a comparison with May from the perspective of the MUSICIAN, it is OBVIOUS that I was referring to the arranging part. Point 2: It is very clear that you do not want to understand: I admitted that Petrucci has incorporated metal into prog, I also added (there is an entire post above on this matter) that this is NOT an innovation, because in this intuition he is simply referring to the crossover attitude that was already fully developed in rock during the 80s, but with much less creativity, with infinitely less inventiveness; it does not create a new style from the starting elements, it simply puts them together: no contradiction, you are just being willfully ignorant, you are only reading what you want to read, clearly skipping entire posts.

Did I perhaps comment on your judgment of the review? Come on Sanjuro, take a good look: I criticized your comment on the album, not because of the comment itself but because, as is evidently a tragic habit of many contributors to this site, it was completely devoid of any critical or logical reasoning. Now, I still don't understand your metaphors: what does it mean that it smells like cushions and sofas? Perhaps that they are too soft? Maybe too ethereal? And so? Does that in itself constitute a flaw? Msa quidni we always end up back there: what did you come here to do on this review? Explain, explain.

You don't understand: from a compositional standpoint, in their total nullity of style, they resemble everyone and no one. It is at the arrangement level that the pompous, grandiloquent way of coloring the piece recalls Brian May; it's not a matter of a single riff or phrasing (in this case), but that would be doing covers, not lacking personality. :-)

Look, you haven't read carefully, I haven't admitted any contradiction because in fact there isn't any :-) ..I've simply stated that I may have been unclear, just as from my point of view it can be said that you haven't understood well. No more, no less.